[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19546-19566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05674]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0114; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 245]
RIN 1018-BH01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
North Park Phacelia From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
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 North Park phacelia (Phacelia formosula) from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants due to recovery. The best
available scientific information indicates that threats to North Park
phacelia identified at the time of listing in 1982 are not as
significant as originally anticipated and are being adequately managed.
Additionally, recent taxonomic studies have indicated that the species
has four new populations and an expanded range in Colorado based on the
inclusion of plants previously thought to be different species or
subspecies. We find that delisting the species is warranted. Our review
of the best available scientific and commercial data indicates that the
threats to the North Park phacelia have been eliminated or reduced to
the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an
endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, we propose to delist the North
Park phacelia. We request information and comments from the public
regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring
(PDM) plan for the North Park phacelia. If we finalize this rule as
proposed, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the
Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to
the species.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May
20, 2024. 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 3, 2024.
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-2023-0114,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 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-2023-0114, 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 5-year reviews, draft post-
delisting monitoring plan, and the species status assessment (SSA)
report, are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R6-ES-2023-0114 and at the Colorado Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Darnall, Western Colorado
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological
Services Field Office, 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Grand Junction, CO
81501; telephone 970-628-7181. 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. Please see Docket No. FWS-
R6-ES-2023-0114 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that
summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
delisting 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 North Park phacelia is listed as endangered, and we
are proposing to delist it 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 North Park
phacelia 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 because of 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 5 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 a species should be delisted: (1) The species is extinct, (2)
the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species, or (3) the listed entity does not meet the
definition of a species. Here, we have determined that, based on an
analysis of the five listing factors, the North Park phacelia has
recovered and
[[Page 19547]]
no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species; therefore, we are proposing to delist it.
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 concerned 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 remove the North Park phacelia
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the
North Park phacelia, particularly any data on the possible effects of
climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State
protection and management that would be provided to this plant as a
delisted species.
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the North Park phacelia that may have either a negative or positive
impact on the species.
(4) Considerations for post-delisting monitoring, including
monitoring protocols and length of time monitoring is needed, as well
as triggers for reevaluation.
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 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
species 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.
Our final determinations may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. For
example, based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain
listed as endangered, or we may conclude that the species should be
reclassified from endangered to threatened. We will clearly explain our
rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made
changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
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 virtual public 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 North Park phacelia to inform the 2021 5-year review and updated it
in 2023. 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 joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent
scientific review of the information contained in the North Park
phacelia SSA report. We sent the SSA report to three independent and
appropriate peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of
this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0114. 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. The
three peer reviewers provided additional information, clarifications,
and recommendations pertaining to changes to our threat evaluation for
residential development, energy development, livestock use, and
agriculture; changes to our current and future condition metrics;
changes to our scoring of future condition; and an evaluation of the
pollinators of North Park phacelia. We summarize the peer reviewers'
main comments below and have either incorporated these points into the
SSA report or address them below.
(1) Comment: One reviewer asked if there is a potential habitat
model for North Park phacelia and whether there is unsurveyed,
potential habitat for the species. The reviewer asked how far north the
Niobrara formation extends and if the species could be found in
Wyoming.
Our response: We developed a potential habitat model for North Park
phacelia in 2022 after the recent genetic study (Naibauer and
McGlaughlin 2022, entire) confirmed there are four additional
populations of North Park phacelia in Larimer and Grand Counties,
Colorado. The potential habitat model included the three soil types
(Coalmont, Niobrara, and Troublesome Creek formations) on which the
species occurs across its range. Based on this model, there is
unsurveyed potential habitat for North Park phacelia within its range,
which is not surprising because of the recent expansion of the species'
known range
[[Page 19548]]
(see Background, below). The Niobrara formation does extend north into
Wyoming, and habitat assessments would have to be performed to
determine whether they in fact contain suitable habitat for North Park
phacelia. If there is suitable habitat in Wyoming, surveys would have
to be performed to assess occupancy. Our proposal to delist is not
dependent on populations occurring in Wyoming.
(2) Comment: One reviewer asked whether we checked the SEINet data
portal and NatureServe Encyclopedia of Life, both available online, for
North Park phacelia location information and, if so, recommended that
we cite them as sources of information.
Our response: We reviewed both websites, but they did not contain
any new or additional location information for North Park phacelia
beyond what we have on file. Therefore, we did not cite them as sources
of information.
(3) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we include the Colorado
Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) and NatureServe global (G2) and State
(S2) ranks for North Park phacelia in the SSA report.
Our response: We declined to include the CNHP and NatureServe
global and State ranks provided by the reviewer in the SSA report
because they may be inaccurate and out of date based of the results of
the recent genetic study (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, entire) that
confirmed the species has four additional populations. The data sources
identified by the peer reviewer are also not critical to our evaluation
of North Park phacelia's viability.
(4) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we provide the years
associated with the range of total plant abundance (908 to 17,750
plants) reported for the North Park basin (Jackson County, Colorado) in
chapter 2 of the SSA report. The reviewer asked whether this range
reflected a trend, pattern, or simply the result of rosettes (young,
non-flowering plants) not being counted in some surveys.
Our response: We removed the information from the SSA report
pertaining to the reviewer's comment and instead summarized the range
of plant abundance for each population in a table (Service 2023, table
3, p. 11). The recommended information, years and range of plant
abundance reported for the North Park basin, are summarized in the
species' 2012 5-year status review (Service 2012, table 1, pp. 7-8). In
2012, we noted that some surveys counted rosettes while others did not,
and the available data does not allow us to compare years or identify a
trend (Service 2012, p. 8). The best available trend information is
from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plant frequency monitoring
results, which we summarize below and in the SSA report (see
Background, below; Service 2023, pp. 25-27).
(5) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we add more information
to the key findings section in chapter 2 to mention if there are years
when the species has low numbers or if there are only areas with low
numbers because of the variability of local rain events. The reviewer
asked if there were more key findings and citations to add to make that
section more robust.
Our response: The key findings section is a summary of the
individual, population, and species needs discussed in chapter 2. We
added more key findings to this section of the SSA report to partially
address the comment. However, we did not include citations because this
section is a summary of information presented earlier in the chapter
with citations. We also did not add information regarding years and
areas with low numbers in chapter 2. Rather, we included information
regarding the variability of local weather patterns, and discussed how
the species responds to climate conditions in chapter 3 (Service 2023,
pp. 23, 25-27).
(6) Comment: One reviewer stated that the SSA report does not reach
a clear conclusion about the current condition of North Park phacelia
relative to each of the identified threats. The reviewer recommended
that we clearly state what the threats are and mentioned three reports
(The Colorado Rare Plant Guide (CNHP 2015a, entire), CNHP element
occurrence records (CNHP 2020 entire), and North Park Phacelia
Conservation Action Plan 2011 Update (Panjabi and Neely 2011, entire))
that document threats to the species.
Our response: We identified threats to North Park phacelia and
evaluated their individual and potential cumulative effect at the
population level in our assessment of current condition in chapter 3 of
the SSA report and below (Service 2023, pp. 19-35; Summary of
Biological Status and Threats). The draft SSA report includes
information on threats from two of the reports the reviewer mentioned,
the Colorado Rare Plant Guide and CNHP element occurrence records. We
reviewed the third report, the North Park Phacelia Conservation Action
Plan 2011 Update, which evaluated the viability of North Park phacelia
using similar metrics as our assessment. While we cited all three
reports in the SSA report to address the comment, we primarily relied
on the information summarized in the CNHP element occurrence records
for our threats assessment, because this report provides threat
documentation over a longer timeframe and with more recent information
than the other two reports.
(7) Comment: One reviewer disagreed with our assertion in the draft
SSA report that threats are either absent or less severe now than
described at the time of listing based on data provided by CNHP. The
reviewer stated that CNHP occurrence records identify livestock
trampling as a threat and document plants trampled by livestock and
that it is not known if those plants survived.
Our response: The reviewer is referring to the following sentences
in the draft SSA: ``In the final rule to list Phacelia formosula as an
endangered species under the Act (September 1, 1982; 47 FR 38540), we
identified motorcycle (also known as, off road vehicle or ORV) use,
cattle trampling, the potential development of resources (coal, oil,
and natural gas), and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
as primary threats to the species. Data provided by CNHP indicate an
absence of these threats within P. formosula populations, or that these
threats are less severe now than described at the time of listing.''
The last sentence pertains to all threats identified at the time of
listing, and we stand by our assertion that livestock grazing is a
threat that is less severe now than when we listed North Park phacelia
in 1982 (see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below). To
address this comment, we amended the sentence to clarify that CNHP data
indicate either an absence of threats or that threats are less severe
now than described at the time of listing in the SSA report. We
summarized the CNHP data regarding livestock grazing in more detail
later in chapter 3 (Service 2023, pp. 19-22). While some plants have
been trampled by livestock, this stressor affects individuals and not
populations of North Park phacelia based on the best available
information (see Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below).
(8) Comment: One reviewer stated that the overall threat of oil and
gas development is not thoroughly assessed in the draft SSA report. The
reviewer commented that a geospatial analysis alone does not seem
adequate to determine disturbance and dust associated with oil and gas
wells that could be obtained by an on-the-ground evaluation.
Our response: We added more background information regarding the
effects of dust and invasive plants to North Park phacelia, the
potential for future development, and regulatory
[[Page 19549]]
mechanisms on Federal lands in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 19-
24), and we summarize the oil and gas stressor in the proposed rule
(see Stressors, below). However, we did not incorporate an on-the-
ground evaluation of disturbance and dust or change our oil and gas
development evaluation. Two oil and gas wells within 656 feet (ft) (200
meters (m)) of North Park phacelia populations were installed more than
40 years ago. These are no longer active (their well status is plugged
and abandoned) and are causing no obvious disturbance based on the
aerial imagery (Service 2023, pp. 22-23). Furthermore, while potential
for oil and gas is high in Jackson County, Colorado, there are
regulatory mechanisms on Federal lands for surveys and avoidance
buffers as well as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations to protect
North Park phacelia plants from mortality, disturbance, and dust (BLM
2016, p. 15; Service 2023, pp. 23-24). We expect these regulatory
mechanisms to continue for the duration of the post delisting
monitoring plan (we propose a 10-year monitoring period) after which
the regulatory mechanisms for BLM sensitive species would apply to
provide the same level of protection given to Federal Candidate species
(BLM 2015b, pp. 3-76--3-77). The regulatory mechanisms afforded to BLM
sensitive species should adequately protect the resiliency of North
Park phacelia populations from stressors (OHV use, energy development,
and livestock grazing) on BLM lands.
Aerial imagery has also been used to evaluate vegetation recovery
on well pads in published reports (Nauman et al. 2017, entire), and our
656-ft (200-m) buffer is adequate to evaluate potential dust dispersal
from well pads and other disturbed areas to North Park phacelia plants
(Service 2023, pp. 19-21). Well pads serve as a potential source of
fugitive dust generation over approximately two decades (up to 17
years) following installation (Nauman et al. 2017, pp. 9, 11). The two
well pads may have been sources of fugitive dust in the past but are
not likely current sources given their installation dates, their
plugged and abandoned status, and the lack of obvious surface
disturbance in aerial imagery. While an on-the-ground evaluation may be
helpful to validate the aerial imagery, it would not provide additional
quantitative information on potential dust effects to North Park
phacelia plants unless an in-depth and lengthy evaluation of fugitive
dust generation by the oil and gas wells compared to background levels
is performed. An evaluation such as this would also likely only confirm
our current available information on fugitive dust.
(9) Comment: One reviewer asked if agriculture could impact plants
or pollinators through pesticide or herbicide use. A second reviewer
felt that we should have included agricultural areas in our disturbance
calculation for the ecological settings metric because agriculture
results in habitat fragmentation, reduced pollinator habitat, and, if
tilled, dust and pollution. The second reviewer recommended that we
evaluate agricultural disturbance in appendix A.
Our response: We considered the reviewers' comments and discussed
them with partners and experts on the species (Service 2022, p. 3). The
primary agricultural practices near North Park phacelia populations are
haying and grazing that generally use fewer pesticides than croplands
and are not tilled. Haying and grazing practices likely do not result
in direct impacts to North Park phacelia and one partner, CNHP, did not
evaluate this stressor in their review of the species. North Park
phacelia requires pollinators for maximum reproduction even though it
can produce seeds without pollinators (Warren 1990, pp. 16-17; Service
2023, pp. 13-18). While we do not know the important pollinators of
North Park phacelia, native bees in the following genera are frequent
floral visitors: plasterer bees (Colletes spp.), small carpenter bees
(Ceratina spp.), sweat bees (Dialictus spp.), and potter bees
(Anthidium spp.) (Warren 1990, pp. 17-18). We have no information to
indicate that haying and grazing practices are negatively impacting
pollinators of North Park phacelia. Therefore, we declined to include
an evaluation of agricultural disturbance in appendix A of the SSA
report.
(10) Comment: One reviewer asked if factors such as dust and
livestock trampling were missed in our evaluation and calculation of
the ecological setting metric used to evaluate current condition in
chapter 3.
Our response: We evaluated the potential impacts of disturbance and
habitat loss, including the potential effects of dust, to North Park
phacelia in our evaluation of the ecological setting metric and
thresholds (Service 2023, pp. 27-28). We used the same 656-ft (200-m)
evaluation buffer for the ecological setting metric as we did for the
oil and gas evaluation discussed in comment number 8, above, which is
adequate to evaluate potential dust dispersal from disturbance to North
Park phacelia plants (Service 2023, pp. 19-21). We did not include
livestock trampling as part of our calculation of this metric because
the aerial imagery is too coarse to detect individual livestock tracks.
Additionally, we are aware of no areas that have concentrated or
extensive livestock use that would result in the loss of suitable or
occupied habitat for North Park phacelia consistent with the
disturbance types (roads, oil and gas wells, and developed areas) we
included in our calculation of this metric. The best available
information indicates that livestock grazing results in small,
localized effects to individual plants and does not result in
population-level effects to North Park phacelia (see Stressors, below).
We also did not include agricultural areas in our calculation of this
metric as discussed in comment number 9, above.
(11) Comment: One reviewer recommended that the SSA report state
that more research is needed to better understand North Park phacelia
and threats to its long-term survival and that we include research
suggestions. The reviewer also expressed concern that off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use has not been assessed recently in eight populations.
Our response: While we agree that more monitoring and research
would result in a better understanding of the species and the magnitude
and extent of possible impacts of OHV use and other stressors, it is
beyond the scope of an SSA report to recommend research needs. Instead,
we summarized the information available for North Park phacelia and the
uncertainties regarding the species. While monitoring of some North
Park phacelia populations may be infrequent, OHV use is a concern only
in the North Park phacelia Airport population, not the other 11
populations. OHV use in the Airport population has been documented
since the species was listed and we evaluate OHV use, below, see
Stressors. We requested recent data for North Park phacelia to inform
our 2021 5-year status review; however, we did not receive new
information on OHV use and there is no requirement for additional
research, including collecting data on OHV use and other threats.
We review the best scientific and commercial information available
when conducting an SSA and making a status determination under the Act.
In considering what factors might constitute a threat, we look beyond
the mere exposure of the individuals of a species to the factor to
determine whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species.
The mere identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively is not
[[Page 19550]]
sufficient to compel a finding that listing (or maintaining a currently
listed species) on the Federal lists of endangered or threatened
wildlife and plants is appropriate. In determining whether a species
meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species, 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, as well as the cumulative effect of the
threats. Based on the best available information, we recommended that
North Park phacelia no longer meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species in our 2021 5-year status review, and
we are proceeding with our recommendation to remove the species from
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants in this proposed
delisting rule.
(12) Comment: One reviewer asked how much unsurveyed potential
habitat occurs on private lands. The reviewer recommended that we
evaluate the risk of residential development to unsurveyed potential
habitat on private lands based on how close these lands are to a
municipality and current residential development, and their platting
status.
Our response: We did not consider unsurveyed potential habitat in
our review of the species' status and did not incorporate the
reviewer's recommendation into the SSA report. Since the Act requires
us to use the best available scientific and commercial information
available, we must consider the range of the species as it is currently
known. Therefore, we evaluated the residential development stressor to
the species and its known occupied habitat, not the status of
unsurveyed potential habitat.
(13) Comment: One reviewer stated that climate change may
negatively affect pollinator abundance.
Our response: We considered the reviewer's statement and note they
did not provide supporting information. We summarized available
pollinator information for North Park phacelia in comment number 9,
above. We are aware of the potential for climate change to disrupt
plant-pollinator interactions if plant flowering and pollinator
emergence become out of sync (G[eacute]rard et al. 2020, entire). We
did not incorporate the comment into the SSA report because plant-
pollinator disruption is not a current concern for North Park phacelia
and we have no information to indicate that it is likely to occur in
the future.
(14) Comment: One reviewer recommended adding another metric,
pollinator abundance, to evaluate the current and future condition of
North Park phacelia populations because research indicates that
adequate pollination is important for species persistence and
representation (Warren 1990, entire), climate change may affect
pollinator abundance, and pollinators are not explicitly evaluated in
the ecological setting metric.
Our response: We agree that pollinator abundance has the potential
to influence the resiliency of populations; however, we do not have
population abundance or trend information for any of the floral
visitors identified in the Warren 1990 study. Best available scientific
information indicates that North Park phacelia produces seeds regularly
and pollinator-limitation is not a concern for the species. Therefore,
we did not include a pollinator abundance metric in our current and
future condition evaluation of North Park phacelia populations.
(15) Comment: One reviewer stated that we do not know the
temperature requirement to break seed dormancy in North Park phacelia,
and the annual mean temperature metric does not necessarily relate to
temperatures required to break seed dormancy in the species based on an
evaluation of climate information by BLM (Krening 2020, entire). The
reviewer recommended that the annual mean temperature metric be
considered a placeholder for modeling the impacts of temperature change
and should be refined in future SSA revisions as our knowledge of
germination requirements improves.
Our response: We reviewed the BLM report (Krening 2020, entire) and
North Park phacelia is able to germinate over a range of cold
temperatures. We did not incorporate the reviewer's recommendation into
the SSA report to retain this metric. Instead, we removed the annual
mean temperature metric from our evaluation of current and future
condition in the SSA report because it was redundant to the other
climate metric we retained in our analysis, the growing season water
deficit (GSWD) metric, which is calculated using a combination of
seasonal temperature and precipitation information.
(16) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we measure the distance
between populations and evaluate the ability of known insect
pollinators to travel these distances because low levels of
connectivity were identified in Riser et al. (2019, entire).
Our response: We evaluated the distance between North Park phacelia
populations that are more than 2 miles apart within the North Park and
Larimer River basins. These distances may exceed the maximum flight
distances (approximately 1.5 miles (mi) (2,500 m)) of the larger
pollinators like bumblebees (Bombus sp.); however, bumblebees are able
to cover large areas (up to 107 acres (ac) (44 hectares (ha)) in a few
days (Hagen et al. 2011, p. 1). We would expect shorter flight
distances and area coverage from smaller pollinators. We did not
evaluate the ability of North Park phacelia's pollinators to travel
between populations because the best available information already
indicates that low levels of connectivity may be inherent to the
species and low levels have persisted over the last 10,000 generations
(approximately the last 5,000 years) (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022,
entire). Therefore, we determined that the recommendation would not
provide additional information about gene flow between North Park
phacelia populations.
(17) Comment: One reviewer disagreed with the future condition
scores for the population abundance and occupied habitat area metrics
that remain the same as current condition under all future scenarios.
The reviewer recommended that we change the scoring under future
scenarios as was done in SSA reports for other Colorado plants (Rocky
Mountain monkeyflower (Mimulus gemmiparus) and Skiff milkvetch
(Astragalus microcymbus)) but did not recommend a particular score for
these metrics. The reviewer also recommended that if we add a
pollinator abundance metric to our evaluation, as discussed above in
comment number 14, future condition scores should be different than
current condition scores for that metric as well.
Our response: We considered the reviewer's recommendation but did
not change the future condition scores for the population abundance and
occupied habitat area metrics. As we mentioned in the SSA report, we
are not able to reliably project direct future changes to these two
metrics. We expect both metrics to change on an annual basis as they do
currently in response to climate and demographic factors (Service 2023,
pp. 25-30). Thus, we projected future changes to climatic factors, as
measured by the GSWD metric, to assess the potential future change in
plant abundance and occupied habitat area indirectly in our evaluation
of future condition (Service 2023, pp. 36-47). We did not add a
pollinator abundance metric to our evaluation as discussed in our
response to comment number 14.
[[Page 19551]]
(18) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we include the BLM
frequency data in our evaluation of current and future condition. The
reviewer considers the BLM frequency data to be statistically robust
and stated that the large, annual fluctuations in plant frequency very
likely reduce the resilience of small North Park phacelia populations
despite not knowing the underlying cause of the fluctuations.
Our response: We declined to include the BLM frequency data as a
metric in our evaluation of current and future condition because these
data are not available for all populations (Service 2023, p. 26).
However, we incorporated the BLM data in the SSA Report when describing
and evaluating the species' response to climate, demographic factors,
and catastrophic events such as prolonged drought conditions.
(19) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we summarize the scope,
hypotheses, and findings of two studies, Colorado Natural Areas Program
(1994) and McCormick and Wu (1999), which we cite in the SSA report.
Our response: We summarized the findings of the two studies but
declined to include more detail such as their scope and hypotheses in
the SSA report, because they were not relevant to our analysis. The two
studies are publicly available for those interested in the level of
detail desired by the peer reviewer.
(20) Comment: We received conflicting comments from two peer
reviewers on the following sentence in the draft SSA report: ``North
Park phacelia needs to maintain all 11 populations in their current
configuration and distribution to maintain viability.'' One reviewer
agreed with the sentence, and another reviewer questioned its accuracy
and recommended that we state that this is a hypothesis rather than a
fact if there is no supporting information.
Our response: We considered the reviewers' comments and agreed with
the reviewer who questioned the accuracy of the sentence because we do
not have supporting information that indicates all 11 populations known
at the time of the draft SSA report are needed for viability. We
revised the sentence to be consistent with our analytical framework and
best available information that North Park phacelia needs multiple,
resilient populations distributed across its range to reduce risk
associated with catastrophes such as severe, prolonged drought
(redundancy) and longer-term environmental change (representation)
(Service 2023, pp. 18-19).
(20) Comment: One reviewer considers the following sentence to be
misleading because the BLM frequency data provides reliable and
representative rangewide trend data for North Park phacelia in Jackson
County: ``Reliable range-wide census data are not available to compare
year-to-year abundance, or trend, because survey data were not
collected every year nor at every occurrence.''
Our response: We removed the words, ``or trend'' in the sentence to
partially address the comment in the SSA report. However, we consider
the rest of the sentence to be accurate with respect to census data
because we are not able to derive census data from the BLM frequency
data. Furthermore, we agree with the reviewer that the trend
information derived from the BLM frequency data applies only to those
populations in the North Park basin, not to the populations in the
Larimer River and Troublesome Creek basins.
(21) Comment: One reviewer stated that the conclusions of the SSA
report were not clear and recommended that the information in appendix
A be discussed in more detail or perhaps appendix A should be added to
the body of the SSA report.
Our response: We added more detail and a summary of the information
in appendix A to the SSA report to partially address the comment.
However, we did not add appendix A to the body of the SSA report to
maintain a consistent document format and for ease of reading. Appendix
A is part of the SSA report, and there was no added benefit to moving
the appendix to the body of the SSA report. All information in the SSA
report was considered in making our determination of the species'
status under the Act.
Previous Federal Actions
On September 2, 1980, we proposed to list the North Park phacelia
as an endangered species due to its small, localized extent of one
population and the threat of OHV use, specifically motorcycle use, as
well as livestock trampling, potential energy development of coal and
oil and gas, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (45 FR 58168-
58171). We determined that it would not be prudent to designate
critical habitat because of the concern of collection. A second
population was identified in 1981 on BLM lands within a Known
Recoverable Coal Resource Area that was partially leased for oil and
natural gas and subject to livestock trampling. On September 1, 1982,
we finalized the listing of North Park phacelia as an endangered
species (47 FR 38540). The final rule included a determination that the
designation of critical habitat for North Park phacelia was not
prudent. In 1986, we published a final recovery plan for North Park
phacelia (Service 1986, entire). In 2012, we published a 5-year status
review that recommended the species remain an endangered species under
the Act (Service 2012, entire).
On April 12, 2019, we published a notice of initiation of a 5-year
review for the North Park phacelia in the Federal Register and
requested information that could have a bearing on the status of North
Park phacelia (86 FR 14965-14966). We completed the 5-year status
review on August 30, 2021; this 5-year status review recommended that
North Park phacelia be delisted since it does not meet the definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act.
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
North Park phacelia is presented in the SSA Report Version 1.1 (Service
2023, entire). Recent genetic work has updated the status and range of
North Park phacelia since it was listed in 1982. In 2019, a genetic
study using microsatellite markers identified that three populations of
a closely related subspecies, Scully phacelia (Phacelia formosula var.
scullyi), in adjacent Larimer County, Colorado, were actually North
Park phacelia based on an evaluation of genetics, morphology, and
ecology, grouping them with the North Park phacelia (Phacelia
formosula) populations in Jackson County, Colorado (Riser et al. 2019,
pp. 7-8). Most recently, in 2022, a genetic study using random site-
associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) confirmed the Riser et al. (2019)
findings that the three populations in Larimer County are North Park
phacelia and determined that another population in Grand County,
Colorado, is also North Park phacelia. This population in Grand County
was formerly identified as Troublesome phacelia (Phacelia gina-
glenneae) (Naibauer and McGlaughlin, 2022, entire). These genetic
studies are summarized in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 3, 8).
North Park phacelia is an herbaceous, short-lived plant in the
waterleaf family (Hydrophyllaceae) (Ackerfield 2022, p. 533; Service
2023, pp. 5-7). The species occurs in Jackson, Larimer, and Grand
Counties, Colorado, at elevations ranging from 7,490 to 8,260 ft
(2,282-2,517 m). North Park phacelia grows in sparsely vegetated, well-
drained, barren soils of the Coalmont formation, Niobrara Shale, and
clay and white shale of the Troublesome Creek
[[Page 19552]]
formation surrounded by sagebrush-dominated habitat (Artemisia
tridentata var. vaseyana and Artemisia nova) (CNHP 2015a, p. 1; CNHP
2020 pp. 2-3; Service 2023, pp. 6-7).
North Park phacelia plants grow up to approximately 9 inches (in)
(22 centimeters (cm)) tall, with one to many stems, and purple or
violet flowers on flowering stalks (inflorescences) shaped like a
coiled scorpion's tail (helicoid cyme) (Spackman et al. 1997;
Ackerfield 2022, p. 533). Each fruit produces four small seeds (Atwood
2010, p. 1). North Park phacelia has four life stages: seeds,
seedlings, rosettes, and reproductive adults. Plants live for 1 year
(annual) or 2 years (biennial) with one reproductive event if they
survive to adulthood. Flowering occurs from late spring through the
summer (June through August) during the driest time of the year with
June being the most significant transition time to flowering (McCormick
and Wu 1999, p. 7). Successful reproduction to produce seeds likely
depends on the temperature and moisture conditions of the spring and
summer months of that year as well as favorable conditions during the
prior year for seedling establishment and rosette survival (McCormick
and Wu 1999, pp. 5, 8). The species is not known to reproduce
asexually.
Measurable differences in plant morphology (size, leaves, and
seeds) in plants and soil type occur across the range by county (and
basin). Plants in Jackson and Larimer Counties (the North Park and
Larimer River basins) generally have a life span of 2 years and
occasionally 1 year. Plants in Grand County (the Troublesome Creek
basin) generally have a life span of 1 year. These morphological, life
history, and soil differences contributed to the previous taxonomic
delineations mentioned above that are no longer applicable (Naibauer
and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 2, 5-7, 23). The Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS) considers North Park phacelia to be a
distinct species (ITIS 2023, entire).
Pollinators are likely needed to support maximum reproduction and
genetic diversity of the species. Plants can produce seeds without
pollinators by self-pollination, although this process results in lower
fruit and seed production (Warren 1990, pp. iii, 16). While we do not
know what the most important pollinators are for North Park phacelia,
insect floral visitors include hover flies, wasps, and a variety of
bees (Warren 1990, p. 44; Service 2023, pp. 13-14). Native bees in the
following genera are frequent floral visitors: plasterer bees (Colletes
spp.), small carpenter bees (Ceratina spp.), sweat bees (Dialictus
spp.), and potter bees (Anthidium spp.) (Warren 1990, pp. 17-18).
Seeds are produced in the fall and likely require a period of cold
stratification (cold temperatures and moist conditions) during the
winter months to break dormancy before germinating the following spring
or fall (Gamboa-deBuen and Orozco-Segovia 2008, entire). Specific
germination requirements of North Park phacelia are not known but
likely consist of some combination of appropriate temperature and
moisture conditions (Krening 2020, p. 6).
We have incomplete information regarding the longevity of seeds in
the seedbank. North Park phacelia seeds are known to remain viable
within the soil for at least 1 to 2 years, and longer timeframes are
likely but have not been evaluated (Krening 2020, p. 2; Krening and
Dawson 2021, p. 5). Based on information for two other species in the
Phacelia genus with similar life histories, the species likely
maintains a persistent seedbank with seeds remaining viable for
extended periods, anywhere from approximately 4 to 18 years (Langton
2015 pp. v, 1; Meyer 2018, p. 1; Service 2013, p. 1).
North Park phacelia disperses primarily over short distances
through wind, water runoff, ants, and gravity (seeds roll downhill
within the habitat). Given the species' expanded range, long-distance
dispersal events likely occurred in the past. North Park phacelia's
level of genetic diversity is low (using RADseq methods) to moderate
(using microsatellite methods) (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 16-
18; Riser et al. 2019, p. 7). These differences in the amount of
genetic diversity (moderate in one study versus low in another) are
expected based on the different methodologies (Forester 2022, p. 1;
Thurman 2022, p. 1). There is agreement by both studies on the
differences in genetic structure of populations between the three
basins (i.e., at the county level), which are likely the result of
isolation effects from the long distances and mountain ranges that
separate them (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 16-18; Riser et al.
2019, p. 7, Forester 2022, p. 2; Thurman 2022, p. 1; Service 2023, pp.
3, 8). These genetic differences are consistent with past taxonomic
delineations of different species and subspecies in the three basins
(see earlier discussion).
Preliminary genetic information indicates there is little to no
recent or historical gene flow between populations over the last
approximately 10,000 generations (5,000 to 10,000 years); however,
there appears to be sufficient gene flow and genetic diversity within
populations that inbreeding is not a concern (Naibauer and McGlaughlin
2022, entire; Service 2022, pp. 3, 8). A more robust sampling and
genetic analysis of gene flow is needed to confirm or refute these
results (Forester 2022, p. 1). Genetic variation occurs between
populations, and the genetic differences increase with distance,
indicating a pattern of isolation by distance (Naibauer and McGlaughlin
2022, pp. 3, 16-17, 25). Populations near each other are more alike
genetically due to larger amounts of gene exchange relative to more
distant populations (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 3, 27-28). The
genetic results indicate the species has a poor dispersal ability and
there is little to no pollinator-mediated gene flow between
populations.
North Park phacelia's current range in Colorado extends
approximately 779 square miles (mi\2\) (2,018 square kilometers
(km\2\)) from the Laramie River in northwestern Laramie County, across
the Medicine Bow Mountain Range to North Park in Jackson County, and
across the Rabbit Ears Mountain Range to Troublesome Creek in Grand
County. The species is distributed in three basins (Laramie River,
North Park, and Troublesome Creek), one basin per county, and each
basin is separated by a mountain range. The North Park phacelia occurs
on approximately 452 ac (183 ha) of occupied habitat, primarily on
Federal lands that are managed by BLM and the Service and that comprise
81 percent of its occupied habitat. The remaining occupied habitat (19
percent) occurs on private lands, 5 percent of which is managed under a
conservation easement specifically designed to protect North Park
phacelia (Service 2023, pp. 10-11).
We do not know if the North Park phacelia was more broadly
distributed historically. North Park phacelia's current range is much
larger than was known at the time of listing due to the discovery of
new populations in Jackson County and the taxonomic revisions of
populations in Laramie and Grand Counties. At the time of Federal
listing, there were only two known North Park phacelia populations with
approximately 2,700 plants located in North Park (Jackson County),
Colorado (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982). As of 2023, there are 12
known populations with approximately 23,000 to 26,000 plants, an
increase of more than 20,300 plants than we reported in our listing
rule (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982). The current population size is
also an increase of more than 8,600 plants than
[[Page 19553]]
we reported in our 2021 5-year status review with the addition of the
new population (Troublesome Creek Area of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC)) in Grand County (Service 2023, pp. 3, 10-11).
Population trends for North Park phacelia are difficult to
determine. The best available information includes periodic population
estimates provided by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) and
annual plant frequency monitoring (the presence or absence of the
species within a monitoring grid of 1-m-by-1-m cells) conducted by BLM
at five populations in North Park (Jackson County) over a 13-year
period (2010 to 2022) (Krening and Dawson 2022, entire). The BLM
frequency monitoring cannot be used to estimate population abundance,
but it shows large amounts of annual variability attributed to climate
and demographic variables with no clear trend over the 13-year period
(Service 2023, pp. 25-26). The frequency monitoring also shows that
North Park phacelia exhibits a strong response in some years to drought
conditions, as seen in 2012 and 2020, with low to no above-ground plant
abundance (Krening and Dawson 2022, entire). Following drought
conditions, the species is resilient and plant abundance generally
rebounds back to pre-drought levels in years with favorable
precipitation.
Fluctuations in plant frequency are probably a response to drier
conditions in conjunction with demography and perhaps the availability
of other resources under various moisture conditions (Schwinning and
Sala 2004, pp. 211-219). North Park phacelia and other short-lived
plants have the potential to respond to climate conditions within a
relatively short timeframe because of their short life span
(Tielb[ouml]rger et al. 2014, p. 2). They can employ adaptations to
survive periods of resource limitation (i.e., drought) and can respond
strongly to available water (Alexander et al. 1994; p. 2004; Salguero-
G[oacute]mez et al. 2012, p. 3100; Schwinning and Sala 2004, entire).
Moreover, North Park phacelia's ability to respond quickly to
precipitation levels is a response that is consistent and compatible
with plant adaptations to survive semi-arid environments with periods
of drought and is advantageous to avoid stressful conditions (Lesica
and Crone 2007, p. 1367; Schwinning et al. 2004, entire; Schwinning and
Sala 2004, entire; Verhulst et al. 2008, pp. 104-105). Based on the
discovery of many new populations, the lack of extirpated populations,
and the CNHP and BLM information, the distribution of the species
appears to be currently stable.
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
Here, we provide a summary of progress made toward achieving the
recovery criteria for the North Park phacelia. More detailed
information related to conservation efforts can be found below under
Summary of Biological Status and Threats. We completed a final recovery
plan for the North Park phacelia in 1986 (Service 1986, entire). The
1986 plan includes objective, measurable criteria for delisting;
however, the plan has not been updated for more than 30 years, so some
aspects of the plan may no longer reflect the best scientific
information available for the North Park phacelia.
Below is the single delisting criterion described in the 1986 North
Park phacelia recovery plan (Service 1986, p. 9) and the progress made
to date in achieving the criterion.
Criterion for Delisting
North Park phacelia may be considered recovered when 15 occurrences
with 500 mature flowering plants each are identified and secured.
Progress
Based on information through 2022, there are a total of 12
populations with approximately 23,000 to 26,000 plants. We consider
populations to be synonymous with the criterion's use of the word
``occurrences,'' and the current number of populations (12) does not
meet the recovery criterion (of 15 populations). While we do not know
the number of flowering plants in each population, we do know the
current total population of the species (23,000 to 26,000), which
includes flowering and non-flowering plants, exceeds the total number
of flowering plants identified by this criterion (7,500). We also know
that 7 populations (Case Flats, Potter Creek, Rockwell; Verner and
Brownlee; Diamond J State Wildlife Area; North Park Resource Natural
Area ACEC; Forrester Creek; Hohnholz North East; and Troublesome Creek
ACEC) have at least 500 plants, which includes both flowering and non-
flowering plants.
Given what we now know about the species' annual fluctuations in
frequency and strong drought response (see Background, above), we do
not expect populations to meet the recovery criterion (of 500 flowering
plants) every year and consider this metric to be insufficiently
tailored to the species' demography (life-history characteristics).
This metric (500 flowering plants) is not specific to North Park
phacelia but is an application of the 50/500 rule, a generalized rule
of
[[Page 19554]]
thumb to identify a minimum population size to avoid inbreeding
depression (minimum of 50 breeding individuals) and maintain long-term
genetic diversity for evolutionary potential (minimum of 500 breeding
individuals) in an idealized population that is both small and isolated
(Franklin and Frankham 1998, entire; Jamieson and Allendorf 2012,
entire). Some researchers recommend that the metric of 500 breeding
individuals should not be considered a prediction of extinction risk
without further consideration of demography and gene flow (Jamieson and
Allendorf 2012, pp. 580-583). Gene flow, even at very low levels, can
maintain genetic diversity in populations with fewer than 500 breeding
individuals, and lower genetic diversity is a poor predictor of
extinction risk when threats such as habitat loss and demography are
not taken into account (Swindell and Bouzat 2006, pp. 86-87; Palstra
and Ruzzante 2008, pp. 3428, 3430, 3441-3443; Jamieson and Allendorf
2012, pp. 580-583). Recent work recommends an evaluation of many
attributes, including but not limited to demography and levels of
genetic diversity, to evaluate a species' adaptive capacity and
vulnerability to changing conditions (Thurman et al. 2020, entire;
Forester et al. 2023, entire).
The North Park phacelia populations occur primarily on Federal
lands (81 percent of occupied habitat) with management plans in place
to protect the species and its habitat, and we consider these
populations to be secure. In addition, on private lands, The Nature
Conservancy manages a conservation easement specifically designed to
protect the species in perpetuity (5 percent of occupied habitat)
(Byers 2023, entire); however, little to no protection exists on the
remaining private lands (14 percent of occupied habitat). Despite the
lack of protections on private lands for the North Park phacelia, no
current or projected future population-level threats occur on these
lands except for the Airport population (see Stressors, below). Thus,
although not all populations are considered secure, we conclude that
the intent of the criterion to ensure that sufficient populations were
protected from threats into the future has been met for 11 of the 12
known populations. While the North Park phacelia's status does not meet
the 1986 recovery criterion, we find that the species' populations are
sufficiently resilient and that the smaller number of populations and
lack of available information on flowering plant abundance within
populations are no longer relevant given what we now know about the
species.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the
same day, we issued a finalrule that revised 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 (84
FR 44753) and ended the ``blanket rule'' option for application of
section 9 prohibitions to species newly listed as threatened after the
effective date of those regulatory revisions (September 26, 2019).
Our analysis for this decision applied the regulations that are
currently in effect, which include the 2019 revisions. However, we
proposed further revisions to these regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 FR
40764). In case those revisions are finalized before we make a final
status determination for this species, we have also undertaken an
analysis of whether the decision would be different if we were to apply
those proposed revisions. We concluded that the decision would have
been the same if we had applied the proposed 2023 regulations. The
analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the
regulations after incorporating the June 22, 2023, proposed revisions
are included in our decision file.
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
[[Page 19555]]
``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 of time 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 possible or 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 North Park phacelia's 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 which we then used 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 No. FWS-R6-
ES-2023-0114 on https://www.regulations.gov.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future conditions, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA report
(Service 2023, 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.
Individual Needs
Individuals of North Park phacelia need certain habitat factors,
including: well-drained sandstone, shale, or clay soils of the
Niobrara, Coalmont, and Troublesome Creek formations; a montane, mid-
elevation climate (elevations ranging between 7,490 to 8,260 ft (2,282
to 2,517 m) with approximately 12 in (31 cm) of rain and 63 in (1.6 m)
of snow per year; a period of cold, moist conditions during the winter
to break seed dormancy and facilitate germination in the spring or
fall; moisture during the spring and summer (growing season) for
successful germination, establishment and reproduction (seed
production); and pollinators for maximum reproduction (Service 2023,
pp. 14-16; U.S. Climate Data 2023, entire).
Population Needs
To be sufficiently resilient, populations require recruitment,
survivorship, and reproduction at rates able to sustain populations, in
addition to pollinator connectivity between individuals within
populations. We consider population resiliency to be positively
correlated with plant abundance (Service 2023, pp. 16-17). Sufficiently
resilient populations also contain enough individuals across each life
stage (seed, seedling, and mature reproductive adult) to bounce back
after experiencing environmental stressors such as drought, livestock
grazing, habitat disturbance, and demographic stochasticity (births,
deaths, and reproductive events that fluctuate over time). While we do
not know the level or amount of recruitment necessary for populations
to be sufficiently resilient, we assume that North Park phacelia
populations are most resilient when all four life stages are present.
Species Needs
The number of populations across the landscape influences the
redundancy of North Park phacelia. More populations across the range
increase the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events.
Individuals and populations inhabiting diverse ecological settings and
exhibiting genetic or phenological variation add to the level of
representation across the species' range. The greater diversity
observed in North Park phacelia genetics, habitats, and morphology, the
more likely it is to be able to adapt to change over time. Thus, the
species needs (1) a sufficient number and distribution of resilient
populations to withstand catastrophic events (redundancy) and (2) a
range of variation that allows the species to adapt to changing
environmental conditions (representation) (Service 2023, pp. 18-19).
The SSA report provides additional detail on the species' individual-,
population-, and species-level needs (Service 2023, pp. 11-19).
Stressors
In the SSA report, we evaluated stressors and other actions that
can positively or negatively affect North Park phacelia at the
individual, population, or species levels, either currently or into the
future (Service 2023, pp. 19-27). In this proposed rule, we will
discuss only those factors in detail that could meaningfully impact the
status of the species. Residential and urban development, off-highway
vehicle
[[Page 19556]]
(OHV) use, mining and energy development, livestock grazing, invasive
plants, and climate change are all factors that influence or could
influence the species' viability (Service 2023, pp. 19-27). Those
stressors that are not known to have effects on North Park phacelia
populations, such as small mammal and insect herbivory, pesticides, and
agriculture, are not discussed here but are evaluated in the SSA report
(Service 2023, pp. 21, 27, appendix A).
Residential and Urban Development
Private lands account for approximately 19 percent of occupied
habitat for North Park phacelia populations (Service 2023 tables 3 and
4, p. 11). Currently, without a Federal nexus (funds, permits, or
approval), the species has little to no protection from residential and
urban development on the majority of private lands (14 percent of
occupied habitat overall) with the exception of a conservation easement
that protects one population (Diamond J State Wildlife Area) comprising
5 percent of occupied habitat. The conservation easement is held by The
Nature Conservancy and specifically addresses the management and
protection of North Park phacelia in perpetuity (Byers 2023, entire).
We assessed the residential and urban development stressor to North
Park phacelia based on our evaluation of disturbance in and near known
populations. We also included utility corridors and roads in our
evaluation of this stressor. A very low level of residential and urban
development occurs in or near plant populations, and residential and
urban development does not appear to result in any loss of habitat
(Service 2023, appendix A). The current human population estimate for
Jackson County is 1,363, with a negative growth rate (-2.2 percent)
from 2010 to 2022 (U.S. Census Bureau 2022, entire). The Colorado State
Demography Office forecasts that Jackson County's human population will
continue to decrease through 2050 (Colorado Department of Local Affairs
2022, entire). The Laramie River Valley portion of Larimer County where
North Park phacelia occurs does not contain a municipality, and we
assumed that population growth in this area is similar to the
projections for Jackson County. We did not perform this evaluation for
Grand County because the one population (Troublesome Creek ACEC) occurs
on Federal lands designated as a land use avoidance area where rights
of way (ROW) grants would be avoided to the extent possible (BLM 2015a,
pp. 52-53, 70).
We incorporated the current levels and effects of this stressor in
our evaluation of current resiliency. However, given the projected
future declines in the human population, we did not project any changes
in this stressor in our evaluation of future resiliency (Service 2023,
pp. 22, 37-38).
Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use
In the final listing rule (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982), off
highway vehicle (OHV) use, specifically motorcycle use, was identified
as a primary threat to North Park phacelia in one of the two known
populations at the time. Negative effects of OHV use include habitat
degradation and plant mortality (Goeft and Alder 2001, entire; Brooks
and Lair 2005, entire; White et al. 2006, entire).
We assessed the OHV use stressor to North Park phacelia based on
our evaluation of overlap and effects to known populations. We also
included other types of off highway recreation, such as mountain
biking, hiking, and target shooting, in our evaluation of this
stressor. Excessive OHV use continues to occur in the one population
(Airport) where it was identified at the time of listing, and this
stressor does not appear to have changed since listing (CNHP 2020, p.
1; Service 2023, pp. 26, 33). This location is readily accessible, and
corrective actions such as boulder placement may have restricted use
temporarily, but those deterrents have been removed and are no longer
restricting recreational access and use. This is the only location
where OHV use has a population-level effect to North Park phacelia. Low
to occasional OHV use was documented in four other populations (Service
2023, appendix A) and currently is affecting only individual plants.
OHV use is not permitted on Refuge lands (L[oacute]pez, 2023, pp. 1-3)
or the private land under conservation easement (Byers 2023, entire).
We incorporated the current levels and effects of this stressor in
our evaluation of current resiliency. However, given the projected
future declines in the human population, declines in recreational use
since listing in four populations, and relatively stable OHV use in the
Airport population, we did not project any changes in this stressor in
our evaluation of future resiliency (Service 2023, p. 37).
Mining and Energy Development
In the final listing rule (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982), coal or
oil and gas exploration was identified as a potential threat to North
Park phacelia in one of the two known populations at the time. Negative
effects of mineral and energy development include habitat loss and
degradation, plant mortality, reduced plant growth and reproduction,
and potential introduction and spread of invasive weeds (Brock and
Green 2003, entire).
We assessed the mineral and energy development stressor to North
Park phacelia based on our evaluation of overlap and effects to known
populations. The best available information indicates this stressor is
not present in North Park phacelia populations and there has been no
infrastructure development supporting coal, oil, and natural gas
development resulting in the loss of plants or habitat (Service 2023,
pp. 20-36).
Currently, there are no active coal mining operations or
applications for coal mines in Jackson, Larimer, or Grand Counties
(Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 2023a and b,
entire). Coal is located in Jackson County, but future mining is not
likely to occur due to transportation costs (BLM 2009, pp. 8, 14; BLM
2015b, 3-191, 3-194).
We evaluated the number of oil and gas wells in and associated
habitat disturbance near North Park phacelia populations. Our
evaluation in the SSA report identified two closed (plugged and
abandoned) oil and gas wells within 656 ft (200 m) of North Park
phacelia populations but no recent habitat disturbance associated with
the wells (Service 2023, pp. 23-24). The potential for oil and gas is
high within Jackson County, nonexistent in Larimer County, and low in
Grand County (BLM 2009, pp. 22, 49, 50, 52; BLM 2015b, 3-190). There
are three populations partially or wholly within existing oil and gas
leases in Jackson County. We are not aware of any proposed energy
development projects in or near North Park phacelia populations.
Similar to coal development, oil and gas development in Jackson County
is strongly constrained by transportation costs (BLM 2009, pp. 3-4).
Future oil and gas development will be restricted in North Park
phacelia habitat based on regulatory mechanisms for this stressor
afforded to the species and BLM sensitive species on Federal lands as
discussed below.
On Federal lands, BLM provides regulatory mechanisms to protect
North Park phacelia from mining and energy development. BLM provides a
controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation of a 328-ft (100-m) to 656-ft
(200-m) avoidance buffer for North Park phacelia and other BLM
sensitive plant species that would apply to energy development (coal
mining and oil and gas extraction)
[[Page 19557]]
(BLM 2015a, pp. 24-26). BLM also provides a no surface occupancy (NSO)
stipulation within Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and
surveys and avoidance measures to protect North Park phacelia and other
BLM sensitive species from plant and habitat loss associated with
energy development (coal mining and oil and gas extraction) (BLM 2015a,
pp. 64-65). On Refuge lands, most lands have been withdrawn from mining
for coal and other locatable minerals. BLM is responsible for mineral
management on Refuge lands that have not been withdrawn as well as oil
and gas leasing and development; in those cases, BLM stipulations,
surveys, and avoidance measures would also apply to Refuge lands
(Service 2016, pp. 5-6). The BLM avoidance buffers minimize the
potential for measurable, negative effects to North Park phacelia based
on our literature review and evaluation for other rare, endemic plants
growing in poorly developed or low-fertility soils (Service 2021b,
chapter 7 and appendix E). Ten populations occur on lands where BLM
regulations apply.
We incorporated the current levels and effects of this stressor in
our evaluation of current resiliency. However, given the Federal
regulatory mechanisms and lack of current mining and energy development
or proposed projects in or near North Park phacelia populations, we did
not project any changes in this stressor in our evaluation of future
resiliency (Service 2023, pp. 24-25, 37).
Livestock Grazing
In the final listing rule (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982),
livestock grazing was identified as a threat to North Park phacelia in
the two known populations at the time. Negative effects of livestock
grazing include habitat degradation through the drying or compaction of
soils, plant mortality or damage from trampling resulting in reduced
individual survival, growth and reproduction, potential introduction
and spread of invasive weeds, and the consumption of floral resources
for pollinators (Fleischner 1994, entire; Lovich and Bainbridge 1999,
entire; Mustajarvi et al. 2001, entire; Reisner et al. 2013, entire).
We assessed the livestock grazing stressor to North Park phacelia
based on reporting by the CNHP and agricultural statistics of livestock
inventories in the three counties over time. Some populations show
evidence of livestock use but no indication of plant damage or
mortality (CNHP 2020, entire). On BLM lands, livestock grazing is
managed during July and August in North Park phacelia habitat to allow
plants to flower and set seed (BLM 2015a, p. H-2). On Refuge lands,
livestock grazing is not permitted in North Park phacelia habitat
(L[oacute]pez, 2023, pp. 1-3). The best available information indicates
this stressor is currently affecting only individual plants and is not
having a population-level effect to North Park phacelia. Agricultural
statistics on livestock totals in the three counties over a 20-year
period (1997 to 2017) indicate an approximately 50 percent drop in
livestock numbers in Jackson County (28,748 to 14,207) with relatively
stable numbers in Larimer and Grand Counties (U.S. Department of
Agriculture 2023, entire).
We did not incorporate the current levels and effects of livestock
grazing in our evaluation of current and future resiliency because this
stressor is not having a population-level effect to North Park
phacelia. We do not expect grazing management to change on Refuge lands
and on BLM lands under the current BLM resource management plan (RMP)
(see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below; Service
2023, pp. 22-23). Given the stability and decline in livestock totals
per county discussed above, we do not expect livestock grazing to
increase in North Park phacelia habitat in the future.
Invasive Plants
Invasive plants were not identified as a threat to North Park
phacelia at the time of listing or in the 2012 status review (Service
2012, entire). Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), other thistles
(Cirsium spp.), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) are present in a few
populations and appear to be associated with disturbance from
development, OHV use, and livestock grazing (Service 2012, pp. 8, 11;
CHNP 2020, pp. 9, 14, 47; Service 2022, p. 3). The Refuge is addressing
this stressor by removing invasive thistle by hand (Service 2022, p.
3). The best available information indicates this stressor is currently
affecting only individual plants and is not having a population-level
effect to North Park phacelia.
We considered the effects of invasive plants to population
resilience as part of our disturbance evaluation because this stressor
is associated with development, roads, and other surface disturbance
(Service 2023, pp. 20-23).
Climate Change
Climate change may affect the long-term survival of native species,
including North Park phacelia, especially if longer or more frequent
droughts occur. Within the range of North Park phacelia, under lower
emission scenarios, summer maximum temperature is expected to increase
4.7 [deg]F (2.6 [deg]C), and under higher emission scenarios, summer
maximum temperature is expected to increase 6.6 [deg]F (3.7 [deg]C) by
mid-century, compared to the historical average between 1971 and 2010
(Hegewisch and Abatzoglou 2023, entire). Extreme droughts, like those
that occurred in 2012 and 2020, could also become more frequent by mid-
century. Historically (1979 to 2000), droughts of this scale did not
occur within the range of the species (Service 2023, appendix B). Under
lower emissions scenarios, these extreme droughts could occur four
times between now and mid-century or, under higher emissions scenarios,
five times between now and mid-century (Service 2023, appendix B).
North Park phacelia appears to respond strongly and quickly to
climate conditions with peak years and trough years of plant frequency,
although some uncertainty exists about the climate variables to which
the species is responding. Growing season (spring and summer)
precipitation appears to be important for plant survival and
reproduction; however, seedling recruitment and plant frequency are not
strongly correlated with precipitation and temperature (Krening and
Dawson 2021, p. 4; Service 2023, p. 24). In some of the populations,
there is a 3-to-5-year cycle of plant abundance fluctuations (peak to
trough years), which appears to be influenced by climate conditions and
demography (Krening and Dawson 2021, p. 4). Two trough years (2012,
2020) with lower plant frequency likely reflect the extreme drought
conditions during the growing season. The drought conditions of these 2
years, as measured by the growing season water deficit (GSWD), was
approximately 27 in (68.6 cm). Another trough year (2016) occurred in a
year with average growing season precipitation and cannot be attributed
to drought. Rather, the working hypothesis is that the 2016 trough year
was potentially influenced by demographic factors. One limitation is
the lack of population-level climate data; there is only one weather
station in Jackson County that provides climate information for the
entire species' range. Rainfall is highly localized across the range of
the species and may vary across short distances and among the
populations in Jackson County (Timberman, pers. comm. 2022).
As we mentioned above, growing season precipitation appears to be
important for plant survival and reproduction and appears to influence
the variation in annual plant frequency.
[[Page 19558]]
We evaluated historical and current growing season precipitation
conditions with the GSWD metric, a measure of the difference between
potential evapotranspiration (water loss by evaporation and
transpiration by plants) and precipitation during the growing season.
We consider the GSWD metric to be a proxy for plant stress, with higher
GSWD values indicating drier conditions and greater plant stress during
the growing season. Other climate factors likely play a role in annual
frequency variation, but we do not fully understand these
relationships. We compared the average GSWD for the historical time
period (1971-2000) to the current time period (2011-2022). The
historical time period is slightly wetter (lower average GSWD) compared
to the current time period. The historical (1979-2000) average GSWD was
21.96 in (55.78 cm) and varied annually between a low of 15 in (38 cm)
to a high of 26 in (66 cm) (Service 2023, p. 30, appendix C). Half of
the historical time period (11 years) had near-average GSWD conditions
(within one-half standard deviation of the average), with 4 wet years
and 4 drought years. The current (2011-2022) average GSWD was 23.15 in
(58.8 cm), a near-average historical GSWD value. As mentioned above,
based on our evaluation of the BLM frequency monitoring, a GSWD of 27
in (68.6 cm) may be a significant drought threshold where North Park
phacelia primarily remains dormant in the seedbank.
Given North Park phacelia's strong response to climate conditions,
we carried forward this stressor in our analysis in the SSA report to
examine the species' potential response to future changes in this
stressor. We relied on the historical average GSWD as the baseline to
compare current and projected future climate conditions.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant 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.
Current Condition
In our SSA report, we evaluate current condition by examining
current levels of resiliency in the 12 North Park phacelia populations
and implications for redundancy and representation. Here, we summarize
our evaluation of the current condition for resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. Additional detail regarding our analysis is provided in
the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 20-36).
Resiliency
We describe the resiliency for each of the 12 populations in terms
of the habitat and demographic factors needed by North Park phacelia
(Service 2023, pp. 14-20, 27-35). We developed a categorical model to
calibrate resiliency for the range of habitat and demographic
conditions in each population. We first identified resource or
demographic factors that contribute to the species' resiliency; these
factors align with the individual resource needs and population-level
needs we identified in the SSA analysis. We then defined threshold
values for each identified resource or demographic factor that
represent high, moderate, or low levels of that factor. Finally, we
evaluated whether the current levels of each resource or demographic
factor in a population fall within the predetermined thresholds for a
high, moderate, or low score for the category; we then averaged these
scores for each category to develop an overall current resiliency score
for each population.
For North Park phacelia, our categorical model assessed the
resiliency of each population by evaluating (1) the size of the
occupied habitat area; (2) the ecological setting, a proxy for habitat
condition that quantifies disturbance levels and evaluates a number of
stressors including residential and urban development, OHV use, mineral
and energy development, and invasive species cover; (3) population
abundance; and (4) growing season water deficit (GSWD), a proxy for
drought and soil moisture that approximates the availability of water
during the spring and summer. 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 12
populations.
Resiliency categories, thresholds, and scores were established
based on the best available information and professional opinion of
species experts. Occupied habitat areas are estimates based on expert
opinion by CNHP and BLM using aerial imagery or field observations.
Ecological setting and disturbance levels are based on a spatial
analysis with conservative thresholds to compensate for the lack of
detailed species-specific information and monitoring. Population
abundance information is based on estimates by CNHP using field
observations. GSWD, the difference between potential evapotranspiration
and precipitation during the growing season, is based on climate data
provided by the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and the
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.
There are 12 North Park phacelia populations, and according to our
current condition analysis in the SSA report, half of them (6) have
high resiliency, 5 have moderate resiliency and 1 has low resiliency
(see table 1, below; Service 2023, p. 30). The 11 populations with high
and moderate resiliency maintained adequate ecological setting
conditions with low levels of disturbance, moderate or high population
abundance, and a range of scores for occupied habitat areas. The 11
populations with high or moderate resiliency are distributed across the
species' range (present in all three basins) (table 1). Of these, 6
populations have thousands of plants, the largest is estimated to have
more than 8,600 plants, and these large populations are also
distributed across the species' range (present in all three basins)
(table 1). The Airport population in the North Park basin has a low
resiliency score due to its low scores for occupied habitat area,
population abundance, and ecological setting. This population has
higher levels of disturbance from OHV use, and a road and parking lot
surround this population, fragmenting the habitat. All 12 populations
received a high score for GSWD because the current average (2011 to
2022) is similar to the historical average (1979 to 2000) for this
metric. The 11 populations with high or moderate resiliency are at less
risk from potential stochastic events, such as climatic variation, than
the population with low resiliency.
[[Page 19559]]
Table 1--Current Condition Resiliency Rankings for North Park Phacelia Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant
Basin (county) Population abundance Population resiliency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Park (Jackson)............... North Park Resource 1,200-3,000 High.
Natural Area ACEC.
California Gulch..... 200-350 Moderate.
Airport.............. 200 Low.
Case Flats, Potter 6,000 High.
Creek, Rockwell.
Verner and Brownlee.. >2,000 High.
Diamond J Ranch...... 300 High.
Diamond J State 2,000 High.
Wildlife Area.
Battleship-Dwinell 50-400 Moderate.
Ranch.
Larimer River (Larimer)............ Hohnholz North East.. 375-800 High.
Laramie River-Bull 300 Moderate.
Mountain.
Forrester Creek...... 2,000 Moderate.
Troublesome Creek (Grand).......... Troublesome Creek 8,675 Moderate.
ACEC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redundancy
Redundancy describes the number and distribution of populations,
and the greater the number and the wider the distribution of the
populations, the better North Park phacelia 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
identified severe and prolonged drought conditions as a plausible
catastrophic event that may affect one or more populations
simultaneously.
Redundancy for narrow endemic species is intrinsically limited;
however, North Park phacelia populations are distributed across 3
basins (separated by 2 mountain ranges and approximately 20 mi (30 km)
and 45 mi (72km)) in 12 populations within the range of the species.
Within each basin, populations are separated by at least 1 mile (1.6
km). As we mentioned above, the 11 populations with high or moderate
resiliency are distributed across the species' range (present in all 3
basins), and the 6 large populations with thousands of plants are also
distributed across the species' range (present in all 3 basins). Thus,
the 11 higher resiliency populations and their distribution help spread
the risk of catastrophic drought conditions over a larger geographic
area and contribute to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic
events. We are not aware of any verified populations that have been
extirpated (Service 2023, pp. 8-9). Redundancy has increased since
North Park phacelia was listed because of our better understanding of
the species, including more known populations, and a broader known
distribution.
Representation
North Park phacelia exhibits some ecological and morphological
variability between the three basins (see Background, above). The
species has low to moderate genetic diversity and inbreeding is not a
concern (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 2-3, 25). Genetic variation
occurs between populations, and the genetic differences increase with
distance. Connectivity between nearby North Park phacelia populations
appears to be low currently and historically (Naibauer and McGlaughlin
2022, pp. 3, 25). Six genetic management units were identified for the
species, four in North Park basin, and one each in the Larimer River
and Troublesome Creek basins (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 27-
28). Representation has increased since North Park phacelia was listed
because taxonomic studies have led to the inclusion of additional
populations previously considered different species and subspecies that
contain more genetic variation (see Background, above).
Future Scenarios and Future Condition
In our SSA report, we forecasted the resiliency of North Park
phacelia populations and the redundancy and representation of the
species to mid-century (2050) using a range of four plausible future
scenarios that capture the range of plausible climate conditions of the
four different climate models and emissions scenarios (Bamzai-Dodson
and Rangwala 2019, p. 15; Rangwala et al. 2021, pp. 4-5). We selected
this timeframe because it encompasses approximately 15 generations of
North Park phacelia and allows us to reliably project changes in the
species' stressors, land management (i.e., this timeframe encompasses
at least the duration (30 years) of the applicable BLM resource
management plan), and the species' response to stressors. While climate
projections are available beyond 2050, there is a high degree of
uncertainty in the species response to future climate conditions
because information about North Park phacelia's physiological and
genetic responses that may confer tolerance and adaptive capacity are
unknown, and the potential exists for seedbank persistence under longer
or more frequent drought conditions.
We developed four future scenarios using four plausible climate
models that were downscaled to the range of North Park phacelia. By
developing a range of plausible future scenarios, we assume that actual
future conditions will likely fall somewhere between these four
scenarios. Detailed descriptions of each scenario are available in the
SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 36-47). Future climate conditions were
the only differences among the four scenarios to capture the range of
possible drought conditions (using the GSWD metric) to assess how well
future climate conditions meet the needs of the species. Based on the
best available information, our future scenarios included the
assumption that the other stressors will not change in the future. Many
of the stressors that affect North Park phacelia at the individual
level currently do not influence population resiliency and are not
expected to change in the future, so we did not change their extent or
severity in our future scenarios. We initially considered increasing
the amount of disturbance by as much as 10 percent in all populations,
but the outcome did not change the future conditions of populations.
Given the strong fluctuations in population abundance, we could not
reliably project changes to the future population abundance metric
directly. Instead, we relied on the future projections of the GSWD
metric to evaluate future climate conditions and provide an indirect
assessment of the population abundance. We generally expect population
abundance to increase in years with average or near-average GSWD and
decline in years with below-average GSWD, consistent
[[Page 19560]]
with the thresholds we identified for this metric.
In Scenario 1 (Warm and Wet), we project the resiliency of each
population and the species' redundancy and representation will remain
the same as the current condition (table 2). The average GSWD is
projected to increase slightly compared to the historical average (by
0.96 in (2.4 cm)) but remains in the high-condition category for the
GSWD metric. These slightly drier conditions would have minimal impact
to populations because they are well within the range of variability
that the species experienced historically. Between now and mid-century,
the climate model projects only 1 year of GSWD above 27 in (68.6 cm;
drought conditions associated with low plant frequency), which is less
frequent than we have seen during the current condition time period
(2011 to 2022). North Park phacelia is projected to maintain 11
populations with high or moderate resiliency in this scenario, and
these populations are at less risk from potential stochastic events,
such as climatic variation, than the population with low resiliency.
In Scenario 2 (Hot and Wet), we project the resiliency of nine
populations will remain the same as the current condition, and three
populations (Diamond J Ranch, Hohnholz North East, and Diamond J State
Wildlife Area) will drop from high to moderate overall resiliency
(table 2). Redundancy and representation remain relatively unchanged
from the current condition. The average GSWD is projected to increase
compared to the historical average (by 2.26 in (5.74 cm)), which
results in the moderate-condition category for the GSWD metric. Between
now and mid-century, the climate model projects 6 years of GSWD above
27 in (68.58 cm; drought conditions associated with low plant
frequency), 2 of which were consecutive years, which is more frequent
than seen during the current condition time period (2011 to 2022). The
increase in water deficit as compared to historical conditions under
this scenario (meaning that less water would be available to the
plants) has the potential to negatively impact plant abundance. We
expect the seedbank to remain viable under this projection and to
support population resiliency. Despite some reduction in resiliency,
North Park phacelia is projected to maintain 11 populations with high
or moderate resiliency under this scenario, and these populations are
at less risk from potential stochastic events, such as climatic
variation, than the population with low resiliency.
In Scenario 3 (Very Hot and Very Wet), the resiliency of each
population and the species' redundancy and representation are projected
to remain the same as the current condition (table 2). The average GSWD
is projected to increase slightly compared to the historical average
(by 0.70 in (1.78 cm)) but remains in the high-condition category for
the GSWD metric. These slightly drier conditions would have minimal
impact to populations because they are well within the range of
variability that the species experienced historically. Between now and
mid-century, the climate model projects no years of GSWD above 27 in
(68.58 cm; drought conditions associated with low plant frequency),
which is less frequent than seen during the current condition time
period (2011 to 2022). North Park phacelia is projected to maintain 11
populations with high or moderate resiliency under this scenario, and
these populations are at less risk from potential stochastic events,
such as climatic variation, than the population with low resiliency.
In Scenario 4 (Very Hot and Dry), we project the resiliency of nine
populations will remain the same as current conditions, and three
populations (Diamond J Ranch, Hohnholz North East, and Diamond J State
Wildlife Area) will drop from high to moderate overall resiliency
(table 2). Redundancy and representation remain relatively unchanged
from the current condition. The average GSWD is projected to increase
compared to the historical average (by 2.72 in (6.91 cm)), which
results in the moderate-condition category for the GSWD metric. Between
now and mid-century, the climate model projects 9 years of GSWD above
27 in (68.58 cm; drought conditions associated with low plant
frequency), with 2 consecutive years and 3 consecutive years, which is
more frequent than seen during the current condition time period (2011
to 2022). The increase in water deficit as compared to historical
conditions under this scenario (meaning that less water would be
available to the plants) has the potential to negatively impact plant
abundance. We expect the seedbank to remain viable under this
projection and to support population resiliency. Despite some reduction
in resiliency, North Park phacelia is projected to maintain 11
populations with high or moderate resiliency, and these populations
will be at less risk from potential stochastic events, such as climatic
variation, than the population with low resiliency.
Table 2--Summary of North Park Phacelia Resiliency for the Current Condition and Four Future Scenarios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency
Basin (county) Population ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current condition Future scenario 1 Future scenario 2 Future scenario 3 Future scenario 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Park (Jackson)............ North Park High.............. High.............. High.............. High.............. High.
Resource Natural
Area ACEC.
California Gulch.. Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
Airport........... Low............... Low............... Low............... Low............... Low.
Case Flats, Potter High.............. High.............. High.............. High.............. High.
Creek, Rockwell.
Verner and High.............. High.............. High.............. High.............. High.
Brownlee.
Diamond J Ranch... High.............. High.............. Moderate.......... High.............. Moderate.
Diamond J State High.............. High.............. Moderate.......... High.............. Moderate.
Wildlife Area.
Battleship-Dwinnel Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
l Ranch.
Larimer River (Larimer)......... Hohnholz North High.............. High.............. Moderate.......... High.............. Moderate.
East.
Laramie River-Bull Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
Mountain.
Forrester Creek... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
Troublesome Creek (Grand)....... Troublesome Creek Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
ACEC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19561]]
Under all four future scenarios, we project that redundancy and
representation of North Park phacelia will remain similar to the
current condition. The Airport population is projected to maintain its
low current condition, and we do not anticipate it will become
extirpated. Under the drier scenarios (Scenario 2 and 4), some genetic
and morphological diversity within populations could be lost. However,
even in the most pessimistic plausible scenario (Scenario 4), all
populations are expected to remain extant and ecological,
morphological, and genetic variation will continue to be represented by
the 12 populations across North Park phacelia's range.
To summarize, we reviewed the current and future viability of North
Park phacelia in the 2021 5-year status review and SSA report using the
three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (see Analytical Framework, Service 2021a and 2023,
entire; Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). We recommended in the
2021 5-year status review that threats to the species had been
sufficiently ameliorated or had not materialized and that listing was
no longer warranted. We received new genetics information identifying a
new population of North Park phacelia after publication of the 2021 5-
year status review that we added to the SSA report.
We evaluated North Park phacelia's resiliency based on the range of
habitat and demographic conditions in each population (see Analytical
Framework, below). Distributed across the species' range (i.e., in all
3 basins), 11 populations have high or moderate resiliency,
contributing to the species' ability to withstand stochastic or
catastrophic events. Of these, 6 populations have thousands of plants;
the largest is estimated to have more than 8,600 plants. These large
populations are also distributed across the species' range (present in
all three basins) and contribute to the species' overall low risk of
extinction. No significant imminent stressors are acting on the
species, and drought is the only stressor projected to increase in the
future. Given the species' drought tolerance and likely ability to
withstand future drought conditions, we project that 11 populations of
North Park phacelia will remain in high or moderate resiliency with a
low risk of extinction from stochastic or catastrophic events. The
species has inherently low to moderate levels of genetic diversity with
no apparent change from historical conditions. Ecological and
morphological diversity across the range also contribute to North Park
phacelia's adaptive capacity (representation) and its ability to
respond to changes in the environment. Furthermore, the documented new
populations and greater distribution of the species since it was listed
in 1982 provide additional resiliency, redundancy, and representation
across its range, which has increased our understanding of the
viability of the species.
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 are committed to the conservation
and preservation of North Park phacelia. BLM and the Service manage
approximately 81 percent of the species' occupied habitat (Service
2023, tables 3 and 4, p. 11). The State of Colorado funds and The
Nature Conservancy manages a conservation easement on approximately 5
percent of the species' occupied habitat on private land, specifically
to protect North Park phacelia and other wildlife (Service 2023, table
4, pp. 11, 25). The remaining habitat (14 percent) is privately owned,
with no protections afforded to the species (Service 2023, table 4, pp.
11, 25).
The range of North Park phacelia spans one BLM field office
(Kremmling Field Office) and one planning area. The Kremmling Field
Office has included conservation measures in their resource management
plan to minimize adverse impacts of land use to listed and sensitive
species, including the North Park phacelia (BLM 2015a, pp. 24-26, 65,
70, H-2). For example, the BLM resource management plan (RMP) includes
motorized recreation restrictions, energy development restrictions, and
grazing management; provisions for scientific research to aid in better
understanding the effects of stressors on the species and guide
conservation efforts; and collection prohibitions for rare plants that
benefit North Park phacelia (BLM 2015a, pp. 2-3, 25, 68, H-2).
Six populations, with approximately 243 ac (98 ha) of occupied
habitat (representing 54 percent of total occupied habitat), are
partially or completely within BLM Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACECs), which total approximately 7,225 ac (2,924 ha) (BLM
2015a, pp. 24, 70; Service 2023, p. 23). The three ACECs (North Park
Natural Area, Laramie River, and Troublesome Creek) were created in
2015 for the conservation of natural resources including North Park
phacelia. The three ACECs are managed as land use authorization
avoidance areas where land use authorizations such as rights of way
(ROW) grants would be avoided to the extent possible (BLM 2015a, pp.
52-53, 70). The protections provided by ACEC designations are not
contingent upon the species' federally listed status, and ACECs help to
facilitate the maintenance and recovery of North Park phacelia, because
they are areas where the species is not likely to be disturbed or
adversely altered by land-use actions such as coal and oil and gas
leasing and development (BLM 2015a, pp. 56, 64, 67, 68).
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 Secretary of the Interior (43 U.S.C. 1714). Two ACECs (North Park
Natural Area and Laramie River) were designated to protect North Park
phacelia, while one ACEC (Troublesome Creek) was designated to protect
multiple species and resources in addition to the North Park phacelia
(BLM 2015a, p. 70). The ACEC designations will not change under the
current BLM RMP, even if North Park phacelia is delisted.
North Park phacelia also occurs on the Arapaho National Wildlife
Refuge (Refuge) managed by the Service. The Refuge is closed to OHV use
and livestock grazing where North Park phacelia occurs, and the
Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) includes general
management goals in support of North Park phacelia on Refuge lands and
the implementation of conservation measures such as fences and
minimizing disturbance, as needed, to ensure the species' survival and
recovery (Service 2004, pp. 53, 68; Service 2023, p. 24). Other than
occasional manual weed control efforts, we are not aware that the
Refuge has performed other special management actions for North Park
phacelia (L[oacute]pez, 2023, pp. 2-3).
The current condition of North Park phacelia provides insight into
the effectiveness of Federal management and, in general, the low levels
of stressors on Federal and private lands; all but one (Airport) of the
populations have high or moderate resiliency, including moderate to
high habitat conditions (Service 2023, pp. 30-35). The species' current
condition demonstrates that, both due to the species' population
resiliency and to Federal management and other land protections, the
stressors are not
[[Page 19562]]
currently meaningfully affecting the species.
Even without the protections of the Act, North Park phacelia would
remain a BLM sensitive species for at least 5 years (BLM 2008, pp. 36,
47). If the species is 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 the BLM RMPs would no
longer apply (e.g., buffers around oil and gas development). However,
most stipulations and conservation measures in these RMPs are not
unique to North Park phacelia but rather provide general guidance for
effective land management and rangeland health. For example, the
motorized recreation restrictions mentioned above apply to most BLM
lands and are not specific to North Park phacelia habitat.
Additionally, the three ACECs discussed above are much larger than the
North Park phacelia populations they contain, and they provide land use
avoidance designations to the larger, surrounding habitats. If in the
future North Park phacelia undergoes a downward trend and its viability
is at risk such that it would again meet the definition of a BLM
sensitive species, BLM has the authority to designate it as a BLM
sensitive species (BLM 2008, pp. 36-37).
Even without the protections of the Act, the Refuge would continue
to provide management goals and protections to North Park phacelia
under their current CCP (Service 2004, pp. 53, 68). Given the 15-year
timeframe of CCPs, protections outlined in the Arapaho Refuge CCP are
expected to remain in place for at least the next few years until the
next revision (L[oacute]pez, 2023, pp. 2-3). The likelihood of future
CCP revisions including conservation of North Park phacelia is high
because the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Pub. L.
105-57) mandates conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats within the Refuge system. If the management goals for North
Park phacelia are removed in a later version of the CCP, the general
land use management and habitat protections would likely remain to
provide indirect benefits to the species, including prohibitions on
stressors such as OHV use and livestock grazing (L[oacute]pez, 2023,
pp. 2-3).
Even without the protections of the Act, the conservation easement
on private lands where North Park phacelia occurs will be maintained in
perpetuity regardless of the species' Federal status (Byers 2023,
entire). The Nature Conservancy monitors the property for compliance
annually, and the landowner administers a land management plan to
benefit the species (Byers 2023, entire).
The State of Colorado has no laws protecting rare plant species.
The State of Colorado does identify North Park phacelia as a plant
species of greatest conservation need in their 2015 Colorado State
Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Rare Plant SWAP Addendum (CNHP 2015b, A-13,
A-67, A-154, A-203). The SWAP informs the State of Colorado of
conservation priorities but is not a regulatory mechanism and does not
provide funding or management authority for North Park phacelia.
In summary, conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms (such as
a conservation easement and Federal RMPs and CCPs) have ameliorated, or
are continuing to minimize, the previously identified threats of
recreation (OHV use), livestock grazing, and energy development to
North Park phacelia. As indicated above, the majority of these
mechanisms will likely remain in place regardless of the species'
Federal listing status. Consequently, we find that conservation efforts
and existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to address previously
identified threats and the stressors we evaluated in the SSA report and
in this proposed rule.
Proposed Determination of North Park Phacelia (Phacelia formosula)
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 North Park phacelia as endangered on September
1, 1982, the Service identified motorcycle use (Factor A), livestock
trampling (Factor C), potential energy development of coal and oil and
gas (Factor A), and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D)
as threats to the existence of the species (47 FR 38540). In our SSA
report, 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
changes to the extent of the known range, that the species has
undergone in the past 5 years, motorcycle use (OHV use) (Factor A) is
adequately managed in 11 of the 12 populations and existing information
indicates this stressor is unlikely to change in the foreseeable
future. Mining and energy development (Factor A) have not occurred in
occupied habitat since the time of listing and are adequately managed,
and existing information indicates this stressor is unlikely to change
in the foreseeable future. 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.
Livestock grazing does not result in population-level effects and is
adequately managed, and existing information indicates this stressor is
unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Other stressors we considered in the SSA report either do not
result in population-level effects (residential and urban development
(Factor A) and invasive plants (Factor A)), or the species is tolerant
of their effects (climate change (Factor E) and cumulative effects of
all stressors (Factor E)).
We also evaluated a variety of conservation efforts and regulatory
mechanisms across the 12 populations of North Park phacelia that either
reduce or ameliorate stressors and improve or maintain habitat
conditions and population resiliency. These conservation efforts and
mechanisms include: one BLM RMP and one Service CCP that, when taken
together, cover the majority of known occupied habitat (81 percent) and
include motorized recreation restrictions, energy development
restrictions, and grazing management (BLM 2015a, pp. 2-3, 24-26, 65,
68, 70, H-2; Service 2004, pp. 53, 68). Implementation of the
regulatory mechanisms in resource planning documents on all of the BLM
and Service lands within the range of the species (Factor D) has helped
to address the stressors we identified
[[Page 19563]]
under Factors A and E. While we cannot attribute the currently high to
moderate resiliency of the species to one specific conservation
measure, this high to moderate resiliency demonstrates the amelioration
of relevant stressors, both due to the combination of conservation
efforts in place and the tolerance of the plant (which has shown an
ability to tolerate nearby disturbance).
In addition to the implementation of conservation efforts that
minimize impacts to the North Park phacelia on Federal lands (BLM and
Refuge lands), approximately 54 percent of the known occupied habitat
has special land management designations that limit or exclude the
authorization of certain land uses and further help to facilitate the
maintenance and recovery of North Park phacelia populations (Factor D)
because they are areas where North Park phacelia plants and populations
are not likely to be disturbed or adversely altered by land-use actions
(BLM 2015a, pp. 2-3, 24-26, 65, 68, 70, H-2; Service 2004, pp. 53, 68).
Additionally, approximately 5 percent of the known occupied habitat is
private land under conservation easement, with protections and a land
management plan specifically designed to protect and maintain North
Park phacelia (Byers 2023, entire). The protections provided by these
management designations and the conservation easement are not
contingent upon the species' federally listed status.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
Endangered Throughout Its Range Determination
Currently, 11 of the 12 populations have high or moderate
resiliency, and 1 population has low resiliency (Service 2023, pp. 20-
36). The high- and moderate-resiliency populations have moderate to
high population-abundance estimates, relatively intact habitat
conditions, and a current water deficit that is similar to the
historical average. While North Park phacelia tends to occupy
relatively small habitat areas, these habitats provide adequate
resources to support the species' needs. Rangewide monitoring does not
show a clear population trend; however, there is no indication of
widespread decline. Recent genetic results have also informed our
understanding that North Park phacelia is currently much more abundant
than originally estimated at the time of listing.
The only plausible activity or naturally occurring event that would
constitute a catastrophic event for North Park phacelia would be
extreme drought conditions (meeting or exceeding a GSWD of 27 in (68.6
cm)) sustained over a timeframe that exceeds the species' dormancy in
the seedbank. Based on our evaluation of the four plausible future
scenarios, there is a low risk of a catastrophic event impacting the
species and its redundancy. The individuals within and among the
populations also exhibit genetic, ecological, and morphological
diversity, contributing to the species' representation.
Moreover, our understanding of the species' stressors has changed
since the time the North Park phacelia 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., OHV use and energy development) or because they are not
occurring at a scale anticipated at the time of listing (i.e.,
livestock use). We also have found in our evaluation of other stressors
that residential and urban development and invasive species do not
result in population-level effects to the species, and North Park
phacelia appears to adequately tolerate the effects of climate change
(Factor E) and the cumulative effects of all stressors (Factor E) (see
Stressors, above).
Since the species was listed, conservation efforts and regulatory
mechanisms on Federal and private lands have helped to facilitate the
maintenance and recovery of North Park phacelia populations. The BLM
RMP includes restrictions (motorized use, energy development, and
grazing management), stipulations (CSU and NSO), and designations
(ACECs) to protect North Park phacelia populations (see Conservation
Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, above). The ACEC designations limit
or exclude the authorization of certain land uses, and two ACECs
specifically reference the protection of North Park phacelia as a
foundational goal. The conservation easement on private lands where
North Park phacelia occurs will be maintained in perpetuity to protect
and support the species (Byers 2023, entire). The protections provided
by the BLM ACEC designations and the conservation easement on private
lands are not contingent upon the species' federally listed status. The
Service's CCP provides management goals and protections to North Park
phacelia, and the likelihood of future CCP revisions including
conservation of North Park phacelia is high because the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Pub. L. 105-57) mandates
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within
the Refuge system.
Given the currently high and moderate levels of resiliency in 11 of
the 12 North Park phacelia populations, the lack of significant
imminent stressors, and the low likelihood of catastrophic events, we
find that North Park phacelia currently has sufficient ability to
withstand stochastic and catastrophic events and to adapt to
environmental changes.
Thus, after assessing the best available information and evaluating
threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the
threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we conclude that North
Park phacelia is not in danger of extinction now throughout all of its
range.
Threatened Throughout Its Range Determination
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 term ``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 listable 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 North Park phacelia to mid-century (2050). After mid-century, the
changes in climate conditions that different climate models and
emissions scenarios project begin to diverge widely (Bamzai-Dodson and
Rangwala 2019, p. 15; Rangwala et al. 2021, pp. 4-5); 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 large uncertainty in climate
change at the end of the twenty-first century arising from the choice
of an emission scenario'' (Rangwala et al. 2021, pp. 4-5). We also
selected this timeframe because it is short enough for us to reliably
predict changes in other species' stressors and land management, yet
long enough to be biologically
[[Page 19564]]
meaningful to the species, covering approximately 15 generations, and
reliably project the species' response to those changes.
By mid-century, we anticipate a range of plausible future
conditions for North Park phacelia under different climate conditions,
but the stressors and conservation efforts remain similar to what the
species is currently experiencing. Under Scenario 1 (Warm and Wet), we
expect the resiliency of each population and the species' redundancy
and representation to remain the same as the current conditions. The
projected slightly drier conditions would have minimal impact to
populations because they are well within the range of variability that
the species experienced historically (in the high-condition category
for the GSWD metric). In Scenario 2 (Hot and Wet), we expect the
resiliency to remain very similar to the current condition (three
populations--Diamond J Ranch, Hohnholz North East, and Diamond J State
Wildlife Area--drop from high to moderate overall resiliency), and
redundancy and representation remain relatively unchanged from the
current conditions because of drier conditions (in the moderate-
condition category for the GSWD metric). In Scenario 3 (Very Hot and
Very Wet), we expect the resiliency of each population and the species'
redundancy and representation to remain the same as the current
conditions. The projected slightly drier conditions would have minimal
impact to populations because they are well within the range of
variability that the species experienced historically (in the high-
condition category for the GSWD metric). In Scenario 4 (Very Hot and
Dry), we expect the resiliency to remain very similar to the current
condition (three populations--Diamond J Ranch, Hohnholz North East, and
Diamond J State Wildlife Area--drop from high to moderate overall
resiliency). Redundancy and representation remain relatively unchanged
from the current conditions. The projected slightly drier conditions
would have minimal impact to populations because they are well within
the range of variability that the species experienced historically (in
the high-condition category for the GSWD metric).
Given these future projections of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to mid-century, North Park phacelia could experience a
slight decrease in viability under two of the four future scenarios
(Scenarios 2 (Hot and Wet) and 4 (Very Hot and Dry)). Even under these
two scenarios, the species maintains 11 high- and moderate-resiliency
populations despite increasing drought conditions. In all four
scenarios, we expect 11 of the 12 populations will maintain viability
(will have moderate to high resiliency), and all 12 populations will
remain extant, thereby continuing to contribute to the redundancy and
representation of the species.
Three factors support this consistently moderate to high future
resiliency: Federal and private conservation efforts and regulatory
mechanisms, stressors that are not likely to increase in the future,
and the species' biological characteristics.
First, the high to moderate resiliency of North Park phacelia is,
in part, due to land protections and regulations implemented by BLM,
the Service, private landowners, and The Nature Conservancy that will
continue to be implemented into the future, even in the absence of
protections afforded by the Act (Factor D), as described under
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, above. These
protections will continue to limit the potential effects of stressors
on North Park phacelia in the future. OHV use (Factor A), livestock
grazing (Factor A), energy development (Factor A), and invasive plants
(Factor A) are adequately managed, and existing information indicates
these stressors are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are sufficient to ensure
protection of the species at the reduced levels of stressors that
remain.
Second, independent of future conservation efforts and regulatory
mechanisms, the high to moderate resiliency of North Park phacelia is,
in part, due to some stressors not increasing in the future.
Residential and urban development (Factor A) within North Park phacelia
populations has not occurred since the time of listing, and existing
information indicates this stressor is unlikely to change in the
foreseeable future.
Third, the species' biological characteristics confer some
tolerance to moderate its response to projected drier conditions. North
Park phacelia appears to adequately tolerate the effects of climate
change (Factor E) and cumulative effects of all stressors (Factor E),
and existing information indicates that this tolerance is unlikely to
substantially change in the foreseeable future. Although conditions
could become drier under two future scenarios (Scenarios 2 (Hot and
Wet) and 4 (Very Hot and Dry)), populations have maintained healthy
recruitment and survival, even through two recent extreme drought years
(2012 and 2020) (see Stressors, above). These characteristics allow the
species to maintain moderate survivorship and resiliency, even under
Scenarios 2 (Hot and Wet) and 4 (Very Hot and Dry).
Considering the levels of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation projected under each of the future scenarios described
in the SSA report, North Park phacelia will be able to withstand
stochastic events, catastrophic events, and environmental change into
the foreseeable future. Therefore, after assessing the best available
information and evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we conclude that North Park phacelia is not likely to become
in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its 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 the North Park phacelia is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it 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 the North Park phacelia, we chose
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 its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this
purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that
the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
We evaluated the range of the North Park phacelia to determine if
the species
[[Page 19565]]
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 North Park phacelia, 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:
residential and urban development, OHV use, mining and energy
development, livestock grazing, invasive plants, climate change, and
cumulative effects of all stressors.
Livestock grazing, invasive plants, and climate change occur
uniformly across the species' range; that is, there are no portions of
the species' range where these stressors occur more intensely or have
greater impacts on the species. Residential and urban development and
mining and energy development have occurred and are present in the
North Park and Larimer River basins. However, despite past development
activity, these threats do not currently negatively impact population
resiliency in these basins and are not expected to increase in the
future. Ten of the 11 populations in the North Park and Larimer River
basins currently have high or moderate resiliency and are expected to
maintain high or moderate population resiliency under all four
scenarios. OHV use has occurred in five populations, but this threat is
only negatively impacting the population resiliency of the Airport
population. This is the only population (Airport) that currently has
low resiliency due in part to extensive OHV use, and this population is
expected to maintain low resiliency under all four future scenarios.
Therefore, we identified this population as a portion of the range that
may potentially have a different status than the species as a whole and
was worth further consideration. We now assess whether the Airport
population is ``significant.'' We do not consider this population, by
itself, to represent a biologically meaningful portion of the range.
The Airport population has a small population size and small habitat
area and contributes the least out of all of the known populations to
the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation. It is one of
eight populations in the North Park basin that share similar soil and
habitat characteristics (see Background, above). The other seven
populations in the North Park basin are larger in size and habitat area
and have high or moderate current resiliency and are expected to
maintain high or moderate population resiliency under all four future
scenarios. Therefore, although the Airport population may have a
difference in status relative to other populations of North Park
phacelia, we determined that, by itself, it is not significant.
We looked across the remainder of the range of the species for any
other portions of the range that may have a different status than the
species as a whole, but we did not identify any others. For example, we
also explored the status of North Park phacelia in the Troublesome
Creek and Larimer River basins, respectively, due to their isolation
from the core of the species' range in the North Park basin. The
Troublesome Creek basin has one population (Troublesome Creek ACEC)
with a large population size and moderate current resiliency and is
expected to maintain moderate resiliency under all four future
scenarios. The Larimer River basin has three populations (Hohnholz
North East, Forrester Creek, and Laramie River-Bull Mountain) with high
and moderate current resiliency, and they are expected to maintain
their current resiliency under all four future scenarios. Therefore,
none of these areas differs in status from the species as a whole, and
we did not consider them further.
The Airport population does not represent a significant portion of
the 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, 321
F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (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 scientific and commercial data available
indicates that the North Park phacelia does not meet the definition of
an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11[euro](2), North Park phacelia does not meet the
definition of an endangered or a threatened species. Therefore, we
propose to remove North Park phacelia from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Effects of This Proposed Rule
This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by
removing North Park phacelia 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 North Park
phacelia. No critical habitat is designated for this species, so this
proposed rulemaking action would not affect 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 recovered. 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. If at any
time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures,
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We have prepared a draft PDM plan for North Park phacelia. 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 North Park phacelia at the time
of proposed delisting; (2) describes the 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)
[[Page 19566]]
proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines
responsibilities. We intend to work with our partners toward
maintaining the recovered status of North Park phacelia. We appreciate
any information on what should be included in post-delisting monitoring
strategies for this species (see Information Requested, above).
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
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretaries' Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We notified the Apache Tribe of
Oklahoma, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho
Tribes of the Wind River Reservation, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Southern
Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Ute Indian Tribe of
our recommendation to delist North Park phacelia in our 5-year status
review in 2021, and we did not receive a response. We are not aware of
any Tribal interests or concerns associated with this proposed rule.
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.
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, amend paragraph (h) in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants by removing the entry under Flowering Plants for
``Phacelia formosula (North Park phacelia)''.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-05674 Filed 3-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P