Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Colorado Hookless Cactus From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 21582-21600 [2023-07119]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21582-21600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07119]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0093; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BG56


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the 
Colorado Hookless Cactus From the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring 
plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove the Colorado hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (List) due to 
recovery. Recent taxonomic studies have indicated that the currently 
listed entity is actually two species: Sclerocactus glaucus and 
Sclerocactus dawsonii. We find that neither species should be listed as 
a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). Our review of the best available scientific and 
commercial data indicates that the threats to the species have been 
eliminated or reduced to the point that these species no longer meet 
the definition of a threatened or endangered species under the Act. We 
request information and comments from the public regarding this 
proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for 
Colorado hookless cactus (S. glaucus and S. dawsonii). If this proposal 
is finalized, Colorado hookless cactus will be removed from the List 
and the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, 
particularly through sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to the 
species.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 
12, 2023. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by May 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2022-0093, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2022-0093, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and 
supporting documents, including the species status assessment (SSA) 
report and post-delisting monitoring plan, are available at https://fws.gov/species/colorado-hookless-cactus-sclerocactus-glaucus, at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0093, and 
at the Colorado Ecological Services

[[Page 21583]]

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Creed Clayton, Acting Western Colorado 
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological 
Services Office, 445 West Gunnison Ave., Suite 240, Grand Junction, CO 
81501; telephone 970-628-7187. Individuals in the United States who are 
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay 
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay 
services offered within their country to make international calls to 
the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
removal from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants if it no longer meets the definition of an endangered 
species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range). The Colorado hookless cactus is 
listed as threatened, and we are proposing to remove (delist) it from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants because we have determined 
it does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered or threatened 
species. Delisting a species can be completed only by issuing a rule 
through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 
551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This action proposes to remove Colorado 
hookless cactus from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
(i.e., ``delist'' the species) based on its recovery.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species based on any 
of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. The determination to delist a 
species must be based on an analysis of the same factors.
    Under the Act, we must review the status of all listed species at 
least once every five years. We must delist a species if we determine, 
on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, that 
the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered species. 
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11 identify three reasons why we might 
determine that a listed species is neither an endangered species nor a 
threatened species: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has 
recovered, or (3) the original data used at the time the species was 
classified were in error. Here, we have determined that Colorado 
hookless cactus should be proposed for delisting under the Act because, 
based on an analysis of the five listing factors, it has recovered and 
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Reasons we should or should not delist the Colorado hookless 
cactus.
    (2) New information on the historical and current status, range, 
distribution, and population size of the Colorado hookless cactus.
    (3) New information on the known and potential threats to the 
Colorado hookless cactus, including livestock use, invasive species, 
oil and gas development, off-highway vehicle use, development and 
maintenance of utility corridors, and climate change.
    (4) New information regarding the taxonomy, life history, ecology, 
and habitat use of the Colorado hookless cactus.
    (5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
the Colorado hookless cactus that may have either a negative or 
positive impact on the species.
    (6) Information regarding management plans or other mechanisms that 
provide protection to the Colorado hookless cactus and its habitat.
    (7) The draft PDM plan and the methods and approach described.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species 
should remain listed as threatened instead of being delisted, or we may 
conclude that the species should be reclassified from threatened to 
endangered.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public

[[Page 21584]]

hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Colorado hookless cactus to inform the 2021 5-year review and 
updated it in 2022. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists who 
consulted with other species experts. The SSA report represents a 
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, 
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting 
the species.
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) and our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the 
Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the 
information contained in the Colorado hookless cactus SSA report. We 
sent the SSA report to five independent and appropriate peer reviewers 
and received three responses. Results of this structured peer review 
process can be found at https://regulations.gov. In preparing this 
proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as 
appropriate, into the final SSA report, which is the foundation for 
this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from three 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the information contained in the SSA report. In 
some cases, these reviewers provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final SSA report. The 
reviewers also provided new references or corrected existing references 
we cited in our SSA report; we revised or included relevant references, 
as appropriate. We summarize the additional substantive feedback we 
received from peer reviewers below.
    Comment 1: One reviewer commented on our range and analytical units 
(AU) maps that some cactus occurrences were not included in AUs.
    Our Response: The maps in the SSA do not depict each individual 
plant occurrence included in the AUs; however, our AUs contain all 
records of known occurrences.
    Comment 2: One reviewer asked why recreational trails for mountain 
bikes, hiking, camping and other recreational uses were discussed as a 
stressor, but were not included in our table summarizing stressors in 
the SSA.
    Our Response: Recreational uses other than OHV use have the 
potential to cause direct impacts to individuals; however, due to their 
relatively small footprint, the BLM's ability to largely avoid Colorado 
hookless cactus when designing non-motorized trail routes, and the 
rarity of humans trampling cacti, we believe that these localized 
impacts to individuals do not present species or AU-level effects. 
Therefore, we did not further consider this stressor (i.e., non-
motorized recreation) in our analysis, so they are not discussed in 
tables summarizing stressors in the SSA.
    Comment 3: One reviewer shared that recent genetic research found 
that a closely related species, S. parviflorus, occurs on the western 
edge of S. glaucus' range and is capable of hybridizing.
    Our Response: Hybridization with other Sclerocactus species in 
Colorado was not found to be recent or ongoing, and thus is not a 
conservation concern for S. dawsonii or S. glaucus (McGlaughlin and 
Naibauer 2021, p. 22). We therefore do not include this stressor in our 
analysis of species' current of future condition in the SSA.
    Comment 4: One reviewer commented that pollinators were only 
briefly discussed in the SSA and they requested a more in-depth 
discussion on which pollinators are important for the species.
    Our Response: The purpose of the SSA is to gather and compile 
information on the status of these species in order to assess their 
current condition and project the species' future condition. Adding a 
detailed inventory of known pollinators is not necessary to assess the 
current and future conditions for these species in the SSA report, 
because pollinators of Sclerocactus species are adequately discussed in 
other papers (see BLM 2020a, pp. 17-18, Tepedino et al. 2010, pp. 382-
383). Over 100 species have been documented visiting Sclerocactus 
species (BLM 2020a, p. 17). As we summarize in the SSA, there is no 
information to indicate that Colorado hookless cactus species require 
specialist pollinators (Service 2022, pp. 11-12). Moreover, the 
majority of pollinator species one researcher observed visiting 
Sclerocactus plants are generalists themselves; these bee species visit 
a wide variety of flowers and only require a general diversity and 
abundance of native flowers in the environment (Tepedino et al. 2010, 
pp. 382-383).
    Comment 5: One reviewer stated that the patterns of genetic 
diversity for each species were unclear in the SSA report. This 
reviewer questioned how the AUs are genetically connected and whether 
S. dawsonii exhibits genetic connectivity. Another reviewer similarly 
suggested that, while genetic variability is described as being 
important for the species, information about genetic variability within 
the species is missing from the SSA.
    Our Response: In the SSA, we discuss the relevant information on 
genetic diversity of both species, summarizing more detailed 
information contained in a report of recent genetic analyses (Service 
2022, pp. 10, 25; McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, entire). These 
analyses indicate that genetic diversity is low to moderate, with 
limited evidence of inbreeding for both species (McGlaughlin and 
Naibauer 2021, p. 22). S. glaucus demonstrates sufficient connectivity, 
which results in ongoing and recent genetic exchange (McGlaughlin and 
Naibauer 2021, p. 2). S. dawsonii is genetically isolated from S. 
glaucus, but individuals are connected within and between the species' 
AUs (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 22). More detail on the specific 
patterns of genetic variability in both species is available in 
McGlaughlin and Naibauer (2021, entire).
    Comment 6: One reviewer commented that the methods from the novel 
sampling-based procedure, which BLM used to derive population 
estimates, were not described in detail.
    Our Response: As we discuss above, the purpose of the SSA is to 
gather and compile information on the status of this species in order 
to assess its current condition and project the species' future 
condition. Adding detailed information on the monitoring methodologies 
our partners use is not necessary to assess the current and future 
conditions for this species in the SSA report, because these methods 
are adequately described in other resources. More details on monitoring 
methods are available in Krening et al. (2021, entire), which provides 
an in-depth explanation of the sampling-based monitoring procedure. We 
briefly summarize the methods of the sampling-based monitoring 
procedure in the SSA (Service 2022, p. 13).
    Comment 7: One reviewer asked how many occurrences of each cactus 
species occur on Federal lands as opposed to private lands. The 
reviewer also requested clarification to the statement that occurrences 
on some Federal lands ``are not likely to be disturbed or adversely 
altered by land-use actions.''
    Our Response: Due to the methodology that BLM uses to extrapolate 
the number of occurrences

[[Page 21585]]

in a given AU based on plant density (see Krening et al. 2021, entire), 
the best available science on plant occurrences does not indicate the 
specific number of plants that occur on public rather than private 
lands. Therefore, we could not add the breakdown of cactus occurrences 
this reviewer requested to the SSA, given the lack of this specific 
distribution information. However, we report in the SSA the proportion 
of land area in each AU that is Federally owned and managed (Service 
2022, p. 21). The majority of lands within both Colorado hookless 
cactus species' ranges are Federally owned and managed and a subset of 
these Federal lands have special BLM land management designations 
(e.g., National Conservation Areas (NCA), Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concerns (ACEC), and a wilderness area over which BLM has 
authority). These areas with special land management designations help 
to facilitate the maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences given 
that they are areas where Colorado hookless cactus occurrences are not 
likely to be disturbed or adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 
2020a p. 26). As we explain in Table 6 of the SSA, these areas may 
provide no-surface-occupancy stipulations (which prevent oil and gas 
development), may prohibit the use of motorized recreational vehicles, 
and may prohibit livestock grazing (Service 2022, pp. 18-21). While we 
did not add more detail to the SSA to further describe these 
conservation efforts in response to this comment (beyond the list of 
conservation practices specific to each NCA, ACEC, or wilderness area 
already provided in Table 6 of the SSA) (Service 2022, pp. 18-21), we 
further clarify and describe how these areas promote conservation of 
the species under Stressors and Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 
Mechanisms in this proposed rule below.
    Comment 8: One reviewer questioned why the stressors of predation, 
herbicide/pesticide application, and commercial trade were excluded 
from the analysis; they noted that we did not provide supporting 
reasons or evidence for why these stressors do not present AU-level or 
species-level effects besides ``the best professional judgement of 
species experts.''
    Our Response: Small mammals may predate individual plants and, 
while this does present a source of mortality, we do not have any 
evidence to indicate that predation is having lasting, population-level 
effects for the species (Service 2022, pp. 17-18). The application of 
herbicides and pesticides on Federal lands is highly regulated; 
moreover, managers only apply these chemicals in targeted, isolated 
areas throughout the species' ranges (BLM 2020a, p. 45). Therefore, we 
did not find this stressor to present more than localized effects to 
individual plants. Additionally, collection from the wild has not 
occurred at the level anticipated at the time of listing; collection is 
not having population- or species-level effects on either species (BLM 
2020a, p. 36). Therefore, these stressors do not have species or AU-
level effects. Thus, we did not further analyze the effects of 
predation, herbicide and pesticide application, or collection and 
commercial trade in our SSA analyses of current and future conditions.
    Comment 9: One reviewer commented that it would be useful to 
understand the background data being used to model habitat condition 
for these two species and what an ``AIM/LMF sample point'' is. The 
reviewer also asked which factors were used to assess habitat quality.
    Our Response: BLM species and habitat experts analyzed habitat 
condition for the two species, and detailed their methods and source 
data in Holsinger and Krening (2021, entire). They analyzed habitat 
quality using BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) and 
Landscape Management Framework (LMF) data. AIM and LMF sample points 
are geographic locations distributed throughout the landscape to which 
BLM biologists return on a regular basis to collect data on 
environmental conditions and vegetation health (e.g., ground cover, 
grass height, weed cover). BLM experts used data from the 134 
individual AIM/LMF sample points within the AUs for this analysis of 
habitat condition. Data from three separate indicators were used to 
evaluate habitat quality: invasive species cover, amount of bare 
ground, and native perennial cover.
    Comment 10: One reviewer expressed surprise that there were no AUs 
with a low habitat condition score. However, this reviewer did not 
provide any information to suggest the scores should change.
    Our Response: BLM experts developed a Habitat Condition Index to 
evaluate habitat condition (see response to Comment 9). This index 
produced a single habitat condition score from the aggregated rankings 
of three biologically relevant habitat condition categories: habitat 
quality, habitat size, and habitat type (Service 2022, pp. 43-44; 
Holsinger and Krening 2021, entire). The result of the Habitat 
Condition Index is a habitat condition score (high, moderate, or low) 
for each AU (Holsinger and Krening 2021, p. 2). Detailed information on 
the methods for this evaluation can be found in Holsinger and Krening 
(2021, entire). According to this analysis, in each AU, both species 
generally have the level of invasive species cover, bare ground, and 
native perennial cover they require (the three indicators that made up 
the ``habitat quality'' score). Only 4 of the 10 AUs received a low 
score for any of these three categories; however, the AUs that received 
a low score for these habitat quality categories were relatively large 
(i.e., they received high scores for the ``habitat size'' category) and 
had high probability of species' occurrence, according to the results 
of a predictive model for Colorado hookless cactus (i.e., they received 
high scores for the ``habitat type'' category) (Holsinger and Krening 
2021, entire). These high scores for the habitat size and habitat type 
categories balanced the lower scores for the habitat quality category, 
resulting in no AUs with a low score for overall habitat condition.

Previous Federal Actions

    The Service listed Sclerocactus glaucus as threatened on October 
11, 1979 (44 FR 58868). After its 1979 listing, the species underwent a 
series of taxonomic revisions. When listed, the range of Sclerocactus 
glaucus was considered to include western Colorado and northeastern 
Utah (Uinta Basin hookless cactus complex). A reevaluation of 
morphological characteristics, phylogenetic studies, and common garden 
experiments led to the determination that the Uinta Basin hookless 
cactus complex was in fact three distinct species: Sclerocactus glaucus 
(Colorado hookless cactus), Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus), 
and Sclerocactus wetlandicus (Uinta Basin hookless cactus) (Heil and 
Porter 2004, pp. 197-207; Hochst[auml]tter 1993, pp. 82-92). 
Sclerocactus glaucus was determined to be restricted to the Colorado 
and Gunnison River basins in western Colorado, while Sclerocactus 
brevispinus and Sclerocactus wetlandicus are limited to the Uinta Basin 
in eastern Utah. In 2009, the Service published a final rule 
recognizing and accepting this revised taxonomy of the three species 
and determined that all three species would continue to be listed as 
threatened (74 FR 47112, September 15, 2009). The Service has not 
designated critical habitat for the Colorado hookless cactus 
(Sclerocactus glaucus). The species also lacks a recovery plan.
    On January 21, 2021, we published a notice of initiation of a 5-
year review for the Colorado hookless cactus in the

[[Page 21586]]

Federal Register and requested information that could have a bearing on 
the status of Colorado hookless cactus (86 FR 2442). We completed the 
5-year status review on August 10, 2021; this 5-year status review 
recommended (1) acknowledging that Colorado hookless cactus, as listed, 
is two taxonomically distinct entities (Sclerocactus glaucus and 
Sclerocactus dawsonii) and (2) that neither S. glaucus nor S. dawsonii 
meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species 
under the Act. Therefore, the 5-year status review recommended removing 
S. glaucus from the list of threatened plants; it also recommended that 
S. dawsonii need not be listed as a threatened or endangered species 
under the Act.

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Colorado hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus and Sclerocactus 
dawsonii) is presented in the SSA Report Version 1.1 (Service 2022, 
entire).
    As discussed above under Previous Federal Actions, Colorado 
hookless cactus has undergone a series of taxonomic revisions since its 
original 1979 listing. Most recently, in 2017, genetic studies 
identified three distinct regional groups of Colorado hookless cactus 
in Colorado: the Northern, Grand Valley, and Gunnison River groups 
(Schwabe et al. 2015, p. 447; McGlaughlin and Ramp-Neale 2017, p. 5). 
The most recent genetic analyses, using Random Site-Associated DNA 
sequencing (RADseq), determined that the Northern group should be 
recognized as a distinct species, hereinafter Sclerocactus dawsonii, or 
S. dawsonii (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 3). The Grand Valley and 
Gunnison River groups share connectivity and form a genetically 
cohesive group, which represents a second distinct species, hereinafter 
collectively referred to as Sclerocactus glaucus, or S. glaucus 
(McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 3). Because of the recency of this 
taxonomic split, the currently listed entity is still considered to be 
the Colorado hookless cactus, which encompasses both S. glaucus and S. 
dawsonii; thus, both Sclerocactus glaucus and Sclerocactus dawsonii are 
the subjects of our SSA report and this proposed delisting rule.
    Given the recent nature of this new taxonomic information, most 
literature on the species draws conclusions regarding both S. glaucus 
and S. dawsonii without distinguishing between the two. Thus, when we 
use the common name ``Colorado hookless cactus'' in this proposed rule, 
we are referring to information or conclusions regarding both species 
(S. glaucus and S. dawsonii). When we are referring to information or 
analysis pertaining to one species, we will use the new scientific 
names of S. glaucus or S. dawsonii.
    S. glaucus and S. dawsonii are endemic cactus species found in the 
Colorado and Gunnison River basins and their tributary canyons in 
Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Delta Counties in western Colorado. The 
species occur on alluvial benches and colluvial slopes from 4,500 to 
7,200 feet (1,372 to 2,195 meters) in semi-arid high-elevation desert 
(Holsinger 2021, pers. comm.; Service 2022, p. 9). The species display 
a patchy, generalist distribution and have been found to grow primarily 
in small, discrete colonies of individuals in various upland desert 
habitats and communities (BLM 2020a, p. 18; Service 2022, p. 9).
    For the purposes of analysis in our SSA report, we divided the 
ranges of both species into analysis units (AUs). S. glaucus occurs in 
eight AUs in a range that extends approximately 1,082 square miles 
(mi\2\) (2,802 square kilometers (km\2\)) from the Grand Valley, 
through the high desert at the foot of the Grand Mesa, and along the 
alluvial terraces of the Gunnison River and the Dominguez and Escalante 
Creek drainages to near Montrose. S. dawsonii occurs over an area of 
approximately 195 mi\2\ (505 km\2\) in two AUs along the Colorado River 
from DeBeque downstream toward the Grand Valley and along the Roan and 
Plateau Creek drainages. BLM owns and manages approximately 72 percent 
and 68 percent, respectively, of the land that comprises S. glaucus and 
S. dawsonii AUs (Service 2022, pp. 18-21).
    S. glaucus and S. dawsonii are morphologically indistinguishable 
from each other and can be identified from one another only by genetic 
analysis or location. They are both leafless, flowering, stem-succulent 
plants with short, cylindrical bodies usually 3 to 12 centimeters (cm) 
(1.2 to 4.8 inches (in)), but up to 30 cm (12 in), tall, and 4 to 9 cm 
(1.6 to 3.6 in) in diameter (Service 2022, pp. 7-8). The brown coloring 
of the spines on mature plants is unique to S. glaucus, S. dawsonii, 
and S. parviflorus, as compared to other cactus species in the area 
(Service 2022, p. 7).
    Colorado hookless cactus has three life stages: seeds, seedlings, 
and mature reproductive adults. Colorado hookless cactus plants are 
considered hardy, long-lived perennial species (i.e., high survival 
probabilities and low levels of recruitment) (BLM 2018, p. 15). Based 
on high observed seedling survival, once a seedling is established, 
there is a high probability of an individual persisting to reproductive 
stage (BLM 2018, p. 14; Service 2022, p. 13). Pollinator-assisted 
outcrossing (xenogamy) is the primary mode of genetic exchange for the 
Colorado hookless cactus (Janeba 2009, p. 67; Tepedino et al. 2010, p. 
382; Service 2022, p. 8). Plants usually flower in late April and early 
May. Plants do not flower until they reach a diameter of more than 4 cm 
(1.6 in) (BLM 2018, p. 14); plants are likely at least 4 to 6 years old 
before they become reproductive and continue to flower throughout their 
relatively long life (DePrenger-Levin 2021, pers. comm.; Service 2022, 
p. 13). Colorado hookless cactus can live for many years, but their 
exact longevity is unknown.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. On 
July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
California vacated regulations that the Service (jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service) promulgated in 2019 modifying how 
the Services add, remove, and reclassify threatened and endangered 
species and the criteria for designating listed species' critical 
habitat (Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-
JST, Doc. 168 (CBD v. Haaland). As a result of that vacatur, 
regulations that were in effect before those 2019 regulations now 
govern species classification and critical habitat decisions. 
Subsequently, on September 21, 2022, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
for the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court's July 5, 2022, order 
vacating the 2019 regulations until a pending motion for 
reconsideration before the district court is resolved (In re: 
Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-70194). The effect of the stay is that the 
2019 regulations are the governing law as of September 21, 2022.
    Our analysis for this proposal applied those 2019 regulations. 
However, given the continued uncertainty resulting from the ongoing 
litigation, we also undertook an analysis of whether this final rule 
would be different if we were to apply the pre-2019 regulations. We 
concluded that we would have reached the same proposal if we had 
applied the pre-2019 regulations because both before and after the 2019 
regulations, the standard for whether a species

[[Page 21587]]

warrants delisting has been, and will continue to be, whether the 
species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened 
species. Further, we concluded that our determination of the 
foreseeable future would be the same under the 2019 regulations as 
under the pre-2019 regulations. The analysis based on the pre-2019 
regulations is included in the decision file for this proposal.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a 
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always necessary to define the foreseeable future as a 
particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the 
best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the 
timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' 
likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for delisting. However, it 
does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory 
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within 
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess Colorado hookless cactus viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history 
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and 
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R6-ES-
2022-0093 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://fws.gov/species/colorado-hookless-cactus-sclerocactus-glaucus.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this section, we review the biological condition of the species 
and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current 
and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability 
and the risks to that

[[Page 21588]]

viability. In addition, the SSA (Service 2022, entire) documents our 
comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an 
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The following is a 
summary of this status review and the best available information 
gathered since that time that has informed this decision.

Species Needs

    Individuals of both species of Colorado hookless cactus need 
certain habitat factors, including: shallow exposed sandy or shale 
soils of sedimentary parent material or gravelly deposits of river 
alluvium; a semi-arid, high-elevation desert climate (elevations from 
1,200-2,000 meters (m) (3,937-6,561 feet (ft))) with 20-30 cm (8-12 in) 
of rain per year; and a period of deep cold during winter months to 
facilitate germination the following spring (Service 2022, p. 11). To 
be sufficiently resilient, AUs of both species require survivorship and 
recruitment at rates that are able to sustain AUs, in addition to 
pollinator connectivity between individuals and clusters of plants 
within the AU. Adequately resilient AUs also contain enough individuals 
across each life stage (seed, seedling, and mature reproductive adult) 
to bounce back after experiencing environmental stressors such as 
intermediate disturbance, occasional drought, or intensive grazing.
    The number of AUs across the landscape influence redundancy of 
Colorado hookless cactus. More AUs across the range of each species 
increase each species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. 
Individuals and AUs inhabiting diverse ecological settings and 
exhibiting genetic or phenological variation add to the level of 
representation across the species' ranges. The greater diversity 
observed in Colorado hookless cactus genetics, habitats, and 
morphology, the more likely it is to be able to adapt to change over 
time. Both species, thus, need (1) a sufficient number and distribution 
of sufficiently resilient AUs to withstand catastrophic events 
(redundancy) and (2) a range of variation that allows the species to 
adapt to changing environmental conditions (representation) (Service 
2022, p. 15). The SSA report provides additional detail on the species' 
individual-, population-, and species-level needs (Service 2022, pp. 
10-16).

Stressors

    In our SSA, we evaluated stressors and other actions that can 
positively or negatively affect Colorado hookless cactus at the 
individual, AU, or species levels, either currently or into the future 
(Service 2022, pp. 16-18). A wide variety of stressors may influence 
the resiliency of Colorado hookless cactus, either by directly 
affecting individuals or by reducing the quality and quantity of 
habitats.
    Stressors that have the potential to present AU-level effects for 
both species include livestock use; invasive species; oil and gas 
development; OHV recreational use; development and maintenance of 
utility corridors; and the effects of global climate change (BLM 2020a, 
p. 30; Service 2022, pp. 16-18). We determined that predation, 
herbicide and pesticide application, or collection and commercial trade 
were not threats to the species (even though they were identified as 
such in the 1979 listing rule), so we do not discuss them in detail in 
this rule (Service 2022, pp. 16-18).
    Additionally, approximately 30 percent of the land in S. glaucus 
AUs and 41 percent of the land in S. dawsonii AUs have special BLM land 
management designations in the form of National Conservation Areas 
(NCAs), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), and a 
Wilderness Area. These designations limit or exclude the authorization 
of certain land uses, and some designations were specifically created 
for the conservation of natural resources. The protections provided by 
these management designations are not contingent upon the species' 
federally listed status, and these designations help to facilitate the 
maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences because they are areas 
where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be disturbed or 
adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 26). All but 4 of 
11 ACECs specifically referenced the protection of Colorado hookless 
cactus as a foundational goal. We discuss the specific protections each 
of these areas provides, and the ways in which they reduce specific 
stressors, under the relevant stressors below; we also discuss these 
conservation measures further under Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 
Mechanisms.
Livestock Use
    BLM owns and manages approximately 72 percent and 68 percent, 
respectively, of the land that comprises S. glaucus and S. dawsonii AUs 
(Service 2022, pp. 18-21); nearly all habitat that occurs on BLM lands 
allows for livestock use. Moderate to heavy domestic livestock grazing 
has been observed to cause physical damage to Sclerocactus plants 
through trampling, but we have no evidence to indicate that cattle 
browse on individual Sclerocactus plants (Service 1990, p. 11). A study 
on another federally listed cactus, S. wrightiae, found that cacti 
density increased more rapidly in a fenced plot excluded from cattle 
grazing than in an unfenced plot with a reduced cattle stocking rate 
(Clark and Clark 2007, p. 21). Overgrazing (the continued heavy grazing 
beyond the recovery capacity of forage plants) by domestic livestock 
can have a negative impact on North American xeric ecosystems (Jones 
2000, p. 158). For example, overgrazing can facilitate the 
establishment of invasive species like Bromus tectorum, known as 
cheatgrass (Masters and Sheley 2001, p. 503; DiTomaso et al. 2016, p. 
435), which are difficult to eradicate and tend to outcompete native 
vegetation, including cacti.
    Currently, BLM implements 15 nondiscretionary conservation measures 
to minimize or reduce the effects of grazing on the Colorado hookless 
cactus, which are contained in a 2012 programmatic biological opinion 
(BLM 2020a, p. 41). BLM also manages livestock activities to protect 
sensitive plants in the Adobe Badlands, River Rims, and Escalante 
Canyon ACECs (BLM 2017, p. 240, p. 258; BLM 2020a, p. 28; Service 2022, 
pp. 19-20). In the Atwell Gulch ACEC, BLM excludes livestock grazing 
entirely on 2,600 ac (1,052 ha), and in the Pyramid Rock ACEC, no 
livestock grazing is allowed (BLM 2020a, p. 29; Service 2022, pp. 19-
20). BLM's management plans allow it to include stipulations in its 
grazing permit renewals that require reductions in the number of 
livestock and adjustments to the timing, duration, and season of 
livestock use for the benefit of natural resources; such changes in 
grazing permits would primarily affect future grazing intensity in the 
Cactus Park (S. glaucus), Devil's Thumb (S. glaucus), Gunnison River 
East (S. glaucus), Roan Creek (S. dawsonii), and Plateau Creek AUs (S. 
dawsonii).
    Currently, livestock use is affecting only individual plants; 
however, these effects could increase in the future if no corrective 
action is taken to address future problem areas. Thus, we included an 
analysis in the SSA to examine species' potential response to future 
changes in this stressor (Service 2022, pp. 18-21).
Invasive Species
    Invasive weeds, including Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and 
Halogeton glomeratus (halogeton), are prevalent on BLM and private 
lands within the range of Colorado hookless cactus (BLM 2020a, p. 35). 
Invasive weeds alter the ecological characteristics of cactus habitat, 
making it less suitable for the

[[Page 21589]]

species (Service 1990, p. 11). In addition, invasive annual weeds are 
often able to outcompete perennial native species for the essential 
nutrient nitrogen under drought conditions (Everard et al. 2010, pp. 
85, 93-94). However, despite their prevalence throughout the range of 
Colorado hookless cactus species, individual plants experience extreme 
detrimental effects of invasive weeds only in localized areas (Service 
2022, pp. 18-21; BLM 2020a, p. 35).
    Currently, invasive vegetation affects only individual Colorado 
hookless cactus plants; invasive species are not causing any broad-
scale reductions in recruitment or survival in entire AUs. However, the 
effects of invasive vegetation could increase in the future if 
infestations expand or if treatments become less effective. Thus, we 
included an analysis in the SSA to examine species' potential response 
to future changes in this stressor (Service 2022, pp. 18-21).
Oil and Gas Development
    Oil and gas development can also affect Colorado hookless cactus 
plants and habitat. Increased surface disturbance from wells, roads, 
and pipelines for oil and gas projects can fragment or destroy habitat; 
disturb individuals; increase erosion, soil compaction, and 
sedimentation; destroy pollinator habitat; increase airborne dust and 
subsequent dust accumulation on cacti, which can increase tissue 
temperature and reduce photosynthesis, thus decreasing plant growth, 
vigor, and water use efficiency; indirectly increase recreational 
access to habitat through increased road construction; and increase 
invasive vegetation because of the associated surface disturbances 
(Service 2010, pp. 6-7).
    For S. glaucus, only 5 percent of the AUs (19,365 leased ac (7,837 
ha) of 379,348 total ac (153,517 ha) of habitat) are within BLM lands 
leased for oil and gas (BLM 2021a, unpaginated). This proportion is 
higher for S. dawsonii; 58 percent of the area within AUs are leased 
for oil and gas development on BLM lands (65,384 ac (26,419 ha) of 
112,723 total ac (45,617 ha) of habitat) (BLM 2021a, unpaginated). 
However, leased areas do not equate to areas of surface disturbance; 
even if these areas are leased for oil and gas development, only small 
subsets of these areas are actually being actively explored or 
extracted (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) 2022a, 
unpaginated). Moreover, oil and gas development does not occur 
throughout all of the species' ranges; for S. glaucus, active wells are 
only in the Devil's Thumb AU (one active well site), North Fruita 
Desert AU (10 active well sites), Whitewater AU (26 active well sites), 
and a very small portion of the Palisade AU (one active well site) 
(COGCC 2022b, unpaginated). For S. dawsonii, while oil and gas 
development occurs in both AUs (Roan Creek (60 active well sites) and 
Plateau Creek (51 active well sites)), 42 percent of these AUs are not 
leased for oil and gas development (COGCC 2022b, unpaginated; BLM 
2021a, unpaginated). Additionally, there are no new or pending permits 
to drill new oil and gas wells within either species' range; however, 
as we describe in more detail below, development could increase within 
portions of S. dawsonii's range in the future (COGCC 2022c, 
unpaginated; COGCC 2022d, unpaginated).
    Additionally, BLM's resource planning documents include 
conservation measures to minimize adverse impacts of natural resource 
extraction to listed and sensitive species, including the Colorado 
hookless cactus; this includes limiting oil and gas development within 
a 200-m (656-ft) buffer around any currently occupied or historically 
occupied Colorado hookless cactus habitat, when possible and with some 
exceptions (BLM 2020a, p. 34; BLM 2015a, p. B-13; BLM 2015b, p. B-22; 
BLM 2020b, p. B-9). These limitations and buffers apply to S. glaucus 
and S. dawsonii while they are federally listed species or BLM 
sensitive species; if these species are no longer Federally listed or 
on BLM's sensitive species list, these buffers would no longer apply. 
However, even then, as we describe above, based on our analysis of 
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) data, oil and gas 
extraction is relatively limited throughout the range of both species 
compared to the amount of occupied habitat (COGCC 2022a, unpaginated; 
COGCC 2022b, unpaginated; COGCC 2022c, unpaginated; COGCC 2022d, 
unpaginated). Moreover, due to their biology and life history 
characteristics, both species are relatively resilient to nearby 
disturbance (as we discuss further in our analysis of Current Condition 
below).
    Furthermore, approximately 30 percent of the land in S. glaucus AUs 
and 41 percent of the land in S. dawsonii AUs have special BLM land 
management designations in the form of NCAs, ACECs, and a Wilderness 
Area, which further protect the species from the impacts of oil and gas 
development (Service 2022, p. 10). The protections provided by these 
management designations are not contingent upon the species' federally 
listed status, and these designations help to facilitate the 
maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences because they are areas 
where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be disturbed nor will 
its habitat be adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 
26). All 30 percent of the areas within S. glaucus AUs that have 
special land management designations include stipulations that either 
withdraw lands from oil, gas, and mineral development; implement ``no-
surface-occupancy'' stipulations; or prohibit surface disturbing 
activities (Service 2022, pp. 19-22). Therefore, no new oil and gas 
activity is permitted in almost 30 percent of S. glaucus's range (with 
the exception of portions of the Devil's Thumb AU); these areas where 
no new oil and gas activity is permitted coincide with over half (over 
56 percent) of the estimated S. glaucus occurrences (Service 2022, pp. 
14, 30). Similarly, all 41 percent of the areas within S. dawsonii AUs 
that have special land management designations include no-surface-
occupancy stipulations that limit oil and gas development in these 
portions of the species' range.
    Thus, currently, oil and gas development is affecting only a small 
proportion of individual Colorado hookless cactus plants, due to 
limited leasing and development and BLM's protective measures; however, 
the effects of oil and gas development could increase in the future. 
Nevertheless, given the variable oil and gas potential of the area, and 
the protections outlined above, the only AUs where oil and gas 
development could plausibly increase in the future are the Roan Creek 
and Plateau Creek AUs (S. dawsonii) (Service 2022, p. 30). Thus, we 
included an analysis in the SSA to examine the species' potential 
response to future changes in this stressor (Service 2022, pp. 18-21).
Off-Highway Vehicle Recreational Use
    Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use can cause soil compaction and 
erosion, which can physically damage habitat, the surrounding plant 
community, and the hydrology of the area. OHVs can also carry invasive 
and introduced plants to new sites and present a risk of spilled 
contaminants, such as oil spills, gasoline, and grease. OHV use can 
also injure or kill above-ground plants or cause direct harm to plants 
through accumulation of dust. OHV use can create especially negative 
impacts when users travel off designated routes (Service 2022, pp. 18-
21).
    The relatively barren nature and other topographical features of 
Colorado

[[Page 21590]]

hookless cactus habitat make it desirable to OHV users (BLM 2020a, p. 
38). Even though OHV recreation is popular and widespread within 
Colorado hookless cactus habitat, there is little evidence of direct 
negative impacts to plants (Service 2010, p. 8; BLM 2020a, p. 38).
    BLM's resource planning documents include conservation measures to 
minimize adverse impacts of land use to listed and sensitive species, 
including the Colorado hookless cactus (BLM 2015a, pp. 49, 102-105; BLM 
2015b, pp. 26, 101-103, 123, 145, 147, 150; BLM 2015c, p. M-25; BLM 
2020b, pp. II-87, I-4-I-10). In their Travel Management Plans for the 
Grand Junction and Uncompahgre Field Offices, BLM identified multiple 
routes for closure to protect sensitive areas (BLM 2015c, p. M-24; BLM 
2020b, p. I-7). These two travel management plans cover the entirety of 
S. glaucus's range and the majority of S. dawsonii's range. While the 
resource management plan for the Colorado River Valley Field Office, 
which covers the remainder of S. dawsonii's range, does not contain a 
travel management plan specifically, it includes strategies for 
``Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management,'' including limiting 
recreational use to designated routes (BLM 2015b, pp. 102-104). 
Additionally, approximately 30 percent of the land in S. glaucus AUs 
and 41 percent of the land in S. dawsonii AUs have special BLM land 
management designations in the form of NCAs, ACECs, and a Wilderness 
Area, which further protect the species from the impacts of OHV use by 
limiting routes within 200 m (656 ft) of sensitive plants or 
prohibiting all motorized travel (BLM 2020a, pp. 27-29; Service 2022, 
pp. 19-21). For example, when the Dominguez-Escalante NCA was created 
in 2009, which covers 210,172 ac (85,053 ha) within the Dominguez-
Escalante, Gunnison River East, and Cactus Park AUs, many ``miles of 
routes were closed to mechanized and motorized travel,'' which includes 
the use of OHVs (BLM 2020a, p. 27).
    As human populations continue to grow in the areas surrounding 
Colorado hookless cactus, demand for OHV recreation is likely to 
continue to increase. However, BLM would be able to add routes only in 
areas outside of the aforementioned ACECs and Wilderness Area. Any 
increases in designated OHV routes would occur as a result of land use 
planning processes that would comply with the stipulations of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the National 
Environmental Policy Act (BLM 2020a, p. 38). Given the protections 
detailed above, and the accessibility of certain areas to OHV users, 
the only AUs where OHV use could plausibly increase in the future are 
the North Fruita Desert, Devil's Thumb, Gunnison Gorge, and Whitewater 
AUs (S. glaucus) (Service 2022, p. 30). The area represented in these 
four AUs constitutes approximately half of S. glaucus' AU range, but it 
is unlikely OHV use would occur across the entire area of these AUs. 
Through similar processes, BLM may also choose to close areas to 
recreation or access if necessary to protect sensitive resources (BLM 
2020a, p. 38). It is plausible that implementation of travel management 
plans could lead to route closures in S. glaucus AUs (Devil's Thumb, 
Gunnison Gorge, Whitewater, Palisade, Dominguez-Escalante, North Fruita 
Desert) and S. dawsonii AUs (Plateau Creek, and Roan Creek AUs).
    Thus, currently, OHV use is affecting only a small proportion of 
individual Colorado hookless cactus plants; however, the effects of OHV 
use could increase in the future if recreational opportunities expand. 
Therefore, we included an analysis in the SSA to examine species' 
potential response to future changes in this stressor (Service 2022, 
pp. 18-21).
Development and Maintenance of Utility Corridors
    The installation and maintenance of utility corridors can result in 
damage, loss, or relocation of plants; fragmentation of habitat; and 
increases in invasive species (BLM 2020a, p. 34; Service 2022, p. 17). 
Multiple transmission lines occur within Colorado hookless cactus 
habitat and ``approximately 1,200 plants have been transplanted in 
association with these projects'' (Bio-Logic 2008 as cited in BLM 
2020a, p. 34). While every AU has a utility corridor within it, most 
corridors intersect only a small portion of the AU. Additionally, some 
of these utility lines are along already-disturbed corridors (e.g., 
major highways).
    In addition to the limited scope of utility corridor development 
and maintenance within Colorado hookless habitat, federally protected 
areas further limit the impacts that utility corridor development can 
have on the species. All but one of the seven ACECs within S. glaucus' 
range and all four of the ACECs within S. dawsonii's range include 
right-of-way exclusion or avoidance areas (Service 2022, pp. 19-21).
    Based on practical locations for utility corridors, and on these 
protections, it is only plausible that development could increase in 
the energy corridor that intersects the Whitewater, Devil's Thumb, and 
Cactus Park AUs and along the I-70 corridor in the Palisade AU (Service 
2022, p. 30). It is also possible that developers could replace an 
existing powerline with a larger structure in the Devil's Thumb and 
Whitewater AUs to increase capacity, which could cause significant 
ground disturbance (Service 2022, p. 30). Finally, developers could 
build additional pipelines in the Roan Creek and Plateau Creek AUs 
(Service 2022, p. 30).
    Thus, currently, development and maintenance of utility corridors 
are affecting only individual Colorado hookless cactus plants, partly 
due to BLM's avoidance and mitigation measures; however, the effects of 
this stressor could increase in the future if development expands. 
Therefore, we included an analysis in the SSA to examine species' 
potential response to future changes in this stressor.
Climate Change
    Climate change may affect long-term survival of native species, 
including Sclerocactus, especially if longer or more frequent droughts 
occur. Within the range of Colorado hookless cactus, under lower 
emission scenarios, summer maximum temperature is expected to increase 
4 [deg]F (2.2 [deg]C) and under higher emission scenarios summer 
maximum temperature is expected to increase 10 [deg]F (5.6 [deg]C) by 
mid-century, compared to the historical average between 1971 and 2000 
(North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and CIRES 2021, 
unpaginated). Extreme droughts, like those that occurred in 2002 and 
2018, could also become more frequent by mid-century. Historically, 
droughts of this scale did not occur within the range of the species 
(North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and CIRES 2021, 
unpaginated). By mid-century, under lower emissions scenarios, these 
extreme droughts could occur two to three times per decade or, under 
higher emissions scenarios, eight to nine times per decade (North 
Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and CIRES 2021, unpaginated).
    In addition, invasive annual weeds are often able to outcompete 
perennial native species for the essential nutrient nitrogen under 
drought conditions (Everard et al. 2010, pp. 85, 93-94). Drought 
conditions could further hinder BLM's efforts to control invasive weeds 
and restore native vegetation, which is already difficult due to the 
extreme environment of the Colorado and

[[Page 21591]]

Gunnison River basins (Service 1990, p. 11; BLM 2008a, p. 44).
    Climate change vulnerability analyses concluded that Colorado 
hookless cactus likely has low vulnerability to climate change (BLM 
2020a, pp. 43-44); however, these analyses predated the taxonomic split 
of Colorado hookless cactus and thus analyzed the range that contains 
both S. glaucus and S. dawsonii. First, NatureServe's Climate Change 
Vulnerability Index (CCVI), which evaluates species' vulnerability to 
climate change based on multiple factors, indicated that Colorado 
hookless cactus was ``not vulnerable'' or ``presumed stable'' 
rangewide, meaning the number of plants or range extent is not likely 
to increase or decrease considerably by mid-century (Treher et al. 
2012, pp. 52, 8). Second, a combination of CCVI and species 
distribution modeling (SDM) methods in indicated that Colorado hookless 
cactus ``will not be vulnerable to climate change'' within the next 30 
years (Still et al. 2015, p. 116). This analysis predicted that the 
species' range could shift or increase under projected changes in 
climate given the species has no dispersal constraints and vast areas 
of suitable habitat beyond known occurrences (Still et al. 2015, p. 
116). Finally, an additional SDM effort, which aimed to predict changes 
to the species' range under five different future climate scenarios, 
concluded that climate change does not present a threat, because all 
but one model indicate that either no range contraction will occur or 
that range extent will expand by midcentury (Price 2018, appendix 3 of 
BLM 2020a, p. 60).
    Although multiple different models predict the Colorado hookless 
cactus has low vulnerability to climate change, CNHP's CCVI suggested 
that Colorado hookless cactus is extremely vulnerable to climate change 
given ``(1) natural and anthropogenic barriers to movement; (2) 
likelihood of short seed dispersal distances; (3) lack of variation in 
annual precipitation in occupied habitat over last 50 years; (4) 
potential increase in climate influenced disturbances within its 
habitat, (5) potential for wind and solar energy development within its 
range, and (6) pollinator specificity'' (CNHP 2015, p. 533). Although 
the weight of research indicates both species likely have low 
vulnerability to climate change, given the uncertainty this CNHP study 
introduced, we included an analysis in the SSA to examine species' 
potential response to future changes in this stressor.
Cumulative Effects
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed not only the individual effects various stressors could have 
on the species but also their potential cumulative effects. We 
incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we 
characterize the current and future condition of the species. To assess 
the current and future condition of the species, we undertake an 
iterative analysis that encompasses and incorporates the threats 
individually and then accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the 
factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and 
conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the 
presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence 
risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative 
effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects 
analysis. For example, to assess current resiliency, we used a 
condition category table (see Current Condition below) to analyze how 
livestock use, invasive species, oil and gas development, OHV 
recreational use, development and maintenance of utility corridors, and 
the effects of global climate change, taken together, may influence 
habitat condition, survivorship, population size, and water 
availability. Similarly, we analyzed how changes in these stressors, 
when considered together, may influence habitat condition, 
survivorship, population size, and water availability in the future. We 
also considered how these same stressors may affect species' current 
and future redundancy and representation.

Current Condition

    In our SSA report, we evaluate current condition by examining 
current levels of resiliency in the eight S. glaucus AUs and two S. 
dawsonii AUs, and implications for redundancy and representation. Here, 
we summarize our evaluation of current condition for resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation. Additional detail regarding our 
analysis is provided in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 22-28).
Resiliency
    We describe the resiliency for each of the 10 AUs in terms of the 
habitat and demographic factors needed by the Colorado hookless cactus 
(Service 2022, pp. 10-16, 22-28). We developed a categorical model to 
calibrate resiliency based on the range of habitat and demographic 
conditions in each AU. In a categorical model, we first identify 
resource or demographic factors that contribute to the species' 
resiliency; typically, these factors align with the individual resource 
needs and population-level needs we identified in the SSA analysis. We 
then define threshold values for each identified resource or 
demographic factor that represent high, moderate, or low levels of that 
factor. Finally, we evaluate whether the current levels of each 
resource or demographic factor in an AU fall within the predetermined 
thresholds for a high, moderate, or low score for the category; we then 
average these scores for each category to develop an overall current 
resiliency score for each AU.
    For Colorado hookless cactus, our categorical model assessed the 
resiliency of each AU by evaluating (1) the condition of habitat in 
each AU based on an index that evaluates a number of habitat factors 
including invasive species cover, bare ground, native perennial cover, 
the relative size of the AU, and the probability of occurrence based on 
a BLM habitat suitability model (Holsinger and Krening 2021, p. 5); (2) 
the summer water deficit, a proxy for drought and soil moisture that 
approximates the availability of water; (3) survival rates for each 
species, calculated from long-term monitoring data; and (4) a minimum 
population size estimate for each AU (Service 2022, pp. 22-24). We 
selected these habitat and demographic factors based on their 
importance to the species' resiliency and because we could evaluate 
them relatively consistently across all 10 AUs. We then used this 
categorical model as a key to evaluate resiliency for each AU by 
systematically evaluating the current condition of each habitat and 
demographic factor. The AUs with higher overall resiliency are at less 
risk from potential stochastic events, such as climatic variation, than 
AUs with lower overall resiliency. Our SSA report provides additional 
detail regarding the methodology we used to evaluate resiliency for 
each of the 10 AUs (Service 2022, pp. 22-28).
    When measured against the metrics outlined in our categorical model 
(Service 2022, pp. 22-24), all but one of the S. glaucus AUs have high 
resiliency. This finding is due to the large estimated number of 
individuals in each AU, high levels of survivorship, adequate habitat 
resources, and a current summer water deficit (averaged over the past 
decade) that is similar to the historical average. The only AU that 
does not have high resiliency is the

[[Page 21592]]

Palisade AU, which has moderate resiliency overall due to its extremely 
small population size and moderate score for the habitat condition 
index. This AU is considerably smaller in area than the other AUs. A 
major highway (U.S. Interstate 70) and the Colorado River also cut 
through this AU, fragmenting the habitat. Additionally, a high 
proportion of this AU is private and State land, which contain existing 
forms of development (e.g., truck stop, shooting range, power plant) 
that present additional stressors to the species and its habitat 
(Lincoln 2021, pers. comm.).
    Both S. dawsonii AUs have high resiliency (see Table below). This 
score is due to the high estimated number of individuals in each AU, 
high levels of survivorship, high and moderate availability of habitat 
features that support the cactus, and a current summer water deficit 
that is similar to the historical average. The stressors operating in 
the Plateau Creek AU and the Roan Creek AU are comparable, but the 
Plateau Creek AU is geographically smaller, which partly influences its 
lower rating for the population size category (Lincoln 2021, pers. 
comm.).
    Rangewide monitoring efforts have demonstrated a stable trend over 
recent years and have also provided a detailed understanding of 
demographic features and population dynamics. Across their limited 
ranges, both species of Colorado hookless cactus are relatively 
abundant, which contributes to the high levels of resiliency in all but 
one AU. At the time of listing in 1979, and prior to the taxonomic 
splits between the two Utah Sclerocactus species and Colorado's S. 
glaucus and S. dawsonii, it was thought that the combined total for the 
now four species consisted of approximately 15,000 individual plants in 
both Colorado and Utah (44 FR 58868, October 11, 1979). After the 
taxonomic split in 2009, estimates from CNHP suggested there were 
approximately between 19,000 and 22,000 plants for the total rangewide 
number of individuals in both species (S. glaucus and S. dawsonii), 
based on observations within element occurrence records, which do not 
necessarily represent a total count of plants for the entire range of 
the species (Service 2022, p. 13). However, as we discuss below, we now 
know that there are many more plants than previously reported.
    In a recent paper from BLM, a novel sampling-based procedure was 
used to estimate the minimum population size of S. glaucus. They 
estimated the minimum population size for the entire area of occupation 
of the taxon by using plant density estimates derived from sampled 
macroplots and extrapolating them to known habitat areas. This method 
produced population size estimates for the species that are much higher 
than previous estimates (Krening et al. 2021, entire). Using this 
sampling-based procedure to determine the minimum number of plants in 
each AU, S. glaucus has at least 68,120 plants (90 percent lower 
confidence level estimate) and a minimum population estimate of 103,086 
plants; S. dawsonii has at least 21,058 plants and a minimum population 
estimate of 31,867 (Service 2022, p. 14; Holsinger and Krening 2021, p. 
10). Based on the 2021 BLM monitoring report for the species, which we 
received after completion of the SSA report, population sizes have not 
changed considerably relative to the 2020 estimates evaluated in the 
SSA (BLM 2021b, p. 7). Over the entire period of BLM monitoring, the 
species still demonstrates an increasing trend (BLM 2021b, p. 7).

  Table--Measure of Current Resiliency of S. glaucus and S. dawsonii Based on Current Demographic, Distribution, and Habitat Conditions in the Species'
                                                                           AUs
                                                                [Service 2022, pp. 26-27]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Habitat condition                      Minimum population     Summer water         Overall AU
             Species                 Analysis unit           index           Survivorship            size               deficit        resiliency score
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. glaucus......................  Whitewater........  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High.
                                  Palisade..........  Moderate..........                      Low...............  High..............  Moderate.
                                  Dominguez-          High..............                      High..............  High..............  High.
                                   Escalante.
                                  North Fruita        Moderate..........                      Moderate..........  High..............  High.
                                   Desert.
                                  Devil's Thumb.....  High..............                      Moderate..........  High..............  High.
                                  Cactus Park.......  High..............                      High..............  High..............  High.
                                  Gunnison Gorge....  Moderate..........                      Moderate..........  High..............  High.
                                  Gunnison River      High..............                      High..............  High..............  High.
                                   East.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. dawsonii.....................  Plateau Creek.....  Moderate..........  High..............  Moderate..........  High..............  High
                                  Roan Creek........  High..............                      High..............  High..............  High.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redundancy
    Redundancy describes the number and distribution of AUs, such that 
the greater the number and the wider the distribution of the AUs, the 
better the Colorado hookless cactus can withstand catastrophic events. 
The plausibility of catastrophic events also influences species' 
redundancy; if catastrophic events are unlikely within the range of the 
species, catastrophic risk is inherently lower. We are unaware of any 
plausible activity or naturally occurring event that would constitute a 
catastrophic event for this species. For example, fire is not a common 
occurrence in S. glaucus or S. dawsonii habitat as this habitat lacks 
the fuels to sustain a burn, though increased invasive species presence 
could elevate this risk (Service 2022, p. 28). Additionally, the range 
of both species contain natural and humanmade barriers (i.e., rivers, 
canyons, highways) that would prevent the spread of any catastrophic 
fire throughout the entire range of the species. Redundancy for narrow 
endemic species is intrinsically limited; however, S. glaucus plants 
are distributed broadly across the range of the species in eight AUs, 
providing redundancy throughout its relatively small geographic range. 
With only two AUs, redundancy of S. dawsonii is limited; however, as a 
narrowly endemic plant, it has likely always had a small range and 
limited redundancy, and there has not been a known decrease in 
redundancy compared with its historical range. Additionally, given the 
lack of plausible catastrophic events across the range of both species, 
even the narrow range of S. dawsonii does not introduce appreciable 
catastrophic risk.

[[Page 21593]]

Representation
    Both species exhibit some ecological and morphological variability, 
coupled with low to moderate genetic diversity among AUs (McGlaughlin 
and Naibauer 2021, p. 22). Inbreeding is not an immediate concern for 
either species (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 22). Additionally, S. 
glaucus demonstrates sufficient connectivity, which results in ongoing 
and recent genetic exchange (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 2). S. 
dawsonii is genetically isolated and diverged from S. glaucus; all 
genetic analyses support that S. dawsonii is a distinct entity 
(McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 2). Recent population bottlenecks do 
not appear to be a concern, based on the relative consistency of levels 
of genetic diversity found in recent studies (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 
2021, p. 22).

Future Scenarios and Future Condition

    In our SSA report, we forecasted the resiliency of S. glaucus and 
S. dawsonii AUs and the redundancy and representation of each species 
to mid-century (the mean of projections for 2040 to 2069) using a range 
of plausible future scenarios. After mid-century, the changes in 
climate conditions that different climate models and emissions 
scenarios project begin to diverge widely (Rangwala et al. 2021, p. 4); 
in other words, the spread of potential projected temperature increases 
broadens substantially after mid-century. Therefore, we focused our 
analysis of future condition on mid-century to avoid the large 
uncertainty in climate change at the end of the twenty-first century 
(Rangwala et al. 2021, p. 4). We also selected this timeframe because 
we can make reliable predictions regarding changes in other stressors 
to the species, such as land management (i.e., this timeframe 
encompasses at least one revision to BLM resource management plans), 
and is biologically meaningful to the species to begin to understand 
the response of ecosystems to those changes.
    We used future climate models downscaled to the ranges of the 
species, in combination with forecasted changes in the location and 
intensity of stressors, to develop three future scenarios and evaluate 
the condition of the species under each of those scenarios. By 
capturing a range of plausible future scenarios, we can assume that 
actual future conditions will likely fall somewhere between these 
projected scenarios. Detailed descriptions of each scenario are 
available in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 29-36).
    As many of the stressors that affect S. glaucus and S. dawsonii 
occur on BLM lands, future scenarios were developed with input from BLM 
about plausible changes in the location and intensity of stressors on 
BLM land. Given some level of uncertainty about the conditions that 
will occur by mid-century, these scenarios represent optimistic, 
continuation, and pessimistic future conditions to capture the 
plausible range of future conditions the species may experience. 
Therefore, our evaluation of future conditions presents a plausible 
range of expected species responses. While the metrics used to assess 
the current resiliency of S. glaucus and S. dawsonii AUs are 
quantitative, we do not have a reliable way to quantitatively forecast 
these metrics into the future. Instead, future conditions are expressed 
qualitatively, using the results of our current condition analysis as 
the baseline. Species experts used professional judgement to predict 
how the species and their habitats would respond to each future 
scenario (Krening 2021, pers. comm.).
    In the Optimistic scenario, the overall resiliency of each AU for 
both species remains the same as current condition. Although the 
overall resiliency of each AU does not change, the resiliency of the 
Plateau Creek (S. dawsonii) and Devil's Thumb (S. glaucus) AUs increase 
slightly due to higher ratings for habitat conditions and population 
size, respectively. Under this scenario, decreases in activities such 
as grazing and OHV use (consistent with current stipulations in BLM 
grazing permits and travel management plans) that degrade S. glaucus 
and S. dawsonii habitat allow for passive restoration, which leads to 
improved habitat conditions in the Plateau Creek AU and an increase in 
population size in the Devil's Thumb AU. Summer water deficit is 
expected to slightly decrease, meaning more water is available for 
germination, growth, and reproduction. Redundancy and representation 
for S. dawsonii increase under this scenario, as compared to current 
condition, due to an increase in resiliency in the Plateau Creek AU. 
Redundancy and representation of S. glaucus also increase slightly 
under this scenario due to an increase in resiliency in the Devil's 
Thumb AU.
    In the Continuation scenario, we expect resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to remain relatively unchanged from the current 
condition. Resiliency of the Palisade AU (S. dawsonii) is moderate; 
resiliency of all other AUs is high. Despite the increase in water 
deficit as compared to historical conditions under this scenario 
(meaning that less water would be available to the plants), this slight 
decrease in water availability would have minimal impact, because it is 
well within the range of variability that the species have historically 
experienced.
    In the Pessimistic scenario, hot and dry conditions may negatively 
affect survivorship and recruitment of the species. Water deficit is 
more than one standard deviation higher than the historical mean, 
meaning that on average, less water is available to support 
germination, growth, and reproduction. Under the Pessimistic scenario, 
although BLM land management direction and special land management 
designations do not change, continued ground disturbance and habitat 
degradation caused by grazing, increasing OHV use (due to increased 
demand from population growth), increasing demand for oil and gas 
development and utility corridor development, and an increase in 
invasive plant species negatively affect the amount and quality of 
habitat available and reduce survival rates and overall population 
sizes, leading to a decrease in resiliency in the Whitewater, Palisade, 
North Fruita Desert, Devil's Thumb, Cactus Park, Gunnison Gorge, and 
Gunnison River East AUs (S. glaucus) and in the Plateau Creek AU (S. 
dawsonii). Overall, one S. glaucus AU is in high condition, six S. 
glaucus AUs are in moderate condition, and one is in low condition. S. 
dawsonii has one AU in high condition and one AU in moderate condition.
    Redundancy and representation of S. glaucus decreases slightly in 
this scenario due to the decrease in resiliency in all but one AU; 
although no AUs are expected to be extirpated, each AU contains 
multiple clusters of plants, and some diversity within AUs could be 
lost. However, even in the most pessimistic plausible scenario, all but 
one of the eight AUs are expected to have at least 500 to 10,000 
plants, thereby preserving much of the species' redundancy and 
representation. Despite high and moderate resiliency of the two S. 
dawsonii AUs, representation and redundancy are lower than under the 
Optimistic and Continuation scenarios and under current condition due 
to the Plateau Creek AU's moderate resiliency; this AU had high 
resiliency under all other scenarios. With only two known S. dawsonii 
AUs, the loss of one of these AUs due to catastrophic, natural, or 
human-caused events would cause a severe loss of redundancy and 
representation of the species; however, loss of either AU is not 
expected, even under the Pessimistic scenario. As with S. glaucus, some 
variation within AUs

[[Page 21594]]

could be reduced under this scenario; however, ecological, 
morphological, and genetic variation will continue to be represented by 
the multiple AUs across S. dawsonii's range.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Positive actions, in the form of conservation efforts such as land 
protections and regulations, have reduced sources of habitat 
degradation, and multiple agencies, volunteers, and community members 
are committed to the conservation and preservation of Colorado hookless 
cactus. BLM owns and manages approximately 72 percent and 68 percent, 
respectively, of the land that comprises S. glaucus and S. dawsonii AUs 
(Service 2022, pp. 18-21). The majority of the remaining habitat is 
privately owned; less than 1 percent is owned by State or local 
governments (Service 2022, p. 18).
    Within the range of the Colorado hookless cactus, the BLM has 
included conservation measures in its resource planning documents to 
minimize adverse impacts of land use to listed and sensitive species, 
including the Colorado hookless cactus (BLM 2020a, p. 26). For example, 
BLM resource management plans (RMPs) for the Colorado River Valley, 
Grand Junction, and Uncompahgre field offices (the three BLM field 
offices within the range of the species) include motorized recreation 
restrictions, energy development restrictions, and grazing management; 
provisions for research to aid in better understanding the effects of 
stressors on the species and guide conservation efforts; and provisions 
for habitat improvements and vegetation management (e.g., reducing 
encroachment of woody species, fuels management, closing of livestock 
allotments, or maintaining rangeland health standards) (Service 2022, 
pp. 18-21, 28-36; BLM 2015a, pp. 41, 68; BLM 2020b, p. II-24).
    The current condition of the species provides insight into the 
effectiveness of these measures and management; all but one of the S. 
glaucus AUs and both S. dawsonii AUs have high resiliency, including 
moderate to high habitat condition (Service 2022, pp. 26-27). This 
conclusion demonstrates that, both due to the species' natural 
hardiness and to these conservation efforts and other land protections, 
the stressors are not currently meaningfully reducing the species' 
survival and growth.
    Even without the protections of the Act, both species would remain 
BLM sensitive species for at least 5 years (BLM 2008b, pp. 3, 36). If 
these species are no longer on the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants or BLM's sensitive species list, the measures 
specific to listed and sensitive species in these RMPs would no longer 
apply (e.g., buffers around oil and gas development). However, the 
majority of measures in these RMPs are not unique to Colorado hookless 
cactus, but rather provide general guidance for effective land 
management and rangeland health. Continued responsible management of 
the landscapes in which the Colorado hookless cactus occurs, even if 
not directed specifically towards the species, will still provide 
benefit.
    Further, approximately 30 percent of the land in S. glaucus AUs and 
41 percent of the land in S. dawsonii AUs have special BLM land 
management designations in the form of NCAs, ACECs, and a Wilderness 
Area (Service 2022, pp. 18-21). These designations limit or exclude the 
authorization of certain land uses, and some designations were 
specifically created for the conservation of natural resources; all but 
3 of 11 ACECs specifically referenced the protection of Colorado 
hookless cactus as a foundational goal. The protections provided by 
these management designations are not contingent upon the species' 
federally listed status, and these designations help to facilitate the 
maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences, because they are areas 
where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be disturbed or 
adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 26). We discuss 
the specific protections each of these areas provides under the 
relevant stressors above.
    BLM's ACECs do not have an expiration date, and removing an ACEC 
designation is not simple. A withdrawal of an ACEC can be made only by 
the Office of the Secretary (43 U.S.C. 1714); additionally, the ACECs 
that include S. glaucus and S. dawsonii habitat were designated to 
protect multiple species and resources in addition to the Colorado 
hookless cactus (Service 2022, table 6, pp. 19-21). Likewise, NCAs and 
Wilderness Areas are designated by Congress and are designed to protect 
multiple resources, not only the Colorado hookless cactus. Therefore, 
it is unlikely these special management designations will change in the 
coming decades, even if the Colorado hookless cactus species are 
delisted.
    We describe each of these BLM areas with special management 
designations, and the specific protections they provide, in table 6 of 
the SSA (Service 2022, pp. 19-21) and in table 2 of the 5-year status 
review (Service 2021, pp. 10-11). The current condition of the species 
provides insight into the effectiveness of these protected areas; all 
but one of the S. glaucus AUs and both S. dawsonii AUs have high 
resiliency, including moderate to high habitat condition (Service 2022, 
pp. 26-27). This conclusion demonstrates that, both due to the species' 
natural hardiness and to these land protections and other conservation 
efforts, the stressors are not currently meaningfully affecting the 
species' survival and growth.
    A recovery plan for Colorado hookless cactus has not been 
developed; therefore, there are no specific delisting criteria for the 
species. We developed a recovery outline for Colorado hookless cactus 
in 2010 (Service 2010, entire). Additionally, we reviewed the status of 
the species in the 2008 and 2021 5-year status reviews (Service 2008, 
entire; Service 2021, entire). In the 2008 review, we identified 
remaining threats to the species and actions that could be taken to 
make progress in addressing those threats and ensuring long-term 
management. One such recommendation was to conduct rangewide 
inventories and improve population monitoring (Service 2008, p. 4). 
Denver Botanic Gardens and BLM have closely monitored the species at 
multiple sites throughout the range of both Colorado hookless cactus 
species since 2007 (DePrenger-Levin and Hufft 2021, entire; BLM 2021b, 
entire). Based on over a decade of this rich monitoring data, BLM 
developed a method of estimating population size and trends in 2021 
(Krening et al. 2021, entire).
    The 2010 recovery outline also included an initial action plan for 
the species' recovery that included actions such as (1) expanding 
comprehensive surveying to improve our understanding of trends; (2) 
establishing formal land management designations to provide for long-
term protection of important populations and habitat; (3) directing 
development projects to avoid cactus occurrences and incorporate 
standard conservation measures; (4) encouraging investigations into 
Sclerocactus species' vulnerability to climate change; and (5) 
resolving open taxonomic questions for the species. The Service and its 
partners have since accomplished all five of these actions.
    Since 2010, BLM and the Denver Botanic Gardens have expanded their 
annual monitoring program to improve estimation of the species 
population sizes; these estimates indicate there are substantially more 
plants on the landscape than were known at the time of listing, and 
have changed our understanding of the degree to which the species is 
resilient to the purported threats at the time of listing. BLM has also 
established multiple ACECs and an

[[Page 21595]]

NCA that provide long-term protection to sensitive plants and habitats. 
In the past 11 years, multiple assessments of the species' 
vulnerability to climate change have concluded that Colorado hookless 
cactus has low vulnerability to future climatic changes (Price 2018, 
appendix 3 of BLM 2020a, p. 60; Still et al. 2015, p. 116; Treher et al 
2012, pp. 52, 8). Finally, recent research determined that Colorado 
hookless cactus is in fact two separate species: S. glaucus and S. 
dawsonii.
    As a result, the Service recommended that threats to the species 
had been sufficiently ameliorated such that listing was no longer 
warranted in our 2021 5-year status review.

Determination of Colorado Hookless Cactus (S. glaucus and S. dawsonii) 
Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires 
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the 
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    When we listed the Colorado hookless cactus as threatened on 
October 11, 1979, we identified the potential development of oil shale 
deposits and gold mining (Factor A), off-road vehicle use (Factor A), 
collecting pressure (Factor B), livestock grazing (Factor C), and an 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) as threats to 
the existence of the species (44 FR 58868, October 11, 1979). In our 
SSA, we evaluated these stressors and additional stressors that were 
identified after the time of listing. Much more is presently known 
about the species' stressors than at the time of listing.
    Several of the stressors identified in the original listing 
decision are no longer relevant. Given the taxonomic changes, and thus 
range extent changes, that the species has undergone in the past 40 
years, oil shale and tar sands development and hybridization are no 
longer relevant stressors (Service 2022, p. 18; Service 2021, pp. 19-
20). Additionally, collection from the wild has not occurred at the 
level anticipated at the time of listing; collection is not having 
population- or species-level effects on either species (BLM 2020a, p. 
36). Thus, stressors that could influence both species of the Colorado 
hookless cactus at the AU- or species-scale include livestock use 
(Factor A), invasive species (Factor A), oil and gas development 
(Factor A), OHV recreational use (Factor A), development and 
maintenance of utility corridors (Factor A), and the effects of global 
climate change (Factor A). Although livestock grazing was categorized 
as a stressor under Factor C at the time of listing, we believe that 
the effects of livestock grazing are better characterized by Factor A. 
The spines on cactus plants generally make them undesirable to 
livestock; however, livestock can degrade habitat conditions by 
trailing through and trampling habitat. Only on rare occasions do 
cattle directly trample or dislodge cactus plants.
    We also evaluated a variety of conservation efforts and mechanisms 
across the 10 AUs of both species that either reduce or ameliorate 
stressors, or improve the condition of habitats or demographics. These 
conservation efforts and mechanisms include: three BLM RMPs that taken 
together, cover the range of the species, which include motorized 
recreation restrictions, energy development restrictions, and grazing 
management; research to aid in better understanding the effects of 
stressors on the species and guide conservation efforts; and habitat 
improvements and vegetation management (Service 2022, pp. 18-21, 28-
36). With 72 percent of S. glaucus and 68 percent of S. dawsonii AU 
acres occurring on BLM land, BLM's implementation of the regulatory 
mechanisms in their resource planning documents on all of their lands 
within the range of the species (Factor D) has helped to address the 
stressors we identified under Factors A and B. While we cannot 
attribute the currently high resiliency of both species to one specific 
conservation measure, this high resiliency demonstrates the 
amelioration of relevant stressors and the adequacy of the existing 
regulatory mechanisms, both due to the combination of conservation 
measures in place and the hardiness of the plant (which has shown an 
ability to tolerate nearby disturbance).
    In addition to the implementation of measures that minimize impacts 
to the Colorado hookless cactus on all BLM lands, approximately 30 
percent of the land in S. glaucus AUs and 41 percent of the land in S. 
dawsonii AUs have special BLM land management designations (Factor D), 
which further limit or exclude the authorization of certain land uses 
and further help to facilitate the maintenance and recovery of cactus 
occurrences, because they are areas where Colorado hookless cactus 
occurrences are not likely to be disturbed or adversely altered by 
land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 26). The protections provided by these 
management designations are not contingent upon the species' federally 
listed status.

Status Throughout All of Its Range: Sclerocactus glaucus

    Currently, seven of the eight S. glaucus AUs have high resiliency, 
and one AU has moderate resiliency (Service 2022, pp. 26-27). The 
highly resilient AUs have high estimated numbers of individuals, high 
levels of survivorship, adequate habitat resources, and a current water 
deficit that is similar to the historical average. One AU has moderate 
resiliency due to its extremely small population size and moderate 
score for the habitat index; this AU covers a considerably smaller area 
than other AUs. Rangewide monitoring has shown a stable trend for 
Colorado hookless cactus, with no indication of widespread decline. 
This monitoring has also informed our understanding that S. glaucus is 
currently much more abundant than originally estimated at the time of 
listing in 1979. At the time of listing, and prior to the taxonomic 
splits between the two Utah Sclerocactus species and Colorado's S. 
glaucus and S. dawsonii, it was thought that the combined total for the 
now four species consisted of approximately 15,000 individual plants in 
both Colorado and Utah; now, the minimum population estimate for S. 
glaucus is 103,086 plants.
    We are unaware of any plausible activity or naturally occurring 
event that would constitute a catastrophic event for this species. 
Thus, while the species is a narrow endemic with a small range compared 
to wide-ranging species, S. glaucus's relatively large range for a 
narrow endemic, with eight AUs, and the lack of plausible catastrophic 
events reduce catastrophic risk for this species, thereby enhancing 
redundancy. The individuals within and among the AUs also exhibit 
genetic, ecological, and

[[Page 21596]]

morphological diversity, contributing to the species' representation.
    Moreover, our understanding of the species' stressors has changed 
since the time the species was listed. Multiple identified stressors 
are no longer relevant to the species, given past taxonomic changes and 
subsequent changes in the geographic range of the species (i.e., oil 
shale and tar sands development) or because they are not occurring at a 
scale anticipated at the time of listing (i.e., collection). We also 
have found that, while OHV use and invasive species had the potential 
to detrimentally impact the species, they have caused only minor, 
localized impacts (BLM 2020a, pp. 35, 38). Oil and gas development 
occurs in only a small portion of three of the eight S. glaucus AUs.
    Since the species was listed, BLM also designated NCAs, ACECs, and 
a Wilderness Area (Service 2022, pp. 19-21). These designations limit 
or exclude the authorization of certain land uses, and most of these 
designations specifically referenced the protection of Colorado 
hookless cactus as a foundational goal. The protections provided by 
these management designations are not contingent upon the species' 
federally listed status, and these designations have helped to 
facilitate the maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences, because 
they are areas where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be 
disturbed or its habitat adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 
2020a, p. 26). While we cannot attribute the currently high resiliency 
of all but one AU to one specific conservation measure, this high 
resiliency demonstrates the amelioration of relevant stressors, both 
due to the combination of conservation measures in place and the 
hardiness of the plant (which has shown an ability to tolerate nearby 
disturbance).
    Given the currently high level of resiliency in seven of the eight 
S. glaucus AUs and moderate resiliency of one AU, the additional plants 
we now know to occur throughout the species' range, the lack of 
significant imminent stressors, and the low likelihood of catastrophic 
events, we find that S. glaucus currently has sufficient ability to 
withstand stochastic and catastrophic events, and to adapt to 
environmental changes. After evaluating threats to the species and 
assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 
4(a)(1) factors, we conclude that the current risk of extinction is 
low, such that S. glaucus is not currently in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range.
    Under the Act, a threatened species is any species that is likely 
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 
1532(20)). The foreseeable future extends only so far into the future 
as the Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats 
and the species' responses to those threats are likely (50 CFR 
424.11(d)). The Service describes the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life history characteristics, 
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability (50 CFR 
424.11(d)). The key statutory difference between a threatened species 
and an endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in 
danger of extinction, either now (endangered species) or in the 
foreseeable future (threatened species).
    For the purposes of our analysis, we defined the foreseeable future 
for both species (S. glaucus and S. dawsonii) to mid-century (the mean 
of 2040 to 2069). After mid-century, the changes in climate conditions 
that different climate models and emissions scenarios project begin to 
diverge widely (Rangwala et al. 2021, p. 4); in other words, the spread 
of potential projected temperature increases broadens substantially 
after mid-century. Therefore, we focused our analysis of future 
condition on mid-century to avoid the large degree of uncertainty in 
how climate change is projected to manifest at the end of the twenty-
first century (Rangwala et al. 2021, p. 4). We also selected this 
timeframe because it allows us to reliably predict changes in other 
species' stressors and land management, and is biologically meaningful 
to the species to begin to understand the response of ecosystems to 
those changes.
    By mid-century, we anticipate a range of plausible future 
conditions for S. glaucus. Under the Optimistic scenario, the condition 
of the species is likely to improve over the current condition, with 
resiliency projected to increase slightly in one S. glaucus AU. BLM's 
closure of certain OHV routes and effective implementation of changes 
in grazing permit stipulations leads to decreased grazing and OHV 
pressures, causing improved habitat conditions and an increase in the 
number of individuals in the AU (Service 2022, p. 30). In the 
Continuation scenario, we expect resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to remain relatively unchanged from the current 
condition, because stressors and conservation efforts remain very 
similar to what the species is currently experiencing. In the 
Pessimistic scenario, although BLM management planning documents and 
special land management designations do not change, continued ground 
disturbance and habitat degradation from grazing, an increase in OHV 
use, increased demand for utility corridor development, an increase in 
invasive plant species, and a considerable decrease in water 
availability due to climate change negatively affect the amount and 
quality of habitat available, and reduce survival rates and overall 
population sizes. This is the only scenario in which the condition of 
the species is projected to decline for S. glaucus; one AU's resiliency 
remains high, six AUs decrease from high to moderate resiliency, and 
one AU decreases to low resiliency. Even under this pessimistic 
scenario, the species maintains moderate levels of survival and high or 
moderate habitat condition in the majority of AUs, despite increasing 
stressors. In all three scenarios, all eight AUs will remain extant, 
thereby continuing to contribute to the redundancy and representation 
of the species.
    Given these future projections of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to mid-century, S. glaucus could experience a slight 
decrease in viability under one of the three future scenarios (the 
pessimistic scenario); however, even in this most pessimistic scenario, 
all AUs will remain extant and seven of the eight AUs will have 
moderate to high resiliency.
    Two factors support this consistently moderate to high future 
resiliency: BLM conservation actions and the species' biological 
characteristics. First, the high to moderate resiliency of S. glaucus 
AUs is, in part, due to land protections and regulations implemented by 
BLM (Factor D) that will continue to be implemented into the future, 
even in the absence of protections afforded by the Act, as described 
under Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms above. These 
protections will continue to limit the potential effects of stressors 
on S. glaucus in the future.
    Second, independent of future BLM management, the species' 
biological characteristics moderate its response to increasing 
stressors. S. glaucus is a habitat generalist, which means the species 
is not constrained to a specific habitat niche; the species' flexible 
resource requirements increase its resiliency to potential future 
increases in stressors and its ability to adapt to future change 
(representation). This determination is evidenced by the species' past 
ability to maintain high survivorship and resiliency, even in the face 
of ongoing stressors that the Service

[[Page 21597]]

originally determined could lead to decline (e.g., OHV use, invasive 
species). Additionally, multiple modeling efforts have concluded that 
Colorado hookless cactus likely has low vulnerability to climate 
change, given its dispersal capabilities and opportunities for 
expansion into vast areas of suitable habitat (BLM 2020a, pp. 43-44). 
Although conditions could become considerably drier under the 
Pessimistic climate scenario, S. glaucus is hardy and already adapted 
to arid environments. Individuals of this species live many decades and 
have maintained healthy recruitment and survival, even through droughts 
and other climatic variation in the past (BLM 2018, pp. 14-15; 
Hegewisch and Abatzoglou 2020, entire). These characteristics allow the 
species to maintain moderate survivorship and resiliency, even under 
the Pessimistic scenario.
    Considering the levels of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation predicted under each of the future scenarios described 
in the SSA, S. glaucus will be able to withstand stochastic events, 
catastrophic events, and environmental change into the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we 
conclude that S. glaucus is not likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout All of Its Range: Sclerocactus Dawsonii

    Currently, both S. dawsonii AUs have high resiliency (Service 2022, 
pp. 25-26). The highly resilient AUs have moderate to high estimated 
numbers of individuals (i.e., a minimum population estimate of 31,867 
plants total), high levels of survivorship, high and moderate condition 
of habitat features, and a current water deficit that is similar to the 
historical average. These high current levels of resiliency reduce the 
current extinction risk for S. dawsonii because they lower the risk to 
the species from stochastic variation. Rangewide monitoring has shown a 
stable trend for Colorado hookless cactus, with no indication of 
widespread decline. This monitoring has also informed our understanding 
that S. dawsonii is currently much more abundant than originally 
estimated at the time of listing in 1979. At the time of listing, and 
prior to the taxonomic splits between the two Utah Sclerocactus species 
and Colorado's S. glaucus and S. dawsonii, it was thought that the 
combined total for the now four species consisted of approximately 
15,000 individual plants in both Colorado and Utah; now, the minimum 
population estimate for S. dawsonii plants is 31,867 plants.
    Additionally, the two AUs and the individuals within the AUs 
exhibit ecological and morphological diversity, contributing to the 
representation of the species. In terms of redundancy, we are unaware 
of any plausible activity or naturally occurring event that would 
constitute a catastrophic event for this species. Given the lack of 
plausible catastrophic events across the range of S. dawsonii, even its 
narrow range (two AUs) does not introduce appreciable catastrophic 
risk.
    Moreover, our understanding of species' stressors has changed since 
the time the species was listed. Multiple identified stressors are no 
longer relevant to the species, given past taxonomic changes and 
subsequent changes in the geographic range of the species (e.g., oil 
shale and tar sands development) or because they are not occurring at a 
scale anticipated at the time of listing (i.e., collection). We also 
have found that, while OHV use and invasive species had the potential 
to detrimentally impact the species, they have only caused minor, 
localized impacts (BLM 2020a, pp. 35, 38).
    Since the species was listed, BLM also designated NCAs, ACECs, and 
a Wilderness Area (Service 2022, pp. 19-21). These designations limit 
or exclude the authorization of certain land uses, and most of these 
designations specifically referenced the protection of Colorado 
hookless cactus as a foundational goal. The protections provided by 
these management designations are not contingent upon the species' 
federally listed status, and these designations have helped to 
facilitate the maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences, because 
they are areas where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be 
disturbed or adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 26). 
While we cannot attribute the currently high resiliency of both AUs to 
one specific conservation measure, this high resiliency demonstrates 
the amelioration of relevant stressors, both due to the combination of 
conservation measures in place and the hardiness of the plant (which 
has shown an ability to tolerate nearby disturbance).
    Given the currently high level of resiliency in both of the S. 
dawsonii AUs, the additional plants we now know to occur throughout the 
species' range, the lack of significant imminent stressors, and the low 
likelihood of imminent catastrophic events, we find that S. dawsonii 
currently has sufficient ability to withstand stochastic and 
catastrophic events and to adapt to environmental changes. Therefore, 
we conclude that the current risk of extinction is low, such that S. 
dawsonii is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range.
    By mid-century (the foreseeable future), we anticipate a range of 
plausible future conditions for S. dawsonii. Under the Optimistic 
scenario, the condition of the species improves, with resiliency 
expected to increase slightly in one S. dawsonii AU due to decreased 
grazing and OHV pressures, causing improved habitat conditions. In the 
Continuation scenario, we expect resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to remain relatively unchanged from the current 
condition, as stressors and conservation efforts remain very similar to 
what the species is currently experiencing. In the Pessimistic 
scenario, although BLM management planning documents and special land 
management designations do not change, continued ground disturbance and 
habitat degradation from grazing, increasing demand for oil and gas 
development and utility corridor development, and an increase in 
invasive plant species negatively affect the species, which causes a 
decrease in resiliency in one of the two S. dawsonii AUs. Additionally, 
only under this Pessimistic scenario does water availability drop 
considerably below the historical average (i.e., more than one standard 
deviation). This is the only scenario in which we foresee resiliency 
decreasing for either of the species' two AUs; one AU's resiliency 
remains high, and one AU decreases to moderate resiliency. Even in the 
Pessimistic scenario, survivorship in both AUs remains high. In all 
three scenarios, both AUs will remain extant, thereby continuing to 
contribute to the redundancy and representation of the species.
    Given these future projections of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to mid-century, S. dawsonii could experience a slight 
increase in extinction risk under one of the three future scenarios 
(the pessimistic scenario); however, even in this most pessimistic 
scenario, both AUs will remain extant with moderate to high resiliency.
    Two factors support this moderate to high future resiliency: BLM 
conservation actions and the species' biological characteristics. 
First, this high to moderate resiliency of S. dawsonii AUs is, in part, 
due to land protections and regulations implemented by BLM (Factor D) 
that will continue to be implemented into the future even in the 
absence of protections afforded by the

[[Page 21598]]

Act, as described under Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms 
above. These protections will continue to limit the potential effects 
of stressors on S. dawsonii in the future.
    Second, independent of future BLM management, the species' 
biological characteristics moderate its response to increasing 
stressors. Like S. glaucus, S. dawsonii is a habitat generalist, which 
means the species is not constrained to a specific habitat niche; the 
species' flexible resource requirements increase its resiliency to 
potential future increases in stressors and its ability to adapt to 
future change (representation). This finding is evidenced by the 
species' past ability to maintain high survivorship and resiliency, 
even in the face of ongoing stressors that the Service originally 
determined could lead to decline (e.g., OHV use, invasive species). 
Additionally, multiple modeling efforts have indicated that Colorado 
hookless cactus likely has low vulnerability to climate change, given 
its dispersal capabilities and opportunities for expansion into vast 
areas of suitable habitat (BLM 2020a, pp. 43-44). Although conditions 
could become considerably drier under the Pessimistic climate scenario, 
the S. dawsonii is hardy and already adapted to arid environments. 
Individuals of this species live many decades and have maintained 
healthy recruitment and survival, even through droughts and other 
climatic variation in the past (BLM 2018, pp. 14-15; Hegewisch and 
Abatzoglou 2020, entire). These characteristics allow the species to 
maintain high survivorship and moderate to high resiliency, even under 
the Pessimistic scenario.
    Considering the levels of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation in each of the future scenarios described in the SSA, 
under each plausible future scenario, S. dawsonii will be able to 
withstand stochastic events, catastrophic events, and environmental 
change. Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we 
conclude that S. dawsonii is not likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Their Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Having determined that S. glaucus and S. dawsonii are not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of their range, we now consider whether either may be in 
danger of extinction (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of its 
range--that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for 
which both (1) the portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to 
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    In undertaking this analysis for S. glaucus and S. dawsonii, we 
choose to address the status question first. We began by identifying 
portions of the range where the biological status of the species may be 
different from their biological status elsewhere in their range. For 
this purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic 
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that 
the species face, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
    For S. glaucus, we evaluated the range of the species to determine 
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' 
range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. For S. glaucus, we considered whether the threats 
or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically 
meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such 
that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following 
threats: livestock use, invasive species, oil and gas development, OHV 
use, development and maintenance of utility corridors, and climate 
change, including cumulative effects.
    Livestock use, invasive species, OHV use, development and 
maintenance of utility corridors, and climate change occur uniformly 
across the species' range; there are no portions of the species' range 
where these stressors occur more intensely. Oil and gas development is 
occurring in only three AUs (North Fruita Desert, Whitewater, and 
Palisade AUs), so this threat may be elevated in this area. However, 
despite this development activity, the North Fruita Desert and 
Whitewater AUs currently have high resiliency and are expected to 
maintain this high resiliency under two of three future scenarios. 
Under the Pessimistic scenario, North Fruita Desert and Whitewater AUs 
have moderate resiliency. Oil and gas development is occurring in only 
a small portion of the Palisade AU (there is only one active well site 
across more than 9,269 ac (3,751 ha)) and, while this AU has moderate 
resiliency currently and could drop to low resiliency under the 
Pessimistic scenario, this is due to the AU's small size and thus 
inherently low number of plants, not due to oil and gas development. 
Thus, even though oil and gas development may be concentrated in these 
AUs, it is not producing a species' response that would indicate the 
plants therein are in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable 
future.
    Moreover, although the Palisade AU has a low population size and is 
the only AU to rank low in resiliency in any future scenario, the AU 
occupies the smallest area of any S. glaucus AU and contributes the 
least to the species' redundancy and representation. Therefore, this AU 
is not considered to be a biologically meaningful portion of the 
species' range where threats are impacting individuals differently from 
how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the 
status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any 
other portion of the species range.
    Overall, we found no biologically meaningful portions of the 
species' range where threats are impacting individuals differently from 
how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the 
status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any 
other portion of the species' range. Therefore, we find that the 
species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This 
does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. 
Department of the Interior, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959 
(D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply 
the aspects of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's 
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 
37578; July 1, 2014), including the definition of ``significant'' that 
those court decisions held to be invalid.

[[Page 21599]]

    For S. dawsonii, we evaluated the range of the species to determine 
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' 
range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. For S. dawsonii, we considered whether the threats 
or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically 
meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such 
that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following 
threats: livestock use, invasive species, oil and gas development, OHV 
use, development and maintenance of utility corridors, and climate 
change, including cumulative effects.
    Overall, the threats to this species are uniformly distributed 
throughout its range and we did not identify a significant 
concentration of threats that would increase extinction risk in any 
portion. Oil and gas development occurs in both AUs, as does livestock 
use, OHV use, invasive species infestation, and development and 
maintenance of utility corridors. The small range of the species will 
not experience substantially different temperature or precipitation 
changes as a result of climate change.
    We found no biologically meaningful portions of the species' range 
where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are 
affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the status of 
the species in that portion differs from its status in any other 
portion of the species' range. Therefore, we find that the species is 
not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This does 
not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. 
Department of the Interior, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959 
(D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply 
the aspects of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's 
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 
37578; July 1, 2014), including the definition of ``significant'' that 
those court decisions held to be invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that S. glaucus and S. dawsonii do not meet the 
definition of endangered species or threatened species in accordance 
with section 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(2) currently in effect, S. glaucus and 
S. dawsonii have recovered and no longer warrant listing. Therefore, we 
propose to remove Colorado hookless cactus (S. glaucus and S. dawonii) 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Effects of This Rule

    This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by 
removing Colorado hookless cactus from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants.
    The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, 
particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to this 
species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with 
the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect Colorado hookless cactus.
    There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there 
would be no affect to 50 CFR 17.96.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting 
monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a 
species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of 
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The 
primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status 
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to 
halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is 
not again needed.
    We are proposing to delist Colorado hookless cactus based on new 
information we have received as well as conservation actions taken. 
Given that delisting would be, in part, due to conservation taken by 
land managers and other stakeholders, we have prepared a draft PDM plan 
for Colorado hookless cactus. The draft PDM plan discusses the current 
status of the taxon and describes the methods proposed for monitoring 
if we delist the taxon. The draft PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status 
of Colorado hookless cactus at the time of proposed delisting; (2) 
describes frequency and duration of monitoring; (3) discusses 
monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes; (4) defines what 
potential triggers will be evaluated to address the need for additional 
monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and procedures; (6) 
proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines 
responsibilities. The Service prepared this draft PDM plan in 
coordination with BLM and the Denver Botanic Gardens. The Service 
designed the PDM plan to detect substantial declines in Colorado 
hookless cactus occurrences and any changes in stressors with 
reasonable certainty and precision. It meets the requirement set forth 
by the Act because it monitors the status of Colorado hookless cactus 
using a structured sampling regime over a 10-year period. It is our 
intent to work with our partners toward maintaining the recovered 
status of both Colorado hookless cactus species.
    We seek public comments on the draft PDM plan, including its 
objectives and procedures (see Information Requested, above), with the 
publication of this proposed rule.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal

[[Page 21600]]

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. While we notified the Ute Mountain, 
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Southern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Navajo 
Nation Tribes of our recommendation to delist the Colorado hookless 
cactus in our 5-year status review in 2021, we are not aware of any 
Tribal interests or concerns associated with this proposed rule. We 
will reach out to affected Tribes upon publication of this proposed 
rule and invite them to comment on the proposed rule and/or initiate 
government-to-government consultation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Colorado Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the 
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12 in paragraph (h) in the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants by removing the entry under Flowering Plants for 
``Sclerocactus glaucus (Colorado hookless cactus)''.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07119 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P