[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19546-19566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05674]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0114; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 245]
RIN 1018-BH01


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the 
North Park Phacelia From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove the North Park phacelia (Phacelia formosula) from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants due to recovery. The best 
available scientific information indicates that threats to North Park 
phacelia identified at the time of listing in 1982 are not as 
significant as originally anticipated and are being adequately managed. 
Additionally, recent taxonomic studies have indicated that the species 
has four new populations and an expanded range in Colorado based on the 
inclusion of plants previously thought to be different species or 
subspecies. We find that delisting the species is warranted. Our review 
of the best available scientific and commercial data indicates that the 
threats to the North Park phacelia have been eliminated or reduced to 
the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, we propose to delist the North 
Park phacelia. We request information and comments from the public 
regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring 
(PDM) plan for the North Park phacelia. If we finalize this rule as 
proposed, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the 
Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to 
the species.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May 
20, 2024. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by May 3, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2023-0114, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed 
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2023-0114, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and 
supporting documents, including the 5-year reviews, draft post-
delisting monitoring plan, and the species status assessment (SSA) 
report, are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R6-ES-2023-0114 and at the Colorado Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Darnall, Western Colorado 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological 
Services Field Office, 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Grand Junction, CO 
81501; telephone 970-628-7181. Individuals in the United States who are 
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay 
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay 
services offered within their country to make international calls to 
the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-
R6-ES-2023-0114 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that 
summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

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

[[Page 19547]]

no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened 
species; therefore, we are proposing to delist it.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Reasons we should or should not remove the North Park phacelia 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
    (2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the 
North Park phacelia, particularly any data on the possible effects of 
climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State 
protection and management that would be provided to this plant as a 
delisted species.
    (3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
the North Park phacelia that may have either a negative or positive 
impact on the species.
    (4) Considerations for post-delisting monitoring, including 
monitoring protocols and length of time monitoring is needed, as well 
as triggers for reevaluation.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide information 
necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the 
best scientific and commercial data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Our final determinations may differ from this proposal because we 
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well 
as any information that may become available after this proposal. For 
example, based on the new information we receive (and any comments on 
that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain 
listed as endangered, or we may conclude that the species should be 
reclassified from endangered to threatened. We will clearly explain our 
rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made 
changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is 
consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the North Park phacelia to inform the 2021 5-year review and updated it 
in 2023. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists who consulted 
with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of 
the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status 
of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future 
factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent 
scientific review of the information contained in the North Park 
phacelia SSA report. We sent the SSA report to three independent and 
appropriate peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of 
this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0114. We incorporated 
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the final SSA 
report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from three 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the information contained in the SSA report. The 
three peer reviewers provided additional information, clarifications, 
and recommendations pertaining to changes to our threat evaluation for 
residential development, energy development, livestock use, and 
agriculture; changes to our current and future condition metrics; 
changes to our scoring of future condition; and an evaluation of the 
pollinators of North Park phacelia. We summarize the peer reviewers' 
main comments below and have either incorporated these points into the 
SSA report or address them below.
    (1) Comment: One reviewer asked if there is a potential habitat 
model for North Park phacelia and whether there is unsurveyed, 
potential habitat for the species. The reviewer asked how far north the 
Niobrara formation extends and if the species could be found in 
Wyoming.
    Our response: We developed a potential habitat model for North Park 
phacelia in 2022 after the recent genetic study (Naibauer and 
McGlaughlin 2022, entire) confirmed there are four additional 
populations of North Park phacelia in Larimer and Grand Counties, 
Colorado. The potential habitat model included the three soil types 
(Coalmont, Niobrara, and Troublesome Creek formations) on which the 
species occurs across its range. Based on this model, there is 
unsurveyed potential habitat for North Park phacelia within its range, 
which is not surprising because of the recent expansion of the species' 
known range

[[Page 19548]]

(see Background, below). The Niobrara formation does extend north into 
Wyoming, and habitat assessments would have to be performed to 
determine whether they in fact contain suitable habitat for North Park 
phacelia. If there is suitable habitat in Wyoming, surveys would have 
to be performed to assess occupancy. Our proposal to delist is not 
dependent on populations occurring in Wyoming.
    (2) Comment: One reviewer asked whether we checked the SEINet data 
portal and NatureServe Encyclopedia of Life, both available online, for 
North Park phacelia location information and, if so, recommended that 
we cite them as sources of information.
    Our response: We reviewed both websites, but they did not contain 
any new or additional location information for North Park phacelia 
beyond what we have on file. Therefore, we did not cite them as sources 
of information.
    (3) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we include the Colorado 
Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) and NatureServe global (G2) and State 
(S2) ranks for North Park phacelia in the SSA report.
    Our response: We declined to include the CNHP and NatureServe 
global and State ranks provided by the reviewer in the SSA report 
because they may be inaccurate and out of date based of the results of 
the recent genetic study (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, entire) that 
confirmed the species has four additional populations. The data sources 
identified by the peer reviewer are also not critical to our evaluation 
of North Park phacelia's viability.
    (4) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we provide the years 
associated with the range of total plant abundance (908 to 17,750 
plants) reported for the North Park basin (Jackson County, Colorado) in 
chapter 2 of the SSA report. The reviewer asked whether this range 
reflected a trend, pattern, or simply the result of rosettes (young, 
non-flowering plants) not being counted in some surveys.
    Our response: We removed the information from the SSA report 
pertaining to the reviewer's comment and instead summarized the range 
of plant abundance for each population in a table (Service 2023, table 
3, p. 11). The recommended information, years and range of plant 
abundance reported for the North Park basin, are summarized in the 
species' 2012 5-year status review (Service 2012, table 1, pp. 7-8). In 
2012, we noted that some surveys counted rosettes while others did not, 
and the available data does not allow us to compare years or identify a 
trend (Service 2012, p. 8). The best available trend information is 
from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plant frequency monitoring 
results, which we summarize below and in the SSA report (see 
Background, below; Service 2023, pp. 25-27).
    (5) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we add more information 
to the key findings section in chapter 2 to mention if there are years 
when the species has low numbers or if there are only areas with low 
numbers because of the variability of local rain events. The reviewer 
asked if there were more key findings and citations to add to make that 
section more robust.
    Our response: The key findings section is a summary of the 
individual, population, and species needs discussed in chapter 2. We 
added more key findings to this section of the SSA report to partially 
address the comment. However, we did not include citations because this 
section is a summary of information presented earlier in the chapter 
with citations. We also did not add information regarding years and 
areas with low numbers in chapter 2. Rather, we included information 
regarding the variability of local weather patterns, and discussed how 
the species responds to climate conditions in chapter 3 (Service 2023, 
pp. 23, 25-27).
    (6) Comment: One reviewer stated that the SSA report does not reach 
a clear conclusion about the current condition of North Park phacelia 
relative to each of the identified threats. The reviewer recommended 
that we clearly state what the threats are and mentioned three reports 
(The Colorado Rare Plant Guide (CNHP 2015a, entire), CNHP element 
occurrence records (CNHP 2020 entire), and North Park Phacelia 
Conservation Action Plan 2011 Update (Panjabi and Neely 2011, entire)) 
that document threats to the species.
    Our response: We identified threats to North Park phacelia and 
evaluated their individual and potential cumulative effect at the 
population level in our assessment of current condition in chapter 3 of 
the SSA report and below (Service 2023, pp. 19-35; Summary of 
Biological Status and Threats). The draft SSA report includes 
information on threats from two of the reports the reviewer mentioned, 
the Colorado Rare Plant Guide and CNHP element occurrence records. We 
reviewed the third report, the North Park Phacelia Conservation Action 
Plan 2011 Update, which evaluated the viability of North Park phacelia 
using similar metrics as our assessment. While we cited all three 
reports in the SSA report to address the comment, we primarily relied 
on the information summarized in the CNHP element occurrence records 
for our threats assessment, because this report provides threat 
documentation over a longer timeframe and with more recent information 
than the other two reports.
    (7) Comment: One reviewer disagreed with our assertion in the draft 
SSA report that threats are either absent or less severe now than 
described at the time of listing based on data provided by CNHP. The 
reviewer stated that CNHP occurrence records identify livestock 
trampling as a threat and document plants trampled by livestock and 
that it is not known if those plants survived.
    Our response: The reviewer is referring to the following sentences 
in the draft SSA: ``In the final rule to list Phacelia formosula as an 
endangered species under the Act (September 1, 1982; 47 FR 38540), we 
identified motorcycle (also known as, off road vehicle or ORV) use, 
cattle trampling, the potential development of resources (coal, oil, 
and natural gas), and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
as primary threats to the species. Data provided by CNHP indicate an 
absence of these threats within P. formosula populations, or that these 
threats are less severe now than described at the time of listing.''
    The last sentence pertains to all threats identified at the time of 
listing, and we stand by our assertion that livestock grazing is a 
threat that is less severe now than when we listed North Park phacelia 
in 1982 (see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below). To 
address this comment, we amended the sentence to clarify that CNHP data 
indicate either an absence of threats or that threats are less severe 
now than described at the time of listing in the SSA report. We 
summarized the CNHP data regarding livestock grazing in more detail 
later in chapter 3 (Service 2023, pp. 19-22). While some plants have 
been trampled by livestock, this stressor affects individuals and not 
populations of North Park phacelia based on the best available 
information (see Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below).
    (8) Comment: One reviewer stated that the overall threat of oil and 
gas development is not thoroughly assessed in the draft SSA report. The 
reviewer commented that a geospatial analysis alone does not seem 
adequate to determine disturbance and dust associated with oil and gas 
wells that could be obtained by an on-the-ground evaluation.
    Our response: We added more background information regarding the 
effects of dust and invasive plants to North Park phacelia, the 
potential for future development, and regulatory

[[Page 19549]]

mechanisms on Federal lands in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 19-
24), and we summarize the oil and gas stressor in the proposed rule 
(see Stressors, below). However, we did not incorporate an on-the-
ground evaluation of disturbance and dust or change our oil and gas 
development evaluation. Two oil and gas wells within 656 feet (ft) (200 
meters (m)) of North Park phacelia populations were installed more than 
40 years ago. These are no longer active (their well status is plugged 
and abandoned) and are causing no obvious disturbance based on the 
aerial imagery (Service 2023, pp. 22-23). Furthermore, while potential 
for oil and gas is high in Jackson County, Colorado, there are 
regulatory mechanisms on Federal lands for surveys and avoidance 
buffers as well as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations to protect 
North Park phacelia plants from mortality, disturbance, and dust (BLM 
2016, p. 15; Service 2023, pp. 23-24). We expect these regulatory 
mechanisms to continue for the duration of the post delisting 
monitoring plan (we propose a 10-year monitoring period) after which 
the regulatory mechanisms for BLM sensitive species would apply to 
provide the same level of protection given to Federal Candidate species 
(BLM 2015b, pp. 3-76--3-77). The regulatory mechanisms afforded to BLM 
sensitive species should adequately protect the resiliency of North 
Park phacelia populations from stressors (OHV use, energy development, 
and livestock grazing) on BLM lands.
    Aerial imagery has also been used to evaluate vegetation recovery 
on well pads in published reports (Nauman et al. 2017, entire), and our 
656-ft (200-m) buffer is adequate to evaluate potential dust dispersal 
from well pads and other disturbed areas to North Park phacelia plants 
(Service 2023, pp. 19-21). Well pads serve as a potential source of 
fugitive dust generation over approximately two decades (up to 17 
years) following installation (Nauman et al. 2017, pp. 9, 11). The two 
well pads may have been sources of fugitive dust in the past but are 
not likely current sources given their installation dates, their 
plugged and abandoned status, and the lack of obvious surface 
disturbance in aerial imagery. While an on-the-ground evaluation may be 
helpful to validate the aerial imagery, it would not provide additional 
quantitative information on potential dust effects to North Park 
phacelia plants unless an in-depth and lengthy evaluation of fugitive 
dust generation by the oil and gas wells compared to background levels 
is performed. An evaluation such as this would also likely only confirm 
our current available information on fugitive dust.
    (9) Comment: One reviewer asked if agriculture could impact plants 
or pollinators through pesticide or herbicide use. A second reviewer 
felt that we should have included agricultural areas in our disturbance 
calculation for the ecological settings metric because agriculture 
results in habitat fragmentation, reduced pollinator habitat, and, if 
tilled, dust and pollution. The second reviewer recommended that we 
evaluate agricultural disturbance in appendix A.
    Our response: We considered the reviewers' comments and discussed 
them with partners and experts on the species (Service 2022, p. 3). The 
primary agricultural practices near North Park phacelia populations are 
haying and grazing that generally use fewer pesticides than croplands 
and are not tilled. Haying and grazing practices likely do not result 
in direct impacts to North Park phacelia and one partner, CNHP, did not 
evaluate this stressor in their review of the species. North Park 
phacelia requires pollinators for maximum reproduction even though it 
can produce seeds without pollinators (Warren 1990, pp. 16-17; Service 
2023, pp. 13-18). While we do not know the important pollinators of 
North Park phacelia, native bees in the following genera are frequent 
floral visitors: plasterer bees (Colletes spp.), small carpenter bees 
(Ceratina spp.), sweat bees (Dialictus spp.), and potter bees 
(Anthidium spp.) (Warren 1990, pp. 17-18). We have no information to 
indicate that haying and grazing practices are negatively impacting 
pollinators of North Park phacelia. Therefore, we declined to include 
an evaluation of agricultural disturbance in appendix A of the SSA 
report.
    (10) Comment: One reviewer asked if factors such as dust and 
livestock trampling were missed in our evaluation and calculation of 
the ecological setting metric used to evaluate current condition in 
chapter 3.
    Our response: We evaluated the potential impacts of disturbance and 
habitat loss, including the potential effects of dust, to North Park 
phacelia in our evaluation of the ecological setting metric and 
thresholds (Service 2023, pp. 27-28). We used the same 656-ft (200-m) 
evaluation buffer for the ecological setting metric as we did for the 
oil and gas evaluation discussed in comment number 8, above, which is 
adequate to evaluate potential dust dispersal from disturbance to North 
Park phacelia plants (Service 2023, pp. 19-21). We did not include 
livestock trampling as part of our calculation of this metric because 
the aerial imagery is too coarse to detect individual livestock tracks. 
Additionally, we are aware of no areas that have concentrated or 
extensive livestock use that would result in the loss of suitable or 
occupied habitat for North Park phacelia consistent with the 
disturbance types (roads, oil and gas wells, and developed areas) we 
included in our calculation of this metric. The best available 
information indicates that livestock grazing results in small, 
localized effects to individual plants and does not result in 
population-level effects to North Park phacelia (see Stressors, below). 
We also did not include agricultural areas in our calculation of this 
metric as discussed in comment number 9, above.
    (11) Comment: One reviewer recommended that the SSA report state 
that more research is needed to better understand North Park phacelia 
and threats to its long-term survival and that we include research 
suggestions. The reviewer also expressed concern that off-highway 
vehicle (OHV) use has not been assessed recently in eight populations.
    Our response: While we agree that more monitoring and research 
would result in a better understanding of the species and the magnitude 
and extent of possible impacts of OHV use and other stressors, it is 
beyond the scope of an SSA report to recommend research needs. Instead, 
we summarized the information available for North Park phacelia and the 
uncertainties regarding the species. While monitoring of some North 
Park phacelia populations may be infrequent, OHV use is a concern only 
in the North Park phacelia Airport population, not the other 11 
populations. OHV use in the Airport population has been documented 
since the species was listed and we evaluate OHV use, below, see 
Stressors. We requested recent data for North Park phacelia to inform 
our 2021 5-year status review; however, we did not receive new 
information on OHV use and there is no requirement for additional 
research, including collecting data on OHV use and other threats.
    We review the best scientific and commercial information available 
when conducting an SSA and making a status determination under the Act. 
In considering what factors might constitute a threat, we look beyond 
the mere exposure of the individuals of a species to the factor to 
determine whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. 
The mere identification of factors that could impact a species 
negatively is not

[[Page 19550]]

sufficient to compel a finding that listing (or maintaining a currently 
listed species) on the Federal lists of endangered or threatened 
wildlife and plants is appropriate. In determining whether a species 
meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species, we must 
evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected 
response and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level, as well as the cumulative effect of the 
threats. Based on the best available information, we recommended that 
North Park phacelia no longer meets the definition of an endangered 
species or a threatened species in our 2021 5-year status review, and 
we are proceeding with our recommendation to remove the species from 
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants in this proposed 
delisting rule.
    (12) Comment: One reviewer asked how much unsurveyed potential 
habitat occurs on private lands. The reviewer recommended that we 
evaluate the risk of residential development to unsurveyed potential 
habitat on private lands based on how close these lands are to a 
municipality and current residential development, and their platting 
status.
    Our response: We did not consider unsurveyed potential habitat in 
our review of the species' status and did not incorporate the 
reviewer's recommendation into the SSA report. Since the Act requires 
us to use the best available scientific and commercial information 
available, we must consider the range of the species as it is currently 
known. Therefore, we evaluated the residential development stressor to 
the species and its known occupied habitat, not the status of 
unsurveyed potential habitat.
    (13) Comment: One reviewer stated that climate change may 
negatively affect pollinator abundance.
    Our response: We considered the reviewer's statement and note they 
did not provide supporting information. We summarized available 
pollinator information for North Park phacelia in comment number 9, 
above. We are aware of the potential for climate change to disrupt 
plant-pollinator interactions if plant flowering and pollinator 
emergence become out of sync (G[eacute]rard et al. 2020, entire). We 
did not incorporate the comment into the SSA report because plant-
pollinator disruption is not a current concern for North Park phacelia 
and we have no information to indicate that it is likely to occur in 
the future.
    (14) Comment: One reviewer recommended adding another metric, 
pollinator abundance, to evaluate the current and future condition of 
North Park phacelia populations because research indicates that 
adequate pollination is important for species persistence and 
representation (Warren 1990, entire), climate change may affect 
pollinator abundance, and pollinators are not explicitly evaluated in 
the ecological setting metric.
    Our response: We agree that pollinator abundance has the potential 
to influence the resiliency of populations; however, we do not have 
population abundance or trend information for any of the floral 
visitors identified in the Warren 1990 study. Best available scientific 
information indicates that North Park phacelia produces seeds regularly 
and pollinator-limitation is not a concern for the species. Therefore, 
we did not include a pollinator abundance metric in our current and 
future condition evaluation of North Park phacelia populations.
    (15) Comment: One reviewer stated that we do not know the 
temperature requirement to break seed dormancy in North Park phacelia, 
and the annual mean temperature metric does not necessarily relate to 
temperatures required to break seed dormancy in the species based on an 
evaluation of climate information by BLM (Krening 2020, entire). The 
reviewer recommended that the annual mean temperature metric be 
considered a placeholder for modeling the impacts of temperature change 
and should be refined in future SSA revisions as our knowledge of 
germination requirements improves.
    Our response: We reviewed the BLM report (Krening 2020, entire) and 
North Park phacelia is able to germinate over a range of cold 
temperatures. We did not incorporate the reviewer's recommendation into 
the SSA report to retain this metric. Instead, we removed the annual 
mean temperature metric from our evaluation of current and future 
condition in the SSA report because it was redundant to the other 
climate metric we retained in our analysis, the growing season water 
deficit (GSWD) metric, which is calculated using a combination of 
seasonal temperature and precipitation information.
    (16) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we measure the distance 
between populations and evaluate the ability of known insect 
pollinators to travel these distances because low levels of 
connectivity were identified in Riser et al. (2019, entire).
    Our response: We evaluated the distance between North Park phacelia 
populations that are more than 2 miles apart within the North Park and 
Larimer River basins. These distances may exceed the maximum flight 
distances (approximately 1.5 miles (mi) (2,500 m)) of the larger 
pollinators like bumblebees (Bombus sp.); however, bumblebees are able 
to cover large areas (up to 107 acres (ac) (44 hectares (ha)) in a few 
days (Hagen et al. 2011, p. 1). We would expect shorter flight 
distances and area coverage from smaller pollinators. We did not 
evaluate the ability of North Park phacelia's pollinators to travel 
between populations because the best available information already 
indicates that low levels of connectivity may be inherent to the 
species and low levels have persisted over the last 10,000 generations 
(approximately the last 5,000 years) (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, 
entire). Therefore, we determined that the recommendation would not 
provide additional information about gene flow between North Park 
phacelia populations.
    (17) Comment: One reviewer disagreed with the future condition 
scores for the population abundance and occupied habitat area metrics 
that remain the same as current condition under all future scenarios. 
The reviewer recommended that we change the scoring under future 
scenarios as was done in SSA reports for other Colorado plants (Rocky 
Mountain monkeyflower (Mimulus gemmiparus) and Skiff milkvetch 
(Astragalus microcymbus)) but did not recommend a particular score for 
these metrics. The reviewer also recommended that if we add a 
pollinator abundance metric to our evaluation, as discussed above in 
comment number 14, future condition scores should be different than 
current condition scores for that metric as well.
    Our response: We considered the reviewer's recommendation but did 
not change the future condition scores for the population abundance and 
occupied habitat area metrics. As we mentioned in the SSA report, we 
are not able to reliably project direct future changes to these two 
metrics. We expect both metrics to change on an annual basis as they do 
currently in response to climate and demographic factors (Service 2023, 
pp. 25-30). Thus, we projected future changes to climatic factors, as 
measured by the GSWD metric, to assess the potential future change in 
plant abundance and occupied habitat area indirectly in our evaluation 
of future condition (Service 2023, pp. 36-47). We did not add a 
pollinator abundance metric to our evaluation as discussed in our 
response to comment number 14.

[[Page 19551]]

    (18) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we include the BLM 
frequency data in our evaluation of current and future condition. The 
reviewer considers the BLM frequency data to be statistically robust 
and stated that the large, annual fluctuations in plant frequency very 
likely reduce the resilience of small North Park phacelia populations 
despite not knowing the underlying cause of the fluctuations.
    Our response: We declined to include the BLM frequency data as a 
metric in our evaluation of current and future condition because these 
data are not available for all populations (Service 2023, p. 26). 
However, we incorporated the BLM data in the SSA Report when describing 
and evaluating the species' response to climate, demographic factors, 
and catastrophic events such as prolonged drought conditions.
    (19) Comment: One reviewer recommended that we summarize the scope, 
hypotheses, and findings of two studies, Colorado Natural Areas Program 
(1994) and McCormick and Wu (1999), which we cite in the SSA report.
    Our response: We summarized the findings of the two studies but 
declined to include more detail such as their scope and hypotheses in 
the SSA report, because they were not relevant to our analysis. The two 
studies are publicly available for those interested in the level of 
detail desired by the peer reviewer.
    (20) Comment: We received conflicting comments from two peer 
reviewers on the following sentence in the draft SSA report: ``North 
Park phacelia needs to maintain all 11 populations in their current 
configuration and distribution to maintain viability.'' One reviewer 
agreed with the sentence, and another reviewer questioned its accuracy 
and recommended that we state that this is a hypothesis rather than a 
fact if there is no supporting information.
    Our response: We considered the reviewers' comments and agreed with 
the reviewer who questioned the accuracy of the sentence because we do 
not have supporting information that indicates all 11 populations known 
at the time of the draft SSA report are needed for viability. We 
revised the sentence to be consistent with our analytical framework and 
best available information that North Park phacelia needs multiple, 
resilient populations distributed across its range to reduce risk 
associated with catastrophes such as severe, prolonged drought 
(redundancy) and longer-term environmental change (representation) 
(Service 2023, pp. 18-19).
    (20) Comment: One reviewer considers the following sentence to be 
misleading because the BLM frequency data provides reliable and 
representative rangewide trend data for North Park phacelia in Jackson 
County: ``Reliable range-wide census data are not available to compare 
year-to-year abundance, or trend, because survey data were not 
collected every year nor at every occurrence.''
    Our response: We removed the words, ``or trend'' in the sentence to 
partially address the comment in the SSA report. However, we consider 
the rest of the sentence to be accurate with respect to census data 
because we are not able to derive census data from the BLM frequency 
data. Furthermore, we agree with the reviewer that the trend 
information derived from the BLM frequency data applies only to those 
populations in the North Park basin, not to the populations in the 
Larimer River and Troublesome Creek basins.
    (21) Comment: One reviewer stated that the conclusions of the SSA 
report were not clear and recommended that the information in appendix 
A be discussed in more detail or perhaps appendix A should be added to 
the body of the SSA report.
    Our response: We added more detail and a summary of the information 
in appendix A to the SSA report to partially address the comment. 
However, we did not add appendix A to the body of the SSA report to 
maintain a consistent document format and for ease of reading. Appendix 
A is part of the SSA report, and there was no added benefit to moving 
the appendix to the body of the SSA report. All information in the SSA 
report was considered in making our determination of the species' 
status under the Act.

Previous Federal Actions

    On September 2, 1980, we proposed to list the North Park phacelia 
as an endangered species due to its small, localized extent of one 
population and the threat of OHV use, specifically motorcycle use, as 
well as livestock trampling, potential energy development of coal and 
oil and gas, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (45 FR 58168-
58171). We determined that it would not be prudent to designate 
critical habitat because of the concern of collection. A second 
population was identified in 1981 on BLM lands within a Known 
Recoverable Coal Resource Area that was partially leased for oil and 
natural gas and subject to livestock trampling. On September 1, 1982, 
we finalized the listing of North Park phacelia as an endangered 
species (47 FR 38540). The final rule included a determination that the 
designation of critical habitat for North Park phacelia was not 
prudent. In 1986, we published a final recovery plan for North Park 
phacelia (Service 1986, entire). In 2012, we published a 5-year status 
review that recommended the species remain an endangered species under 
the Act (Service 2012, entire).
    On April 12, 2019, we published a notice of initiation of a 5-year 
review for the North Park phacelia in the Federal Register and 
requested information that could have a bearing on the status of North 
Park phacelia (86 FR 14965-14966). We completed the 5-year status 
review on August 30, 2021; this 5-year status review recommended that 
North Park phacelia be delisted since it does not meet the definition 
of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act.

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
North Park phacelia is presented in the SSA Report Version 1.1 (Service 
2023, entire). Recent genetic work has updated the status and range of 
North Park phacelia since it was listed in 1982. In 2019, a genetic 
study using microsatellite markers identified that three populations of 
a closely related subspecies, Scully phacelia (Phacelia formosula var. 
scullyi), in adjacent Larimer County, Colorado, were actually North 
Park phacelia based on an evaluation of genetics, morphology, and 
ecology, grouping them with the North Park phacelia (Phacelia 
formosula) populations in Jackson County, Colorado (Riser et al. 2019, 
pp. 7-8). Most recently, in 2022, a genetic study using random site-
associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) confirmed the Riser et al. (2019) 
findings that the three populations in Larimer County are North Park 
phacelia and determined that another population in Grand County, 
Colorado, is also North Park phacelia. This population in Grand County 
was formerly identified as Troublesome phacelia (Phacelia gina-
glenneae) (Naibauer and McGlaughlin, 2022, entire). These genetic 
studies are summarized in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 3, 8).
    North Park phacelia is an herbaceous, short-lived plant in the 
waterleaf family (Hydrophyllaceae) (Ackerfield 2022, p. 533; Service 
2023, pp. 5-7). The species occurs in Jackson, Larimer, and Grand 
Counties, Colorado, at elevations ranging from 7,490 to 8,260 ft 
(2,282-2,517 m). North Park phacelia grows in sparsely vegetated, well-
drained, barren soils of the Coalmont formation, Niobrara Shale, and 
clay and white shale of the Troublesome Creek

[[Page 19552]]

formation surrounded by sagebrush-dominated habitat (Artemisia 
tridentata var. vaseyana and Artemisia nova) (CNHP 2015a, p. 1; CNHP 
2020 pp. 2-3; Service 2023, pp. 6-7).
    North Park phacelia plants grow up to approximately 9 inches (in) 
(22 centimeters (cm)) tall, with one to many stems, and purple or 
violet flowers on flowering stalks (inflorescences) shaped like a 
coiled scorpion's tail (helicoid cyme) (Spackman et al. 1997; 
Ackerfield 2022, p. 533). Each fruit produces four small seeds (Atwood 
2010, p. 1). North Park phacelia has four life stages: seeds, 
seedlings, rosettes, and reproductive adults. Plants live for 1 year 
(annual) or 2 years (biennial) with one reproductive event if they 
survive to adulthood. Flowering occurs from late spring through the 
summer (June through August) during the driest time of the year with 
June being the most significant transition time to flowering (McCormick 
and Wu 1999, p. 7). Successful reproduction to produce seeds likely 
depends on the temperature and moisture conditions of the spring and 
summer months of that year as well as favorable conditions during the 
prior year for seedling establishment and rosette survival (McCormick 
and Wu 1999, pp. 5, 8). The species is not known to reproduce 
asexually.
    Measurable differences in plant morphology (size, leaves, and 
seeds) in plants and soil type occur across the range by county (and 
basin). Plants in Jackson and Larimer Counties (the North Park and 
Larimer River basins) generally have a life span of 2 years and 
occasionally 1 year. Plants in Grand County (the Troublesome Creek 
basin) generally have a life span of 1 year. These morphological, life 
history, and soil differences contributed to the previous taxonomic 
delineations mentioned above that are no longer applicable (Naibauer 
and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 2, 5-7, 23). The Integrated Taxonomic 
Information System (ITIS) considers North Park phacelia to be a 
distinct species (ITIS 2023, entire).
    Pollinators are likely needed to support maximum reproduction and 
genetic diversity of the species. Plants can produce seeds without 
pollinators by self-pollination, although this process results in lower 
fruit and seed production (Warren 1990, pp. iii, 16). While we do not 
know what the most important pollinators are for North Park phacelia, 
insect floral visitors include hover flies, wasps, and a variety of 
bees (Warren 1990, p. 44; Service 2023, pp. 13-14). Native bees in the 
following genera are frequent floral visitors: plasterer bees (Colletes 
spp.), small carpenter bees (Ceratina spp.), sweat bees (Dialictus 
spp.), and potter bees (Anthidium spp.) (Warren 1990, pp. 17-18).
    Seeds are produced in the fall and likely require a period of cold 
stratification (cold temperatures and moist conditions) during the 
winter months to break dormancy before germinating the following spring 
or fall (Gamboa-deBuen and Orozco-Segovia 2008, entire). Specific 
germination requirements of North Park phacelia are not known but 
likely consist of some combination of appropriate temperature and 
moisture conditions (Krening 2020, p. 6).
    We have incomplete information regarding the longevity of seeds in 
the seedbank. North Park phacelia seeds are known to remain viable 
within the soil for at least 1 to 2 years, and longer timeframes are 
likely but have not been evaluated (Krening 2020, p. 2; Krening and 
Dawson 2021, p. 5). Based on information for two other species in the 
Phacelia genus with similar life histories, the species likely 
maintains a persistent seedbank with seeds remaining viable for 
extended periods, anywhere from approximately 4 to 18 years (Langton 
2015 pp. v, 1; Meyer 2018, p. 1; Service 2013, p. 1).
    North Park phacelia disperses primarily over short distances 
through wind, water runoff, ants, and gravity (seeds roll downhill 
within the habitat). Given the species' expanded range, long-distance 
dispersal events likely occurred in the past. North Park phacelia's 
level of genetic diversity is low (using RADseq methods) to moderate 
(using microsatellite methods) (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 16-
18; Riser et al. 2019, p. 7). These differences in the amount of 
genetic diversity (moderate in one study versus low in another) are 
expected based on the different methodologies (Forester 2022, p. 1; 
Thurman 2022, p. 1). There is agreement by both studies on the 
differences in genetic structure of populations between the three 
basins (i.e., at the county level), which are likely the result of 
isolation effects from the long distances and mountain ranges that 
separate them (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 16-18; Riser et al. 
2019, p. 7, Forester 2022, p. 2; Thurman 2022, p. 1; Service 2023, pp. 
3, 8). These genetic differences are consistent with past taxonomic 
delineations of different species and subspecies in the three basins 
(see earlier discussion).
    Preliminary genetic information indicates there is little to no 
recent or historical gene flow between populations over the last 
approximately 10,000 generations (5,000 to 10,000 years); however, 
there appears to be sufficient gene flow and genetic diversity within 
populations that inbreeding is not a concern (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 
2022, entire; Service 2022, pp. 3, 8). A more robust sampling and 
genetic analysis of gene flow is needed to confirm or refute these 
results (Forester 2022, p. 1). Genetic variation occurs between 
populations, and the genetic differences increase with distance, 
indicating a pattern of isolation by distance (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 
2022, pp. 3, 16-17, 25). Populations near each other are more alike 
genetically due to larger amounts of gene exchange relative to more 
distant populations (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 3, 27-28). The 
genetic results indicate the species has a poor dispersal ability and 
there is little to no pollinator-mediated gene flow between 
populations.
    North Park phacelia's current range in Colorado extends 
approximately 779 square miles (mi\2\) (2,018 square kilometers 
(km\2\)) from the Laramie River in northwestern Laramie County, across 
the Medicine Bow Mountain Range to North Park in Jackson County, and 
across the Rabbit Ears Mountain Range to Troublesome Creek in Grand 
County. The species is distributed in three basins (Laramie River, 
North Park, and Troublesome Creek), one basin per county, and each 
basin is separated by a mountain range. The North Park phacelia occurs 
on approximately 452 ac (183 ha) of occupied habitat, primarily on 
Federal lands that are managed by BLM and the Service and that comprise 
81 percent of its occupied habitat. The remaining occupied habitat (19 
percent) occurs on private lands, 5 percent of which is managed under a 
conservation easement specifically designed to protect North Park 
phacelia (Service 2023, pp. 10-11).
    We do not know if the North Park phacelia was more broadly 
distributed historically. North Park phacelia's current range is much 
larger than was known at the time of listing due to the discovery of 
new populations in Jackson County and the taxonomic revisions of 
populations in Laramie and Grand Counties. At the time of Federal 
listing, there were only two known North Park phacelia populations with 
approximately 2,700 plants located in North Park (Jackson County), 
Colorado (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982). As of 2023, there are 12 
known populations with approximately 23,000 to 26,000 plants, an 
increase of more than 20,300 plants than we reported in our listing 
rule (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982). The current population size is 
also an increase of more than 8,600 plants than

[[Page 19553]]

we reported in our 2021 5-year status review with the addition of the 
new population (Troublesome Creek Area of Critical Environmental 
Concern (ACEC)) in Grand County (Service 2023, pp. 3, 10-11).
    Population trends for North Park phacelia are difficult to 
determine. The best available information includes periodic population 
estimates provided by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) and 
annual plant frequency monitoring (the presence or absence of the 
species within a monitoring grid of 1-m-by-1-m cells) conducted by BLM 
at five populations in North Park (Jackson County) over a 13-year 
period (2010 to 2022) (Krening and Dawson 2022, entire). The BLM 
frequency monitoring cannot be used to estimate population abundance, 
but it shows large amounts of annual variability attributed to climate 
and demographic variables with no clear trend over the 13-year period 
(Service 2023, pp. 25-26). The frequency monitoring also shows that 
North Park phacelia exhibits a strong response in some years to drought 
conditions, as seen in 2012 and 2020, with low to no above-ground plant 
abundance (Krening and Dawson 2022, entire). Following drought 
conditions, the species is resilient and plant abundance generally 
rebounds back to pre-drought levels in years with favorable 
precipitation.
    Fluctuations in plant frequency are probably a response to drier 
conditions in conjunction with demography and perhaps the availability 
of other resources under various moisture conditions (Schwinning and 
Sala 2004, pp. 211-219). North Park phacelia and other short-lived 
plants have the potential to respond to climate conditions within a 
relatively short timeframe because of their short life span 
(Tielb[ouml]rger et al. 2014, p. 2). They can employ adaptations to 
survive periods of resource limitation (i.e., drought) and can respond 
strongly to available water (Alexander et al. 1994; p. 2004; Salguero-
G[oacute]mez et al. 2012, p. 3100; Schwinning and Sala 2004, entire). 
Moreover, North Park phacelia's ability to respond quickly to 
precipitation levels is a response that is consistent and compatible 
with plant adaptations to survive semi-arid environments with periods 
of drought and is advantageous to avoid stressful conditions (Lesica 
and Crone 2007, p. 1367; Schwinning et al. 2004, entire; Schwinning and 
Sala 2004, entire; Verhulst et al. 2008, pp. 104-105). Based on the 
discovery of many new populations, the lack of extirpated populations, 
and the CNHP and BLM information, the distribution of the species 
appears to be currently stable.

Recovery Criteria

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to 
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may 
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery 
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    Here, we provide a summary of progress made toward achieving the 
recovery criteria for the North Park phacelia. More detailed 
information related to conservation efforts can be found below under 
Summary of Biological Status and Threats. We completed a final recovery 
plan for the North Park phacelia in 1986 (Service 1986, entire). The 
1986 plan includes objective, measurable criteria for delisting; 
however, the plan has not been updated for more than 30 years, so some 
aspects of the plan may no longer reflect the best scientific 
information available for the North Park phacelia.
    Below is the single delisting criterion described in the 1986 North 
Park phacelia recovery plan (Service 1986, p. 9) and the progress made 
to date in achieving the criterion.

Criterion for Delisting

    North Park phacelia may be considered recovered when 15 occurrences 
with 500 mature flowering plants each are identified and secured.

Progress

    Based on information through 2022, there are a total of 12 
populations with approximately 23,000 to 26,000 plants. We consider 
populations to be synonymous with the criterion's use of the word 
``occurrences,'' and the current number of populations (12) does not 
meet the recovery criterion (of 15 populations). While we do not know 
the number of flowering plants in each population, we do know the 
current total population of the species (23,000 to 26,000), which 
includes flowering and non-flowering plants, exceeds the total number 
of flowering plants identified by this criterion (7,500). We also know 
that 7 populations (Case Flats, Potter Creek, Rockwell; Verner and 
Brownlee; Diamond J State Wildlife Area; North Park Resource Natural 
Area ACEC; Forrester Creek; Hohnholz North East; and Troublesome Creek 
ACEC) have at least 500 plants, which includes both flowering and non-
flowering plants.
    Given what we now know about the species' annual fluctuations in 
frequency and strong drought response (see Background, above), we do 
not expect populations to meet the recovery criterion (of 500 flowering 
plants) every year and consider this metric to be insufficiently 
tailored to the species' demography (life-history characteristics). 
This metric (500 flowering plants) is not specific to North Park 
phacelia but is an application of the 50/500 rule, a generalized rule 
of

[[Page 19554]]

thumb to identify a minimum population size to avoid inbreeding 
depression (minimum of 50 breeding individuals) and maintain long-term 
genetic diversity for evolutionary potential (minimum of 500 breeding 
individuals) in an idealized population that is both small and isolated 
(Franklin and Frankham 1998, entire; Jamieson and Allendorf 2012, 
entire). Some researchers recommend that the metric of 500 breeding 
individuals should not be considered a prediction of extinction risk 
without further consideration of demography and gene flow (Jamieson and 
Allendorf 2012, pp. 580-583). Gene flow, even at very low levels, can 
maintain genetic diversity in populations with fewer than 500 breeding 
individuals, and lower genetic diversity is a poor predictor of 
extinction risk when threats such as habitat loss and demography are 
not taken into account (Swindell and Bouzat 2006, pp. 86-87; Palstra 
and Ruzzante 2008, pp. 3428, 3430, 3441-3443; Jamieson and Allendorf 
2012, pp. 580-583). Recent work recommends an evaluation of many 
attributes, including but not limited to demography and levels of 
genetic diversity, to evaluate a species' adaptive capacity and 
vulnerability to changing conditions (Thurman et al. 2020, entire; 
Forester et al. 2023, entire).
    The North Park phacelia populations occur primarily on Federal 
lands (81 percent of occupied habitat) with management plans in place 
to protect the species and its habitat, and we consider these 
populations to be secure. In addition, on private lands, The Nature 
Conservancy manages a conservation easement specifically designed to 
protect the species in perpetuity (5 percent of occupied habitat) 
(Byers 2023, entire); however, little to no protection exists on the 
remaining private lands (14 percent of occupied habitat). Despite the 
lack of protections on private lands for the North Park phacelia, no 
current or projected future population-level threats occur on these 
lands except for the Airport population (see Stressors, below). Thus, 
although not all populations are considered secure, we conclude that 
the intent of the criterion to ensure that sufficient populations were 
protected from threats into the future has been met for 11 of the 12 
known populations. While the North Park phacelia's status does not meet 
the 1986 recovery criterion, we find that the species' populations are 
sufficiently resilient and that the smaller number of populations and 
lack of available information on flowering plant abundance within 
populations are no longer relevant given what we now know about the 
species.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, we issued a finalrule that revised 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 (84 
FR 44753) and ended the ``blanket rule'' option for application of 
section 9 prohibitions to species newly listed as threatened after the 
effective date of those regulatory revisions (September 26, 2019).
    Our analysis for this decision applied the regulations that are 
currently in effect, which include the 2019 revisions. However, we 
proposed further revisions to these regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 FR 
40764). In case those revisions are finalized before we make a final 
status determination for this species, we have also undertaken an 
analysis of whether the decision would be different if we were to apply 
those proposed revisions. We concluded that the decision would have 
been the same if we had applied the proposed 2023 regulations. The 
analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the 
regulations after incorporating the June 22, 2023, proposed revisions 
are included in our decision file.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a 
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term

[[Page 19555]]

``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable 
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable 
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and 
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and 
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing 
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for delisting. However, it 
does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory 
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within 
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess North Park phacelia's viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history 
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and 
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2023-0114 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future conditions, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA report 
(Service 2023, entire) documents our comprehensive biological status 
review for the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species.
    The following is a summary of this status review and the best 
available information gathered since that time that has informed this 
decision.

Individual Needs

    Individuals of North Park phacelia need certain habitat factors, 
including: well-drained sandstone, shale, or clay soils of the 
Niobrara, Coalmont, and Troublesome Creek formations; a montane, mid-
elevation climate (elevations ranging between 7,490 to 8,260 ft (2,282 
to 2,517 m) with approximately 12 in (31 cm) of rain and 63 in (1.6 m) 
of snow per year; a period of cold, moist conditions during the winter 
to break seed dormancy and facilitate germination in the spring or 
fall; moisture during the spring and summer (growing season) for 
successful germination, establishment and reproduction (seed 
production); and pollinators for maximum reproduction (Service 2023, 
pp. 14-16; U.S. Climate Data 2023, entire).

Population Needs

    To be sufficiently resilient, populations require recruitment, 
survivorship, and reproduction at rates able to sustain populations, in 
addition to pollinator connectivity between individuals within 
populations. We consider population resiliency to be positively 
correlated with plant abundance (Service 2023, pp. 16-17). Sufficiently 
resilient populations also contain enough individuals across each life 
stage (seed, seedling, and mature reproductive adult) to bounce back 
after experiencing environmental stressors such as drought, livestock 
grazing, habitat disturbance, and demographic stochasticity (births, 
deaths, and reproductive events that fluctuate over time). While we do 
not know the level or amount of recruitment necessary for populations 
to be sufficiently resilient, we assume that North Park phacelia 
populations are most resilient when all four life stages are present.

Species Needs

    The number of populations across the landscape influences the 
redundancy of North Park phacelia. More populations across the range 
increase the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. 
Individuals and populations inhabiting diverse ecological settings and 
exhibiting genetic or phenological variation add to the level of 
representation across the species' range. The greater diversity 
observed in North Park phacelia genetics, habitats, and morphology, the 
more likely it is to be able to adapt to change over time. Thus, the 
species needs (1) a sufficient number and distribution of resilient 
populations to withstand catastrophic events (redundancy) and (2) a 
range of variation that allows the species to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions (representation) (Service 2023, pp. 18-19). 
The SSA report provides additional detail on the species' individual-, 
population-, and species-level needs (Service 2023, pp. 11-19).

Stressors

    In the SSA report, we evaluated stressors and other actions that 
can positively or negatively affect North Park phacelia at the 
individual, population, or species levels, either currently or into the 
future (Service 2023, pp. 19-27). In this proposed rule, we will 
discuss only those factors in detail that could meaningfully impact the 
status of the species. Residential and urban development, off-highway 
vehicle

[[Page 19556]]

(OHV) use, mining and energy development, livestock grazing, invasive 
plants, and climate change are all factors that influence or could 
influence the species' viability (Service 2023, pp. 19-27). Those 
stressors that are not known to have effects on North Park phacelia 
populations, such as small mammal and insect herbivory, pesticides, and 
agriculture, are not discussed here but are evaluated in the SSA report 
(Service 2023, pp. 21, 27, appendix A).
Residential and Urban Development
    Private lands account for approximately 19 percent of occupied 
habitat for North Park phacelia populations (Service 2023 tables 3 and 
4, p. 11). Currently, without a Federal nexus (funds, permits, or 
approval), the species has little to no protection from residential and 
urban development on the majority of private lands (14 percent of 
occupied habitat overall) with the exception of a conservation easement 
that protects one population (Diamond J State Wildlife Area) comprising 
5 percent of occupied habitat. The conservation easement is held by The 
Nature Conservancy and specifically addresses the management and 
protection of North Park phacelia in perpetuity (Byers 2023, entire).
    We assessed the residential and urban development stressor to North 
Park phacelia based on our evaluation of disturbance in and near known 
populations. We also included utility corridors and roads in our 
evaluation of this stressor. A very low level of residential and urban 
development occurs in or near plant populations, and residential and 
urban development does not appear to result in any loss of habitat 
(Service 2023, appendix A). The current human population estimate for 
Jackson County is 1,363, with a negative growth rate (-2.2 percent) 
from 2010 to 2022 (U.S. Census Bureau 2022, entire). The Colorado State 
Demography Office forecasts that Jackson County's human population will 
continue to decrease through 2050 (Colorado Department of Local Affairs 
2022, entire). The Laramie River Valley portion of Larimer County where 
North Park phacelia occurs does not contain a municipality, and we 
assumed that population growth in this area is similar to the 
projections for Jackson County. We did not perform this evaluation for 
Grand County because the one population (Troublesome Creek ACEC) occurs 
on Federal lands designated as a land use avoidance area where rights 
of way (ROW) grants would be avoided to the extent possible (BLM 2015a, 
pp. 52-53, 70).
    We incorporated the current levels and effects of this stressor in 
our evaluation of current resiliency. However, given the projected 
future declines in the human population, we did not project any changes 
in this stressor in our evaluation of future resiliency (Service 2023, 
pp. 22, 37-38).
Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use
    In the final listing rule (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982), off 
highway vehicle (OHV) use, specifically motorcycle use, was identified 
as a primary threat to North Park phacelia in one of the two known 
populations at the time. Negative effects of OHV use include habitat 
degradation and plant mortality (Goeft and Alder 2001, entire; Brooks 
and Lair 2005, entire; White et al. 2006, entire).
    We assessed the OHV use stressor to North Park phacelia based on 
our evaluation of overlap and effects to known populations. We also 
included other types of off highway recreation, such as mountain 
biking, hiking, and target shooting, in our evaluation of this 
stressor. Excessive OHV use continues to occur in the one population 
(Airport) where it was identified at the time of listing, and this 
stressor does not appear to have changed since listing (CNHP 2020, p. 
1; Service 2023, pp. 26, 33). This location is readily accessible, and 
corrective actions such as boulder placement may have restricted use 
temporarily, but those deterrents have been removed and are no longer 
restricting recreational access and use. This is the only location 
where OHV use has a population-level effect to North Park phacelia. Low 
to occasional OHV use was documented in four other populations (Service 
2023, appendix A) and currently is affecting only individual plants. 
OHV use is not permitted on Refuge lands (L[oacute]pez, 2023, pp. 1-3) 
or the private land under conservation easement (Byers 2023, entire).
    We incorporated the current levels and effects of this stressor in 
our evaluation of current resiliency. However, given the projected 
future declines in the human population, declines in recreational use 
since listing in four populations, and relatively stable OHV use in the 
Airport population, we did not project any changes in this stressor in 
our evaluation of future resiliency (Service 2023, p. 37).
Mining and Energy Development
    In the final listing rule (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982), coal or 
oil and gas exploration was identified as a potential threat to North 
Park phacelia in one of the two known populations at the time. Negative 
effects of mineral and energy development include habitat loss and 
degradation, plant mortality, reduced plant growth and reproduction, 
and potential introduction and spread of invasive weeds (Brock and 
Green 2003, entire).
    We assessed the mineral and energy development stressor to North 
Park phacelia based on our evaluation of overlap and effects to known 
populations. The best available information indicates this stressor is 
not present in North Park phacelia populations and there has been no 
infrastructure development supporting coal, oil, and natural gas 
development resulting in the loss of plants or habitat (Service 2023, 
pp. 20-36).
    Currently, there are no active coal mining operations or 
applications for coal mines in Jackson, Larimer, or Grand Counties 
(Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 2023a and b, 
entire). Coal is located in Jackson County, but future mining is not 
likely to occur due to transportation costs (BLM 2009, pp. 8, 14; BLM 
2015b, 3-191, 3-194).
    We evaluated the number of oil and gas wells in and associated 
habitat disturbance near North Park phacelia populations. Our 
evaluation in the SSA report identified two closed (plugged and 
abandoned) oil and gas wells within 656 ft (200 m) of North Park 
phacelia populations but no recent habitat disturbance associated with 
the wells (Service 2023, pp. 23-24). The potential for oil and gas is 
high within Jackson County, nonexistent in Larimer County, and low in 
Grand County (BLM 2009, pp. 22, 49, 50, 52; BLM 2015b, 3-190). There 
are three populations partially or wholly within existing oil and gas 
leases in Jackson County. We are not aware of any proposed energy 
development projects in or near North Park phacelia populations. 
Similar to coal development, oil and gas development in Jackson County 
is strongly constrained by transportation costs (BLM 2009, pp. 3-4). 
Future oil and gas development will be restricted in North Park 
phacelia habitat based on regulatory mechanisms for this stressor 
afforded to the species and BLM sensitive species on Federal lands as 
discussed below.
    On Federal lands, BLM provides regulatory mechanisms to protect 
North Park phacelia from mining and energy development. BLM provides a 
controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation of a 328-ft (100-m) to 656-ft 
(200-m) avoidance buffer for North Park phacelia and other BLM 
sensitive plant species that would apply to energy development (coal 
mining and oil and gas extraction)

[[Page 19557]]

(BLM 2015a, pp. 24-26). BLM also provides a no surface occupancy (NSO) 
stipulation within Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and 
surveys and avoidance measures to protect North Park phacelia and other 
BLM sensitive species from plant and habitat loss associated with 
energy development (coal mining and oil and gas extraction) (BLM 2015a, 
pp. 64-65). On Refuge lands, most lands have been withdrawn from mining 
for coal and other locatable minerals. BLM is responsible for mineral 
management on Refuge lands that have not been withdrawn as well as oil 
and gas leasing and development; in those cases, BLM stipulations, 
surveys, and avoidance measures would also apply to Refuge lands 
(Service 2016, pp. 5-6). The BLM avoidance buffers minimize the 
potential for measurable, negative effects to North Park phacelia based 
on our literature review and evaluation for other rare, endemic plants 
growing in poorly developed or low-fertility soils (Service 2021b, 
chapter 7 and appendix E). Ten populations occur on lands where BLM 
regulations apply.
    We incorporated the current levels and effects of this stressor in 
our evaluation of current resiliency. However, given the Federal 
regulatory mechanisms and lack of current mining and energy development 
or proposed projects in or near North Park phacelia populations, we did 
not project any changes in this stressor in our evaluation of future 
resiliency (Service 2023, pp. 24-25, 37).
Livestock Grazing
    In the final listing rule (47 FR 38540, September 1, 1982), 
livestock grazing was identified as a threat to North Park phacelia in 
the two known populations at the time. Negative effects of livestock 
grazing include habitat degradation through the drying or compaction of 
soils, plant mortality or damage from trampling resulting in reduced 
individual survival, growth and reproduction, potential introduction 
and spread of invasive weeds, and the consumption of floral resources 
for pollinators (Fleischner 1994, entire; Lovich and Bainbridge 1999, 
entire; Mustajarvi et al. 2001, entire; Reisner et al. 2013, entire).
    We assessed the livestock grazing stressor to North Park phacelia 
based on reporting by the CNHP and agricultural statistics of livestock 
inventories in the three counties over time. Some populations show 
evidence of livestock use but no indication of plant damage or 
mortality (CNHP 2020, entire). On BLM lands, livestock grazing is 
managed during July and August in North Park phacelia habitat to allow 
plants to flower and set seed (BLM 2015a, p. H-2). On Refuge lands, 
livestock grazing is not permitted in North Park phacelia habitat 
(L[oacute]pez, 2023, pp. 1-3). The best available information indicates 
this stressor is currently affecting only individual plants and is not 
having a population-level effect to North Park phacelia. Agricultural 
statistics on livestock totals in the three counties over a 20-year 
period (1997 to 2017) indicate an approximately 50 percent drop in 
livestock numbers in Jackson County (28,748 to 14,207) with relatively 
stable numbers in Larimer and Grand Counties (U.S. Department of 
Agriculture 2023, entire).
    We did not incorporate the current levels and effects of livestock 
grazing in our evaluation of current and future resiliency because this 
stressor is not having a population-level effect to North Park 
phacelia. We do not expect grazing management to change on Refuge lands 
and on BLM lands under the current BLM resource management plan (RMP) 
(see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below; Service 
2023, pp. 22-23). Given the stability and decline in livestock totals 
per county discussed above, we do not expect livestock grazing to 
increase in North Park phacelia habitat in the future.
Invasive Plants
    Invasive plants were not identified as a threat to North Park 
phacelia at the time of listing or in the 2012 status review (Service 
2012, entire). Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), other thistles 
(Cirsium spp.), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) are present in a few 
populations and appear to be associated with disturbance from 
development, OHV use, and livestock grazing (Service 2012, pp. 8, 11; 
CHNP 2020, pp. 9, 14, 47; Service 2022, p. 3). The Refuge is addressing 
this stressor by removing invasive thistle by hand (Service 2022, p. 
3). The best available information indicates this stressor is currently 
affecting only individual plants and is not having a population-level 
effect to North Park phacelia.
    We considered the effects of invasive plants to population 
resilience as part of our disturbance evaluation because this stressor 
is associated with development, roads, and other surface disturbance 
(Service 2023, pp. 20-23).
Climate Change
    Climate change may affect the long-term survival of native species, 
including North Park phacelia, especially if longer or more frequent 
droughts occur. Within the range of North Park phacelia, under lower 
emission scenarios, summer maximum temperature is expected to increase 
4.7 [deg]F (2.6 [deg]C), and under higher emission scenarios, summer 
maximum temperature is expected to increase 6.6 [deg]F (3.7 [deg]C) by 
mid-century, compared to the historical average between 1971 and 2010 
(Hegewisch and Abatzoglou 2023, entire). Extreme droughts, like those 
that occurred in 2012 and 2020, could also become more frequent by mid-
century. Historically (1979 to 2000), droughts of this scale did not 
occur within the range of the species (Service 2023, appendix B). Under 
lower emissions scenarios, these extreme droughts could occur four 
times between now and mid-century or, under higher emissions scenarios, 
five times between now and mid-century (Service 2023, appendix B).
    North Park phacelia appears to respond strongly and quickly to 
climate conditions with peak years and trough years of plant frequency, 
although some uncertainty exists about the climate variables to which 
the species is responding. Growing season (spring and summer) 
precipitation appears to be important for plant survival and 
reproduction; however, seedling recruitment and plant frequency are not 
strongly correlated with precipitation and temperature (Krening and 
Dawson 2021, p. 4; Service 2023, p. 24). In some of the populations, 
there is a 3-to-5-year cycle of plant abundance fluctuations (peak to 
trough years), which appears to be influenced by climate conditions and 
demography (Krening and Dawson 2021, p. 4). Two trough years (2012, 
2020) with lower plant frequency likely reflect the extreme drought 
conditions during the growing season. The drought conditions of these 2 
years, as measured by the growing season water deficit (GSWD), was 
approximately 27 in (68.6 cm). Another trough year (2016) occurred in a 
year with average growing season precipitation and cannot be attributed 
to drought. Rather, the working hypothesis is that the 2016 trough year 
was potentially influenced by demographic factors. One limitation is 
the lack of population-level climate data; there is only one weather 
station in Jackson County that provides climate information for the 
entire species' range. Rainfall is highly localized across the range of 
the species and may vary across short distances and among the 
populations in Jackson County (Timberman, pers. comm. 2022).
    As we mentioned above, growing season precipitation appears to be 
important for plant survival and reproduction and appears to influence 
the variation in annual plant frequency.

[[Page 19558]]

We evaluated historical and current growing season precipitation 
conditions with the GSWD metric, a measure of the difference between 
potential evapotranspiration (water loss by evaporation and 
transpiration by plants) and precipitation during the growing season. 
We consider the GSWD metric to be a proxy for plant stress, with higher 
GSWD values indicating drier conditions and greater plant stress during 
the growing season. Other climate factors likely play a role in annual 
frequency variation, but we do not fully understand these 
relationships. We compared the average GSWD for the historical time 
period (1971-2000) to the current time period (2011-2022). The 
historical time period is slightly wetter (lower average GSWD) compared 
to the current time period. The historical (1979-2000) average GSWD was 
21.96 in (55.78 cm) and varied annually between a low of 15 in (38 cm) 
to a high of 26 in (66 cm) (Service 2023, p. 30, appendix C). Half of 
the historical time period (11 years) had near-average GSWD conditions 
(within one-half standard deviation of the average), with 4 wet years 
and 4 drought years. The current (2011-2022) average GSWD was 23.15 in 
(58.8 cm), a near-average historical GSWD value. As mentioned above, 
based on our evaluation of the BLM frequency monitoring, a GSWD of 27 
in (68.6 cm) may be a significant drought threshold where North Park 
phacelia primarily remains dormant in the seedbank.
    Given North Park phacelia's strong response to climate conditions, 
we carried forward this stressor in our analysis in the SSA report to 
examine the species' potential response to future changes in this 
stressor. We relied on the historical average GSWD as the baseline to 
compare current and projected future climate conditions.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Current Condition

    In our SSA report, we evaluate current condition by examining 
current levels of resiliency in the 12 North Park phacelia populations 
and implications for redundancy and representation. Here, we summarize 
our evaluation of the current condition for resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation. Additional detail regarding our analysis is provided in 
the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 20-36).
Resiliency
    We describe the resiliency for each of the 12 populations in terms 
of the habitat and demographic factors needed by North Park phacelia 
(Service 2023, pp. 14-20, 27-35). We developed a categorical model to 
calibrate resiliency for the range of habitat and demographic 
conditions in each population. We first identified resource or 
demographic factors that contribute to the species' resiliency; these 
factors align with the individual resource needs and population-level 
needs we identified in the SSA analysis. We then defined threshold 
values for each identified resource or demographic factor that 
represent high, moderate, or low levels of that factor. Finally, we 
evaluated whether the current levels of each resource or demographic 
factor in a population fall within the predetermined thresholds for a 
high, moderate, or low score for the category; we then averaged these 
scores for each category to develop an overall current resiliency score 
for each population.
    For North Park phacelia, our categorical model assessed the 
resiliency of each population by evaluating (1) the size of the 
occupied habitat area; (2) the ecological setting, a proxy for habitat 
condition that quantifies disturbance levels and evaluates a number of 
stressors including residential and urban development, OHV use, mineral 
and energy development, and invasive species cover; (3) population 
abundance; and (4) growing season water deficit (GSWD), a proxy for 
drought and soil moisture that approximates the availability of water 
during the spring and summer. We selected these habitat and demographic 
factors based on their importance to the species' resiliency and 
because we could evaluate them relatively consistently across all 12 
populations.
    Resiliency categories, thresholds, and scores were established 
based on the best available information and professional opinion of 
species experts. Occupied habitat areas are estimates based on expert 
opinion by CNHP and BLM using aerial imagery or field observations. 
Ecological setting and disturbance levels are based on a spatial 
analysis with conservative thresholds to compensate for the lack of 
detailed species-specific information and monitoring. Population 
abundance information is based on estimates by CNHP using field 
observations. GSWD, the difference between potential evapotranspiration 
and precipitation during the growing season, is based on climate data 
provided by the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and the 
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.
    There are 12 North Park phacelia populations, and according to our 
current condition analysis in the SSA report, half of them (6) have 
high resiliency, 5 have moderate resiliency and 1 has low resiliency 
(see table 1, below; Service 2023, p. 30). The 11 populations with high 
and moderate resiliency maintained adequate ecological setting 
conditions with low levels of disturbance, moderate or high population 
abundance, and a range of scores for occupied habitat areas. The 11 
populations with high or moderate resiliency are distributed across the 
species' range (present in all three basins) (table 1). Of these, 6 
populations have thousands of plants, the largest is estimated to have 
more than 8,600 plants, and these large populations are also 
distributed across the species' range (present in all three basins) 
(table 1). The Airport population in the North Park basin has a low 
resiliency score due to its low scores for occupied habitat area, 
population abundance, and ecological setting. This population has 
higher levels of disturbance from OHV use, and a road and parking lot 
surround this population, fragmenting the habitat. All 12 populations 
received a high score for GSWD because the current average (2011 to 
2022) is similar to the historical average (1979 to 2000) for this 
metric. The 11 populations with high or moderate resiliency are at less 
risk from potential stochastic events, such as climatic variation, than 
the population with low resiliency.

[[Page 19559]]



               Table 1--Current Condition Resiliency Rankings for North Park Phacelia Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Plant
           Basin (county)                  Population          abundance            Population resiliency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Park (Jackson)...............  North Park Resource       1,200-3,000  High.
                                      Natural Area ACEC.
                                     California Gulch.....         200-350  Moderate.
                                     Airport..............             200  Low.
                                     Case Flats, Potter              6,000  High.
                                      Creek, Rockwell.
                                     Verner and Brownlee..          >2,000  High.
                                     Diamond J Ranch......             300  High.
                                     Diamond J State                 2,000  High.
                                      Wildlife Area.
                                     Battleship-Dwinell             50-400  Moderate.
                                      Ranch.
Larimer River (Larimer)............  Hohnholz North East..         375-800  High.
                                     Laramie River-Bull                300  Moderate.
                                      Mountain.
                                     Forrester Creek......           2,000  Moderate.
Troublesome Creek (Grand)..........  Troublesome Creek               8,675  Moderate.
                                      ACEC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redundancy
    Redundancy describes the number and distribution of populations, 
and the greater the number and the wider the distribution of the 
populations, the better North Park phacelia can withstand catastrophic 
events. The plausibility of catastrophic events also influences 
species' redundancy; if catastrophic events are unlikely within the 
range of the species, catastrophic risk is inherently lower. We 
identified severe and prolonged drought conditions as a plausible 
catastrophic event that may affect one or more populations 
simultaneously.
    Redundancy for narrow endemic species is intrinsically limited; 
however, North Park phacelia populations are distributed across 3 
basins (separated by 2 mountain ranges and approximately 20 mi (30 km) 
and 45 mi (72km)) in 12 populations within the range of the species. 
Within each basin, populations are separated by at least 1 mile (1.6 
km). As we mentioned above, the 11 populations with high or moderate 
resiliency are distributed across the species' range (present in all 3 
basins), and the 6 large populations with thousands of plants are also 
distributed across the species' range (present in all 3 basins). Thus, 
the 11 higher resiliency populations and their distribution help spread 
the risk of catastrophic drought conditions over a larger geographic 
area and contribute to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic 
events. We are not aware of any verified populations that have been 
extirpated (Service 2023, pp. 8-9). Redundancy has increased since 
North Park phacelia was listed because of our better understanding of 
the species, including more known populations, and a broader known 
distribution.
Representation
    North Park phacelia exhibits some ecological and morphological 
variability between the three basins (see Background, above). The 
species has low to moderate genetic diversity and inbreeding is not a 
concern (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 2-3, 25). Genetic variation 
occurs between populations, and the genetic differences increase with 
distance. Connectivity between nearby North Park phacelia populations 
appears to be low currently and historically (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 
2022, pp. 3, 25). Six genetic management units were identified for the 
species, four in North Park basin, and one each in the Larimer River 
and Troublesome Creek basins (Naibauer and McGlaughlin 2022, pp. 27-
28). Representation has increased since North Park phacelia was listed 
because taxonomic studies have led to the inclusion of additional 
populations previously considered different species and subspecies that 
contain more genetic variation (see Background, above).

Future Scenarios and Future Condition

    In our SSA report, we forecasted the resiliency of North Park 
phacelia populations and the redundancy and representation of the 
species to mid-century (2050) using a range of four plausible future 
scenarios that capture the range of plausible climate conditions of the 
four different climate models and emissions scenarios (Bamzai-Dodson 
and Rangwala 2019, p. 15; Rangwala et al. 2021, pp. 4-5). We selected 
this timeframe because it encompasses approximately 15 generations of 
North Park phacelia and allows us to reliably project changes in the 
species' stressors, land management (i.e., this timeframe encompasses 
at least the duration (30 years) of the applicable BLM resource 
management plan), and the species' response to stressors. While climate 
projections are available beyond 2050, there is a high degree of 
uncertainty in the species response to future climate conditions 
because information about North Park phacelia's physiological and 
genetic responses that may confer tolerance and adaptive capacity are 
unknown, and the potential exists for seedbank persistence under longer 
or more frequent drought conditions.
    We developed four future scenarios using four plausible climate 
models that were downscaled to the range of North Park phacelia. By 
developing a range of plausible future scenarios, we assume that actual 
future conditions will likely fall somewhere between these four 
scenarios. Detailed descriptions of each scenario are available in the 
SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 36-47). Future climate conditions were 
the only differences among the four scenarios to capture the range of 
possible drought conditions (using the GSWD metric) to assess how well 
future climate conditions meet the needs of the species. Based on the 
best available information, our future scenarios included the 
assumption that the other stressors will not change in the future. Many 
of the stressors that affect North Park phacelia at the individual 
level currently do not influence population resiliency and are not 
expected to change in the future, so we did not change their extent or 
severity in our future scenarios. We initially considered increasing 
the amount of disturbance by as much as 10 percent in all populations, 
but the outcome did not change the future conditions of populations. 
Given the strong fluctuations in population abundance, we could not 
reliably project changes to the future population abundance metric 
directly. Instead, we relied on the future projections of the GSWD 
metric to evaluate future climate conditions and provide an indirect 
assessment of the population abundance. We generally expect population 
abundance to increase in years with average or near-average GSWD and 
decline in years with below-average GSWD, consistent

[[Page 19560]]

with the thresholds we identified for this metric.
    In Scenario 1 (Warm and Wet), we project the resiliency of each 
population and the species' redundancy and representation will remain 
the same as the current condition (table 2). The average GSWD is 
projected to increase slightly compared to the historical average (by 
0.96 in (2.4 cm)) but remains in the high-condition category for the 
GSWD metric. These slightly drier conditions would have minimal impact 
to populations because they are well within the range of variability 
that the species experienced historically. Between now and mid-century, 
the climate model projects only 1 year of GSWD above 27 in (68.6 cm; 
drought conditions associated with low plant frequency), which is less 
frequent than we have seen during the current condition time period 
(2011 to 2022). North Park phacelia is projected to maintain 11 
populations with high or moderate resiliency in this scenario, and 
these populations are at less risk from potential stochastic events, 
such as climatic variation, than the population with low resiliency.
    In Scenario 2 (Hot and Wet), we project the resiliency of nine 
populations will remain the same as the current condition, and three 
populations (Diamond J Ranch, Hohnholz North East, and Diamond J State 
Wildlife Area) will drop from high to moderate overall resiliency 
(table 2). Redundancy and representation remain relatively unchanged 
from the current condition. The average GSWD is projected to increase 
compared to the historical average (by 2.26 in (5.74 cm)), which 
results in the moderate-condition category for the GSWD metric. Between 
now and mid-century, the climate model projects 6 years of GSWD above 
27 in (68.58 cm; drought conditions associated with low plant 
frequency), 2 of which were consecutive years, which is more frequent 
than seen during the current condition time period (2011 to 2022). The 
increase in water deficit as compared to historical conditions under 
this scenario (meaning that less water would be available to the 
plants) has the potential to negatively impact plant abundance. We 
expect the seedbank to remain viable under this projection and to 
support population resiliency. Despite some reduction in resiliency, 
North Park phacelia is projected to maintain 11 populations with high 
or moderate resiliency under this scenario, and these populations are 
at less risk from potential stochastic events, such as climatic 
variation, than the population with low resiliency.
    In Scenario 3 (Very Hot and Very Wet), the resiliency of each 
population and the species' redundancy and representation are projected 
to remain the same as the current condition (table 2). The average GSWD 
is projected to increase slightly compared to the historical average 
(by 0.70 in (1.78 cm)) but remains in the high-condition category for 
the GSWD metric. These slightly drier conditions would have minimal 
impact to populations because they are well within the range of 
variability that the species experienced historically. Between now and 
mid-century, the climate model projects no years of GSWD above 27 in 
(68.58 cm; drought conditions associated with low plant frequency), 
which is less frequent than seen during the current condition time 
period (2011 to 2022). North Park phacelia is projected to maintain 11 
populations with high or moderate resiliency under this scenario, and 
these populations are at less risk from potential stochastic events, 
such as climatic variation, than the population with low resiliency.
    In Scenario 4 (Very Hot and Dry), we project the resiliency of nine 
populations will remain the same as current conditions, and three 
populations (Diamond J Ranch, Hohnholz North East, and Diamond J State 
Wildlife Area) will drop from high to moderate overall resiliency 
(table 2). Redundancy and representation remain relatively unchanged 
from the current condition. The average GSWD is projected to increase 
compared to the historical average (by 2.72 in (6.91 cm)), which 
results in the moderate-condition category for the GSWD metric. Between 
now and mid-century, the climate model projects 9 years of GSWD above 
27 in (68.58 cm; drought conditions associated with low plant 
frequency), with 2 consecutive years and 3 consecutive years, which is 
more frequent than seen during the current condition time period (2011 
to 2022). The increase in water deficit as compared to historical 
conditions under this scenario (meaning that less water would be 
available to the plants) has the potential to negatively impact plant 
abundance. We expect the seedbank to remain viable under this 
projection and to support population resiliency. Despite some reduction 
in resiliency, North Park phacelia is projected to maintain 11 
populations with high or moderate resiliency, and these populations 
will be at less risk from potential stochastic events, such as climatic 
variation, than the population with low resiliency.

                         Table 2--Summary of North Park Phacelia Resiliency for the Current Condition and Four Future Scenarios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Resiliency
         Basin (county)               Population     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Current condition   Future scenario 1   Future scenario 2   Future scenario 3   Future scenario 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Park (Jackson)............  North Park          High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High.
                                   Resource Natural
                                   Area ACEC.
                                  California Gulch..  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
                                  Airport...........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Low.
                                  Case Flats, Potter  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High.
                                   Creek, Rockwell.
                                  Verner and          High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High.
                                   Brownlee.
                                  Diamond J Ranch...  High..............  High..............  Moderate..........  High..............  Moderate.
                                  Diamond J State     High..............  High..............  Moderate..........  High..............  Moderate.
                                   Wildlife Area.
                                  Battleship-Dwinnel  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
                                   l Ranch.
Larimer River (Larimer).........  Hohnholz North      High..............  High..............  Moderate..........  High..............  Moderate.
                                   East.
                                  Laramie River-Bull  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
                                   Mountain.
                                  Forrester Creek...  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
Troublesome Creek (Grand).......  Troublesome Creek   Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
                                   ACEC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19561]]

    Under all four future scenarios, we project that redundancy and 
representation of North Park phacelia will remain similar to the 
current condition. The Airport population is projected to maintain its 
low current condition, and we do not anticipate it will become 
extirpated. Under the drier scenarios (Scenario 2 and 4), some genetic 
and morphological diversity within populations could be lost. However, 
even in the most pessimistic plausible scenario (Scenario 4), all 
populations are expected to remain extant and ecological, 
morphological, and genetic variation will continue to be represented by 
the 12 populations across North Park phacelia's range.
    To summarize, we reviewed the current and future viability of North 
Park phacelia in the 2021 5-year status review and SSA report using the 
three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (see Analytical Framework, Service 2021a and 2023, 
entire; Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). We recommended in the 
2021 5-year status review that threats to the species had been 
sufficiently ameliorated or had not materialized and that listing was 
no longer warranted. We received new genetics information identifying a 
new population of North Park phacelia after publication of the 2021 5-
year status review that we added to the SSA report.
    We evaluated North Park phacelia's resiliency based on the range of 
habitat and demographic conditions in each population (see Analytical 
Framework, below). Distributed across the species' range (i.e., in all 
3 basins), 11 populations have high or moderate resiliency, 
contributing to the species' ability to withstand stochastic or 
catastrophic events. Of these, 6 populations have thousands of plants; 
the largest is estimated to have more than 8,600 plants. These large 
populations are also distributed across the species' range (present in 
all three basins) and contribute to the species' overall low risk of 
extinction. No significant imminent stressors are acting on the 
species, and drought is the only stressor projected to increase in the 
future. Given the species' drought tolerance and likely ability to 
withstand future drought conditions, we project that 11 populations of 
North Park phacelia will remain in high or moderate resiliency with a 
low risk of extinction from stochastic or catastrophic events. The 
species has inherently low to moderate levels of genetic diversity with 
no apparent change from historical conditions. Ecological and 
morphological diversity across the range also contribute to North Park 
phacelia's adaptive capacity (representation) and its ability to 
respond to changes in the environment. Furthermore, the documented new 
populations and greater distribution of the species since it was listed 
in 1982 provide additional resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
across its range, which has increased our understanding of the 
viability of the species.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Positive actions, in the form of conservation efforts such as land 
protections and regulations, have reduced sources of habitat 
degradation, and multiple agencies are committed to the conservation 
and preservation of North Park phacelia. BLM and the Service manage 
approximately 81 percent of the species' occupied habitat (Service 
2023, tables 3 and 4, p. 11). The State of Colorado funds and The 
Nature Conservancy manages a conservation easement on approximately 5 
percent of the species' occupied habitat on private land, specifically 
to protect North Park phacelia and other wildlife (Service 2023, table 
4, pp. 11, 25). The remaining habitat (14 percent) is privately owned, 
with no protections afforded to the species (Service 2023, table 4, pp. 
11, 25).
    The range of North Park phacelia spans one BLM field office 
(Kremmling Field Office) and one planning area. The Kremmling Field 
Office has included conservation measures in their resource management 
plan to minimize adverse impacts of land use to listed and sensitive 
species, including the North Park phacelia (BLM 2015a, pp. 24-26, 65, 
70, H-2). For example, the BLM resource management plan (RMP) includes 
motorized recreation restrictions, energy development restrictions, and 
grazing management; provisions for scientific research to aid in better 
understanding the effects of stressors on the species and guide 
conservation efforts; and collection prohibitions for rare plants that 
benefit North Park phacelia (BLM 2015a, pp. 2-3, 25, 68, H-2).
    Six populations, with approximately 243 ac (98 ha) of occupied 
habitat (representing 54 percent of total occupied habitat), are 
partially or completely within BLM Areas of Critical Environmental 
Concern (ACECs), which total approximately 7,225 ac (2,924 ha) (BLM 
2015a, pp. 24, 70; Service 2023, p. 23). The three ACECs (North Park 
Natural Area, Laramie River, and Troublesome Creek) were created in 
2015 for the conservation of natural resources including North Park 
phacelia. The three ACECs are managed as land use authorization 
avoidance areas where land use authorizations such as rights of way 
(ROW) grants would be avoided to the extent possible (BLM 2015a, pp. 
52-53, 70). The protections provided by ACEC designations are not 
contingent upon the species' federally listed status, and ACECs help to 
facilitate the maintenance and recovery of North Park phacelia, because 
they are areas where the species is not likely to be disturbed or 
adversely altered by land-use actions such as coal and oil and gas 
leasing and development (BLM 2015a, pp. 56, 64, 67, 68).
    BLM's ACECs do not have an expiration date, and removing an ACEC 
designation is not simple. A withdrawal of an ACEC can be made only by 
the Secretary of the Interior (43 U.S.C. 1714). Two ACECs (North Park 
Natural Area and Laramie River) were designated to protect North Park 
phacelia, while one ACEC (Troublesome Creek) was designated to protect 
multiple species and resources in addition to the North Park phacelia 
(BLM 2015a, p. 70). The ACEC designations will not change under the 
current BLM RMP, even if North Park phacelia is delisted.
    North Park phacelia also occurs on the Arapaho National Wildlife 
Refuge (Refuge) managed by the Service. The Refuge is closed to OHV use 
and livestock grazing where North Park phacelia occurs, and the 
Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) includes general 
management goals in support of North Park phacelia on Refuge lands and 
the implementation of conservation measures such as fences and 
minimizing disturbance, as needed, to ensure the species' survival and 
recovery (Service 2004, pp. 53, 68; Service 2023, p. 24). Other than 
occasional manual weed control efforts, we are not aware that the 
Refuge has performed other special management actions for North Park 
phacelia (L[oacute]pez, 2023, pp. 2-3).
    The current condition of North Park phacelia provides insight into 
the effectiveness of Federal management and, in general, the low levels 
of stressors on Federal and private lands; all but one (Airport) of the 
populations have high or moderate resiliency, including moderate to 
high habitat conditions (Service 2023, pp. 30-35). The species' current 
condition demonstrates that, both due to the species' population 
resiliency and to Federal management and other land protections, the 
stressors are not

[[Page 19562]]

currently meaningfully affecting the species.
    Even without the protections of the Act, North Park phacelia would 
remain a BLM sensitive species for at least 5 years (BLM 2008, pp. 36, 
47). If the species is no longer on the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants or BLM's sensitive species list, the measures 
specific to listed and sensitive species in the BLM RMPs would no 
longer apply (e.g., buffers around oil and gas development). However, 
most stipulations and conservation measures in these RMPs are not 
unique to North Park phacelia but rather provide general guidance for 
effective land management and rangeland health. For example, the 
motorized recreation restrictions mentioned above apply to most BLM 
lands and are not specific to North Park phacelia habitat. 
Additionally, the three ACECs discussed above are much larger than the 
North Park phacelia populations they contain, and they provide land use 
avoidance designations to the larger, surrounding habitats. If in the 
future North Park phacelia undergoes a downward trend and its viability 
is at risk such that it would again meet the definition of a BLM 
sensitive species, BLM has the authority to designate it as a BLM 
sensitive species (BLM 2008, pp. 36-37).
    Even without the protections of the Act, the Refuge would continue 
to provide management goals and protections to North Park phacelia 
under their current CCP (Service 2004, pp. 53, 68). Given the 15-year 
timeframe of CCPs, protections outlined in the Arapaho Refuge CCP are 
expected to remain in place for at least the next few years until the 
next revision (L[oacute]pez, 2023, pp. 2-3). The likelihood of future 
CCP revisions including conservation of North Park phacelia is high 
because the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Pub. L. 
105-57) mandates conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their 
habitats within the Refuge system. If the management goals for North 
Park phacelia are removed in a later version of the CCP, the general 
land use management and habitat protections would likely remain to 
provide indirect benefits to the species, including prohibitions on 
stressors such as OHV use and livestock grazing (L[oacute]pez, 2023, 
pp. 2-3).
    Even without the protections of the Act, the conservation easement 
on private lands where North Park phacelia occurs will be maintained in 
perpetuity regardless of the species' Federal status (Byers 2023, 
entire). The Nature Conservancy monitors the property for compliance 
annually, and the landowner administers a land management plan to 
benefit the species (Byers 2023, entire).
    The State of Colorado has no laws protecting rare plant species. 
The State of Colorado does identify North Park phacelia as a plant 
species of greatest conservation need in their 2015 Colorado State 
Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Rare Plant SWAP Addendum (CNHP 2015b, A-13, 
A-67, A-154, A-203). The SWAP informs the State of Colorado of 
conservation priorities but is not a regulatory mechanism and does not 
provide funding or management authority for North Park phacelia.
    In summary, conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms (such as 
a conservation easement and Federal RMPs and CCPs) have ameliorated, or 
are continuing to minimize, the previously identified threats of 
recreation (OHV use), livestock grazing, and energy development to 
North Park phacelia. As indicated above, the majority of these 
mechanisms will likely remain in place regardless of the species' 
Federal listing status. Consequently, we find that conservation efforts 
and existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to address previously 
identified threats and the stressors we evaluated in the SSA report and 
in this proposed rule.

Proposed Determination of North Park Phacelia (Phacelia formosula) 
Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires 
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the 
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    When we listed the North Park phacelia as endangered on September 
1, 1982, the Service identified motorcycle use (Factor A), livestock 
trampling (Factor C), potential energy development of coal and oil and 
gas (Factor A), and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) 
as threats to the existence of the species (47 FR 38540). In our SSA 
report, we evaluated these stressors and additional stressors that were 
identified after the time of listing. Much more is presently known 
about the species' stressors than at the time of listing.
    Several of the stressors identified in the original listing 
decision are no longer relevant. Given the taxonomic changes, and thus 
changes to the extent of the known range, that the species has 
undergone in the past 5 years, motorcycle use (OHV use) (Factor A) is 
adequately managed in 11 of the 12 populations and existing information 
indicates this stressor is unlikely to change in the foreseeable 
future. Mining and energy development (Factor A) have not occurred in 
occupied habitat since the time of listing and are adequately managed, 
and existing information indicates this stressor is unlikely to change 
in the foreseeable future. Although livestock grazing was categorized 
as a stressor under Factor C at the time of listing, we believe that 
the effects of livestock grazing are better characterized by Factor A. 
Livestock grazing does not result in population-level effects and is 
adequately managed, and existing information indicates this stressor is 
unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
    Other stressors we considered in the SSA report either do not 
result in population-level effects (residential and urban development 
(Factor A) and invasive plants (Factor A)), or the species is tolerant 
of their effects (climate change (Factor E) and cumulative effects of 
all stressors (Factor E)).
    We also evaluated a variety of conservation efforts and regulatory 
mechanisms across the 12 populations of North Park phacelia that either 
reduce or ameliorate stressors and improve or maintain habitat 
conditions and population resiliency. These conservation efforts and 
mechanisms include: one BLM RMP and one Service CCP that, when taken 
together, cover the majority of known occupied habitat (81 percent) and 
include motorized recreation restrictions, energy development 
restrictions, and grazing management (BLM 2015a, pp. 2-3, 24-26, 65, 
68, 70, H-2; Service 2004, pp. 53, 68). Implementation of the 
regulatory mechanisms in resource planning documents on all of the BLM 
and Service lands within the range of the species (Factor D) has helped 
to address the stressors we identified

[[Page 19563]]

under Factors A and E. While we cannot attribute the currently high to 
moderate resiliency of the species to one specific conservation 
measure, this high to moderate resiliency demonstrates the amelioration 
of relevant stressors, both due to the combination of conservation 
efforts in place and the tolerance of the plant (which has shown an 
ability to tolerate nearby disturbance).
    In addition to the implementation of conservation efforts that 
minimize impacts to the North Park phacelia on Federal lands (BLM and 
Refuge lands), approximately 54 percent of the known occupied habitat 
has special land management designations that limit or exclude the 
authorization of certain land uses and further help to facilitate the 
maintenance and recovery of North Park phacelia populations (Factor D) 
because they are areas where North Park phacelia plants and populations 
are not likely to be disturbed or adversely altered by land-use actions 
(BLM 2015a, pp. 2-3, 24-26, 65, 68, 70, H-2; Service 2004, pp. 53, 68). 
Additionally, approximately 5 percent of the known occupied habitat is 
private land under conservation easement, with protections and a land 
management plan specifically designed to protect and maintain North 
Park phacelia (Byers 2023, entire). The protections provided by these 
management designations and the conservation easement are not 
contingent upon the species' federally listed status.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

Endangered Throughout Its Range Determination
    Currently, 11 of the 12 populations have high or moderate 
resiliency, and 1 population has low resiliency (Service 2023, pp. 20-
36). The high- and moderate-resiliency populations have moderate to 
high population-abundance estimates, relatively intact habitat 
conditions, and a current water deficit that is similar to the 
historical average. While North Park phacelia tends to occupy 
relatively small habitat areas, these habitats provide adequate 
resources to support the species' needs. Rangewide monitoring does not 
show a clear population trend; however, there is no indication of 
widespread decline. Recent genetic results have also informed our 
understanding that North Park phacelia is currently much more abundant 
than originally estimated at the time of listing.
    The only plausible activity or naturally occurring event that would 
constitute a catastrophic event for North Park phacelia would be 
extreme drought conditions (meeting or exceeding a GSWD of 27 in (68.6 
cm)) sustained over a timeframe that exceeds the species' dormancy in 
the seedbank. Based on our evaluation of the four plausible future 
scenarios, there is a low risk of a catastrophic event impacting the 
species and its redundancy. The individuals within and among the 
populations also exhibit genetic, ecological, and morphological 
diversity, contributing to the species' representation.
    Moreover, our understanding of the species' stressors has changed 
since the time the North Park phacelia was listed. Multiple identified 
stressors are no longer relevant to the species, given past taxonomic 
changes and subsequent changes in the geographic range of the species 
(i.e., OHV use and energy development) or because they are not 
occurring at a scale anticipated at the time of listing (i.e., 
livestock use). We also have found in our evaluation of other stressors 
that residential and urban development and invasive species do not 
result in population-level effects to the species, and North Park 
phacelia appears to adequately tolerate the effects of climate change 
(Factor E) and the cumulative effects of all stressors (Factor E) (see 
Stressors, above).
    Since the species was listed, conservation efforts and regulatory 
mechanisms on Federal and private lands have helped to facilitate the 
maintenance and recovery of North Park phacelia populations. The BLM 
RMP includes restrictions (motorized use, energy development, and 
grazing management), stipulations (CSU and NSO), and designations 
(ACECs) to protect North Park phacelia populations (see Conservation 
Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, above). The ACEC designations limit 
or exclude the authorization of certain land uses, and two ACECs 
specifically reference the protection of North Park phacelia as a 
foundational goal. The conservation easement on private lands where 
North Park phacelia occurs will be maintained in perpetuity to protect 
and support the species (Byers 2023, entire). The protections provided 
by the BLM ACEC designations and the conservation easement on private 
lands are not contingent upon the species' federally listed status. The 
Service's CCP provides management goals and protections to North Park 
phacelia, and the likelihood of future CCP revisions including 
conservation of North Park phacelia is high because the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Pub. L. 105-57) mandates 
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within 
the Refuge system.
    Given the currently high and moderate levels of resiliency in 11 of 
the 12 North Park phacelia populations, the lack of significant 
imminent stressors, and the low likelihood of catastrophic events, we 
find that North Park phacelia currently has sufficient ability to 
withstand stochastic and catastrophic events and to adapt to 
environmental changes.
    Thus, after assessing the best available information and evaluating 
threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the 
threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we conclude that North 
Park phacelia is not in danger of extinction now throughout all of its 
range.
Threatened Throughout Its Range Determination
    Under the Act, a threatened species is any species that is likely 
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 
1532(20)). The term ``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the 
future as the Service can reasonably determine that both the future 
threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely (50 CFR 
424.11(d)). The Service describes the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the listable species' life-history 
characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental 
variability (50 CFR 424.11(d)). The key statutory difference between a 
threatened species and an endangered species is the timing of when a 
species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered species) 
or in the foreseeable future (threatened species).
    For the purposes of our analysis, we defined the foreseeable future 
for North Park phacelia to mid-century (2050). After mid-century, the 
changes in climate conditions that different climate models and 
emissions scenarios project begin to diverge widely (Bamzai-Dodson and 
Rangwala 2019, p. 15; Rangwala et al. 2021, pp. 4-5); in other words, 
the spread of potential projected temperature increases broadens 
substantially after mid-century. Therefore, we focused our analysis of 
future condition on mid-century to ``avoid large uncertainty in climate 
change at the end of the twenty-first century arising from the choice 
of an emission scenario'' (Rangwala et al. 2021, pp. 4-5). We also 
selected this timeframe because it is short enough for us to reliably 
predict changes in other species' stressors and land management, yet 
long enough to be biologically

[[Page 19564]]

meaningful to the species, covering approximately 15 generations, and 
reliably project the species' response to those changes.
    By mid-century, we anticipate a range of plausible future 
conditions for North Park phacelia under different climate conditions, 
but the stressors and conservation efforts remain similar to what the 
species is currently experiencing. Under Scenario 1 (Warm and Wet), we 
expect the resiliency of each population and the species' redundancy 
and representation to remain the same as the current conditions. The 
projected slightly drier conditions would have minimal impact to 
populations because they are well within the range of variability that 
the species experienced historically (in the high-condition category 
for the GSWD metric). In Scenario 2 (Hot and Wet), we expect the 
resiliency to remain very similar to the current condition (three 
populations--Diamond J Ranch, Hohnholz North East, and Diamond J State 
Wildlife Area--drop from high to moderate overall resiliency), and 
redundancy and representation remain relatively unchanged from the 
current conditions because of drier conditions (in the moderate-
condition category for the GSWD metric). In Scenario 3 (Very Hot and 
Very Wet), we expect the resiliency of each population and the species' 
redundancy and representation to remain the same as the current 
conditions. The projected slightly drier conditions would have minimal 
impact to populations because they are well within the range of 
variability that the species experienced historically (in the high-
condition category for the GSWD metric). In Scenario 4 (Very Hot and 
Dry), we expect the resiliency to remain very similar to the current 
condition (three populations--Diamond J Ranch, Hohnholz North East, and 
Diamond J State Wildlife Area--drop from high to moderate overall 
resiliency). Redundancy and representation remain relatively unchanged 
from the current conditions. The projected slightly drier conditions 
would have minimal impact to populations because they are well within 
the range of variability that the species experienced historically (in 
the high-condition category for the GSWD metric).
    Given these future projections of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to mid-century, North Park phacelia could experience a 
slight decrease in viability under two of the four future scenarios 
(Scenarios 2 (Hot and Wet) and 4 (Very Hot and Dry)). Even under these 
two scenarios, the species maintains 11 high- and moderate-resiliency 
populations despite increasing drought conditions. In all four 
scenarios, we expect 11 of the 12 populations will maintain viability 
(will have moderate to high resiliency), and all 12 populations will 
remain extant, thereby continuing to contribute to the redundancy and 
representation of the species.
    Three factors support this consistently moderate to high future 
resiliency: Federal and private conservation efforts and regulatory 
mechanisms, stressors that are not likely to increase in the future, 
and the species' biological characteristics.
    First, the high to moderate resiliency of North Park phacelia is, 
in part, due to land protections and regulations implemented by BLM, 
the Service, private landowners, and The Nature Conservancy that will 
continue to be implemented into the future, even in the absence of 
protections afforded by the Act (Factor D), as described under 
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, above. These 
protections will continue to limit the potential effects of stressors 
on North Park phacelia in the future. OHV use (Factor A), livestock 
grazing (Factor A), energy development (Factor A), and invasive plants 
(Factor A) are adequately managed, and existing information indicates 
these stressors are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The 
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are sufficient to ensure 
protection of the species at the reduced levels of stressors that 
remain.
    Second, independent of future conservation efforts and regulatory 
mechanisms, the high to moderate resiliency of North Park phacelia is, 
in part, due to some stressors not increasing in the future. 
Residential and urban development (Factor A) within North Park phacelia 
populations has not occurred since the time of listing, and existing 
information indicates this stressor is unlikely to change in the 
foreseeable future.
    Third, the species' biological characteristics confer some 
tolerance to moderate its response to projected drier conditions. North 
Park phacelia appears to adequately tolerate the effects of climate 
change (Factor E) and cumulative effects of all stressors (Factor E), 
and existing information indicates that this tolerance is unlikely to 
substantially change in the foreseeable future. Although conditions 
could become drier under two future scenarios (Scenarios 2 (Hot and 
Wet) and 4 (Very Hot and Dry)), populations have maintained healthy 
recruitment and survival, even through two recent extreme drought years 
(2012 and 2020) (see Stressors, above). These characteristics allow the 
species to maintain moderate survivorship and resiliency, even under 
Scenarios 2 (Hot and Wet) and 4 (Very Hot and Dry).
    Considering the levels of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation projected under each of the future scenarios described 
in the SSA report, North Park phacelia will be able to withstand 
stochastic events, catastrophic events, and environmental change into 
the foreseeable future. Therefore, after assessing the best available 
information and evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we conclude that North Park phacelia is not likely to become 
in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of 
its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Having determined that the North Park phacelia is not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in 
danger of extinction (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of its 
range--that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for 
which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to 
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    In undertaking this analysis for the North Park phacelia, we chose 
to address the status question first. We began by identifying portions 
of the range where the biological status of the species may be 
different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this 
purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic 
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that 
the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
    We evaluated the range of the North Park phacelia to determine if 
the species

[[Page 19565]]

is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a species 
can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of 
ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that 
may meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened 
species. For North Park phacelia, we considered whether the threats or 
their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful 
portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the 
species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following threats: 
residential and urban development, OHV use, mining and energy 
development, livestock grazing, invasive plants, climate change, and 
cumulative effects of all stressors.
    Livestock grazing, invasive plants, and climate change occur 
uniformly across the species' range; that is, there are no portions of 
the species' range where these stressors occur more intensely or have 
greater impacts on the species. Residential and urban development and 
mining and energy development have occurred and are present in the 
North Park and Larimer River basins. However, despite past development 
activity, these threats do not currently negatively impact population 
resiliency in these basins and are not expected to increase in the 
future. Ten of the 11 populations in the North Park and Larimer River 
basins currently have high or moderate resiliency and are expected to 
maintain high or moderate population resiliency under all four 
scenarios. OHV use has occurred in five populations, but this threat is 
only negatively impacting the population resiliency of the Airport 
population. This is the only population (Airport) that currently has 
low resiliency due in part to extensive OHV use, and this population is 
expected to maintain low resiliency under all four future scenarios. 
Therefore, we identified this population as a portion of the range that 
may potentially have a different status than the species as a whole and 
was worth further consideration. We now assess whether the Airport 
population is ``significant.'' We do not consider this population, by 
itself, to represent a biologically meaningful portion of the range. 
The Airport population has a small population size and small habitat 
area and contributes the least out of all of the known populations to 
the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation. It is one of 
eight populations in the North Park basin that share similar soil and 
habitat characteristics (see Background, above). The other seven 
populations in the North Park basin are larger in size and habitat area 
and have high or moderate current resiliency and are expected to 
maintain high or moderate population resiliency under all four future 
scenarios. Therefore, although the Airport population may have a 
difference in status relative to other populations of North Park 
phacelia, we determined that, by itself, it is not significant.
    We looked across the remainder of the range of the species for any 
other portions of the range that may have a different status than the 
species as a whole, but we did not identify any others. For example, we 
also explored the status of North Park phacelia in the Troublesome 
Creek and Larimer River basins, respectively, due to their isolation 
from the core of the species' range in the North Park basin. The 
Troublesome Creek basin has one population (Troublesome Creek ACEC) 
with a large population size and moderate current resiliency and is 
expected to maintain moderate resiliency under all four future 
scenarios. The Larimer River basin has three populations (Hohnholz 
North East, Forrester Creek, and Laramie River-Bull Mountain) with high 
and moderate current resiliency, and they are expected to maintain 
their current resiliency under all four future scenarios. Therefore, 
none of these areas differs in status from the species as a whole, and 
we did not consider them further.
    The Airport population does not represent a significant portion of 
the range; therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any 
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the 
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 321 
F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, 
in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final 
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its 
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), 
including the definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions 
held to be invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available 
indicates that the North Park phacelia does not meet the definition of 
an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.11[euro](2), North Park phacelia does not meet the 
definition of an endangered or a threatened species. Therefore, we 
propose to remove North Park phacelia from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Effects of This Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by 
removing North Park phacelia from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided 
by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer 
apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect North Park 
phacelia. No critical habitat is designated for this species, so this 
proposed rulemaking action would not affect 50 CFR 17.96.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) 
refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due 
to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the 
protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to 
monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and 
if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that 
proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any 
time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status 
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, 
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
    We have prepared a draft PDM plan for North Park phacelia. The 
draft PDM plan discusses the current status of the taxon and describes 
the methods proposed for monitoring if we delist the taxon. The draft 
PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status of North Park phacelia at the time 
of proposed delisting; (2) describes the frequency and duration of 
monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods and potential sampling 
regimes; (4) defines what potential triggers will be evaluated to 
address the need for additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting 
requirements and procedures; (6)

[[Page 19566]]

proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines 
responsibilities. We intend to work with our partners toward 
maintaining the recovered status of North Park phacelia. We appreciate 
any information on what should be included in post-delisting monitoring 
strategies for this species (see Information Requested, above).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretaries' Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We notified the Apache Tribe of 
Oklahoma, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho 
Tribes of the Wind River Reservation, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Southern 
Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Ute Indian Tribe of 
our recommendation to delist North Park phacelia in our 5-year status 
review in 2021, and we did not receive a response. We are not aware of 
any Tribal interests or concerns associated with this proposed rule.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.12, amend paragraph (h) in the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants by removing the entry under Flowering Plants for 
``Phacelia formosula (North Park phacelia)''.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-05674 Filed 3-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P