1054 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: December 27, 2024. 

Kimberlee Trzeciak, 

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Legislation, 

and International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31528 Filed 1–6–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0115; 

FXES1113090FEDR–256–FF09E22000] 

RIN 1018–BH97 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of Ute Ladies’- 

Tresses From the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

remove Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes 

diluvialis) from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. This 

determination also serves as our 12- 

month finding on a petition to delist Ute 

ladies’-tresses. After a review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that delisting the 

species is warranted. Our review 

indicates that the threats to Ute ladies’- 

tresses 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 Ute ladies’-tresses. 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 Ute ladies’-tresses. We 

request information and comments from 

the public regarding this proposed rule 

and the draft post-delisting monitoring 

(PDM) plan for Ute ladies’-tresses. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 10, 2025. 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 February 21, 2025. 

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–2024–0115, 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–2024–0115, 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 review, 

draft recovery plan, draft post-delisting 

monitoring plan (PDM), and the species 

status assessment (SSA) report, are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2024– 

0115 and on the Service’s website at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Weekley, Field Office 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, 

West Valley City, UT 84119; telephone 

801–239–0561. 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-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0115 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). Ute ladies’-tresses is listed as 

threatened, and we are proposing to 

delist it. We have determined Ute 

ladies’-tresses 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 Ute ladies’-tresses 

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, based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, that the species is neither an 

endangered species nor a threatened 

species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.11(e) identify four reasons why we 

might determine a species shall be 

delisted: (1) The species is extinct; (2) 

the species has recovered to the point at 

which it no longer meets the definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species; (3) new information that has 

become available since the original 

listing decision shows the listed entity 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species; or (4) new information that has 

become available since the original 

listing decision shows the listed entity 

does not meet the definition of a 

species. We have determined that Ute 

ladies’-tresses has recovered to the point 

at which it 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1055 

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 Ute ladies’-tresses from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Plants; 

(2) Relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to Ute ladies’- 

tresses, 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 Ute 

ladies’-tresses that may have either a 

negative or positive impact on the 

species; and 

(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 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered 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 determination 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 if relevant, any 

comments on that new information), we 

may conclude that the species should 

remain listed as threatened, or we may 

conclude that the species should be 

reclassified from threatened to 

endangered. 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 these 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 Ute 

ladies’-tresses. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts 

from Federal agencies, State wildlife 

and heritage programs, and local 

conservation groups. 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 Ute ladies’-tresses SSA 

report. The Service sent the SSA report 

to seven independent 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–2024–0115. 

In preparing this proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the final 

SSA report, which is the foundation for 

this proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from three peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA report. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the contents of the SSA report. As 

discussed above, because we conducted 

this peer review prior to this proposed 

rule, we have already incorporated all 

applicable peer review comments in 

version 1.1 of the SSA report, which is 

the foundation for this proposed rule. 

The peer reviewers provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and recommendations pertaining to our 

analysis of Ute ladies’-tresses’ current 

and future condition. We either 

incorporated or clarified substantial 

comments in the SSA report or address 

them below. In addition to substantive 

comments on the SSA report, we 

received several comments requesting 

the inclusion of additional biological 

information about orchids, more detail 

on the methods used in the suitable 

habitat model, and suggestions for 

climate change models to consider. 

Those comments were incorporated in 

the SSA report where applicable and are 

not summarized here. 

(1) Comment: One reviewer was 

concerned with how we scored the 

overall current resiliency of analytical 

units (AUs). The reviewer stated that 

our scoring does not necessarily identify 

truly high resiliency conditions but 

rather provides a relative evaluation of 

AU resiliency, noting that an overall 

high resiliency score can be achieved 

even if one metric, such as vegetative 

habitat, is in low condition. 

Our response: We developed our 

current condition evaluation in 

coordination with species experts, and 

our scoring reflects the relative 

contribution of each metric (e.g., 

hydrological condition, vegetative 

habitat) to overall AU resiliency as 

discussed below in Current Condition. 

Ute ladies’-tresses is adapted to 

disturbance and changing hydrological 

and habitat conditions, and AUs may 

maintain high resiliency even when 

some of the species’ needs are not being 

optimally met at individual occurrences 

or portions of those occurrences. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1056 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Therefore, our scoring of overall AU 

resiliency is appropriate. 

(2) Comment: One reviewer 

commented that the comparisons of AU 

resiliency using the suitable habitat and 

connectivity metrics is problematic 

because different modeling approaches 

were used to generate suitable habitat in 

each AU based on the opinions of 

different biologists across the species’ 

range. Therefore, the suitable habitat 

models were much more conservative, 

and therefore limited, for some AUs 

compared to others, resulting in 

inconsistencies in how AUs were 

evaluated for resiliency. The reviewer 

recommended that we use a 

standardized, rangewide method for the 

suitable habitat model. 

Our response: We initially considered 

using a draft suitable habitat model 

using consistent methods recommended 

by the reviewer; however, input from 

species experts indicated that this 

model and other draft models 

overpredicted, rather than reasonably 

predicted, suitable habitat across the 

species’ range. The modeling approach 

used in the SSA reflects local conditions 

and the variation across the range based 

on occurrence data within each AU, 

which would not be reflected using a 

standardized, rangewide method as 

recommended by the reviewer. When 

developing the final suitable habitat 

model, we incorporated 

recommendations from Service 

biologists in every State within the 

species’ range to evaluate whether 

model predictions were a good 

reflection of suitable habitat for their 

respective AUs. The final model we 

relied on for our evaluation of suitable 

habitat in the SSA report is a 

combination of AU-level hydrologic 

unit code (HUC) 6 models and expert 

opinion, and we consider that model to 

provide the best representation of 

potentially suitable habitat for Ute 

ladies’-tresses given the species’ lifehistory traits, occurrence data, and 

variation across its range. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On September 27, 1985, we published 

a notice of review in the Federal 

Register (50 FR 39526) issuing a list of 

plant taxa being considered for listing as 

endangered or threatened. Ute ladies’- 

tresses was included on this list as a 

Category 2 species. Category 2 species 

were taxa for which information in 

possession of the Service indicated that 

proposing to list them as endangered or 

threatened species was possibly 

appropriate, but we lacked conclusive 

data on biological vulnerability and 

threats to support the immediate 

preparation of a proposed rule. 

On February 21, 1990, we published 

a notice of review in the Federal 

Register (55 FR 6184) reclassifying Ute 

ladies’-tresses from a Category 2 species 

to a Category 1 species based on a 

review of information collected since 

1985. Category 1 species were taxa for 

which we had on file enough substantial 

information on biological vulnerability 

and threat(s) to support proposed rules 

to list them as endangered or threatened 

species. However, a proposed rule to list 

Ute ladies’-tresses was not issued 

because the action was precluded at the 

time by other listing activity. In the 

1990 notice of review, we used the 

common name ‘‘plateau lady’s tresses’’ 

for Spiranthes diluvialis. 

On November 13, 1990, we published 

in the Federal Register (55 FR 47347) a 

proposed rule to list Ute ladies’-tresses 

as a threatened species due to the 

primary threat of water development 

and urbanization in its riparian habitat. 

At that time, the species was known to 

be comprised of fewer than 3,000 plants 

in 7 populations. Our proposed rule 

used ‘‘Ute ladies’-tresses’’ as the 

common name for Spiranthes diluvialis 

in recognition of the fact that the 

species’ known historical range was 

used largely by the Ute Indian Tribe. We 

determined that it would not be prudent 

to designate critical habitat because the 

publication of critical habitat 

descriptions and maps would make this 

orchid species more vulnerable to 

collection. 

Three additional populations were 

identified in Utah and Nevada prior to 

the final listing rule, for a total of 10 

known populations with an estimated 

population size of fewer than 6,000 

plants. On January 17, 1992, we 

published in the Federal Register (57 

FR 2048) a final rule to list Ute ladies’- 

tresses as a threatened species. The final 

rule included a determination that the 

designation of critical habitat for Ute 

ladies’-tresses was not prudent. 

When we listed Ute ladies’-tresses as 

a threatened species (see 57 FR 2048, 

January 17, 1992), we identified habitat 

loss and modification due to water 

development and urbanization (Factor 

A) as the primary threat to the species. 

We considered collection (Factor B) to 

be a threat because it is an orchid 

species. Disease and predation (Factor 

C) were not considered threats. 

Regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) 

included a limited degree of protection 

for the species’ wetland habitat under 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.), and international trade for all 

orchids is regulated by the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Flora and Fauna 

(CITES; 27 U.S.T. 1087, March 3, 1973). 

Finally, we identified the species’ small 

and scattered populations, variable 

demographic structure of populations, 

and a presumed slow reproductive rate 

(Factor E) as making the species more 

vulnerable to other threats and stressors. 

In 1995, we completed a draft 

recovery plan for the species (Service 

1995, entire). To date, this plan has not 

been finalized. 

On May 10, 1996, we received a 

petition from the Central Utah Water 

Conservancy District (CUWCD) to delist 

Ute ladies’-tresses pursuant to the Act 

(Christiansen 1996, entire). A ‘‘Special 

Status Species Update’’ for Ute ladies’- 

tresses, dated April 1996, accompanied 

the petition as supporting information 

(CUWCD 1996, entire). In response to 

the petitioner’s request to delist Ute 

ladies’-tresses, we sent a letter to the 

petitioner on June 10, 1996, explaining 

our inability to act upon the petition 

due to the low priority assigned to 

delisting petitions in our 1996 Listing 

Priority Guidance (61 FR 24722, May 

16, 1996). 

On October 12, 2004, we published in 

the Federal Register (69 FR 60605) a 90- 

day finding that the 1996 petition 

contained substantial information 

indicating that delisting Ute ladies’- 

tresses may be warranted. However, 

higher priority work continued to 

preclude our ability to take further 

action on this petition. This proposed 

rule constitutes our 12-month finding 

on the May 10, 1996, petition to delist 

Ute ladies’-tresses under the Act. 

In 2023, we completed an SSA report 

to evaluate the species’ rangewide status 

and inform a 5-year status review. On 

August 8, 2023, we completed a 5-year 

review that recommended delisting Ute 

ladies’-tresses due to recovery. 

Background 

Species Description and Habitat 

Information 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of Ute ladies’- 

tresses is presented in the SSA report, 

version 1.1 (Service 2024, entire). Ute 

ladies’-tresses is an herbaceous (not 

woody), perennial plant in the orchid 

family (Orchidaceae) found in the 

western United States and Canada. It is 

a terrestrial orchid (grows in the ground) 

and inhabits naturally occurring and 

human-created wetland habitats. When 

it was first described as a species in 

1984, Ute ladies’-tresses was known to 

occur only in Utah and Colorado 

(Sheviak 1984, entire). Today, the 

species is found in eight U.S. States 

(Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, 

Nevada, Utah, Washington, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1057 

Wyoming) and southern British 

Columbia, Canada (Service 2024, p. 4). 

Ute ladies’-tresses is a naturally 

occurring allopolyploid species, 

meaning it has more than one pair of 

chromosomes derived from the 

hybridization of two genetically distinct 

species (Szalanski et al. 2001, pp. 178– 

179). Ute ladies’-tresses is fertile 

(produces fertile offspring) but is not 

cross-compatible with either of its 

parent species, hooded lady’s tresses 

(Spiranthes romanzoffiana) and Great 

Plains lady’s tresses (S. 

magnicamporum) (Szalanski et al. 2001, 

pp. 178–179; Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 7– 

8). The ranges of hooded lady’s tresses 

and Great Plains lady’s tresses do not 

currently overlap with each other, but 

may have overlapped during the 

Pleistocene, a geological epoch that 

ended approximately 11,700 years ago 

(Sheviak 1984, p. 9). The hooded lady’s 

tresses is present within the range of Ute 

ladies’-tresses but generally occupies 

higher elevations than Ute ladies’- 

tresses (above 7,000 feet (ft) (2,133 

meters (m))), so the two species are 

mostly spatially separate within their 

overlapping ranges. Where they cooccur in Idaho, hooded lady’s tresses 

flowers earlier than Ute ladies’-tresses 

(Moseley 2000, pp. 1–2). 

A genetic study of Ute ladies’-tresses 

identified an unusually high degree of 

genetic variability within samples from 

several occurrences in Colorado and 

Utah, which suggests the species may 

have evolved from two or more separate 

hybridization events between hooded 

lady’s tresses and Great Plains lady’s 

tresses (Arft and Ranker 1998, p. 119). 

However, little genetic differentiation 

was found between samples from 

various occurrences in Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nebraska, Utah, and 

Wyoming, suggesting that there may be 

a high degree of gene flow between Ute 

ladies’-tresses in those areas. No genetic 

studies have been conducted on Ute 

ladies’-tresses in the Upper Columbia 

basin of Washington and British 

Columbia, which is highly disjunct 

without any known connectivity to 

other occupied basins, or in the Lower 

Colorado-Lake Mead basin of Nevada, 

which contains a single isolated 

occurrence. 

Ute ladies’-tresses plants are 

approximately 4.7 to 23.6 inches (in) (12 

to 60 centimeters (cm)) tall and grow 

from tuberous-thickened roots (enlarged 

fleshy roots that store starch and 

nutrients). Basal leaves are grass-like, up 

to 11 in (28 cm) long, and leaves become 

progressively smaller up the stem 

(Sheviak 1984, entire). Flowers are 

small (0.3 to 0.6 in (7.5–15 millimeters 

(mm) long)), white or ivory-colored, and 

arranged in a gradual spiral along the 

flowering stalks (inflorescences) that 

inspired the ladies’-tresses part of the 

common name (Service 2024, p. 30). 

One diagnostic feature that 

distinguishes Ute ladies’-tresses from 

hooded lady’s tresses is how fused the 

sepals (lower part of the flower that 

supports the petals) are to each other; 

the sepals of Ute ladies’-tresses are 

separate or fused only at the base, 

whereas the sepals of hooded lady’s 

tresses are fused into a hood-like 

structure. Fruits are cylindric capsules 

with numerous seeds (Sheviak 1984, 

entire; Fertig et al. 2005, p. 7). 

Ute ladies’-tresses has five life stages: 

seeds, seedlings, dormant plants, 

vegetative plants, and reproductive 

plants (Fertig 2020, p. 67; Service 2024, 

p. 31). Plants are perennial, appear to be 

long-lived, and likely depend on a 

specific symbiotic mycorrhizal (fungal) 

association during all life stages based 

on studies of other terrestrial orchids 

(Batty et al. 2002, pp. 196–197). Many 

terrestrial orchids have lifespans of 20 

to 30 years or more, with at least one 

Spiranthes species having a lifespan of 

more than 60 years (Willems and 

Dorland 2010, p. 346; Shefferson et al. 

2020, pp. 318–319). 

Ute ladies’-tresses can likely 

reproduce asexually through root 

splitting (Fertig et al. 2005, p. 67), but 

the species primarily reproduces 

sexually through seed production. 

Plants cannot produce seeds without 

pollinators. The primary pollinators of 

Ute ladies’-tresses are bumblebees 

(Bombus spp.), solitary bees of the 

Anthophora genus, and honeybees (Apis 

mellifera) (Sipes and Tepedino 1995, 

entire; Sipes et al. 1995, pp. 1–3, 15–17; 

Pierson and Tepedino 2000, pp. 8, 16, 

27–28). Plants typically flower in 

August and September (Fertig et al. 

2005, p. 54), but the timing varies by 

location and local environmental 

conditions. Flowering has been 

documented as early as the beginning of 

July in Nevada, a hotter and drier part 

of the range, and as late as October in 

cooler, higher elevation occurrences 

(Great Basin Institute (GBI) 2009, p. 3; 

Ute ladies’-tresses Technical Team (ULT 

Tech) 2021, entire). 

Orchid seeds are extremely small (the 

size of dust particles), are easily 

dispersed by wind and water, and do 

not provide much nourishment for the 

embryo (undeveloped plant) after 

germination (Sipes et al. 1995, p. 23). If 

the embryo can quickly form a 

mycorrhizal association, it is able to 

obtain nutrients directly from the soil 

fungi without relying on photosynthesis 

(Hildebrand 1998, p. 4; McGonigle and 

Sheridan 2004, p. 11; Yeung 2017, pp. 

8–9). Seedlings persist underground and 

rely on the mycorrhizal association to 

develop shoots and leaves. It is 

unknown how long seedlings remain 

underground before transitioning to 

other life stages (vegetative or adult 

plants). We assume that Ute ladies’- 

tresses persist as a seedling for at least 

1 year. 

Ute ladies’-tresses may transition from 

being vegetative to reproductive or from 

reproductive to vegetative in subsequent 

aboveground years, and periods of 

dormancy below ground may occur 

throughout a plant’s life (Yeung 2017, 

entire; ULT Tech 2021, entire; Service 

2024, pp. 31–32). Plants can survive 

unfavorable conditions in a state of 

dormancy for multiple years (11 

consecutive years or longer), either as a 

germinated seedling in a symbiotic 

mycorrhizal (fungal) association, known 

as a protocorm, or as an adult root mass 

(Fertig et al. 2005, p. 61). Adult plants 

do not emerge above ground or flower 

every year; flowering likely depends on 

environmental conditions and when the 

plant last flowered—a plant that 

flowered in the previous year may be 

more likely to remain vegetative or 

become dormant the following year 

(Willems and Dorland 2010, p. 345). It 

is difficult to track these cycles because 

humans can only reliably detect 

flowering plants, not other life stages 

(seeds, seedlings, dormant or vegetative 

plants), in the field (ULT Tech 2021, 

entire). 

Ute ladies’-tresses has a ruderal (early 

colonizer of disturbed habitats) lifehistory strategy in which it can disperse 

within watersheds and quickly establish 

and produce seeds in favorable habitat 

conditions that may only be available 

for short periods of time (Gadgil and 

Solbrig 1972, entire). Ruderal plants are 

also able to persist in place and wait for 

favorable habitat conditions to return 

following disturbance events. The 

species disperses along connected 

waterways (river corridors, perennial 

streams, canals, lakeshores, wet 

meadows, and agricultural ditches), and 

plants appear in newly created or 

disturbed features (such as islands, 

point bars, shorelines) within the 

watershed. The species also persists in 

unsuitable habitat conditions that were 

previously suitable. Dormant Ute 

ladies’-tresses plants or seedlings can 

survive in late-seral successional 

habitats or unsuitable habitats below 

ground for years and then emerge above 

ground after disturbance reestablishes 

early- to mid-seral successional habitat 

conditions or adequate moisture is 

restored (Heidel 2001, entire). As 

mentioned above, we can only reliably 

detect flowering plants, and the species 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1058 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

does not necessarily flower every year. 

Therefore, Ute ladies’-tresses may 

appear to be extirpated from an area 

when in fact dormant or nonreproductive individuals are still 

present. 

Range, Distribution, Abundance, and 

Trends of Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

The current range of Ute ladies’- 

tresses spans eight States in the western 

United States (Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming) and the 

Canadian province of British Columbia 

(Service 2024, pp. 39–40). There are 62 

extant Ute ladies’-tresses element 

occurrences (occurrences) distributed 

across 18 watershed basins, referred to 

as analytical units (AUs) and defined as 

populations in the SSA report. An AU 

may contain one or more element 

occurrences. The current range is much 

larger than the three States (Colorado, 

Nevada, and Utah) known to be 

occupied at the time of listing in 1992. 

Ute ladies’-tresses has not been found in 

Arizona, even though that State is 

considered to be part of two AUs (Lower 

Colorado-Lake Mead and Upper 

Colorado-Dirty Devil), because the 

species occurs in other States within 

those watersheds. Across its wide range, 

Ute ladies’-tresses is found in 3 different 

ecological classifications (Great Plains, 

North American Deserts, and Western 

Forested Mountains), 12 level-III 

ecoregions, and 7 habitat types (Fertig et 

al. 2005, pp. 21–33; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 2013, entire; Service 

2024, pp. 123–125). 

At the time of listing in 1992, we 

reported 10 extant occurrences (defined 

as populations in the listing rule) with 

fewer than 6,000 plants and occurring 

on approximately 170 acres (ac) (69 

hectares (ha)) of habitat (see 57 FR 2048, 

January 17, 1992). By 2005, there were 

known to be 52 extant occurrences with 

at least 83,316 flowering plants on 674 

to 783 ac (273 to 317 ha) of habitat 

(Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 34–62). The 2005 

flowering plant estimate was based on 

the maximum number of flowering 

plants reported over a multi-year period 

for each occurrence, since most surveys 

underestimate the number of dormant, 

vegetative, and fruiting plants in an 

occurrence (Fertig et al. 2005, p. 62). 

The current number of known extant 

occurrences has increased to 62. The 

number of flowering plants detected has 

likely also increased, but we do not 

provide an estimate of flowering plants 

in the SSA report for the following 

reasons: (1) there is a lack of consistent 

monitoring methods; (2) monitoring 

does not account for the geographic 

shifts in occupied habitat; and (3) 

monitoring does not account for four of 

the five life stages (seeds, seedlings, 

dormant plants, and vegetative plants) 

(ULT Tech 2021, entire). When a plant 

population contains dormant 

individuals, population size and trend 

can be accurately determined if we 

know the average number of years a 

plant is dormant and we can account for 

at least three life stages (dormant, 

vegetative, and flowering plants) (Lesica 

and Steele 1994, entire; Heidel 2001, p. 

8; Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 61–62). 

However, this information is not 

available for Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Ute ladies’-tresses occurrences 

demonstrate metapopulation structure 

within watersheds (AUs) where 

persistence is governed by the processes 

of patch colonization, extirpation (local 

extinction), and recolonization (Sipes et 

al. 1995, p. 26; Freckleton and 

Watkinson 2002, p. 419). These 

metapopulations are important to the 

viability of the species, as long-term 

persistence is generally higher in 

metapopulations than in small, isolated 

occurrences (Lesica 1992, p. 420). 

Consequently, identification of 

metapopulations and the availability of 

potentially suitable habitat is important 

for assessing the status of Ute ladies’- 

tresses (Freckleton and Watkinson 2002, 

p. 432; Service 2024, pp. 89–91). 

In the SSA report, we delineated 

occurrences based on NatureServe 

criteria for water and land dispersal 

distances, which are grouped by plant 

locations connected by suitable habitat 

and generally less than 6.2 miles (mi) 

(10 kilometers (km)) and 1.2 mi (2 km) 

from each other along waterways and 

over land, respectively (NatureServe 

2020, p. 6; Service 2024, p. 26). We 

know of 75 Ute ladies’-tresses 

occurrences, and we consider 62 of 

those occurrences to be currently 

occupied. We considered the 62 

currently occupied occurrences in our 

analysis of current conditions if suitable 

habitat was still present, even if we had 

some negative observation data for a 

location. This assumption is consistent 

with field observations, expert opinion, 

and long-term monitoring data of 

occurrences in Nevada, Washington, 

and Utah (ULT Tech 2021, entire; 

Service 2024, pp. 31–32). In the SSA 

report, we also considered 13 historical 

occurrences, one of which was the only 

known occurrence in its AU (Upper 

Arkansas), to be extirpated based on the 

loss of occupied or suitable habitat due 

to development, change in hydrology, or 

imprecise historical records (Service 

2024, pp. 100–110). We considered 11 

of these historical occurrences, located 

in or near densely populated areas of 

Utah, Colorado, and Montana, to be 

extirpated because of urban 

development. Despite these losses, the 

current distribution of the species 

appears to be stable. 

We refer to the watershed basins as 

AUs in the SSA report and consider 

them to be a surrogate for populations 

to better account for the species’ 

widespread, dynamic distribution and 

complex life history. Given the 

detectability and monitoring limitations 

mentioned above, we consider the 

metapopulation structure—the number 

of occupied occurrences within a 

watershed (AU)—to be a better measure 

of population size rather than 

abundance counts of flowering plants. 

Considerably more occurrences have 

been discovered since listing in 1992, 

and new occurrences have been located 

every year for at least the past 10 years 

within known AUs. The most recent 

occurrence was discovered in 2023, 

after the species’ 5-year status review 

was finalized, and in 2020, one 

occurrence was discovered in an AU 

previously considered extirpated (Atkin 

2020, pers. comm.; Billings and Wheeler 

2021, entire; Heidel 2023, entire; 

Service 2024, p. 77). However, this does 

not necessarily indicate an increasing 

population size or positive population 

trend for the species; it could be the 

result of an increased survey effort and 

awareness. Based on our measure of 

population size (i.e., the number of 

occupied occurrences within an AU), 

the population trend for the species 

appears to be stable. 

Our evaluation of population trend is 

based on our assessment of the 

availability of potentially suitable 

habitat within AUs. The suitable habitat 

model provides a relative estimate of the 

species’ potential abundance within an 

AU to evaluate whether a watershed 

would continue to support 

metapopulation dynamics and the 

species’ population needs (see Current 

Condition, below for more information). 

Roughly 95 percent of the species’ 

range occurs in the United States, with 

the remaining 5 percent of its range 

occurring in the province of British 

Columbia, Canada. In the United States, 

approximately 37 percent of land where 

the species occurs is federally owned or 

managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (USBR), the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS), the Service, the 

National Park Service (NPS), and the 

Department of Defense (DOD). Almost 

half of the land, approximately 47 

percent, is under private ownership. 

There is a small amount (approximately 

3 percent) of Ute ladies’-tresses habitat 

where the land ownership is not known. 

The remaining 13 percent of the species’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1059 

range is on State and Tribal lands 

(Service 2024, p. 39). 

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 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 

draft recovery criteria for Ute ladies’- 

tresses. More detailed information 

related to conservation efforts can be 

found below under Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats. We 

completed a draft recovery plan for Ute 

ladies’-tresses in 1995 that has not been 

finalized (Service 1995, entire); 

however, the draft plan is nearly 3 

decades old and no longer reflects the 

best scientific information available for 

Ute ladies’-tresses. 

The draft plan describes a process for 

watershed-level planning and 

management to maintain and restore 

watershed conditions (i.e., natural flows 

and hydrography, stream gradients, and 

soils) for the long-term persistence of 

the species (Service 1995, p. 15). The 

draft plan attempts to interpret and 

define ‘‘ecosystem management’’ and 

apply it to the recovery of Ute ladies’- 

tresses. The draft plan also states the 

expectation that population levels 

(occurrences in this case) and the 

amount of suitable habitat will fluctuate 

over time within a watershed (Service 

1995, p. 15). 

The draft plan states that specific 

population metrics were not identified 

because population viability is 

determined by habitat conditions and 

the maintenance of natural watershed 

processes. Therefore, the significance of 

population size and distribution can 

only be assessed in the ability of the 

watershed to support the species, and 

those linkages between watershed 

processes, habitat conditions, and 

population response are complex and 

not completely understood (Service 

1995, p. 15). 

Below, we identify the two delisting 

criteria described in the 1995 Ute 

ladies’-tresses draft recovery plan 

(Service 1995, p. 15), and the progress 

made to date in achieving the criteria. 

However, we acknowledge that because 

of advances in our understanding of Ute 

ladies’-tresses, the delisting criteria are 

not measurable, no longer reflect the 

best available science about the species, 

and may no longer be relevant. 

Criteria for Delisting 

Recovery Criterion 1: Viable 

populations throughout Ute ladies’- 

tresses’ historical range and 

representative of its genetic endowment 

are maintained in riparian habitats of 

streams in a state of dynamic 

equilibrium. 

Progress: We have a much better 

understanding of Ute ladies’-tresses 

current range since the time of listing in 

1992. The known current range of Ute 

ladies’-tresses has expanded from three 

U.S. States (Utah, Colorado, and 

Nevada) to eight U.S. States (Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) and 

the Canadian province of British 

Columbia (Service 2024, pp. 39–40). 

Based on information through 2023, 

there are a total of 62 extant occurrences 

of Ute ladies’-tresses distributed across 

18 watershed basins (AUs defined as 

populations in the SSA report). The 

species’ current range includes 14 more 

AUs than known at the time of listing 

when we apply the AU-scale to the 

known populations in 1992. We 

consider AUs to be synonymous with 

the criterion’s use of ‘‘populations,’’ and 

the criterion does not specify the 

number of AUs needed to achieve 

recovery. 

We note that the criterion references 

Ute ladies’-tresses’ historical range. 

However, it is more appropriate to 

define recovery based on Ute ladies’- 

tresses’ current range, because 

endangered and threatened species and 

their recovery are defined and evaluated 

based on their current range under the 

Act (see the definitions of ‘‘endangered 

species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ at 16 

U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20), respectively). 

There is much uncertainty about Ute 

ladies’-tresses’ historical range, and we 

may never know its true extent. 

Regarding the species’ genetic 

endowment, preliminary genetic 

information indicates high genetic 

diversity in Ute ladies’-tresses 

occurrences assessed in six of the eight 

U.S. States within the current range (see 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats, below). We now consider 

morphological and ecological diversity 

in addition to genetic diversity in our 

evaluation of representation. While Ute 

ladies’-tresses does not exhibit 

morphological diversity, it has a high 

level of ecological diversity across its 

wide range, occupying 12 ecoregions 

and 7 habitat types (Service 2024, pp. 

123–127). 

Given what we now know about Ute 

ladies’-tresses ecological diversity, we 

consider all habitat types important for 

recovery, not just the riparian and 

stream habitats mentioned in the 

criterion. Therefore, we evaluated the 

viability of AUs in our SSA report for 

those AUs in riparian and perennial 

stream habitats as well as in the five 

other habitat types where it occurs 

(canals, wet meadows, springs, 

lakeshores, and artificial/depressional 

wetlands) (for more information, see 

Current Condition and Future Scenarios 

and Future Condition, below). 

Recovery Criterion 2: Wet meadow, 

seep, and spring habitats are protected 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1060 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

and managed so as to sustain viable 

populations. 

Progress: At the time of the draft 

recovery plan (1995), we thought that it 

was important to distinguish Ute 

ladies’-tresses’ wet meadow, seep, and 

spring habitats that are groundwater-fed 

from other types of habitats. These 

habitat types require land management 

practices such as grazing or mowing to 

provide the regular disturbance needed 

to support the species, whereas the 

riparian and stream habitats referenced 

in criterion 1 are surface water-fed and 

receive regular or periodic flooding 

disturbance. In the SSA report, we 

consider seeps and springs together and 

refer to them as spring habitats (Service 

2024, p. 125). These habitats can be 

isolated from other water features or 

occur in combination with riparian, 

stream, or lakeshore habitats. We have 

better information now about Ute 

ladies’-tresses’ current range and the 

habitat types the species occupies than 

we did at the time of the draft recovery 

plan. 

Given what we know about Ute 

ladies’-tresses’ resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation, we no longer 

consider it necessary to provide a 

separate criterion for wet meadow, seep, 

and spring habitats. As we state above 

for criterion one, we consider all habitat 

types in the SSA report and in our 

evaluation of Ute ladies’-tresses’ 

viability (for more information, see 

Current Condition and Future Scenarios 

and Future Condition, below). 

The majority (roughly 95 percent) of 

Ute ladies’-tresses’ current range occurs 

in the United States, with the remaining 

5 percent of its range occurring in 

British Columbia, Canada. In the United 

States, approximately 37 percent of the 

land where the species occurs is 

federally owned or managed (by the 

BLM, USBR, USFS, the Service, NPS, or 

DOD) with management plans in place 

to protect the species’ habitat from 

habitat loss associated with urban 

development. For Ute ladies’-tresses and 

its habitat, Federal land management 

adequately supports the needs and 

viability of the species, and we expect 

that will continue in the future (see 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms, below). 

Approximately 60 percent of the land 

where Ute ladies’-tresses occurs in the 

United States is under non-Federal 

ownership (private, State, or Tribal 

lands). Some occurrences in three AUs 

(Jordan, Bear River, and South Platte) 

have management plans in place to 

protect the species and its habitat on 

non-Federal lands. However, little to no 

protection exists for Ute ladies’-tresses 

on the remaining non-Federal lands 

other than habitat protections afforded 

by the Clean Water Act for occurrences 

along riparian, stream, and some 

lakeshore habitats, or habitat protections 

afforded to federally listed fish species 

(see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms, below). 

Despite the lack of protections on 

many non-Federal lands for Ute ladies’- 

tresses, current and projected future 

AU-level threats are adequately 

addressed or managed on these lands for 

at least 10 AUs to maintain high or 

moderate resilience to stochastic events 

now and into the future. In addition, at 

least 16 AUs are projected to remain 

extant and provide additional 

redundancy and representation in the 

12 ecoregions and 7 habitat types across 

Ute ladies’-tresses’ range (see Future 

Scenarios and Future Condition, below). 

Thus, although not all 18 extant AUs are 

considered protected, we conclude that 

the intent of recovery criteria 1 and 2 to 

ensure that sufficient AUs are protected 

from threats into the future has been 

met for at least 10 AUs. While the 1995 

recovery criteria are not measurable, 

and do not reflect the best available 

scientific information, as we describe 

below, we find that the Ute ladies’- 

tresses has sufficient resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation 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. 

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 which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1061 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ 

uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable 

future extends as far into the future as 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(hereafter, the Services) can make 

reasonably reliable predictions about 

the threats to the species and the 

species’ responses to those threats. We 

need not identify the foreseeable future 

in terms of a specific period of time. We 

will describe the foreseeable future on a 

case-by-case basis, using the best 

available data and taking into account 

considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

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 the viability of Ute ladies’- 

tresses, 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, pathogen). 

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–2024–0115 

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 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. In addition, the SSA report 

(Service 2024, 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 have informed this decision. 

Individual Needs 

Individuals of Ute ladies’-tresses need 

adequate soil moisture during the 

growing season, access to full or partial 

sunlight, and suitable soil mycorrhizae 

to establish, grow, and flower (Service 

2024, pp. 31–34). While we do not know 

the species’ surface or subsurface 

moisture requirements, soil moisture is 

generally provided by surface or 

subsurface water within 2 ft (0.6 m) of 

the ground surface (ULT Tech 2021, 

entire). An open canopy (little to no 

shade from plants above) is needed to 

provide full or partial sunlight to plants 

(Fertig et al. 2005, p. 34). 

While we do not know the specific 

mycorrhizal fungi needed by Ute 

ladies’-tresses, their presence in the 

habitat is likely a limiting factor for the 

establishment and reproduction of Ute 

ladies’-tresses (Fertig et al. 2005, p. 67; 

ULT Tech 2021, entire). Bumblebees 

and other appropriate pollinators are 

needed for seed production (Sipes and 

Tepedino 1995, entire). 

Individuals need certain habitat 

factors, including: a low- to midelevation climate (elevations ranging 

between 0 to 7,000 ft (0 to 2,133 m); 

early- to mid-seral stage successional 

wetland habitats; and some kind of 

periodic disturbance (flooding or 

scouring events, livestock grazing, 

agricultural mowing, fire, etc.) to 

maintain the habitat’s seral stage (see 

Background, above). 

Population Needs 

To be resilient, populations require 

recruitment, survivorship, and 

reproduction at rates able to sustain 

populations, in addition to pollinator 

connectivity between individuals 

within populations. We consider the 

significant determinants of population 

(AU) resiliency to be a healthy 

demography and sufficient quality 

habitat to support this demography 

(Service 2024, pp. 93–96). Resilient 

populations also contain enough 

individuals in multiple habitat areas 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 

number of individuals or amount of 

habitat needed for Ute ladies’-tresses 

populations to be resilient, we assume 

that Ute ladies’-tresses populations are 

most resilient if they contain multiple 

occurrences connected by potentially 

suitable habitat and if they occur within 

habitats that maintain adequate 

hydrology and the appropriate seral 

successional stage (Service 2024, pp. 

95–98). 

Species Needs 

The number of populations (AUs) 

across the landscape influences the 

redundancy of Ute ladies’-tresses. 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 Ute ladies’-tresses’ habitats, 

genetics, and morphology, the more 

likely the species is to be able to adapt 

to change over time. Ute ladies’-tresses 

exhibits a high level of ecological 

diversity, occupying 12 ecoregions and 

7 habitat types (Service 2024, pp. 123– 

125). Additionally, the species showed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1062 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

high genetic variability within some 

occurrences and low variability between 

occurrences, which suggests a high level 

of genetic exchange between 

populations historically and possibly 

currently (Arft and Ranker 1998, p. 119; 

Service 2024, p. 91). 

In summary, 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 2024, pp. 88– 

89). The SSA report provides additional 

detail on the species’ individual-, 

population-, and species-level needs 

(Service 2024, pp. 29–38, 86–89). 

Threats (Stressors/Risk Factors/Etc.) 

In the SSA report, we evaluated 

stressors and other actions that can 

positively or negatively affect Ute 

ladies’-tresses at the individual, 

population, or species levels, either 

currently or into the future (Service 

2024, pp. 89–95, 128–137). In this 

proposed rule, we will discuss only 

those factors in detail that could 

meaningfully impact the status of the 

species. The main stressors are 

anthropogenic activities (urban 

development, water management, 

agriculture, livestock grazing, 

recreation, and invasive plants) and 

environmental conditions (vegetative 

succession, drought, and climate 

change) that influence or could 

influence the species’ viability (Service 

2024, pp. 89–95, 128–137). We grouped 

the various anthropogenic activities 

together and the environmental 

conditions together to consider their 

synergistic and cumulative effect on Ute 

ladies’-tresses at the population and 

species levels, because none of the 

individual stressors alone act intensely 

or broadly enough to alter Ute ladies’- 

tresses’ status across its range (ULT 

Tech 2021, entire). Those stressors that 

are not known to have negative or longterm effects on Ute ladies’-tresses 

populations, such as loss of pollinators 

and flooding, are not discussed here but 

are evaluated in the SSA report (Service 

2024, p. 95). 

Urban Development 

Urban development has the potential 

to result in plant mortality and loss or 

degradation of Ute ladies’-tresses habitat 

(Service 2024, p. 90). We assessed the 

urban development stressor to Ute 

ladies’-tresses based on our evaluation 

of disturbance, as well as roads and 

other infrastructure, in and near known 

populations. Urban development has 

resulted in the loss of eight occurrences 

in or near densely populated areas—in 

Utah, six occurrences were lost in the 

Jordan and Weber AUs along the 

Wasatch Front, and in Colorado, two 

occurrences were lost in the South 

Platte and Upper Arkansas AUs along 

the Front Range, resulting in the 

extirpation of the Upper Arkansas AU 

(Service 2024, pp. 100–109). One 

occurrence in Utah (in the Upper 

Colorado-Dirty Devil AU) is likely 

extirpated due to change in the 

hydrology and habitat loss because of 

road construction (Fertig et al. 2005, p. 

54; Service 2024, p. 67). Two 

occurrences in Montana (in the Upper 

Missouri AU) occur in borrow pits 

created to support road construction 

projects; however, Montana Department 

of Transportation has prioritized their 

protection and long-term monitoring 

(Service 2024, p. 73). 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of current resiliency by 

assessing the land use, habitat 

condition, and hydrological condition of 

occurrences (Service 2024, pp. 96–135). 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of future resiliency by 

evaluating projected changes in land use 

and the human population (Service 

2024, pp. 129–196). 

Water Management 

Water management has the potential 

to result in hydrologic changes that 

impact the amount of suitable habitat, 

soil moisture, and the successional stage 

of Ute ladies’-tresses habitat (Service 

2024, p. 91). Water flow is managed for 

irrigation and flood control along many 

of the river corridors occupied by Ute 

ladies’-tresses, which may lead to 

additional suitable habitat in some areas 

and the loss of suitable habitat in other 

areas (Grams et al. 2002, entire; Fertig et 

al. 2005, p. 82, Service 2024, pp. 129– 

136). Water management has the 

potential to benefit Ute ladies’-tresses by 

maintaining flows in low water years, 

but negative impacts may occur if water 

releases are unpredictable and not 

consistent with the natural hydrologic 

regime. We discuss the effects of flood 

control, in particular the reduction of 

large flood events, on the successional 

stage of Ute ladies’-tresses habitat below 

(see ‘‘Vegetative Succession,’’ below). 

Despite management of hydrology for 

purposes other than Ute ladies’-tresses 

conservation, the species has 

proliferated in areas with greatly altered 

wetland, riparian, and lakeshore 

habitats that occasionally experience 

10,000-year flood events (e.g., Diamond 

Fork occurrence (Jordan AU), Lower 

Green River AU) (Central Utah Water 

Conservation District (CUWCD) 1996, 

pp. 4–3–4–9, 4–11–4–12; Central Utah 

Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA) 

1999, entire; Ward and Naumann 1998, 

entire; Grams et al. 2002, entire; Black 

and Gruwell 2004, entire; USBR 2005a, 

entire). Water management for 

hydropower or irrigation has augmented 

natural flows in some streams, 

especially in late summer when natural 

stream flows were historically low (e.g., 

Diamond Fork occurrence (Jordan AU), 

Lower Green River AU). This 

augmentation has expanded the amount 

of streamside habitat with suitable 

hydrology to support large numbers of 

Ute ladies’-tresses (Ward and Naumann 

1998, pp. 25–26; Black and Gruwell 

2004, pp. 8–9). 

Ute ladies’-tresses plants are 

frequently encountered along streams 

and canals and in wet hay pastures in 

the Uinta Basin, Utah (Lower Green 

River AU), even though an extensive 

irrigation canal system was constructed 

in the early 1900s and natural streams 

are nearly dry all summer (Fertig et al. 

2005, pp. 19, 44, 48; Goodrich 2005, 

entire; Jordan 2006, entire). The species 

has colonized wetlands left behind 

when peat was mined, and it occurs in 

drainage ditches alongside roads and 

railroad tracks (Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 16, 

19, 32–33, 36–37, 45, 50, 52). 

In growing urban areas, primarily in 

the urban areas of Utah and Colorado 

(see Urban Development, above) and 

possibly Nevada, an increased demand 

for municipal water and conversion of 

irrigation water to municipal water may 

lead to dewatering of Ute ladies’-tresses 

habitat (Riedel 2004, p. 2). One 

occurrence in Utah (Jordan AU) may be 

extirpated due to dewatering in the last 

decade, although it is possible dormant 

plants remain and could emerge if the 

hydrological regime again becomes 

suitable for Ute ladies’-tresses (Fertig et 

al. 2005, p. 82; Trater 2020, pers. 

comm.; Service 2024, p. 47). Dewatering 

may exacerbate the effects of drought 

and climate change. 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of current resiliency by 

assessing the hydrologic condition of 

occurrences (Service 2024, pp. 97–98). 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of future resiliency by 

evaluating projected changes in drought 

severity and frequency at the occurrence 

and AU levels (Service 2024, pp. 129– 

134). 

Agriculture 

Agricultural practices have the 

potential to result in the loss of plants 

and habitat under cultivation 

(croplands) and with herbicide use, or 

they can support or maintain suitable 

habitat conditions for Ute ladies’-tresses 

under managed pastures (irrigated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1063 

pastures with some mowing or haying) 

or irrigation canals (Fertig et al. 2005, 

pp. 83, 85; Service 2024, p. 92). Some 

occurrences in five AUs (Great Salt 

Lake, Jordan, Lower Bear, Lower Green 

River, South Platte) are in irrigated 

pastures that function as wet meadow 

habitat and support the species (Service 

2024, pp. 43–51; Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 

13, 17, 19). Conversely, negative 

impacts to Ute ladies’-tresses have also 

been documented along irrigation canals 

that have been converted to water 

pipelines in one AU (Lower Green 

River), but these impacts are localized 

and have not resulted in the total loss 

of an occurrence (ULT Tech 2021, 

entire; Service 2024, p. 51). Non-Federal 

landowners actively manage irrigation 

water at two occurrences in Utah and 

Colorado (Lower Bear and South Platte 

AUs) to support the Ute ladies’-tresses 

on lands used for the species’ 

preservation and for recreation, 

respectively (Riedel 2004, p. 2; Bear 

River Land Conservancy 2014, pp. 5–14; 

Service 2024, p. 49). 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of current resiliency by 

assessing the agricultural land use, 

habitat condition, and hydrological 

condition of occurrences (Service 2024, 

pp. 96–121). For future resiliency, we 

considered the effects of this stressor as 

part of our evaluation of projected 

changes in land use and anthropogenic 

effects (Service 2024, pp. 134–135). 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing, haying, and 

mowing have the potential to result in 

the loss of plants or flowers but can also 

result in beneficial effects by removing 

competing vegetation and maintaining 

an open canopy (Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 

70, 79, 81; Sipes et al. 1995, pp. 24–25; 

Service 2024, p. 91). Ute ladies’-tresses 

appears to need these types of 

disturbances in meadow or spring 

habitats that experience less frequent 

disturbance events than rivers and 

streams (Arft 1995, pp. 122–153, 157– 

159; Allison 2001, pp. 1–10; Fertig et al. 

2005, pp. 81–82). The results of Ute 

ladies’-tresses population projections in 

wet meadow habitat conditions under 

various management practices identified 

the importance of livestock grazing or 

grazing and mowing to support 

population persistence (Arft 1995, pp. 

122–153, 157–159; Hazlett 1996, p. 7). 

Long-term studies of wet meadow 

habitat in Colorado found that Ute 

ladies’-tresses’ recruitment and 

flowering density were significantly 

higher in grazed and mowed habitat 

compared to undisturbed habitat (Arft 

1995, pp. 122–153, 157–159; Allison 

2001, pp. 1–10). Winter grazing or 

mowing also appears to be beneficial in 

reducing the negative impact of field 

vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus and M. 

ochrogaster) herbivory on Ute ladies’- 

tresses fruit and seed production by 

removing vegetation and litter that 

support vole populations (Arft 1995, pp. 

153, 157–159; Fertig et al. 2005, p. 70). 

Where wet meadow habitat is protected 

and managed for Ute ladies’-tresses in 

Colorado and Utah (South Platte and 

Lower Bear AUs), managers recommend 

timed haying, livestock grazing, and 

irrigation practices to maintain optimal 

habitat conditions and minimize 

impacts to flowering plants (Allison, 

2001, pp. 1–3; Bear River Land 

Conservancy 2014, pp. 7–8, 14, 16; 

Service 2024, pp. 49, 84). Excessive or 

improperly timed livestock grazing, 

haying, and mowing may negatively 

impact the species (Fertig et al. 2005, p. 

81; Service 2024, p. 35). 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of current resiliency by 

assessing the land use and habitat 

condition of occurrences (Service 2024, 

pp. 96–121). For future resiliency, we 

considered the effects of this stressor as 

part of our evaluation of projected 

changes in land use (Service 2024, pp. 

134–135). 

Recreation 

Recreation has the potential to result 

in plant damage and mortality through 

trampling as well as provide a land use 

that conserves Ute ladies’-tresses habitat 

(Service 2024, p. 91). Many occurrences 

in Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and 

Washington (Lower Colorado-Lake 

Mead, Jordan, Upper Green, South 

Platte, Snake Headwaters, and Upper 

Columbia AUs) are located on lands 

where recreation occurs; however, 

recreation was only identified as a 

current or potential stressor at a few 

occurrences in Colorado, Idaho, and 

Utah where trampling from fishing, 

boating, and off-road vehicle access has 

been reported (Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 35– 

53; Service 2024, p. 63). 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of current resiliency by 

assessing the land use and habitat 

condition of occurrences (Service 2024, 

pp. 96–121). For future resiliency, we 

considered the effects of this stressor as 

part of our evaluation of projected 

changes in land use (Service 2024, pp. 

134–135). 

Invasive Plants 

Invasive plants have the potential to 

directly compete with Ute ladies’-tresses 

plants for water, nutrients, and sunlight 

(Service 2024, p. 94). Some invasive 

plants are adapted to the same early- to 

mid-seral successional habitats as Ute 

ladies’-tresses and are highly effective 

competitors. Fourteen invasive plants 

commonly occur with Ute ladies’- 

tresses, including upland plants such as 

thistles (Cirsium spp.) and leafy spurge 

(Euphorbia esula), wetland plants such 

as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) 

and reed canary grass (Phalaris 

arundinacea), and woody invasives 

such as tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) and 

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) 

(Murphy 2001, pp. 19–20; Naumann 

2003, entire; Murphy 2004, p. 10; Fertig 

et al. 2005, p. 83; Jones 2006, entire). 

While invasive plants are present in 

Ute ladies’-tresses habitat, and some 

occurrences may have been partially 

overtaken by invasive plants, the best 

available information indicates this 

stressor has not resulted in Ute ladies’- 

tresses’ plant mortality or the 

extirpation of occurrences (Fertig et al. 

2005, pp. 45–47, 50; Service 2024, p. 

94). 

We considered this stressor in our 

evaluation of current resiliency as part 

of our occurrence habitat condition 

assessment (Service 2024, pp. 96–121). 

For future resiliency, we considered the 

effects of this stressor as part of our 

evaluation of projected changes in land 

use and effects of climate change 

(Service 2024, pp. 134–135). 

Collection 

We identified overcollection as a 

threat to Ute ladies’-tresses in the final 

listing rule (57 FR 2048 at 2051 and 

2052, January 17, 1992). Despite the one 

documented instance of ‘‘essence of 

Spiranthes’’ derived from Ute ladies’- 

tresses flowers in the late 1990s, the 

threat of collection is low, given that the 

species is less showy than tropical 

orchids and other Spiranthes species are 

available for purchase (Kratz 1998, 

entire; Fertig et al. 2005, p. 86; Alaskan 

Essences 2024, entire; Carnivorous Plant 

Nursery 2024, entire; Microsoft Bing 

2024, entire; Plant Delights Nursery 

2024, entire). There is no evidence that 

collection is currently impacting Ute 

ladies’-tresses or is likely to do so in the 

future. 

Vegetative Succession 

Vegetative succession has the 

potential to change the habitat condition 

and suitability for Ute ladies’-tresses 

due to lack of sunlight and competition 

for resources (Fertig et al. 2005, p. 84; 

Service 2024, p. 94). Flooding is the 

primary disturbance along river and 

stream corridors that influences 

vegetative succession. Water level 

fluctuations in combination with land 

use activities such as mowing and 

grazing, and occasionally fire, appear to 

be the primary disturbances in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1064 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

lakeshore, wet meadow, and spring 

habitats (Fertig et al. 2005, p. 32). 

The extent of woody encroachment 

and late-seral successional habitats 

within Ute ladies’-tresses occurrences is 

variable and site-specific depending on 

the degree to which the hydrologic and 

disturbance regimes have been altered. 

The best available information indicates 

that vegetative succession is currently 

only affecting individual plants and 

portions of an occurrence (Fertig et al. 

2005, p. 66; Black 2006, entire). The 

primary driver of vegetative succession 

is the hydrologic regime or land use 

associated with the habitat. Therefore, 

this stressor is not having a populationlevel effect to Ute ladies’-tresses on its 

own unless vegetative succession is 

associated with a major change to the 

hydrology or land use of the occurrence. 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of current resiliency by 

assessing the habitat condition of 

occurrences (Service 2024, pp. 113– 

116). For future resiliency, we evaluated 

projected changes to the vegetative 

resiliency metric based on projected 

land use changes (Service 2024, pp. 

139–195). 

Disease or Predation 

Predation (herbivory) on Ute ladies’- 

tresses was mentioned in the final 

listing rule because excessive livestock 

grazing was thought to be detrimental, 

and plants are highly palatable and 

preferentially grazed by small 

herbivores (57 FR 2048 at 2051, January 

17, 1992). Although livestock grazing 

was categorized as a stressor under 

Factor C at the time of listing, we 

consider the effects of livestock grazing 

to be better characterized by Factor A 

(see ‘‘Livestock Grazing,’’ above). 

Herbivory of flowers and inflorescences 

(entire flowering stems) by field voles 

has been documented at a few 

occurrences in Colorado and Utah (Arft 

1995, pp. iv, 79–87, 103–104, 113–117; 

Sipes et al. 1995, pp. 9–10; Heidel 2001, 

p. 8; Black and Gruwell 2004, p. 10; 

Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 89–90; Black 2006, 

entire). Additional monitoring indicates 

that winter livestock grazing or mowing 

maintains early seral habitat conditions 

favored by Ute ladies’-tresses and 

reduces vole herbivory by removing 

thatch buildup, which serves as a 

protective cover favored by voles, in the 

habitat (Arft 1995, pp. 79–87, 103–104, 

113–117; Sipes et al. 1995, pp. 9–11; 

Peles and Barrett 1996, entire; Skopec et 

al. 2017, pp. 5–6). The best available 

information indicates that vole 

herbivory occasionally impacts 

individual plants and may locally affect 

some populations; however, it is 

seasonal in nature and unpredictable 

(Skopec et al. 2017, pp. 5–6; Andreassen 

et al. 2021, pp. 601–605). Most 

occurrences along rivers and streams 

occur in early- to mid-seral habitat 

conditions with little to no thatch 

buildup, and most meadow or seep 

habitats are grazed or mowed to remove 

thatch buildup. We did not find that 

vole herbivory occurs at spatial and 

temporal scales large enough to affect 

the overall status of Ute ladies’-tresses 

given the plant’s current status. We are 

not aware of any issues or potential 

stressors related to disease or insect 

predation. Therefore, we did not 

include this stressor in our evaluation of 

current and future resiliency. 

Drought 

Drought has the potential to result in 

the loss of Ute ladies’-tresses plants; 

changes in vegetation, hydrology, and 

soil saturation; and temporary or 

permanent loss of habitat depending on 

the severity and duration of drought 

conditions (Service 2024, p. 92). Water 

management has ameliorated summer 

drought conditions in some river 

corridors (see ‘‘Water Management,’’ 

above), but increases in municipal water 

use (dewatering or loss of irrigation 

water) could exacerbate the effects of 

drought in Ute ladies’-tresses habitat 

(Fertig et al. 2005, p. 85). 

The best available information 

indicates that this stressor is not having 

a population-level effect to Ute ladies’- 

tresses. Ute ladies’-tresses tolerates a 

range of soil moisture as well as drought 

conditions, and, while drought 

conditions may temporarily reduce the 

number of flowering plants, Ute ladies’- 

tresses is able to remain dormant during 

periods of drought. The species’ reliance 

on mycorrhizae may also mitigate the 

effects of drought stress (Ahluwalia et 

al. 2021, p. 7). The hydrology of its 

wetland habitat likely buffers the effects 

of minor reductions in precipitation or 

available water. We do not have a clear 

understanding of how Ute ladies’-tresses 

responds to severe or extreme droughts 

(defined as ¥3.0 or less on the Palmer 

Drought Index) (Dai et al. 2023, p. 1). 

However, we assume that an increase in 

the frequency of severe and extreme 

droughts will have a negative impact on 

the species. Therefore, we incorporated 

this stressor in our evaluation of current 

resiliency by assessing the hydrologic 

condition of occurrences (Service 2024, 

pp. 129–134). We incorporated this 

stressor in our evaluation of future 

resiliency based on the frequency of 

severe and extreme droughts at the 

occurrence level as part of the climate 

change stressor, which is discussed 

below (Service 2024, pp. 113–116). 

Climate Change 

Climate change has the potential to 

impact Ute ladies’-tresses if the 

frequency of severe and extreme 

droughts increases in the future (see 

‘‘Drought,’’ above), and it may place an 

added stress on the species and its 

habitat, particularly when other 

stressors are present. We used the 

Standardized Precipitation Evaporation 

Index (SPEI) that allowed us to project 

drought severity and frequency at the 

occurrence level, and we used a 

precipitation-evaporation model 

ensemble (of 20 models) to evaluate 

how annual moisture availability is 

projected to change at the AU level 

(Service 2024, pp. 132–134). These 

models allowed us to evaluate future 

hydrologic conditions at the occurrence 

level, and the projected changes in 

water availability at the AU level. The 

SSA report describes other models and 

their limitations in detail (Service 2024, 

pp. 131–133). We used two different 

emission scenarios, a stabilization 

emission scenario using representative 

concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and a 

rising greenhouse gas emissions 

scenario using RCP 8.5 developed by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). 

The SPEI index accounts for 

precipitation and temperature changes 

that are useful indicators for detecting 

and measuring drought severity and 

duration within a variety of habitats and 

over a range of climate projections 

(Vicente-Serrano et al. 2010, entire). For 

occurrences, we used the SPEI index 

data for the spring and summer months 

(March through August) that are 

important for plant growth and 

reproduction to calculate and compare 

the historical (1980–2019) and future 

(2023–2074) decadal frequency of severe 

and extreme droughts (North Central 

Climate Adaptation Science Center (NC 

CASC) 2022, data set; Service 2024, pp. 

132–134). The results of our evaluation 

indicate that the frequency of severe or 

extreme droughts during the spring and 

summer months varies across the 

species’ range. At most occurrences, 

drought frequency is projected to 

increase by at least one but fewer than 

three additional severe or extreme 

droughts per decade; at some 

occurrences, drought frequency is 

projected to remain similar to or slightly 

increased from the historical frequency; 

and several occurrences project a slight 

decrease in drought frequency under 

one or both climate scenarios. Northern 

Utah, Idaho, and Washington are 

projected to generally remain stable or 

even see slight decreases in severe and 

extreme drought frequencies under both 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1065 

scenarios. Occurrences along the 

southern part of the range, as well as 

those in Montana, are projected to see 

the greatest increase in drought severity 

and frequency. Lower elevation 

occurrences in desert ecosystems see the 

most extreme increases overall, and are 

more vulnerable to extirpation (Service 

2024, pp. 198–199). 

The precipitation-evaporation model 

ensemble accounts for larger scale 

changes to regional water availability 

(e.g., dry getting drier, wet getting 

wetter) that we applied to the AU level 

as a proxy for future changes to the 

amount of potentially suitable habitat 

for Ute ladies’-tresses (Service 2024, pp. 

134–136). While we do not know 

exactly how the amount of potentially 

suitable habitat will change in response 

to regional or watershed changes in 

water availability, we assumed that the 

amount of potentially suitable habitat 

within an AU would not change if 

future water availability in an AU 

remained within one standard deviation 

of historical levels. We compared the 

historical (1980–2020) and future 

(2020–2074) water availability in AUs. 

We found there was no meaningful 

change in water availability from 

historical levels under the two emission 

scenarios to indicate a decline in the 

amount of potentially suitable habitat 

(Willey 2024, entire; Service 2024, pp. 

134–136). 

Both intermediate and high emission 

scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5) indicate that 

the range of Ute ladies’-tresses will be 

warmer and drier throughout the 

southern part of the range and warmer 

but with similar or slightly increased 

precipitation in northern Utah, Idaho, 

and Washington State in the future 

(through 2074) compared to historical 

conditions (Alder 2022, entire; Service 

2024, pp. 13, 198). The frequency of 

severe or extreme droughts is expected 

to increase throughout most, although 

not all, of Ute ladies’-tresses’ range. 

There is substantial uncertainty in how 

Ute ladies’-tresses will respond to more 

frequent severe or extreme droughts in 

many AUs within its range. When we 

considered characteristics that 

contribute to its ability to adapt to 

changing climate conditions, Ute 

ladies’-tresses has many attributes 

indicating moderate to high levels of 

adaptive capacity; these attributes 

include the species’ large range 

occupying 12 ecoregions, its variable 

dispersal ability and moderately high 

dispersal distance along waterways, its 

general habitat requirements, and its 

flexible ability to reduce its exposure to 

climate stressors by remaining dormant 

during unfavorable conditions 

(Thurman et al. 2020, entire; Service 

2024, pp. 123–129). We incorporated 

this stressor in our evaluation of future 

resiliency as part of the combined 

results of climate change and the human 

population change stressor in the SSA 

report and below (see Future Scenarios 

and Future Condition, below; Service 

2024, pp. 129–199). 

Human Population Change 

Human population change within the 

range of Ute ladies’-tresses may increase 

the negative effects of anthropogenic 

stressors and environmental stressors to 

the species. The future rate and location 

of these changes is unclear, but human 

population growth is projected to 

increase at a regional scale within the 

species’ range in the western United 

States (Weldon Cooper Center for Public 

Service 2024, entire). 

We incorporated this stressor in our 

evaluation of future resiliency by 

evaluating the projected loss of Ute 

ladies’-tresses habitat in occurrences 

(Service 2024, pp. 129–136). We report 

the combined results of climate change 

and the human population change 

stressor in the SSA report and below 

(see Future Scenarios and Future 

Condition, below; Service 2024, pp. 

129–199). 

Current Condition 

To assess the current condition of Ute 

ladies’-tresses across its extensive range, 

we broke the range into 18 smaller 

analytical units (AUs) based on USGS 6- 

digit hydrological unit code (HUC–6) 

watershed basins in consultation with 

species experts (see table 1 below; Jones 

et al. 2022, pp. 2, 5; Service 2024, pp. 

26–28). This watershed scale provides a 

biologically meaningful delineation of 

areas where regular gene flow likely 

occurs between occurrences (Service 

2024, pp. 23–26). As discussed above, 

we consider Ute ladies’-tresses AUs to 

be surrogates for populations (see 

Background, above). A map of these 

AUs is available in the SSA report 

(Service 2024, p. 4, figure 1). 

In our SSA report, we evaluate 

current condition by examining current 

levels of resiliency in the 18 extant Ute 

ladies’-tresses AUs and implications for 

redundancy and representation. Here, 

we summarize our evaluation of the 

current condition for the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of Ute 

ladies’-tresses. Additional detail 

regarding our analysis is provided in the 

SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 100–127). 

Resiliency 

We describe the resiliency for each of 

the 18 AUs in terms of the demographic 

and habitat factors needed by Ute 

ladies’-tresses (Service 2024, pp. 93–96). 

We developed a categorical model to 

calibrate resiliency based on the range 

of demographic and habitat conditions 

in each AU. 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 Ute ladies’-tresses, our categorical 

model assessed the resiliency of each 

AU by evaluating (1) hydrologic 

condition, a qualitative evaluation of the 

hydrologic regime; (2) vegetative habitat 

condition, a qualitative evaluation of 

floral resources for Ute ladies’-tresses 

pollinators and successional stage; (3) 

abundance, the number of occupied 

occurrences within the AU; (4) potential 

habitat availability, the percentage of 

modeled suitable habitat within the AU; 

and (5) connectivity, the number of 

occurrences connected by modeled 

suitable habitat. 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 18 AUs. 

Resiliency categories, thresholds, and 

scores were established based on the 

best available information and 

professional opinion of species experts. 

Hydrologic condition was based on 

expert opinion, available survey reports, 

and inspection of aerial imagery to 

assess surface or subsurface water in the 

habitat and the frequency of extreme 

flooding or year-round inundation. 

Vegetative habitat condition was based 

on expert opinion and available survey 

reports to assess whether the condition 

was good, moderate, or poor for Ute 

ladies’-tresses. Abundance was based on 

State heritage program database 

information and available survey reports 

to identify the number of extant 

occurrences within AUs. Percentage of 

potential habitat availability and 

connectivity (the number of occurrences 

connected by potentially suitable 

habitat) within each AU were based on 

Service modeled suitable habitat 

(Service 2024, pp. 96–99, appendix I). 

We applied equal weight to four factors 

(hydrologic condition, vegetative habitat 

condition, abundance, and connectivity) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1066 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

and applied one-half the weight (0.5) to 

the potential habitat availability factor 

because we have less confidence in the 

results compared to the other factors, as 

the potential habitat availability model 

only represents the potential for the 

species to recolonize into new areas 

following a possible extirpation and 

may overpredict potential habitat in 

AUs. 

There are 18 Ute ladies’-tresses AUs 

comprised of 62 occurrences, and 

according to our current condition 

analysis in the SSA report, 5 have high 

resiliency, 8 have moderate resiliency, 

and 5 have low resiliency (see table 1, 

below; Service 2024, pp. 122–123). The 

13 AUs with high and moderate 

resiliency maintain moderate or high 

hydrologic condition; moderate or high 

population abundance (the exception is 

Lower Bear AU with low abundance); 

and a range of scores for vegetative 

habitat condition, connectivity, and 

potential habitat availability. The 13 

AUs with high or moderate resiliency 

are distributed across the species’ range, 

are present in all 8 U.S. States and 

Canada, and are present in 10 of the 12 

ecoregions (see table 1, below). Five 

AUs have low resiliency due to low 

abundance and two or more additional 

factors with low scores. Notably, all 18 

AUs have moderate or high resiliency 

scores for hydrological condition. The 

13 AUs with high or moderate resiliency 

are at less risk from potential stochastic 

events, such as climatic variation, than 

the AUs with low resiliency. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT CONDITION RESILIENCY RANKINGS FOR UTE LADIES’-TRESSES AUS

AU name 

(States * or Canada) 

Number of 

extant 

occurrences 

AU resiliency Level-III ecoregions 

Cheyenne (WY, SD, NE) ....................................... 1 Low ................................ Northwestern Great Plains. 

Colorado Headwaters (CO) .................................... 2 Moderate ........................ Southern Rockies. 

Great Salt Lake (UT, NV) ....................................... 1 Low ................................ Central Basin and Range. 

Jordan (UT) ............................................................ 5 High ................................ Central Basin and Range, Wasatch and Uinta 

Mountains. 

Lower Bear (UT, ID) ............................................... 1 Moderate ........................ Central Basin and Range, Wasatch and Uinta 

Mountains. 

Lower Colorado-Lake Mead (NV, UT, AZ) ............ 1 Low ................................ Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Colorado Plateaus. 

Lower Green River (UT, CO) ................................. 13 High ................................ Central Basin and Range. 

Missouri Headwaters (MT, WY) ............................. 9 High ................................ Middle Rockies. 

Niobrara (WY, SD, NE) .......................................... 2 Moderate ........................ High Plains. 

North Platte (WY, NE, CO) .................................... 3 High ................................ High Plains. 

Snake Headwaters (ID, WY) .................................. 2 Moderate ........................ Snake River Plain, Middle Rockies.

South Platte (WY, CO, NE) .................................... 6 Moderate ........................ Southern Rockies, High Plains. 

Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil (UT, AZ) ..................... 1 Low ................................ Colorado Plateau. 

Upper Columbia (WA, Canada) ............................. 6 Moderate ........................ Columbia Plateau, North Cascades. 

Upper Green (UT, CO) ........................................... 2 High ................................ Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Colorado Plateau, 

Wyoming Basin. 

Upper Missouri (MT) .............................................. 2 Moderate ........................ Middle Rockies. 

Upper Snake (ID, WY, UT, NV) ............................. 4 Moderate ........................ Snake River Plain, Middle Rockies. 

Weber (UT, WY) ..................................................... 1 Low ................................ Central Basin and Range. 

* State abbreviations are Arizona (AZ), Colorado (CO), Idaho (ID), Montana (MT), Nebraska (NE), Nevada (NV), South Dakota (SD), Utah 

(UT), Washington (WA), and Wyoming (WY). 

Redundancy 

Redundancy describes the number 

and distribution of AUs, and the greater 

the number and the wider the 

distribution of the AUs, the better Ute 

ladies’-tresses 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 

to extreme drought conditions as a 

plausible catastrophic event that may 

affect one or more population 

simultaneously. We evaluated the risk 

of this catastrophic event and its impact 

on species redundancy in our future 

scenarios (see Future Scenarios and 

Future Condition, below). Ute ladies’- 

tresses’ redundancy is characterized by 

18 AUs (watersheds) distributed across 

its large range; AUs are separated by the 

Northern and Middle Rocky Mountains, 

and distances of approximately 350 

miles for the more isolated Upper 

Columbia AU. As we mentioned above, 

the 13 AUs with high or moderate 

resiliency are distributed across the 

species’ range, are present in all 8 U.S. 

States and Canada, and are present in 10 

of the 12 ecoregions. Thus, the 13 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 aware of one 

AU (Upper Arkansas) that is extirpated 

in Colorado due to urban development 

(Service 2024, pp. 65–66, 100–109). 

Representation 

Ute ladies’-tresses exhibits 

considerable ecological diversity; the 

species is found in 3 different ecological 

classifications (Great Plains, North 

American Deserts, and Western Forested 

Mountains), 12 level-III ecoregions, and 

7 habitat types (see Background, above). 

High genetic diversity was documented 

in populations located in six of the eight 

States within the species’ range, and 

there is very little morphological 

variability across the range. The species 

has greater levels of representation than 

we previously understood at the time 

Ute ladies’-tresses was listed in 1992, 

because of our better understanding of 

the species, including more known 

occurrences and AUs, and a broader 

known distribution. 

Future Scenarios and Future Condition 

In our SSA report, we forecasted the 

resiliency of Ute ladies’-tresses AUs and 

the redundancy and representation of 

the species for approximately 50 years 

(to 2074) using a range of three plausible 

future scenarios. We relied on combined 

IPCC climate and land use projections 

out to 2074 (the timeframe for which 

they were available). These projections 

informed our evaluation of habitat loss 

from anthropogenic activities. This 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1067 

timeframe encompasses approximately 

2 to 3 generations of the species, the 

duration (30 years) of the applicable 

Federal land management plans by 

USFS and BLM, and the duration (50 

years or more) of dam operation 

contracts or licenses. We can reasonably 

determine projected changes in the 

climate change and anthropogenic 

activities/stressors using geospatial data 

sets and the species’ likely responses to 

those stressors within this 50-year 

timeframe (i.e., the foreseeable future). 

We developed three plausible future 

scenarios using three climate models 

that were downscaled to the Ute ladies’- 

tresses’ AUs. By developing a range of 

plausible future scenarios, we assume 

that actual future conditions will likely 

fall somewhere between these three 

scenarios. We consider the driving 

factors of the species’ viability to be two 

separate, but interconnected 

influences—the effects of anthropogenic 

activity related to loss of habitat from 

stressors that include urban 

development, water management, 

agriculture, recreation, and land 

conversion, and the effects of climate 

change influencing the amount of water 

available in a watershed. The primary 

negative influence of anthropogenic 

activity to AU resiliency is the loss of 

Ute ladies’-tresses plants and habitat, 

regardless of the particular 

anthropogenic stressor(s). We then used 

existing models and data to project the 

effects of climate change and 

anthropogenic activities on the 

demographic and habitat factors that 

influence resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. We calculated the future 

resiliency score using the same methods 

as the current condition score. If 

anthropogenic activity was projected to 

cause extirpation of an occurrence (50 

percent or more potential suitable 

habitat loss was projected), it was 

removed from the AU prior to the 

evaluation of climate change effects. If 

the AU future resiliency ranking fell 

below 0.9 (lowest possible original 

score), we assumed the AU would 

become extirpated (a condition lower 

than the low condition category and 

unlikely to be resilient to stochastic 

events) in the foreseeable future under 

that scenario. 

For anthropogenic activity, we 

evaluated the projected loss of Ute 

ladies’-tresses habitat in occurrences 

based on changes in land use and land 

cover (Service 2024, pp. 134–136). We 

used USGS land cover projections out to 

2074 that correspond to the three 

climate change and human population 

change scenarios (B1, B2, and A2) 

developed by the IPCC (Sohl et al. 2018, 

data set; USGS 2019, dataset). Detailed 

descriptions of each scenario are 

available in the SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 129–199). Scenario 1 (B1) 

represents a stabilization of emissions 

(RCP 4.5) and a slowed rate of human 

population growth. The B1 or 

stabilization climate scenario describes 

a global population that peaks in midcentury and declines thereafter under 

intermediate emissions. Scenario 2 (B2) 

represents the continuation of the 

current rate of human population 

growth into the future with technology 

mitigating some growth under high 

emissions (RCP 8.5), and Scenario 3 

(A2) represents a largely unchecked 

population growth under high 

emissions (RCP 8.5) (IPCC 2000, pp. 9– 

11). 

The USGS land cover projections 

identify changes on non-Federal lands 

because they have a higher risk of 

development and other anthropogenic 

stressors compared to Federal lands. 

This is consistent with our 

understanding of the development risk 

for the species’ wetland habitats. We 

consider there to be a low risk of future 

development in Ute ladies’-tresses 

habitat on Federal lands, and we 

assumed no habitat loss from 

development on Federal lands in our 

future projections. 

We consider the USGS emergent 

wetlands, woody wetlands, and hay or 

pasture land cover categories to 

represent suitable habitat for Ute ladies’- 

tresses, and we calculated the amount of 

habitat loss based on projected changes 

to those land cover categories. We 

assumed the loss of habitat if suitable 

habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses within an 

occurrence was converted to moderately 

or highly developed land or to 

cultivated cropland categories. If there 

was 50 percent or more suitable habitat 

loss within an occurrence, then we 

considered the occurrence to be 

extirpated. 

Depending on the scenario, some 

occurrences in rapidly urbanizing areas 

are projected to be extirpated; however, 

there is very little habitat loss projected 

for most of the occurrences (Service 

2024, pp. 139–199). In the B1 scenario, 

human population change and 

associated anthropogenic stressors were 

projected to result in the loss of three 

occurrences in Utah and Colorado 

(within the Jordan, Lower Green River, 

and South Platte AUs). In the B2 

scenario, we project a loss of 10 

occurrences in Utah, Colorado, 

Montana, and Idaho (within the Jordan, 

Lower Green River, Missouri 

Headwaters, South Platte, Upper 

Colorado-Dirty Devil, Upper Snake 

AUs). In the A2 scenario, we project a 

loss of 11 occurrences in Utah, 

Colorado, Nevada, Montana, and Idaho 

(within the Jordan, Lower ColoradoLake Mead, Lower Green River, 

Missouri Headwaters, South Platte, 

Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil, Upper 

Missouri, Upper Snake AUs). For some 

occurrences, if they were projected to be 

extirpated because of a loss of 

hydrologic condition, we did not assess 

their projected extirpation risk from 

human activities. 

As discussed above, we evaluated 

climate change effects to occurrence 

hydrologic condition using SPEI index 

projections of severe and extreme 

drought frequency out to 2074 (see 

‘‘Climate Change,’’ above). We used 

SPEI index projections under 

intermediate emissions (RCP 4.5) for 

Scenario 1, and SPEI index projections 

under high emissions (RPC 8.5) for 

Scenarios 2 and 3. For each occurrence, 

we compared the historical and 

projected future decadal frequency (to 

2074) of severe and extreme droughts 

within the species’ range. We made no 

change to an occurrence’s projected 

hydrologic or vegetative condition 

category if the drought frequency was 

projected to remain similar to the 

historical drought frequency (less than 

one additional severe or extreme 

drought per decade above the historical 

frequency). For all three scenarios, we 

reduced an occurrence’s future 

hydrologic condition by one category 

(from high to moderate; moderate to 

low) if the drought frequency was 

projected to increase by 1 to 1.9 severe 

to extreme drought(s) per decade above 

the historical frequency, and by two 

categories if the frequency was projected 

to increase by 2 to 3 severe to extreme 

droughts per decade above the historical 

frequency. 

For climate change effects to 

occurrence vegetative habitat condition, 

we assumed that there was no change in 

the condition category under 

intermediate emissions (RCP 4.5) for 

Scenario 1. However, we assumed that 

vegetative habitat condition would 

change the same amount as hydrologic 

condition for a given occurrence under 

the two high emissions scenarios, 

Scenarios 2 and 3 (Service 2024, p. 133). 

In Scenario 1 (B1), anthropogenic 

activities are projected to increase in 

two States within the range; associated 

habitat loss would result in the 

extirpation of three occurrences in Utah 

and Colorado (within the Jordan, Lower 

Green River, and South Platte AUs). 

However, the extirpations of these 

occurrences do not affect the overall AU 

resiliency scores. 

The frequency of severe and extreme 

droughts varies across the species’ 

range. Small increases in decadal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1068 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

drought frequency are projected for 

most occurrences in northern Utah, 

Idaho, and Washington, although a few 

occurrences in those States show a 

small decrease in drought frequency 

relative to current trends. The remaining 

States and Canada show a larger per 

decade increase in drought frequency 

(by approximately 1 to 2 more 

additional severe to extreme droughts 

per decade) at most occurrences. No 

occurrences were projected to have an 

increase of three or more severe to 

extreme droughts in any scenario. 

Occurrences in Montana and those at 

the southern edges of the range in 

Nevada and southern Utah are projected 

to see the largest increases in drought 

frequency. Projected climate change 

effects and associated declines in 

occurrence hydrologic condition result 

in the extirpation of five occurrences in 

Montana, Colorado, and Utah (within 

the Missouri Headwaters, South Platte, 

Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil AUs). The 

one extirpated occurrence in the Upper 

Colorado-Dirty Devil AU results in the 

extirpation of that AU, since that is the 

only occurrence in that AU. 

We project the resiliency of 15 AUs 

will remain the same as current 

conditions, 2 AUs (Missouri 

Headwaters, North Platte) will drop 

from high to moderate overall 

resiliency, and 1 AU (Upper ColoradoDirty Devil) will drop from low 

resiliency to extirpated (see table 2, 

below). Declines in AU resiliency were 

driven by climate change effects. 

Redundancy declines because 17 AUs 

remain and 1 is extirpated, and 

representation remains the same as 

current conditions in terms of 

represented ecoregions and habitat 

types. 

Ute ladies’-tresses is projected to 

maintain 13 AUs with high or moderate 

resiliency in Scenario 1 (B1), and these 

AUs are at less risk from potential 

stochastic events, such as climatic 

variation, than the 4 AUs with low 

resiliency. 

In Scenario 2 (B2), anthropogenic 

activities increase in four States within 

the range; projections of this stressor 

and associated habitat loss result in the 

extirpation of nine occurrences in Utah, 

Colorado, Montana, and Idaho (within 

the Jordan, Lower Green River, Missouri 

Headwaters, South Platte, and Upper 

Snake AUs). 

The frequency of severe and extreme 

droughts is projected to increase in most 

AUs by one to less than three additional 

severe to extreme droughts per decade 

over current trends. Similar to Scenario 

1, Utah, Idaho, and Washington 

experience the smallest increases in 

drought frequency, and in some cases 

smaller than the frequencies projected 

in Scenario 1, which is considered the 

less extreme climate scenario. However, 

occurrences in Montana and at the 

southern edges of the range in Nevada 

and southern Utah are projected to have 

the largest increases in drought 

frequency. Projected climate change 

effects and associated declines in 

occurrence hydrologic condition result 

in the extirpation of the Upper 

Colorado-Dirty Devil AU and two 

additional occurrences in Montana in 

the Missouri Headwaters AU. 

We project the overall resiliency of 13 

AUs will remain the same as the current 

condition, 2 AUs (Jordan, North Platte) 

will drop from high to moderate 

condition, 1 AU (Missouri Headwaters) 

will drop from high to low condition, 1 

AU (South Platte) will drop from 

moderate to low condition, and 1 AU 

(Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil) will drop 

from low to extirpated condition (see 

table 2, below). Declines in AU 

resiliency were driven by anthropogenic 

activities in the Jordan AU, the 

combination of anthropogenic activities 

and climate change effects in the 

Missouri Headwaters and South Platte 

AUs, and climate change effects in the 

North Platte and Upper Colorado-Dirty 

Devil AUs. Redundancy declines 

because 17 AUs remain and 1 is 

extirpated, and representation remains 

the same as current conditions in terms 

of represented ecoregions and habitat 

types. 

The increase in climate change and 

anthropogenic effects compared to 

current conditions under Scenario 2 has 

the potential to negatively impact 

vegetative condition. We expect 

dormant seedlings and plants to remain 

viable under this scenario and to 

support population resiliency. Despite 

some reduction in resiliency, Ute 

ladies’-tresses is projected to maintain 

11 AUs with high or moderate resiliency 

in this scenario, and these AUs are at 

less risk from potential stochastic 

events, such as climatic variation, than 

the 6 AUs with low resiliency. 

In Scenario 3 (A2), anthropogenic 

activities increase in 5 States within the 

species’ range; associated habitat loss 

results in the extirpation of 11 

occurrences in Utah, Colorado, 

Montana, Idaho, and Nevada (within the 

Jordan, Lower Green River, Missouri 

Headwaters, South Platte, Upper Snake, 

Upper Missouri, and Lower ColoradoLake Mead AUs). 

As in Scenario 2, more occurrences 

are projected to see increases of one to 

less than three additional severe to 

extreme droughts per decade over 

current trends, and these effects are 

compounded by more anthropogenic 

activity. Projected climate change effects 

and associated declines in occurrence 

hydrologic condition result in the 

extirpation of the Upper Colorado-Dirty 

Devil AU, as well as three occurrences 

in Colorado and Montana (within the 

South Platte and Missouri Headwaters 

AUs). 

We project the overall resiliency of 11 

AUs will remain the same as the current 

condition, 2 AUs (Jordan, North Platte) 

will drop from high to moderate 

condition, 1 AU (Missouri Headwaters) 

will drop from high to low condition, 2 

AUs (South Platte and Upper Missouri) 

will drop from moderate to low 

condition, and 2 AUs (Upper ColoradoDirty Devil and Lower Colorado-Lake 

Mead) will drop from low to extirpated 

condition (see table 2, below). Declines 

in AU resiliency were driven by 

anthropogenic activities in the Jordan 

and Lower Colorado-Lake Mead AUs; 

the combination of anthropogenic 

activities and climate change effects in 

the Missouri Headwaters, Upper 

Missouri, and South Platte AUs; and 

climate change effects in the North 

Platte and Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil 

AUs. Redundancy declines because 16 

AUs remain and 2 are extirpated, and 

representation remains the same as 

current conditions in terms of 

represented ecoregions and habitat 

types. 

The increase in climate change and 

anthropogenic effects compared to 

current conditions under Scenario 3 has 

the potential to negatively impact 

vegetative condition. We expect 

dormant seedlings and plants to remain 

viable under this scenario and to 

support population resiliency. Despite 

some reduction in resiliency, Ute 

ladies’-tresses is projected to maintain 

10 AUs with high or moderate resiliency 

in this scenario, and these AUs are at 

less risk from potential stochastic 

events, such as climatic variation, than 

the 6 AUs with low resiliency. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1069 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF UTE LADIES’-TRESSES RESILIENCY FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION AND THREE FUTURE

SCENARIOS

AU 

Resiliency 

Current 

condition Future scenario 1 Future scenario 2 Future scenario 3 

Cheyenne ............................................................................................................. Low ....................... Low ....................... Low ....................... Low. 

Colorado Headwaters .......................................................................................... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate. 

Great Salt Lake .................................................................................................... Low ....................... Low ....................... Low ....................... Low. 

Jordan .................................................................................................................. High ...................... High ...................... Moderate ............... Moderate. 

Lower Bear .......................................................................................................... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate. 

Lower Colorado-Lake Mead ................................................................................ Low ....................... Low ....................... Low ....................... Extirpated. 

Lower Green River .............................................................................................. High ...................... High ...................... High ....................... High. 

Missouri Headwaters ........................................................................................... High ....................... Moderate ............... Low ....................... Low. 

Niobrara ............................................................................................................... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate. 

North Platte .......................................................................................................... High ....................... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate. 

Snake Headwaters .............................................................................................. Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate. 

South Platte ......................................................................................................... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Low ....................... Low. 

Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil .................................................................................. Low ....................... Extirpated .............. Extirpated .............. Extirpated. 

Upper Columbia ................................................................................................... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate. 

Upper Green ........................................................................................................ High ....................... High ...................... High ....................... High. 

Upper Missouri ..................................................................................................... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Low. 

Upper Snake ........................................................................................................ Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate ............... Moderate. 

Weber .................................................................................................................. Low ....................... Low ....................... Low ....................... Low. 

Under all three future scenarios, the 

overall resiliency of at least 11 AUs is 

projected to remain the same as the 

current condition. Declines in overall 

resiliency for the remaining AUs were 

driven by climate change in Scenario 1 

and the combination of anthropogenic 

activities and climate change in 

Scenarios 2 and 3. Under all three future 

scenarios, Ute ladies’-tresses is 

projected to maintain at least 10 AUs 

with high or moderate resiliency, and 

these AUs are at less risk from potential 

stochastic events, such as climatic 

variation, than the AUs with low 

resiliency. AUs along large, mainstem 

rivers with multiple occurrences (Upper 

Green, Lower Green River, Upper 

Columbia, Upper Snake, Lower Bear, 

Niobrara, Colorado Headwaters) are the 

most resilient; they maintain their 

overall resiliency scores across all future 

scenarios despite projected declines in 

abundance and connectivity. The Upper 

Colorado-Dirty Devil AU in the southern 

part of the range is the least resilient 

and is projected to be extirpated in all 

three future scenarios due to climate 

change. 

Under all three future scenarios, some 

genetic diversity within populations 

could be lost. However, even in the 

most pessimistic plausible scenario 

(Scenario 3), 16 AUs are expected to 

remain extant and ecological variation 

will continue to be represented by the 

12 ecoregions and 7 habitat types across 

Ute ladies’-tresses’ range. 

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. 

See the SSA report (Service 2024, 

entire) for a more detailed discussion of 

our evaluation of the biological status of 

Ute ladies’-tresses and the stressors that 

may affect its continued existence. Our 

conclusions in the SSA report, which 

form the basis for the determination 

below, are based upon the best available 

scientific and commercial data. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

There are several regulatory 

mechanisms, as well as conservation 

efforts, that may minimize the effect of 

stressors or provide benefits to Ute 

ladies’-tresses. Due to the broad 

distribution of Ute ladies’-tresses in the 

United States and Canada, management 

of this species falls under numerous 

jurisdictions. Roughly 95 percent of the 

species’ range occurs in the United 

States, with the remaining 5 percent of 

its range occurring in British Columbia, 

Canada. In the United States, 

approximately 37 percent of land where 

the species occurs is federally owned or 

managed by the BLM, USBR, USFS, 

Service, NPS, and DOD. Almost half of 

the land, approximately 47 percent, is 

under private ownership. There is a 

small amount (approximately 3 percent) 

of Ute ladies’-tresses habitat where the 

land ownership is not known. The 

remaining 13 percent of the species’ 

range is on State and Tribal lands 

(Service 2024, p. 39). 

International Regulatory Mechanisms 

International trade in all orchids is 

regulated by the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Flora and Fauna 

(CITES; 27 U.S.T. 1087, March 3, 1973), 

an international agreement ratified by 

most countries worldwide since 1975. 

The purpose of CITES is to regulate the 

international wildlife trade to safeguard 

certain species from over-exploitation. 

Ute ladies’-tresses is listed as an 

appendix II species of CITES and would 

remain an appendix II species if delisted 

under the Act because it is an orchid. 

Under CITES, exporters must obtain a 

permit for international shipment of 

specimens. Export permits for an 

appendix II species are issued only 

when the following findings are made: 

(1) a scientific finding of non-detriment 

(i.e., data or expert scientific opinion on 

the biological status of the species 

indicating that the export is not likely 

to be detrimental to species survival); 

and (2) a finding that specimens were 

acquired legally (i.e., evidence that 

specimens to be exported were not 

obtained in violation of any State, 

Federal, or other jurisdictional law). 

More information on CITES can be 

found at: https://cites.org/eng/disc/ 

what.php. 

In Canada, the Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC) designated Ute ladies’- 

tresses as a schedule 1 endangered 

species under the Canadian Species at 

Risk Act (SARA) in November 2018, due 

to the high risk of extirpation 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1070 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(COSEWIC 2018, entire). This 

designation provides protection from 

harming, killing, collecting, buying, 

selling, or possessing Ute ladies’-tresses 

on Federal Crown lands. In Canada, the 

species occurs on lands within an 

Ecological Reserve that are permanently 

protected and managed by British 

Columbia Parks for their biodiversity, 

and on lands within the Osoyoos Indian 

Reserve with no conservation status 

(COSEWIC 2018, pp. 43–44). 

Federal Regulatory Mechanisms 

Clean Water Act—The Clean Water 

Act (CWA) was designed, in part, to 

protect surface waters of the United 

States from unregulated pollution from 

point sources. The CWA provides some 

benefit to Ute ladies’-tresses through the 

regulation of discharge into surface 

waters through a permitting process; 

however, the historical threats to Ute 

ladies’-tresses habitat have not typically 

been associated with point sources of 

pollution, and the best available 

information indicates that pollution is 

not a stressor. 

Under section 404 of the CWA, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

regulates the discharge of fill material 

into waters of the United States, 

including wetlands that meet certain 

jurisdictional requirements. In general, 

the term ‘‘wetland’’ refers to areas 

meeting the USACE’s criteria of hydric 

soils, hydrology (either sufficient annual 

flooding or water on the soil surface), 

and hydrophytic vegetation (plants 

specifically adapted for growing in 

wetlands). 

The USACE and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

amended the definition of ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ as it applies to the CWA 

and the jurisdictional authority of the 

USACE on September 8, 2023 (88 FR 

61964), to comply with a 2023 Supreme 

Court Decision, Sackett v. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Under the new definition, jurisdictional 

(that is, regulated under the authority of 

the CWA) wetlands are those wetlands 

adjacent to navigable waters defined as 

interstate waters, and relatively 

permanent, standing or continuously 

flowing bodies of water with continuous 

surface connection to certain other 

bodies of water (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)(1) 

and (a)(4), and 40 CFR 120.2(a)(4)); and 

jurisdictional ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ include certain intrastate lakes 

and ponds (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)(5)). 

Under this definition of waters of the 

United States, Ute ladies’-tresses 

occurrences along interstate waters or 

along intrastate lakes, ponds, streams, or 

wetlands that are relatively permanent, 

standing or continuously flowing bodies 

of water with a continuous surface 

connection to certain waterbodies 

would be considered as occurring in 

jurisdictional waters/wetlands, and we 

expect the protections of the CWA to 

remain if we delist Ute ladies’-tresses 

under the Act. However, in some cases, 

occurrences in wet meadow, spring, or 

seep habitats that do not meet the 

definition would not be considered 

jurisdictional waters/wetlands under 

the CWA. This means the loss of 

indirect protections under the CWA for 

occurrences on non-Federal lands in the 

United States. Under the previous and 

new definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States,’’ certain farming activities, 

ditches, artificially irrigated areas that 

would revert to dry land if irrigation 

ceased, and artificial lakes, ponds, or 

waterfilled depressions incidental to 

construction activity are not considered 

waters of the United States and are 

excluded from the CWA’s section 404 

regulations. 

National Environmental Policy Act— 

Environmental review of potential 

effects of Federal actions is mandated 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). When NEPA analysis reveals 

significant environmental effects, the 

Federal agencies must disclose those 

effects to the public and consider 

mitigation that could offset the effects. 

These mitigations usually provide some 

protections for listed species. However, 

NEPA does not require that adverse 

impacts be mitigated, only disclosed. 

Therefore, it is unclear what level of 

protection would be conveyed to Ute 

ladies’-tresses through NEPA, in the 

absence of protections under the Act. 

National Park Organic Act—Federal 

activities on National Park Service 

(NPS) lands are subject to the National 

Park Service Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 

100101 et seq.). The Organic Act 

specifies that the NPS will promote and 

regulate the use of the National Park 

System (System) by means and 

measures that conform to the 

fundamental purpose of the System 

units, which purpose is to conserve the 

scenery, natural and historic objects, 

and wild life in the System units and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the 

scenery, natural and historic objects, 

and wild life in such manner and by 

such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations (54 U.S.C. 100101(a)). 

The NPS manages Ute ladies’-tresses 

occurrences in Dinosaur National 

Monument along the Green River in 

northwestern Colorado (Upper Green 

and Lower Green River AUs) and a 

historical occurrence in Capitol Reef 

National Park in Utah (Fertig et al. 2005, 

pp. 74, 77–78, 82, 89–90; Hendricks 

2005, entire; Service 2024, pp. 67, 71, 

84–85). For listed species, NPS provides 

habitat protections from conflicting land 

use; however, the NPS does not control 

the hydrology of the Green or Fremont 

Rivers. We expect habitat protections to 

continue along the Green River if we 

delist Ute ladies’-tresses based on the 

regulatory mechanisms provided by the 

Organic Act. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act—As directed by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act (Pub. L. 105–57), 

Service refuge managers have the 

authority and responsibility to protect 

native ecosystems, fulfill the purposes 

for which an individual refuge was 

founded, and implement strategies to 

achieve the goals and objectives stated 

in management plans. In the Lower 

Green River AU, Browns Park National 

Wildlife Refuge contained habitat for 

Ute ladies’-tresses along the Green River 

in northwestern Colorado upstream of 

Dinosaur National Monument as 

recently as 1999. Since then, flood and 

scour events have reduced the amount 

of occupied and suitable Ute ladies’- 

tresses habitat on the refuge (Horne 

2024, pers. comm.). Browns Park 

National Wildlife Refuge’s 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

is a land management plan that directs 

the protection and restoration of 

riparian and wetland habitats, including 

Ute ladies’-tresses habitat on the refuge 

(Service 1999, p. 22). Browns Park 

National Wildlife Refuge will continue 

to protect riparian and wetland habitats 

that include Ute ladies’-tresses habitat 

regardless of the Federal listing status of 

Ute ladies’-tresses (Horne 2024, pers. 

comm.). 

In addition to specific protections for 

Ute ladies’-tresses provided under CCPs, 

the species is permanently protected by 

the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2)). 

National Forest Management Act— 

Federal activities on U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) lands are subject to the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; 

16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA 

requires the development and 

implementation of resource 

management plans to guide the 

maintenance of ecological conditions 

that support natural distributions and 

abundance of species and not contribute 

to their extirpation. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1071 

The USFS manages Ute ladies’-tresses 

occurrences in the Ashley National 

Forest in northeastern Utah (Lower 

Green River AU), the Uinta-Wasatch 

Cache National Forest in northcentral 

Utah (Jordan AU), and the CaribouTarghee National Forest in Idaho (Snake 

Headwaters AU) (Service 2024, pp. 47, 

51, 61). Guidance for conservation of 

Ute ladies’-tresses is included in the 

Caribou-Targhee, Uinta, and Ashley 

National Forest plans (USFS 1997, p. 

III–14; USFS 2003, pp. 2–6, 5–51–5–53; 

USFS 2023, pp. 20–21, 54, 90, 93). The 

Uinta-Wasatch Cache National Forest 

designated the portion of the Diamond 

Fork Creek occurrence as a ‘‘riparian 

habitat conservation area class I,’’ which 

affords the highest level of protection 

(300-ft (91-m) avoidance buffer) for Ute 

ladies’-tresses in that area (USFS 2003, 

pp. D–1, D–2). 

If we delist Ute ladies’-tresses, the 

species may still be recognized as a 

USFS species of conservation concern 

whereby the agency is directed to 

provide ecological conditions necessary 

to maintain viable populations of the 

species (77 FR 21162, April 9, 2012; 36 

CFR 219.9; Hayward et al. 2016, pp. 8, 

21–28). The USFS in each respective 

region has the authority to designate Ute 

ladies’-tresses as regional forester 

sensitive species (RFSS), which is 

similar to a USFS species of 

conservation concern (77 FR 21162 at 

21175, April 9, 2012; 36 CFR 219.9(c)). 

If, in the future, Ute ladies’-tresses 

undergoes a downward trend and its 

viability is a concern, the USFS has the 

authority to designate it as a species of 

conservation concern. In addition, if 

delisted, Ute ladies’-tresses occupying 

riparian habitats on USFS lands will 

continue to receive levels of protection 

for riparian habitats identified in the 

forest plans (USFS 1997, pp. III–9–III– 

12; USFS 2003, pp. 3–2–3–5, 3–9–3–10, 

3–14–3–15, 3–22, 3–25–3–27, D–1, D–2; 

USFS 2023, pp. 17–18, 46, 50, 53–54, 

92). 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act—The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.) applies to the BLM with 

regard to the conservation and use of 

public lands under their management. 

The BLM manages Ute ladies’-tresses 

occurrences in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, 

Washington, and Wyoming (Colorado 

Headwaters, Lower Colorado-Lake 

Mead, Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil, 

Lower Green River, Upper Green, Snake 

Headwaters, Upper Snake, Upper 

Columbia, North Platte, and Cheyenne 

AUs) (Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 38–55; 

Service 2024, pp. 84–85). 

Guidance for Ute ladies’-tresses 

conservation is included in some BLM 

resource management plans (RMPs) that 

include surveys, monitoring, avoidance 

buffers, and invasive species control 

(BLM 2020, pp. F–24–F–25; BLM 2015a, 

appendix J; BLM 2000, pp. 15–17; BLM 

2007, appendix Z; BLM 2008a, 

appendix 14; BLM 2010, appendix T; 

BLM 2014, appendix P; BLM 2015b, 

appendix K; BLM 2015c, appendix K; 

BLM 2015d, appendix K; BLM 2016, 

appendix 28; BLM 2023a, pp. 3–12, 3– 

13, and 4–81–4–82; Carroll 2005, 

entire). 

The one extant occurrence along Deer 

Creek in the Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil 

AU is located in the Grand Staircase 

National Monument in Utah, 

established in 1996 to preserve geologic, 

archaeologic, and ecological 

communities and provide for scientific 

research, education, and exploration 

(Presidential Proclamation 6920, 

September 18, 1996; BLM 2020, p. F– 

24–F–25). Occurrences in the Upper 

Snake River, Idaho (Upper Snake AU), 

are located along the floodplain of the 

Snake and Henry’s Fork Rivers. The 

Snake River area of critical 

environmental concern (ACEC) includes 

21,954 ac (8,884 ha) of BLM-managed 

public lands designated to protect and 

conserve riparian-wetland habitat. This 

ACEC is the top priority wetland in the 

State of Idaho, and we consider it to 

contain the highest-quality cottonwood 

riparian zone in the western United 

States (BLM 1985, pp. 25–26; Fertig et 

al. 2005, pp. 38–44; Velman 2005, 

entire; BLM 2023b, pp. 8–9; BLM 2023c 

pp. 90–91). Occurrences in the Green 

River (Lower Green River AU) are found 

in the Browns Park ACEC in Utah; the 

ACEC comprises 18,480 ac (7,479 ha) 

and protects high value scenery, 

wildlife habitat, and cultural resources 

(Fertig et al. 2005, p. 46; BLM 2008b, p. 

36). The protections provided by ACEC 

designations are not contingent upon 

the species’ federally listed status. The 

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 (Secretary) or, 

if delegated by the Secretary, an 

individual in the Office of the Secretary 

who has been appointed by the 

President, by and with the advice and 

consent of the Senate (43 U.S.C. 

1714(a)). The Snake River and Browns 

Park ACECs were designated to protect 

multiple species and resources in 

addition to Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Therefore, the ACEC designations will 

not change under the current BLM RMP, 

even if Ute ladies’-tresses is delisted. 

Even without the protections of the 

Act, Ute ladies’-tresses orchid would 

remain a BLM sensitive species for at 

least 5 years (BLM 2008c, pp. 36, 47). 

The BLM in each respective State has 

the authority to designate Ute ladies’- 

tresses as a BLM sensitive species, 

which would provide protections 

equivalent to a Federal candidate 

species (BLM 2008c, pp. 43, 47). If, in 

the future, Ute ladies’-tresses undergoes 

a downward trend and its viability is at 

risk such that it meets the definition of 

a BLM sensitive species, the BLM has 

the authority to designate it as a BLM 

sensitive species (BLM 2008c, pp. 36– 

37). 

If delisted, Ute ladies’-tresses 

occupying riparian habitats on BLM 

lands would also receive the levels of 

protection for riparian habitats 

identified in the RMPs, including 

avoidance buffers, livestock grazing 

provisions, and invasive species control 

(BLM 1985, p. 39; BLM 2000, pp. 8–12, 

15–18, 37–40, 45–49, 54, 61; BLM 2007, 

pp. 2–10, 2–18–2–24, 2–40, 2–44; BLM 

2008a, pp. 2–19, 2–35, 2–42, 2–46–2–50, 

and appendix 14; BLM 2008b, pp. 44, 

113–115; BLM 2010, pp. 2–24–2–25, 2– 

30, 2–33–2–38, 2–45–2–49, 2–60, and 

appendix T; BLM 2014, pp. 18–19, 39– 

41, 46–48, 52, 58, 67, 98–99; BLM 

2015a, pp. 33–48, and appendices B and 

J; BLM 2015b, pp. 6, 10, 32, 36–37, 47, 

54, 59, 62, 73, 75–76, 85, 86, 97, 101– 

102, 106, 117–118, 125–126, 148–150, 

161, 179–180; BLM 2015c, pp. 5, 27, 33– 

34, 42–43, 55, 60, 72, 75–76, 81, 85, 93, 

105, 115, 121–123; BLM 2015d, pp. 5, 

33–34, 42–43, 55, 60, 71, 74–76, 80, 84, 

91, 103, 115, 126–128; BLM 2016, pp. 

1–5–1–7, 2–3, 2–15–2–19, 2–25, 2–41– 

2–43, 2–55, 2–65–2–66, and appendix 

28; BLM 2020, pp. ROD–17, ARMPs-14– 

15, C–16–C–17, C–20, F–9–F–11, F–25; 

BLM 2023a, pp. 2–14, 2–16–4–231). 

Reclamation Act of 1902—The U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is 

responsible for the management and 

development of many large Federal 

dams, water diversion structures, and 

water storage project construction in the 

western United States subject to the 

Reclamation Act of 1902 (Pub. L. 57– 

161; 43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.), and section 

4007 of the Water Infrastructure 

Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN 

Act, Pub. L. 114–322; 43 U.S.C. 390b 

note). The USBR has the authority to 

manage water flows and water releases 

along the Green River in Colorado and 

Utah, and the South Fork Snake River 

in Idaho. The USBR has delegated its 

authority in some areas to commissions 

(e.g., the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Commission 

(URMCC)) or Water Conservation 

Districts to manage smaller rivers such 

as the Provo, Duchesne, and Diamond 

Fork Rivers in Utah. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1072 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

The USBR and other cooperating 

agencies have implemented 

management actions to benefit federally 

listed fish in river corridors where Ute 

ladies’-tresses occurs, and we expect 

these management actions to continue if 

Ute ladies’-tresses is delisted. The 

USBR, commissions, or Water 

Conservation Districts manage peak and 

base flows to support a more natural 

hydrograph and contribute to the 

creation of wetland habitats to support 

conservation of federally listed and 

native fish species such as the 

humpback chub (Gila cypha), Colorado 

pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), 

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), 

June sucker (Chasmistes liorus), and 

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Fish 

conservation actions indirectly benefit 

Ute ladies’-tresses by creating suitable 

habitat and allowing a more natural 

hydrograph that allows for periodic 

flood and scour events to maintain 

early- to mid-seral habitat conditions. 

Examples of management actions 

taken by the USBR include: (1) In the 

Upper Green and Lower Green River 

AUs, as part of the Upper Colorado 

River endangered fish recovery program 

(UCRRP) established in 1988, the USBR 

manages peak and base flows of the 

Green River to support a more natural 

hydrograph and contributes to the 

creation of wetland habitats to support 

conservation of native fish species 

(UCRRP 1988 and 2022, entire); (2) in 

the Jordan AU, as part of the June sucker 

recovery implementation program, the 

USBR and URMCC are restoring, 

enhancing, and creating wetland habitat 

conditions along the lower Provo River 

and Provo River Delta where it connects 

to Utah Lake (Service 2016, entire). The 

Provo River Delta restoration project 

(PRDRP) has already protected Ute 

ladies’-tresses and was complete in 2024 

(Service 2016, entire; US Department of 

Interior 2024, entire); and (3) in the 

Snake River AU, as part of the 

consultation for the operations and 

maintenance of USBR projects in the 

Snake River Basin above Brownlee 

Reservoir, the USBR manages flows to 

support a more natural hydrograph 

(USBR 2005b, entire). 

Sikes Act and Sikes Act Improvement 

Act—Federal activities on Department 

of Defense (DOD) lands are subject to 

the Sikes Act (Pub. L. 86–797; 16 U.S.C. 

670 et seq.) and Sikes Act Improvement 

Act (SAIA; Pub. L. 105–85). The Sikes 

Act and SAIA provide for cooperation 

by the DOD, the Department of the 

Interior (including the Service), and 

State fish and wildlife agencies in the 

planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife 

resources on military installations 

throughout the United States. Each 

military department is required to 

develop and implement an integrated 

natural resources management plan 

(INRMP) that must be reviewed on a 

regular basis, but not less often than 

every 5 years, and must reflect the 

agreement of the parties concerning 

conservation, protection, and 

management of fish and wildlife 

resources. 

Ute ladies’-tresses was found on the 

F.E. Warren Air Force Base (FEWAFB) 

in Wyoming during Colorado butterfly 

plant (Gaura neomexicana var. 

coloradensis) monitoring in August 

2023 (Heidel 2023, entire). Given the 

recent discovery of Ute ladies’-tresses 

there, the current INRMP does not 

include protections or conservation 

measures for Ute ladies’-tresses (INRMP 

2022, p. 48). However, the species’ 

habitat is managed under a formal 

conservation agreement for the Colorado 

butterfly plant, a plant species delisted 

under the Act in 2019 (see 84 FR 59570, 

November 5, 2019), and Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius preblei), a threatened species 

under the Act. Management actions 

include annual monitoring, noxious 

weed control, avoidance buffers, public 

access restrictions, riparian habitat 

protections, and targeted grazing for 

noxious weed control (FEWAFB 2004, 

pp. 7–9). These management actions are 

also beneficial to Ute ladies’-tresses, and 

we expect them to continue in the 

future to conserve Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse and achieve the 

INRMP’s goal of protecting and 

conserving populations of native plants, 

fish, and wildlife on FEWAFB. 

Federal Power Act—The Federal 

Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791 et seq.) 

provides for the equal protection of fish 

and wildlife and other aspects of 

environmental quality as power and 

development. As with NEPA, we have 

the authority to participate in the 

environmental evaluation process, but 

acceptance and implementation of our 

recommendations by a Federal action 

agency is not required. Under the 

Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) is 

responsible for the regulation of 

hydropower projects and other 

interstate energy sources transmission of 

natural gas, oil, and electricity. In 

Washington, FERC requires the Chelan 

Public Utility District (PUD) and Grant 

PUD to control noxious weeds where 

Ute ladies’-tresses occurs, conduct 

regular surveys to document plant 

numbers and distribution, and conduct 

a survey of suitable habitats every 5 

years to identify new populations (Pope 

and Cordell 2023, p. 2). The Chelan 

PUD recently acquired an easement on 

private land to protect the species and 

implemented conservation actions to 

control invasive plants on all 

landownerships (Pope and Cordell 

2023, p. 7). These protections at the 

Chelan PUD-managed Rocky Reach and 

Rock Islands occurrences will likely 

continue, at a minimum, through the 

post-delisting monitoring period; these 

protections will continue regardless of 

the species’ listing status under the Act 

at the Grant PUD-managed Vantage 

occurrence (LeMoine 2024, entire). 

Other Federal Regulatory Mechanisms 

We considered the wetland 

protections from croplands on private 

lands afforded under the Food Security 

Act (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), but the best 

available information does not indicate 

that crops or cropland conversion are 

stressors to Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Various Executive Orders provide 

guidance for Federal land management 

agencies to manage for habitat 

characteristics essential for the 

conservation of Ute ladies’-tresses. They 

include Executive Order 11990 

(Protection of Wetlands) (May 24, 1977), 

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain 

Management) (May 24, 1977), and 

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive 

Species) (February 3, 1999). 

State Regulatory Mechanisms 

In the United States, Ute ladies’- 

tresses has State protections in 

Washington as ‘‘endangered,’’ in 

Nebraska as ‘‘threatened,’’ and in 

Nevada as ‘‘fully protected’’ 

(Washington Natural Heritage Program 

2021, pp. 1–2, 104–106; title 163 of the 

Nebraska Administrative Code at 

chapter 4, section 163–4–004; and 

chapter 527 of the Nevada 

Administrative Code at section 527.010, 

respectively). In Washington State, the 

designation of Ute ladies’-tresses as a 

State endangered plant species 

prioritizes the conservation of its 

wetland habitat, and mitigation may be 

required to offset habitat impacts 

(Rocchio 2024, entire). In Nebraska, 

State-listed plant protections generally 

mirror the Act for endangered and 

threatened plant species; however, 

exceptions are provided for normal 

agricultural practices (title 163 of the 

Nebraska Administrative Code at 

chapter 4, section 163–4–004). In 

Nevada, fully protected species are 

declared to be threatened with 

extinction and require a special permit 

for removal or destruction on public and 

private lands (chapter 527 of the Nevada 

Administrative Code at section 527.010, 

and title 47 of the Nevada Revised 

Statutes at chapter 527, sections 527.050 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1073 

and 527.270). There are no State 

protections for Ute ladies’-tresses in 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, or 

Wyoming. Ute ladies’-tresses’ habitat is 

protected where it occurs in State 

wildlife areas in Washington, Idaho, and 

Utah (Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 72–76; Pope 

and Cordell 2023, p. 8). 

County/City Regulatory Mechanisms 

Multiple occurrences (Boulder Creek, 

South Boulder Creek, and Clear Creek) 

in the South Platte AU are protected in 

natural areas and managed by the City 

of Boulder Open Space and Mountain 

Parks (OSMP) to conserve rare or 

endangered plant species and their 

habitats (see title 33 of the Colorado 

Revised Statutes at section 33–33–104). 

The City of Boulder’s OSMP manages 

open space in perpetuity to preserve 

natural areas, water resources, 

floodplains, and wildlife habitats 

(Riedel 2004, p. 1; City of Boulder 

OSMP 2024, p. 4). Most of the Ute 

ladies’-tresses plants in Boulder County 

are protected in the South Boulder 

Creek State Natural Area and Tallgrass 

Natural Area, which include 

approximately 1,347 ac (545 ha) of 

remnant tallgrass prairie habitat (Riedel 

2002, pp. 1, 7; City of Boulder OSMP 

2023, entire). Boulder’s OSMP would 

likely continue to protect Ute ladies’- 

tresses if Federal protections are 

removed (Riedel 2024, pers. comm.). 

Additionally, the title 9 of the City of 

Boulder’s Municipal Code at section 9– 

3–9 (Stream, Wetlands, and Water Body 

Protection) ensures the preservation, 

protection, restoration, and 

enhancement of the quality and 

diversity of wetlands and water bodies; 

this city regulation would continue to 

protect Ute ladies’-tresses habitat if the 

species is delisted under the Act. 

Private Lands 

Conservation efforts that have been 

performed by private entities to benefit 

and conserve Ute ladies’-tresses are 

discussed here. 

In the Lower Bear AU, the single 

occurrence, Mendon Meadows, is 

protected as a preserve specifically for 

Ute ladies’-tresses, and the land is 

managed solely for the species (Bear 

River Land Trust (BRLT) 2014, entire). 

Management practices include regular 

surveys, irrigation, seasonal grazing or 

mowing that avoids the flowering 

period, a prohibition on recreation and 

development, and restrictions on 

herbicide use (BRLT 2014, pp. 6, 14, 

16). Long-term habitat protections are 

provided for this Ute ladies’-tresses 

occurrence, and if we delist the species, 

any future changes would need Service 

approval (BRLT 2014, pp. 3, 5–6). 

Tribal Lands 

Occurrences in the Lower Green 

River, Upper Snake, and Upper 

Columbia AUs occur on Tribal lands 

(Fertig et al. 2005, pp. 71, 74, 77–78; 

Service 2024, pp. 39, 51, 69, 75). We are 

not aware of regulations that provide 

protections to Ute ladies’-tresses on 

Tribal lands. 

Overall, the conservation measures 

and regulatory mechanisms afforded to 

wetland riparian habitats on Federal, 

State, and private lands in the United 

States and on British Columbia Parks 

and Federal Crown lands in Canada 

minimize the effects of anthropogenic 

stressors to Ute ladies’-tresses, in 

particular the threat of urban 

development to the species’ habitat, 

regardless of the species’ status under 

the Act. 

Proposed Determination of Ute Ladies’- 

Tresses’ 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 Ute ladies’-tresses as 

threatened in 1992 (see 57 FR 2048; 

January 17, 1992), we identified habitat 

loss and modification due to water 

development and urbanization (Factor 

A) as the primary threat to the species. 

We considered collection (Factor B) to 

be a threat because it is an orchid 

species. Disease and predation (Factor 

C) were not considered threats. 

Regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) 

included a limited degree of protection 

for the species’ wetland habitat under 

the Clean Water Act and for the species 

itself through the regulation of 

international trade for all orchids by 

CITES. Finally, we identified small and 

scattered populations, the variable 

demographic structure of populations, 

and a presumed slow reproductive rate 

(Factor E) as vulnerabilities to threats 

and stressors. 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 and its 

stressors than at the time of listing. The 

best available information indicates that 

habitat loss from anthropogenic 

activities (Factor A) and climate change 

(Factor E) are the most influential 

threats affecting Ute ladies’-tresses now 

and into the future, although we 

acknowledge there is uncertainty about 

the future impacts of anthropogenic 

activities and climate change to the 

species and its habitats. 

We consider the severity and 

magnitude of the primary threat, habitat 

loss and modification due to 

urbanization and water development 

(we refer to this threat as water 

management here and in the SSA 

report) (Factor A) to be much lower now 

than we believed at the time of listing, 

given the increase in the number of 

known Ute ladies’-tresses populations 

and the increase in the extent of the 

species’ known range based on new 

information over the past 32 years. 

While this threat has resulted in the 

localized loss of occurrences and the 

extirpation of one historical AU (Upper 

Arkansas), it does not result in a 

species-level impact given the much 

larger number of known occurrences, 

AUs, and species’ range that comprise 

the species’ current status. Future 

projections of this threat in combination 

with other anthropogenic stressors 

indicate that this threat will increase in 

the future, but will remain localized 

within the species’ range and will be 

minimized by conservation measures 

and regulatory mechanisms afforded to 

wetland riparian habitats on Federal, 

State, and private lands in the United 

States and on British Columbia Parks 

and Federal Crown lands in Canada 

regardless of Ute ladies’-tresses’ status 

under the Act (see Conservation Efforts 

and Regulatory Mechanisms, above). 

Collection (Factor B) from the wild 

has not occurred at the level anticipated 

at the time of listing presumably 

because the species is less showy than 

the tropical orchids and other 

Spiranthes species available for 

purchase (see ‘‘Collection,’’ above). 

Protections from collection and 

international trade are also afforded by 

CITES for all orchids; these protections 

are not contingent on an orchid species 

being federally listed. Disease and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1074 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

predation (Factor C) have not 

materialized since listing. 

Climate change (Factor E) and drought 

(Factor A) are not currently having a 

population-level or species-level effect 

on Ute ladies’-tresses and are not 

projected to result in a species-level 

effect in the future. The best available 

information indicates that these 

stressors have not resulted in the 

extirpation of occurrences or AUs. 

Future projections of climate change 

indicate that the frequency of severe and 

extreme droughts may decrease or 

remain the same in some areas of the 

range, but in much of the range, the 

frequency will increase above current 

trends. Ute ladies’-tresses is droughttolerant and adapted to a range of soil 

moisture conditions, which increases its 

resilience to potential future increases 

in severe and extreme drought 

frequency. The resiliency of Ute ladies’- 

tresses AUs varies across the species’ 

range. Ute ladies’-tresses AUs along 

large, mainstem rivers with multiple 

occurrences (Upper Green, Lower Green 

River, Upper Columbia, Upper Snake, 

Lower Bear, Niobrara, Colorado 

Headwaters) are the most resilient; they 

maintain their overall resiliency scores 

across all future scenarios despite 

projected declines in abundance and 

connectivity. The Upper Colorado-Dirty 

Devil AU in the southern part of the 

range is the least resilient and is 

projected to be extirpated in all three 

future scenarios due to climate change. 

Based on the best available information, 

the majority of AUs are tolerant of the 

effects of climate change (Factor E) and 

are able to withstand the cumulative 

effects of all stressors (Factor E). 

We also evaluated a variety of 

conservation efforts and regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) that either 

reduce or ameliorate stressors and 

improve or maintain habitat conditions 

and population resiliency in the absence 

of the Act’s protections. The Clean 

Water Act provides some habitat 

protections for Ute ladies’-tresses 

occurrences in jurisdictional waters/ 

wetlands, such along interstate waters 

or along intrastate lakes, ponds, streams, 

and wetlands that are relatively 

permanent, standing or continuously 

flowing bodies of water with a 

continuous surface connection to 

certain waterbodies. Habitat protections 

for wetland and riparian habitats are 

also afforded to the species on Federal 

lands by regulatory mechanisms 

provided by the NPS Organic Act on 

NPS lands in Colorado and Utah; the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act on Service refuge 

lands in Colorado; the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 and USFS 

National Forest plans on USFS lands in 

Utah and Idaho; the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act and BLM RMPs 

and ACEC designations on BLM lands 

in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Washington, 

and Wyoming; and the Sikes Act and 

Sikes Act Improvement Act and 

INRMPs on DOD lands in Wyoming (see 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms, above). The USBR and 

FERC regulate the hydrological regime 

and, in doing so, provide some habitat 

protection along rivers and streams in 

some watersheds for the benefit of 

federally listed fish species and other 

resources, which indirectly benefits Ute 

ladies’-tresses. 

In Canada, Ute ladies’-tresses is 

protected within an Ecological Reserve 

managed by British Columbia Parks as 

well as on Federal Crown land as a 

schedule 1 endangered species under 

SARA. Ute ladies’-tresses also receives 

partial protections on State lands in 

Washington, Nevada, and Nebraska and 

on open space lands in Boulder County, 

Colorado. Due in part to the regulatory 

mechanisms described here on Federal 

lands and other protected lands, the 

anthropogenic threats to the species, 

particularly the threat of urban 

development to the habitat of Ute 

ladies’-tresses, have been sufficiently 

reduced. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

Endangered Throughout Its Range 

Determination 

Our evaluation of the current 

condition of Ute ladies’-tresses found 

that there are currently 18 AUs 

distributed across eight U.S. States and 

one Canadian Province. Ute ladies’- 

tresses’ current condition represents a 

marked improvement from what we 

understood its condition to be when we 

first listed it as a threatened species in 

1992. Over the last three decades, many 

more occurrences have been discovered 

in an additional 14 AUs, increasing both 

numbers and the species’ known 

geographic range. Thirteen AUs have 

high or moderate resilience to stochastic 

events, and these AUs are distributed 

across 6 U.S. States and Canada. The 

high or moderately resilient AUs 

typically display a combination of 

resilient habitat (based on vegetative 

habitat condition and hydrologic 

condition) and demographic factors 

(based on the number of occurrences, 

connectivity within the AU, and 

potentially suitable habitat within the 

AU) that enable them to adequately 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity. The five AUs 

with low resiliency are less able to 

withstand stochastic events. 

While some stressors have impacted 

occurrences and AUs, none are having 

species-level impacts individually or 

cumulatively. The severity and 

magnitude of the primary threat, habitat 

loss and modification due to 

urbanization and water development, is 

much lower now than believed at the 

time of listing; it has resulted in the 

extirpation of localized occurrences 

across the range, including one 

historical AU (Upper Arkansas), 

representing 5 percent of the species’ 19 

historical AUs, and some of the 

occurrences in three extant AUs (South 

Platte, Jordan, and Weber) in Colorado 

and Utah (see ‘‘Urban Development,’’ 

above). Despite these impacts, the South 

Platte and Jordan AUs remain in 

moderate and high current condition, 

respectively (see table 1, above). Ute 

ladies’-tresses is tolerant of and adapted 

to the altered habitat conditions in AUs 

from various stressors, as well drought 

and climate change and the cumulative 

effects of all stressors. 

With 18 AUs distributed across 12 

ecoregions and 7 habitat types, the 

species currently has sufficient 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation to withstand stochastic 

and catastrophic events and adapt to 

changes. Therefore, we find that Ute 

ladies’-tresses is not in danger of 

extinction 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 foreseeable future 

extends only so far into the future as the 

Service can make reasonably reliable 

predictions about the threats to the 

species and the species’ responses to 

those threats (50 CFR 424.11(d)). The 

Service describes the foreseeable future 

on a case-by-case basis, using the best 

available data and taking into account 

considerations such as the species’ lifehistory 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 Ute 

ladies’-tresses as approximately 50 years 

(to 2074). We relied on combined 

climate and land use projections by the 

IPCC out to 2074, the timeframe for 

which they were available. These 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1075 

projections provide the best available 

evaluation of the primary stressors to 

the species. After 2074, we do not have 

information that reliably projects the 

combined effects of climate change and 

habitat loss from anthropogenic 

activities within the species’ range. We 

also selected this timeframe because it 

allows us to reliably project changes in 

other species’ stressors and land 

management and is biologically 

meaningful to the species to begin to 

understand the response of ecosystems 

to those changes. By 2074, we anticipate 

a range of plausible future conditions 

for Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Our evaluation of the projected future 

condition of Ute ladies’-tresses found 

that resiliency and redundancy are 

projected to decline under all three 

plausible future scenarios based on the 

future impacts of anthropogenic 

activities and climate change. In 

general, the species’ range is projected 

to become hotter and drier under all 

three future scenarios, even under the 

most optimistic scenario (Scenario 1). 

Declines in resiliency and redundancy 

were driven by climate change in 

Scenario 1 and the combination of 

anthropogenic activities and climate 

change in Scenarios 2 and 3. Despite the 

combined effects of anthropogenic 

activities and climate change, Ute 

ladies’-tresses’ life-history 

characteristics (such as its capability for 

extended, underground dormancy 

during unfavorable conditions including 

drought and habitat changes (e.g., 

vegetative succession); its dispersal and 

colonization ability within watersheds 

to escape land use and habitat changes; 

and its ability to thrive in humanmanaged water systems that have 

altered flow regimes) confer sufficient 

resiliency to the projected hotter, drier 

hydrological conditions, as well as 

habitat and land use changes. 

The plausible future condition of Ute 

ladies’-tresses in 2074 ranges from 17 

AUs across the range with 13 of those 

AUs being highly or moderately 

resilient to stochastic events (Scenario 

1) to 16 AUs across the range with 10 

of those AUs being highly or moderately 

resilient (Scenario 3). While the species’ 

actual future condition may fall 

anywhere between Scenarios 1 and 3, 

even if we assume that Scenario 3 (the 

worst-case) were to occur, the species is 

projected to maintain 16 AUs across its 

range, with 11 of those AUs projected to 

maintain the same condition as their 

current condition. Ten of the 16 AUs in 

6 States (Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, 

Utah, Wyoming, and Washington) and 

Canada are projected to be highly or 

moderately resilient to stochastic 

events. Ute ladies’-tresses’ redundancy 

declines slightly from 18 AUs to 16 

AUs, with a contraction along the 

southern part of its current range due to 

projected extirpations in Nevada (Lower 

Colorado-Lake Mead AU) and southern 

Utah (Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil AU). 

Representation is projected to be similar 

to current conditions, as the species is 

projected to maintain the same number 

of ecoregions (12) and habitat types (7) 

across its range. Therefore, even in the 

worst-case scenario, our analysis 

suggests that losses of resiliency and 

redundancy would be modest, with 16 

AUs remaining across the range, and 10 

of those AUs remaining in moderate or 

high condition, with no major changes 

in representation expected. Collectively, 

this suggests that in 50 years, viability 

of the species will not be significantly 

reduced (Service 2024, pp. 198–199). 

Recovery efforts, particularly survey 

efforts that have identified many more 

occurrences, have increased Ute ladies’- 

tresses’ known resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation such that the species 

is now better able to recover from 

impacts noted at the time of listing, and 

we anticipate that Ute ladies’-tresses 

will retain sufficient levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation in the 

foreseeable future. 

Two factors support the maintenance 

of the current condition in 11 AUs and 

the moderate to high future resiliency of 

at least 10 AUs: (1) regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation efforts, 

and (2) the species’ biological 

characteristics. First, the maintenance of 

the current condition and the high to 

moderate resiliency of more than half of 

Ute ladies’-tresses AUs is, in part, due 

to habitat protections and regulations 

implemented by Canada; U.S. Federal 

agencies; the States of Washington, 

Nebraska, and Nevada; the City of 

Boulder; and private entities (Factor D) 

that will continue to be implemented 

into the future, even in the absence of 

protections afforded by the Act, as 

described above under Conservation 

Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms. 

These protections will continue to limit 

the potential effects of stressors on Ute 

ladies’-tresses in the future. 

Second, independent of future 

regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation efforts, Ute ladies’-tresses’ 

biological characteristics moderate its 

response to increasing stressors. Ute 

ladies’-tresses’ ruderal life-history 

strategy; adaptation and resilience to 

disturbance (stochastic events) such as 

flooding, mowing, and grazing; its 

dispersal and colonization ability in 

many habitat types; and its drought 

tolerance all increase its resilience to 

potential future increases in stressors 

and habitat and environmental changes 

(representation) evidenced by the 

species’ past ability to maintain high 

and moderate resiliency in the face of 

ongoing stressors in the Jordan and 

South Platte AUs. Although habitat 

conditions could become considerably 

drier under Scenario 3, Ute ladies’- 

tresses is hardy and already adapted to 

periods of drought. Individuals may live 

many decades and have maintained 

healthy recruitment and survival 

despite drought conditions and other 

climatic variation in the past. 

We recognize that some habitatrelated threats remain present, and they 

have ongoing impacts to Ute ladies’- 

tresses AUs. We acknowledge that the 

specific effects of climate change on Ute 

ladies’-tresses and its habitat are 

uncertain and may have a negative 

impact. However, we found that current 

and expected patterns in site protection 

and habitat management (Factor D) and 

the species’ adaptation and resilience to 

disturbance are sufficient to prevent 

effects at the species level. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, and considering the 

levels of resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation projected under the 

current and future scenarios described 

in the SSA report, Ute ladies’-tresses 

will be able to withstand stochastic 

events, catastrophic events, and 

environmental change now and into the 

foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that Ute ladies’-tresses is not 

in danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so 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 within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Having 

determined that Ute ladies’-tresses is 

not in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so within 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 within 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 within 

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’’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1076 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

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 Ute 

ladies’-tresses, we choose to address the 

status question first. We began by 

identifying portions of the range where 

the biological status of the species may 

be different from its biological status 

elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, 

we considered information pertaining to 

the geographic distribution of (a) 

occurrences of the species, (b) the 

threats that the species faces, and (c) the 

resiliency condition of AUs 

(populations). 

We evaluated the range of Ute ladies’- 

tresses to determine if the species is in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so within 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 Act’s definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. For Ute ladies’-tresses, 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 

within the foreseeable future in that 

portion. We examined the following 

threats: anthropogenic activities 

including urban development, water 

management, agriculture, livestock 

grazing, recreation, invasive plants, and 

collection; and environmental 

conditions including vegetative 

succession, disease or predation, 

drought, climate change, and human 

population change, including 

cumulative effects. 

We examined the range of Ute ladies’- 

tresses for biologically meaningful 

portions that may be at a higher risk of 

extirpation, as reflected by potentially 

larger climate change effects and 

anthropogenic effects to the species. We 

determined that by itself, any single AU 

is too small to be considered a 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

range for Ute ladies’-tresses because 

each AU represents a small percentage 

(6 percent) of the total number of the 18 

AUs rangewide, and each AU contains 

only a small area of the species’ range. 

Therefore, even though the Upper 

Columbia AU is separate from the rest 

of the range, we do not consider it to be 

a biologically meaningful portion on its 

own. 

We identified seven AUs that are a 

geographically concentrated grouping at 

a biologically meaningful scale along 

the southern edge of Ute ladies’-tresses’ 

overall range; those seven AUs are the 

Great Salt Lake, Jordan, Lower 

Colorado-Lake Mead, Upper ColoradoDirty Devil, Lower Green River, 

Colorado Headwaters, and South Platte 

AUs. Relative to the remainder of the 

range, this portion of the range is 

impacted by elevated levels of drought, 

climate change, and anthropogenic 

stressors now and into the future. 

This portion may be at higher risk of 

extirpation, as reflected by the current 

and future resiliency of the seven AUs. 

Currently, three of these seven AUs 

have low resiliency, so they are at a 

greater risk of extirpation than the other 

four AUs, two of which have high 

resiliency and two have moderate 

resiliency. We examined the following 

threats, for the reasons described above: 

anthropogenic activities including 

urban development, water management, 

agriculture, livestock grazing, 

recreation, invasive plants, and 

collection; and environmental 

conditions including vegetative 

succession, disease or predation, 

drought, climate change, and human 

population change, including 

cumulative effects. We concluded that 

although almost half of the AUs in this 

portion have low resiliency, the species 

has sufficient resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation across the seven AUs 

in the portion. The three AUs in low 

condition (Great Salt Lake, Lower 

Colorado-Lake Mead, Upper ColoradoDirty Devil) have sufficiently high or 

moderate hydrologic condition to 

remain viable in the near term despite 

lower scores for other metrics such as 

AU abundance and connectivity. The 

seven AUs cover a wide geographic area 

that spans portions of four States across 

a variety of climatic and habitat types 

from north-to-south and east-to-west, 

such that there is no stochastic or 

catastrophic event that would extirpate 

the portion in the near term. Therefore, 

we conclude that the risk of extinction 

in the portion is not low now, and the 

species in this portion does not meet the 

Act’s definition of an endangered 

species. 

We also evaluated the status of this 

portion into the foreseeable future. In 

the future, three of the seven AUs are 

projected to have low resiliency or be 

extirpated (Great Salt Lake, Upper 

Colorado-Dirty Devil, Lower ColoradoLake Mead), one AU may have moderate 

to low resiliency (South Platte), and the 

other three AUs have moderate to high 

resiliency (Jordan, Lower Green River, 

Colorado Headwaters). We examined 

the same threats described above for the 

species: anthropogenic activities 

including urban development, water 

management, agriculture, livestock 

grazing, recreation, invasive plants, 

collection; and environmental 

conditions including vegetative 

succession, disease or predation, 

drought, climate change, human 

population change, including 

cumulative effects. We concluded that 

although two AUs in this portion may 

be extirpated, the species has sufficient 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation in the remaining five 

AUs in the portion. The one AU 

consistently in low condition (Great Salt 

Lake) is projected to maintain 

sufficiently moderate hydrologic and 

vegetative condition to remain viable 

into the foreseeable future despite lower 

scores for other metrics such as AU 

abundance and connectivity. The five 

AUs cover a wide geographic area that 

spans portions of three States across a 

variety of climatic and habitat types 

from north-to-south and east-to-west, 

such that there is no stochastic or 

catastrophic event that would extirpate 

the portion in the foreseeable future. 

Even with two AUs in low condition 

and the slight increase in extinction risk 

under Scenario 3, we found that the 

current and projected patterns of habitat 

management and protection, the 

hydrologic condition of the AUs, and 

the species’ adaptation to disturbance 

are sufficient to prevent effects to the 

species that would cause it to meet the 

Act’s definition of an endangered 

species or a threatened species. 

Therefore, we conclude that the risk of 

extinction in the portion is low in the 

foreseeable future and the species in 

this portion does not meet the Act’s 

definition of a threatened species. 

As a result, we found no portion of 

Ute ladies’-tresses’ range where the 

biological condition of the species 

differs from its condition elsewhere in 

its range such that the status of the 

species in that portion differs from any 

other portion of the species’ range. 

Therefore, the portion both currently 

and into the future has enough 

resiliency such that it is not at risk of 

extinction now or within the foreseeable 

future. Because we determined that this 

portion does not have a different status, 

we did not need to assess its potential 

significance. 

Therefore, we find that the species is 

not in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so within the foreseeable 

future in any significant portion of its 

range. This does not conflict with the 

courts’ holdings in Desert Survivors v. 

Department of the Interior, 336 F. Supp. 

3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1077 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), 

including the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

that those court decisions held to be 

invalid. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that Ute ladies’-tresses does 

not meet the Act’s definition of 

endangered species or threatened 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with 

our current regulations at 50 CFR 

424.11(e)(2), Ute ladies’-tresses has 

recovered and no longer warrants 

listing. Therefore, we propose to remove 

Ute ladies’-tresses from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 

Effects of This Rule 

This proposed rule, if made final, 

would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by 

removing Ute ladies’-tresses 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 if activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out may 

affect Ute ladies’-tresses. 

There is no critical habitat designated 

for this species, so there would be no 

effect to 50 CFR 17.96. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

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

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been 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 Ute ladies’-tresses. The draft PDM 

plan: (1) summarizes the status of Ute 

ladies’-tresses 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) 

proposes a schedule for implementing 

the PDM plan; and (7) defines 

responsibilities. It is our intent to work 

with our partners towards maintaining 

the recovered status of Ute ladies’- 

tresses. We appreciate any information 

on what should be included in postdelisting 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), and 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 Secretary’s 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 and invited the following 

Tribes to participate in the SSA process 

and to provide information at the 

beginning of the SSA process: 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Eastern 

Shoshone Tribe, Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, Blackfeet Nation, 

Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the 

Colville Reservation, and Confederated 

Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. 

We did not receive a response from any 

Tribe. We will continue to work with 

Tribal entities during the development 

of a final delisting determination for Ute 

ladies’-tresses. 

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 Utah 

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 Utah 

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. 

Signing Authority 

Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this 

action on November 18, 2024. Acting 

Director Steve Guertin approved these 

packages December 15, 2024. On 

December 16, 2024, the acting Director 

authorized the undersigned to sign the 

document electronically and submit it 

to the Office of the Federal Register for 

publication as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1078 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. In 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants by removing the entry for 

‘‘Spiranthes diluvialis’’ under 

FLOWERING PLANTS. 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics of the Joint Administrative 

Operations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30380 Filed 1–6–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1