Project Details

The purpose of the proposed project is to quantify the viability and longevity of the seed bank for five threatened and endangered Utah cactus species. These species are listed under the Endangered Species Act due to limited distributions and threats from livestock trampling, off-road vehicle use, illegal collection, oil and gas development, invasive species, and global climate change (USFWS 2015). All five of these locally endemic cactus species appear to be long-lived with adaptations that allow them to persist for decades to centuries in desert environments (Hornbeck 2021). Although we currently have detailed understanding of the aboveground life histories of Utah's rare cacti and have developed demographic models that detail population structure and behavior using data on aboveground individuals (Hornbeck 2017, 2018), these models do not include the seed bank. Quantification of the seed bank is needed to allow incorporation of seed survival rates, the probability that a seed will become a seedling, and the probability of a germinant growing to maturity in these models. 
Members of the cactus family (Cactaceae) are generally long-lived slow growing species, traits that make them especially vulnerable to disturbance (GodÃnez-Ãlvarez et al. 2003) and that have resulted in disproportionately high numbers of cacti on endangered species lists across the Americas (Goettsch et al. 2015). Although recent monitoring efforts for Utah's five listed cactus species (San Rafael cactus (Pediocactus despainii; endangered), Winkler cactus (Pediocactus winkleri; threatened), Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus brevispinus; threatened), Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus wetlandicus; threatened), and Wright fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus wrightiae; endangered), have provided baseline understanding of the aboveground portions the species' life histories (Hornbeck 2017, 2018, 2021), our understanding of the potential role of soil seed banks in these species' population dynamics is minimal to non-existent. 
Although cacti are assumed to lack persistent seed banks (GodÃnez-Ãlvarez et al. 2003), even short-lived seed banks may serve as important buffers against drought or other threats, and therefore highly influence long-term population growth and viability. GodÃnez-Ãlvarez et al. (2003) identified the role of the seed bank in cactus population demography as an area in need of greater attention. At the time of that publication (2003) there was a single cactus study identified by the authors that included a seed bank in demographic models. Studies of cactus population dynamics (Arroyo-Cosultchi et al. 2022) are beginning to include seed banks in demographic models, but better understanding of cactus seed longevity and ecology is needed -- particularly for rare species. 
Literature Cited:
Arroyo-Cosultchi, G., M.C. Mandujano, R. Salguero-GÃ³mez, A.J. MartÃnez, and J. Golubov. 2022. What are the demographic consequences of a seed bank stage for columnar cacti? Population Ecology 64:35-46.
Barrios, D, J.A. SÃ¡nchez, J. Flores, and E Jurado. 2020. Seed traits and germination in the Cactaceae family: a review across the Americas. Botanical Sciences 98(3):417-440.
DePrenger-Levin, M. 2021. Seed dispersal and seed bank dynamics of Sclerocactus glaucus. Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver, Colorado. 8 pages.
GodÃnez-Ãlvarez, H., T. Valverde, and P. Ortega-Baes. 2003. Demographic trends in the Cactaceae. The Botanical Review 69(2):173--203.
Goettsch, B., C. Hilton-Taylor, G. Cruz-Pinon, et al. 2015. High proportion of cactus species threatened with extinction. Nature Plants 1: 15142.
Harding, K.T. 2017. Sclerocactus wetlandicus: Habitat Characterization, Seed Germination and Mycorrhizal Analysis. Master's Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 162 pages.
Hornbeck, J.H. 2017. Monitoring cattle impacts on cactus species in Capitol Reef National Park: demographic analysis results 2013-2016. Prepared for Capitol Reef National Park, Torrey, Utah. 45 pp.
Hornbeck, J.H. 2018. Sclerocactus wetlandicus (Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus) and Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette Cactus) Range-Wide Demographic and Habitat Monitoring: Years 1-5 (2012-2016) Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, Denver, Colorado. 90 pp.
Hornbeck, J.H. 2021. Utah Cactus Quantitative Recovery Criteria Development. Prepared by Manzanita Botanical Consulting, Salt Lake City, Utah for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Field Services Office, West Valley City, Utah. 112 pages plus appendices.
Rojas-ArÃ©chiga, M. and C. VÃ¡zquez-Yanes. 2000. Cactus seed germination: a review. Journal of Arid Environments 44:85--104.
USFWS. 2015. Winkler cactus (Pediocactus winkleri) and San Rafael cactus (Pediocactus despainii) Draft Recovery Plan. December 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 145 pages.
USFWS. 2018. Conclusion of Section 7 Consultation for the Issuance of Special Use Permits for Livestock Grazing and Trailing in Capitol Reef National Park. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Field Services Office, West Valley City, Utah. 49 pages.
USFWS. 2019a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 84(197):54732-54756.
USFWS. 2019b. GIS workflow document: Process for evaluating population totals for Sclerocactus. Analysis conducted September 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, West Valley City, Utah.

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

Task 0. Coordination of inter-agency seed collections. Timing of fruit development and seed collection opportunities versus seed packet installation will require pre-project collection of seed and cold storage in May and June 2022 (FY2022). All seed collections will occur under existing permitted activities and will be performed as in-kind contributions to the project. Manzanita Botanical Consulting will coordinate with BLM botanists and Capitol Reef National Park on timing and amounts of seed collections. Dashell Burnham, BLM Green River District Botanist, will perform seed collections as part of 2022 survey efforts for Pediocactus despainii, P. winkleri, and Sclerocactus wrightiae. Seed collections for S. brevispinus and S. wetlandicus will be completed as part of 2022 demographic monitoring and/or other field activities in coordination with Utah USFWS and the BLM VFO. If seed availability is limited, we may examine alternative seed sources (e.g., http://www.mesagarden.com or another certified seed source). There is no budget for this task, although we estimate a minimum in-kind contribution of $5,000 for each species ($25,000 total) for personnel and travel.
Task 1. Seed Packet Installations. The seed packets will contain a total of 900 seeds for each species, or 90 packets of 10 seeds each (Van Mourik et al. 2005). Seed packets will be constructed using a synthetic mesh fabric (i.e., Skeeta Mosquito No-See-um Netting Fabric) and an electric heat sealer (in possession). Packets will be transported in seed envelopes labeled with the species and location information. For each species, we will identify three population sites for seed packet burials, with a focus on sites that are near existing monitoring sites and that have already been surveyed for cultural resources to prevent any need to invoke regulations under NEPA. At each site, we will prepare three replicate seed bank study trenches approximately three inches deep and 24 inches in length. In each trench, we will plant ten packets, each containing ten mature seeds, in a row at a depth of approximately one to two inches. Seed packet installations will occur in September 2022. The proposed budget for this task comprises 75 hours for installation of seed packets at 15 field sites (75 hours x $70.00/hour = $5,250.00), reimbursement for vehicle mileage (1500 miles x $0.575/mile = $862.50) and lodging (3 nights total x $100.00/night average = $300.00). In kind contributions to this task will include agency field staff assistance estimated at approximately one 10-hour day for each species (50 hours total) for site visits and seed packet installations, or approximately $5,000.
Task 2. Year 1 Seed Packet Retrievals. Seed packets will be collected at five intervals: 1) 8 months after installation in May 2023; 2) 12 months post-installation in September 2023; 3) 20 months post installation in May 2024; 4) 24 months post-installation in September 2024; and 5) 32 months post-installation in May2025. We do not expect seeds to remain viable longer than 24 months; however, if it appears that the seeds have high viability after the third retrieval, the retrieval schedule may be adjusted to extend the study period for an additional 8 to 12 months. Each seed collection will comprise two seed packets from each trench, or 60 seeds per species. The proposed budget for this task comprises 20 hours for coordination and travel to collect retrieved seed packets (20 hours x $70.00/hour = $1,400.00) and reimbursement for vehicle mileage (1000 miles x $0.575/mile = $575.00). We assume lodging will not be required. In kind contributions to this task will include field staff assistance estimated at approximately one 10-hour day for each species (50 hours total) for seed packet retrievals, or approximately $5,000.
Task 3. Seed Viability Assessments. Seed viability will be evaluated using visual assessment and quantification of seed loss or mortality, germinated seeds, and the shape and hardness of ungerminated seeds. In addition, we may also evaluate seed germination rates for a subset of the seed using physical and chemical scarification to trigger germination (Harding 2017). Seed condition and viability data will be compiled and summarized for each species, with an annual results summary presented to the Utah USFWS species leads and stakeholder agencies. The proposed budget for this task comprises 20 hours for seed viability assessments and data summaries (20 hours x $70.00/hour = $1,400.00).

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.