Rule2023-14971
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Golden Paintbrush From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 19, 2023
Effective
August 18, 2023
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), remove the golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants as it no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The golden paintbrush is a flowering plant native to southwestern British Columbia, western Washington, and western Oregon. Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data indicates threats to the golden paintbrush have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46088-46110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14971]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 234]
RIN 1018-BE72
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Golden
Paintbrush From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), remove the
golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants as it no longer meets the definition
of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). The golden paintbrush is a flowering plant
native to southwestern British Columbia, western Washington, and
western Oregon. Our review of the best available scientific and
commercial data indicates threats to the golden paintbrush have been
eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective August 18, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct all questions or requests for
additional information to: GOLDEN PAINTBRUSH QUESTIONS, Brad Thompson,
State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and
Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503;
telephone: 360-753-9440. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine a
plant species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species, we remove it from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants (i.e., we ``delist'' it). Delisting a species can
be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative
Procedure Act rulemaking process.
What this document does. This rule removes (delists) the golden
paintbrush from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
because it no longer meets the Act's definition of either a threatened
species or an endangered species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of the
following 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. Based on an
assessment of the best available information regarding the status of
and threats to the golden paintbrush, we have determined that the
species no longer meets the definition of a threatened species or an
endangered species under the Act.
We have determined that golden paintbrush is not in danger of
extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future based
on a comprehensive review of its status and listing factors.
Specifically, our recent review indicated: (1) An increase in the known
number of occurrences of the species within its geographic range, and
increased abundance in many populations; (2) resiliency of the species
to existing and potential threats; (3) 45 of 48 sites with golden
paintbrush are in either public ownership; are owned by a conservation-
oriented, nongovernmental organization; or are under conservation
easement; and (4) the implementation of beneficial management practices
for the species. Accordingly, the golden paintbrush no longer meets the
definition of a threatened species or an endangered species under the
Act.
Peer review and public comment. The purpose of peer review is to
ensure that our determination regarding the status of the species under
the Act is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We prepared a species biological report (SBR) for golden
paintbrush (Service 2019) and sought peer review on the report 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 actions under the Act. We sent the report to four appropriate
and independent specialists with knowledge of the biology and ecology
of the golden paintbrush and received three responses. The comments and
recommendations of the peer reviewers have been incorporated into the
SBR as appropriate, and they informed the proposed rule. We posted the
peer reviews on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2020-0060. Furthermore, in our June 30, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR
34695), we requested that all interested parties submit written
comments on the proposal by August 30, 2021. We received 10 public
comments in response to the proposed rule as discussed below in Summary
of Comments and Recommendations.
[[Page 46089]]
Supporting Documents
Staff at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (WFWO), in
consultation with other species experts, prepared the SBR for golden
paintbrush (Service 2019). The report represents a compilation of the
best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of
the species, including the impacts of past and present factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting the species. The report formed the
scientific basis for our 5-year status review and this final rule. The
report is posted on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-
R1-ES-2020-0060.
Previous Federal Actions
On May 10, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 24106)
a proposed rule to list the golden paintbrush as a threatened species
under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On June 11, 1997, we published
in the Federal Register (62 FR 31740) a final rule to list the species
as a threatened species under the Act. The final rule included a
determination that the designation of critical habitat for the golden
paintbrush was not prudent.
In August 2000, we finalized a recovery plan for the species
(Service 2000, entire), which we supplemented in May 2010 with the
final recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and
southwestern Washington (Service 2010, entire).
On July 6, 2005, we initiated 5-year reviews for 33 plant and
animal species, including the golden paintbrush, under section 4(c)(2)
of the Act, and requested information on the species' status (see 70 FR
38972). The 5-year status review, completed in September 2007 (Service
2007, entire), resulted in a recommendation to maintain the status of
the golden paintbrush as threatened. The 2007 5-year status review is
available on the Service's website at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1764.pdf">https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1764.pdf</a>.
On January 22, 2018, we initiated 5-year status reviews for 18
plant and animal species, including the golden paintbrush, under
section 4(c)(2) of the Act, and requested information on the species'
status (see 83 FR 3014). In 2019, we completed our SBR (Service 2019).
On June 30, 2021, we published in the Federal Register (86 FR
34695) a proposed rule to remove golden paintbrush from the List, and
we made available our draft post-delisting monitoring plan for public
review and comment. Our proposed rule followed from the recommendation
of the most recent 5-year review for the golden paintbrush, as well as
the data and analysis contained in the SBR (Service 2019).
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered
comments from the public on the June 30, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR
34695) and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We updated
information presented in the proposed rule based on comments and
additional information provided as follows:
(1) We included updated survey information provided to the Service.
(2) We incorporated additional information regarding stressors and
potential threats to the species.
(3) We made many small, nonsubstantive clarifications and
corrections throughout this rule, including under Summary of Biological
Status and Threats, below, in order to ensure better consistency,
clarify some information, and update or add new references.
We considered whether this additional information altered our
analysis of the magnitude or severity of threats facing the species. We
conclude that the information we received during the comment period for
the proposed rule did not change our previous analysis of the magnitude
or severity of threats facing the species or our determination that
golden paintbrush is no longer a threatened species and warrants
delisting.
Background
Below, we summarize information for the golden paintbrush directly
relevant to this final rule. For more information on the description,
biology, ecology, and habitat of the golden paintbrush, please refer to
the SBR for golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), completed in June
2019 (Service 2019, entire). The SBR is available under Supporting
Documents on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-
0060. The SBR and other relevant supporting documents are available on
the golden paintbrush's species profile page on the Environmental
Conservation Online System (ECOS) at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7706">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7706</a>.
Species Description and Habitat Information
The golden paintbrush is native to the northwestern United States
and southwestern British Columbia. It has been historically reported
from more than 30 sites from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to the
Willamette Valley of Oregon (Hitchcock et al. 1959, entire; Sheehan and
Sprague 1984, p. 5; Gamon 1995, pp. 5-7). The taxonomy of the golden
paintbrush as a full species is widely accepted as valid by the
scientific community (Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)
2020, entire).
The golden paintbrush is a short-lived perennial herb formerly
included in the figwort or snapdragon family (Scrophulariaceae), with
current classification in the Orobanchaceae family. The genus
Castilleja is hemiparasitic, with roots of paintbrushes capable of
forming parasitic connections to roots of other plants; however,
paintbrush plants are probably not host-specific (Mills and Kummerow
1988, entire) and can grow successfully, though not as well, even
without a host. Golden paintbrush has superior performance (survival,
height, number of flowering stems, number of fruiting stems, number of
seed capsules) where it co-occurs with certain prairie species,
including several perennial native forbs (e.g., common woolly sunflower
or Oregon sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum) and common yarrow (Achillea
millefolium)), as well as species in other functional groups, including
grasses (e.g., Roemer's fescue (Festuca roemeri) and California
oatgrass (Danthonia californica)) and shrubs (e.g., snowberry
(Symphoricarpos albus)) (Schmidt 2016, pp. 10-17). Anecdotal
observations suggest that golden paintbrush grows poorly when
associated with annual grasses (Gamon 1995, p. 17).
Individual golden paintbrush plants have a median survival of 1 to
5 years, but some plants can survive for more than a decade (Service
2019, p. 7). Plants are up to 30 centimeters (cm) (12 inches (in)) tall
and are covered with soft, somewhat sticky hairs. Stems may be erect or
spreading, in the latter case giving the appearance of being several
plants, especially when in tall grass. The lower leaves are broader,
with one to three pairs of short lateral lobes. The bracts are softly
hairy and sticky, golden yellow, and about the same width as the upper
leaves.
Golden paintbrush plants typically emerge in early March, with
flowering generally beginning the last week in April and continuing
until early June. Most plants complete flowering by early to mid-June,
although occasionally plants flower throughout the summer and into
October. Based on historical collections and observations, flowering
seems to occur at about the same time throughout the species' range.
Individual plants of golden paintbrush typically need pollinators to
set seed. Bumble bee species (Bombus) appear to be the most common
pollinators visiting
[[Page 46090]]
golden paintbrush (Wentworth 1994, p. 5; Kolar and Fessler 2006, in
litt.; Waters 2018, in litt.; Kaye 2019, in litt.), although sweat bees
(Halictidae), miner bee (Andrena chlorogaster), syrphid fly (Eristalis
hirta), and bee fly (Bombylius major) have also been observed visiting
golden paintbrush plants (Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt.; Waters
2018, in litt.).
Fruits typically mature from late June through July, with seed
capsules beginning to open and disperse seed in August. By mid-July,
plants at most sites are in senescence (the process of deterioration
with age), although this can vary considerably depending on available
moisture. Capsules persist on the plants well into the winter, and
often retain seed into the following spring. Seeds are likely shaken
from the seed capsules by wind, with most falling a short distance from
the parent plant (Godt et al. 2005, p. 88). The seeds are light
(approximately 8,000 seeds per gram) and could possibly be dispersed
short distances by wind (Kaye et al. 2012, p. 7). Additionally, there
is at least one reported instance of short-distance movement of seeds
via vole activity (Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt.). Therefore,
natural colonization of new sites would likely occur only over short
distances as plants disperse from established sites. Germination tests
in different years with seed from various populations suggest that
germination rates can vary extremely widely both between sites and
between years (Wentworth 1994, entire). Germination tests also revealed
that seeds likely remain viable in the wild for several years
(Wentworth 1994, p. 17).
Individuals of the golden paintbrush require open prairie soils,
near-bedrock soils, or clayey alluvial soils with suitable host plants.
These suitable habitats occur from zero to 100 meters (330 feet) above
sea level (Service 2000, p. 5). The golden paintbrush may have
historically grown in deeper soils, but nearly all of these soils
within the known range of the species have been converted to
agriculture (Lawrence and Kaye 2006, p. 150; Dunwiddie and Martin 2016,
p. 1). Reintroduction efforts have targeted sites or microsites, with
features such as mounds or swales and deeper soils where these efforts
were more likely to be effective (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 15).
Populations currently occur on the mainland in the States of
Washington and Oregon, and on islands in the State of Washington and in
British Columbia, Canada. Mainland and island populations form two
broad categories of populations that can vary slightly in habitat
setting. Individuals in mainland populations are found in open,
undulating remnant prairies dominated by Roemer's fescue and red fescue
(Festuca rubra) on gravelly or clayey glacial outwash. Individuals in
island populations are often on the upper slopes or rims of steep,
southwest- or west-facing, sandy bluffs that are exposed to salt spray.
Individuals in island populations may also occur on remnant coastal
prairie flats on glacial deposits of sandy loam. Island prairies may
have historically been dominated by forbs and foothill sedge (Carex
tumulicola) rather than grasses (Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) 2004b, pp. 11, 17); however, many island sites are now
dominated by red fescue or weedy forbs. All golden paintbrush sites are
subject to encroachment by woody vegetation if not managed.
Historically, fire was significant in maintaining open prairie
conditions in parts of the range of the golden paintbrush (Boyd 1986,
p. 82; Gamon 1995, p. 14; Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 162). The golden
paintbrush is a poor competitor, intolerant of shade cast by
encroaching tall nonnatives and litter duff in fire-suppressed
prairies. Native perennial communities are likely to support more host
species appropriate for the golden paintbrush than those dominated by
nonnative annuals (Lawrence and Kaye 2011, p. 173). Thus, habitats with
low presence of nonnative annuals and high presence of a diverse
assemblage of perennial, native prairie species are more likely to
provide the best conditions for survival of golden paintbrush plants
year-to-year (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 1).
Range, Distribution, Abundance, and Trends of Golden Paintbrush
The golden paintbrush is endemic to the Pacific Northwest,
historically occurring from southeastern Vancouver Island and adjacent
islands in British Columbia, Canada, to the San Juan Islands and Puget
Trough in western Washington and into the Willamette Valley of western
Oregon (Fertig 2021, pp. 33-34).
Currently, the species occurs within British Columbia, Washington,
and Oregon, representing, generally, four geographic areas (British
Columbia, North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound, and the Willamette
Valley). The species' historical distribution--before European
settlement and modern development in the Pacific Northwest--is unknown.
However, the species' current distribution is generally representative
of the areas where we suspect the species occurred historically.
Since its Federal listing in 1997, only one new population of
golden paintbrush that was likely extant at the time of listing has
been discovered across the species' range (Service 2007, p. 6). All
other new populations across the range are the result of
reintroductions through outplanting or direct seeding. Seeds used to
grow plugs for outplanting, and plant stock for seed production, were
derived from populations that were extant at the time of listing
(referred to as ``wild sites'' in the SBR and other documents) (Service
2019, p. 5). Please note that in previous Service documents (Service
2000, Service 2007, Service 2019), the terms ``site'' and
``population'' were used interchangeably. For the purpose of this
document, we will use ``population'' to be more consistent with how the
data have been reported over time (Fertig 2019, pp. 11-38).
At the time of listing (see 62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997), there were
10 known golden paintbrush populations: 8 in Washington and 2 in
British Columbia. No golden paintbrush populations were known from
Oregon at the time of listing (Sheehan and Sprague 1984, pp. 8-9; WDNR
2004b, p. 2). Despite its limited geographic range and isolation of
populations, the golden paintbrush retained exceptionally high levels
of genetic diversity, possibly because there were several large
populations that remained (Godt et al. 2005, p. 87).
Since its Federal listing, the distribution and abundance of golden
paintbrush have increased significantly as a result of outplanting
(seeding or plugging). During the last rangewide assessment, a minimum
of 48 populations were documented (Service 2019, pp. 11-14). Based on
these data, in Washington, there are 19 populations: 5 in the South
Puget Sound prairie landscape, 6 in the San Juan Islands, 7 on Whidbey
Island, and 1 near Dungeness Bay in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In
Oregon, there are 26 extant populations within the Willamette Valley.
In British Columbia, there are three extant populations, each located
on a separate island. Of these 48 populations, only 3 are on private
property (Service 2019, p. 12). The remaining 45 golden paintbrush
populations are in either public ownership; are owned by a
conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization; or are under
conservation easement.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 46091]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY23.160
BILLING CODE 433-15-C
Trends in abundance for the golden paintbrush have been
consistently monitored since 2004 (Fertig 2021, pp. 11-38), with
refinements to monitoring protocols made in 2008 and 2011 (Arnett 2011,
entire). Rangewide abundance has substantially increased from
approximately 11,500 flowering plants in 2011, to more than 560,000
flowering plants counted in 2018 (Fertig 2021, p. 22). In 2019, the
number of
[[Page 46092]]
flowering plants declined to 325,320 (Fertig 2021, p. 22). Although
this appears to be a drop in abundance, we attribute the rapid increase
in abundance in 2018 to the development of direct seeding techniques
for establishing new populations, as opposed to outplanting individual
plants (or plugs) grown in greenhouses. Most of the populations in
Washington and Oregon's Willamette Valley were established by
incorporating direct seeding. The 2018 rangewide population abundance
was not necessarily reflective of the eventual long-term population
level at a site. A number of reestablished populations have been going
through a period of prairie development/progression and species
succession. For example, at some reestablished populations, abundance
initially increased over several years then dropped to about 15-20
percent of the peak abundance (Fertig 2021, pp. 23-27). Drops in
abundance are somewhat expected as the populations experience
variability after direct seeding, and we anticipate that long-term
population levels at these reestablished sites will meet recovery
criteria.
In 2020, there was a reduction of survey effort due to limitations
related to the COVID pandemic, and while the majority of populations
were surveyed consistently in Washington, 25 populations in Oregon were
not surveyed. The last 4 years of monitoring rangewide (2017-2020)
represent the 4 years with greatest abundance, even without data from
the 25 sites in Oregon that were not monitored in 2020 (Fertig 2021, p.
14). The year 2020 also represents the second highest abundance of
golden paintbrush in the State of Washington at 202,208 flowering
plants, which was a 47.8 percent increase from 136,846 in 2019 (Fertig
2021, p. 11).
In contrast to the newly established golden paintbrush populations
(referred to as ``outplantings''), there has been a steady decline in
overall abundance of the populations extant at the time of listing
since 2012. Abundance at these populations dropped from just over
15,500 flowering plants in 2012, to 2,223 flowering plants in 2020
(Fertig 2021, p. 11).
The Service considers the demographics and site conditions of all
golden paintbrush populations across the species' range when
determining the status of the species, including populations extant at
the time of listing, as well as new populations outplanted since the
time of listing. In past Service documents, the sites with populations
extant at the time of listing have often been referred to as ``wild''
sites, and trends of abundance have been tracked separately from
outplanted populations (see Fertig 2021, p. 14, and Service 2019, p.
30). Because seed from many of the populations extant at the time of
listing was used to establish populations across the range, all
outplanted populations have representation from original source
populations, though the outplanted populations have increased genetic
diversity from their source populations due to mixed-source production
beds (St. Clair et al. 2020, p. 590). While declines in abundance have
been occurring steadily in the populations extant at the time of
listing, we do not believe these sites should be considered ``wild'' or
different from outplanted populations, as many have been managed and/or
augmented over time and many share genetics with the outplanted
populations. Success of golden paintbrush outplantings has been
associated with microsites with deeper soils and high richness of
native perennial forbs (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 1); these
microsites were likely where golden paintbrush persisted historically,
but many of these were tilled for agricultural purposes or developed.
Many of the golden paintbrush populations extant at the time of listing
may represent marginal or less optimal remnant habitats or sites that
were not suitable for other uses (Dunwiddie et al. 2016, pp. 207-209).
For the purposes of assessing recovery of the species across its range,
the Service acknowledges that individual populations will vary in
viability, and these differences between populations have been
accounted for in our current condition analysis within the SBR (Service
2019, entire) and in our evaluation of the species' overall resiliency,
redundancy, and representation.
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 Act's definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
Here, we provide a summary of progress made toward achieving the
recovery criteria for the golden paintbrush. More detailed information
related to conservation efforts can be found below under Summary of
Biological Status and Threats. We completed a final recovery plan for
the golden paintbrush in 2000 (Service 2000, entire), and later
supplemented the plan for part of the species' range in 2010 (Service
2010, entire). The 2000 plan includes objective, measurable criteria
for delisting; however, the plan has not been updated for more than 20
years, so some aspects of the plan may no longer reflect the best
scientific information available for the golden paintbrush.
Since about 2012, a significant increase in the number of new
populations has occurred, because of direct seeding within the species'
[[Page 46093]]
historical range in Washington and Oregon, with perhaps the most
significant being the reestablishment of the golden paintbrush at a
number of sites in Oregon's Willamette Valley, where the species was
once extirpated. In addition to improved propagation techniques,
substantial research has been conducted on the population biology, fire
ecology, and restoration of the golden paintbrush (Dunwiddie et al.
2001, entire; Gamon 2001, entire; Kaye and Lawrence 2003, entire;
Swenerton 2003, entire; Wayne 2004, entire; WDNR 2004b, entire;
Lawrence 2005, entire; Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, entire; Lawrence
2015, entire; Schmidt 2016, entire).
The results of these studies have been used to guide management of
the species at sites being managed for native prairie and grassland
ecosystems. Active management to promote the golden paintbrush is being
done to varying degrees (from targeted to infrequent) across prairie
and grassland sites. An active seed production program has been
maintained to provide golden paintbrush seeds and other native prairie
plant seeds to land managers for population augmentation and
restoration projects across the species' range in Washington and
Oregon. Additionally, as recommended by the recovery plan for the
golden paintbrush (Service 2000, p. 31), the State of Washington
prepared a reintroduction plan for the Service as both internal and
external guidance (WDNR 2004a, entire).
Below are the delisting criteria described in the 2000 golden
paintbrush recovery plan (Service 2000, p. 24), as supplemented in
2010, and the progress made to date in achieving each criterion.
Criterion 1 for Delisting
Criterion 1 is that there are at least 20 stable populations
distributed throughout the historical range of the species. To be
deemed stable, a population must maintain a 5-year running average
population size of at least 1,000 individuals, where the actual count
never falls below 1,000 individuals in any year. The golden paintbrush
technical team recommended in the 2007 5-year status review that this
criterion should be modified. Because it is impractical to count
individual vegetative plants, the team recommended that the criterion
should be modified to specifically account for a recovered population
as equal to 1,000 flowering individuals and known to be stable or
increasing as evidenced by population trends (Service 2007, p. 3).
While we did not officially amend or make an addendum to the recovery
plan to incorporate this recommendation, we accepted this as the best
way to count population abundance, since monitoring has consistently
counted flowering plants, following a standardized methodology set by
the Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program
(WNHP) (Arnett and Birkhauser 2008, entire; Arnett 2011, entire).
The Service supplemented this criterion in its 2010 recovery plan
for the prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern Washington
by identifying locations for golden paintbrush reintroductions,
specifically to establish five additional populations distributed
across at least three of the following recovery zones: Southwest
Washington, Portland, Salem East, Salem West, Corvallis East, Corvallis
West, Eugene East, and Eugene West. Priority was given to
reestablishing populations in zones with historical records of golden
paintbrush (Southwest Washington, Portland, Salem East, Corvallis East)
(Service 2010, p. IV-37).
Progress on Criterion 1
At the time of the proposed rule (data through 2018), 23
populations averaged at least 1,000 individuals per year over the 5-
year period, with 8 populations with a 5-year running average of at
least 1,000 individuals. As of 2020, 17 populations averaged at least
1,000 individual plants per year over the 5-year period with most
recent data from 2016 to 2020 (2015 to 2019 for sites with no data in
2020). Of these 17 populations, 7 had a 5-year running average of at
least 1,000 individuals, and an additional 6 populations had a 3-year
running average of at least 1,000 individuals (Gray 2022, in litt.). As
noted above, we only count flowering plants during monitoring, so in
most years a proportion of individual plants may not be represented in
annual counts because they are not flowering during surveys. While the
most recent data do not meet the recovery criteria (of 20 such
populations), we find that many of the species' populations are
sufficiently resilient to make up for the smaller number of populations
based on the following analysis.
Eight populations currently number in the tens of thousands of
individuals, the largest totaling 82,692 flowering plants (Glacial
Heritage) (Fertig 2021, pp. 16-20). Prior to listing, the largest known
population totaled just over 15,000 individuals (Rocky Prairie Natural
Area Preserve) (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997). Abundance at these eight
populations is greater (approximately 10,000 or more flowering plants)
than the 1,000-individual threshold established at the time of the
drafting of the recovery plan for this species (Service 2019, pp. 12-
13). These large populations are distributed across the species' range
in both Oregon and Washington, contributing to the species' ability to
withstand stochastic or catastrophic events. Although it is likely that
a number of the more recently established populations are still
experiencing variability and may experience an initial peak in
abundance followed by a decline to a lower abundance level, these
larger populations are more likely to be self-sustaining in the wild
over time, are more able to withstand stochastic disturbance, have
higher viability, and face an overall lower risk of extirpation than
populations at or just above the threshold of 1,000 individuals.
In addition, there are now a minimum of 26 golden paintbrush
populations in western Oregon's Willamette Valley, and these
populations are distributed across 4 (Corvallis West, Salem West,
Portland, Eugene West) of the recovery zones (Kaye 2019, pp. 11-23)
identified in the 2010 supplement to the species' recovery plan
(Service 2010, pp. IV-4, IV-37). In summary, we conclude that
significant progress has been made toward achieving this criterion, and
for some populations, the progress is well beyond numerical levels that
were anticipated at the time of recovery criteria development. Although
we acknowledge annual variability of abundance across sites, at least
eight sites across Washington and Oregon number in the tens of
thousands of individuals (Fertig 2021, pp. 16-20), which significantly
surpasses the minimum 1,000-individual threshold. This number of
individuals increases our confidence that the overall viability of the
species is secured, despite having fewer than 20 populations with a 5-
year running average of at least 1,000 individuals. In addition, new
populations can now be more quickly established through direct seeding
and there are multiple sites where the species has recently been
seeded. There are also plans to add new outplantings into the future
(Fertig 2021, p. 11).
Criterion 2 for Delisting
Criterion 2 is that at least 15 populations over 1,000 individuals
are located on protected sites. In order for a site to be deemed
protected, it must be either owned or managed by a government agency or
private conservation organization that identifies maintenance of the
species as the
[[Page 46094]]
primary management objective for the site, or the site must be
protected by a permanent conservation easement or covenant that commits
present and future landowners to the conservation of the species.
Progress on Criterion 2
This recovery criterion has not been met as phrased in the recovery
plan, because the primary management objective of the protected sites
is not always to protect only golden paintbrush. However, we find that
the goal of the criterion, a significant number of populations under
conservation ownership protective of the species that are likely to be
self-sustaining over time, has been greatly exceeded. Forty-five of the
48 golden paintbrush sites are in either public ownership; are owned by
a conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization; or are under
conservation easement (Service 2019, p. 62). Such ownership is expected
to protect sites from development and land use that would have long-
term, wide-ranging deleterious effects on this species. Additionally,
37 sites currently have management practices that at least preserve
essential characteristics of golden paintbrush habitat, and 24 sites
have management plans and resources for their implementation for
multiple years (Service 2019, pp. 40, 42-44). In addition, at least two
of the five conservation easement sites are also enrolled in the
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides
technical and financial assistance to private landowners to restore,
enhance, and manage private land to improve native habitat. At least 3
sites in Washington and 14 sites in Oregon also support other prairie-
dependent species currently listed as endangered or threatened species
under the Act, and another 5 are part of designated critical habitat
for one of these species. Therefore, we anticipate prairie management
or maintenance will be ongoing at these golden paintbrush sites for the
foreseeable future. Two of the three extant sites in British Columbia
that are managed by Parks Canada are also located within designated
``ecological reserves'' (Service 2019, p. 14). The level of management
specific to golden paintbrush varies at each site, but all sites are
generally being managed to conserve or restore native prairie or
grassland habitats. For additional detail on species management status
at sites, see the discussion under Summary of Biological Status and
Threats, below.
Criterion 3 for Delisting
Criterion 3 is that genetic material, in the form of seeds
adequately representing the geographic distribution or genetic
diversity within the species, is stored in a facility approved by the
Center for Plant Conservation.
Progress on Criterion 3
This recovery criterion is met. Seeds are being stored at two
approved facilities, the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank at Portland State
University and the Miller Seed Vault at the University of Washington
Botanic Garden. In addition, the active seed production programs at the
Center for Natural Lands Management in the South Puget Sound,
Washington, and two smaller nurseries in the North Puget Sound,
Washington, continue to provide golden paintbrush seeds to land
managers for population augmentation and prairie restoration projects.
Production programs were started using seeds from nearly all the
populations extant at the time of listing to maintain existing genetic
diversity across the species' historical range and to allow for the
greatest opportunity for local adaptation at reintroduction sites.
Criterion 4 for Delisting
Criterion 4 is that post-delisting monitoring of the condition of
the species and the status of all individual populations is ready to
begin.
Progress on Criterion 4
We have developed a post-delisting monitoring plan in cooperation
with our lead State partners in Washington (Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR)) and in Oregon (Oregon Department of
Agriculture (ODA)). The final post-delisting monitoring plan is
available for public review on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket
No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060. We anticipate that the WDNR's WNHP and ODA
will coordinate future monitoring. In the post-delisting monitoring
plan, we include the monitoring of, at a minimum, all populations
established and counted in 2018 that were identified in the SBR
(Service 2019, pp. 12-13). These populations will be monitored every
other year after final delisting for a 5-year period (i.e., three
times, in years 1, 3, and 5, after this final rule is effective).
Several key prairie conservation partners may choose to monitor these
golden paintbrush sites more frequently and may also choose to monitor
additional golden paintbrush sites as more become established across
the species' range in Oregon and Washington. Parks Canada oversees
periodic monitoring of the three extant populations within British
Columbia, Canada. Therefore, this recovery criterion is met.
Criterion 5 for Delisting
Criterion 5 is that post-delisting procedures for the ecological
management of habitats for all populations of golden paintbrush have
been initiated.
Progress on Criterion 5
This criterion has not been met as phrased in the recovery plan, as
procedures for ecological management for all populations are not in
place. However, we find that the intent of this criterion has been met
because a substantial proportion of known golden paintbrush sites,
i.e., 37 out of 48,--more than the 20 populations originally envisioned
for these recovery criteria--meet this criterion. At least 24 of the 48
golden paintbrush sites have had prairie or grassland management plans
in place for multiple years. An additional 13 sites that lack a long-
term management plan for the golden paintbrush receive basic
maintenance to preserve the prairie characteristics of golden
paintbrush habitat (Service 2019, pp. 42-44). As described earlier,
significant strides have been made in the ecological management
techniques for restoration and maintenance of prairie landscapes and
the reintroduction and management of golden paintbrush at these and
other sites. The current level of management varies across extant
sites, influenced by need, conservation partner capacity, and funding
availability. We anticipate ongoing management at a minimum of 37 of
these sites, although the level of management will continue to vary
across sites based on these same factors (Service 2019, pp. 40, 42-44)
(see additional discussion regarding ongoing site management under
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below). The most actively
managed sites may include plantings, fencing, prescribed fire,
herbicide use for weed control, mowing, and controlled public use. As
described above under Criterion 2 for Delisting, at least 17 sites
currently contain multiple, prairie-dependent species and an additional
5 sites are designated critical habitat for another prairie-dependent
species. Those golden paintbrush sites that support multiple, prairie-
dependent species listed under the Act are anticipated to receive the
most consistent ecological management into the future. While this
recovery criterion has not been fully achieved (i.e., not all
populations have post-delisting management procedures in place),
ecological management of habitat
[[Page 46095]]
is expected to occur on the vast majority of the known sites and
management will occur on far more than the originally projected 15
sites identified above under Criterion 2 for Delisting.
With the more recently identified threat of hybridization from
harsh paintbrush (Castilleja hispida), additional measures are being
implemented and refined to address the impacts to golden paintbrush on
contaminated sites and prevent the spread of harsh paintbrush to
uncontaminated golden paintbrush sites in the South Puget Sound
geographic area in Washington. The Service has developed a strategy and
guidance document for securing golden paintbrush sites and outlining
solutions necessary for the long-term protection of golden paintbrush
from hybridization (Service et al. 2021, entire). In addition, the
Service has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with our State
conservation partners to ensure hybridization is contained and the
conservation strategy is followed to benefit golden paintbrush while
supporting recovery of other sympatric (occurring within the same
geographical area) prairie species listed under the Act (Service et al.
2020, entire). We provide more information and discussion on the
hybridization conservation strategy and how it fits into the
conservation of golden paintbrush in Summary of Biological Status and
Threats, and our response to (15) Comment, below.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' 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.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened
species, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats
currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely
to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the
downlisting or delisting and the removal of the Act's protections. A
recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of
an endangered species or a threatened species. For the golden
paintbrush, we consider 30 years to be a reasonable period of time
within which reliable predictions can be made for stressors and
species' response. This time period includes multiple generations of
the golden paintbrush, generally includes the term of and likely period
of response to many of the management plans for the species and/or its
habitat, and encompasses planning horizons for prairie habitat
conservation efforts (e.g., Dunwiddie and Bakker 2011, pp. 86-88;
Service 2011, entire; Altman et al. 2017, pp. 6, 20); additionally,
various global climate models and emission scenarios provide consistent
predictions within that timeframe (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2014, p. 11). We consider 30 years a relatively
conservative timeframe in view of the long-term protection afforded to
93 percent of the species' occupied populations (45 of 48), which occur
on conserved/protected lands (Service 2019, p. 62).
Analytical Framework
The SBR documents the results of our comprehensive biological
review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status
of the species. The report does not represent our decision
[[Page 46096]]
on whether the species should be delisted under the Act. It does,
however, 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. The following is
a summary of the key results and conclusions from the report, which can
be found at Docket FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
To assess golden paintbrush viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. 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. We use
this information to inform our regulatory decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Below, we review the biological condition of the species and its
resources, and the threats that influence the species' condition in
order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that
viability. In addition, the SBR (Service 2019, entire) documents our
comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The following
potential threats were identified for this species at the time of
listing: (1) Succession of prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and
forest lands (due to fire suppression, interspecific competition, and
invasive species); (2) development of property for commercial,
residential, and agricultural use; (3) low potential for expansion and
refugia due to constriction of habitat (from surrounding development or
land use); (4) recreational picking (including associated trampling);
and (5) herbivory (predation on plants and seeds) (62 FR 31740; June
11, 1997). For our analysis, we assessed the influence of these
potential threats on the current status of the species, as well as the
influence of two potential threats not considered at the time of
listing: hybridization of golden paintbrush with harsh paintbrush, and
the impacts of climate change. We also assessed current voluntary and
regulatory conservation mechanisms relative to how they reduce or
ameliorate existing threats to golden paintbrush.
Habitat Loss
At the time of listing, the principal cause of ongoing habitat loss
was succession of prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and forest
due to fire suppression, interspecific competition, and invasive
species (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997). The potential for development at,
or surrounding, extant sites for commercial, residential, and
agricultural purposes also posed a threat to the golden paintbrush at
the time of listing. Both of these threat factors were preventing or
limiting extant populations from expanding and recruiting into new or
adjacent areas and afforded no refugia for the species in the case of
catastrophic events.
Currently, ongoing prairie or grassland management or maintenance
occurs at the majority of extant golden paintbrush sites. This
management includes removal or suppression of trees and both native and
nonnative woody shrubs, as well as control of nonnative, invasive
grassland plant species through a number of different approaches (e.g.,
mowing, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, selective-herbicide
application, restoration reseeding, etc.). Most golden paintbrush sites
have either had prairie or grassland management plans in place for
multiple years or receive basic maintenance to preserve the prairie
characteristics of golden paintbrush habitat (Service 2019, pp. 42-44).
Three golden paintbrush sites in Washington also currently support
other prairie- or grassland-dependent species listed under the Act--the
endangered Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori)
and three threatened subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys
mazama spp.) (Olympia pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis),
Tenino pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama tumuli), and Yelm pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama yelmensis))--while an additional five sites in
Washington are included in designated critical habitat for the Taylor's
checkerspot butterfly.
Although these five critical habitat sites are currently unoccupied
by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, they were designated because
they were found to be essential for the conservation of the butterfly
(78 FR 61506; October 3, 2013). Harsh paintbrush (Castilleja hispida)
is a host plant for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in the South Puget
Sound geographic area in Washington. As we discuss further below (see
Hybridization), golden paintbrush generally cannot co-occur with harsh
paintbrush due to the threat of hybridization. However, as we continue
to work with our conservation partners to follow the hybridization
strategy and guidance document to prioritize sites for both golden
paintbrush and Taylor's checkerspot butterfly we also continue to
explore opportunities to conserve both species on individual sites
where appropriate. In addition, at least 14 golden paintbrush sites in
Oregon's Willamette Valley currently support one or more other prairie-
or grassland-dependent species listed under the Act that do not present
the threat of hybridization--the endangered Fender's blue butterfly
(Icaricia icarioides fenderi), endangered Willamette daisy (Erigeron
decumbens), threatened Kincaid's lupine (Lupinus oreganus var.
kincaidii, listed as Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii), and threatened
Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) (Institute for Applied
Ecology 2019, in litt.).
We expect a number of golden paintbrush sites in both Washington
and Oregon to continue to be managed in a way that supports the
recovery of other prairie- or grassland-dependent species in addition
to the long-term conservation of the golden paintbrush. As long as
periodic management or maintenance continues to occur at golden
paintbrush sites across the species' range, the threat of prairie or
grassland succession is expected to remain adequately addressed into
the foreseeable future. State and Federal management plans include
specific objectives to continue to protect and conserve the golden
paintbrush at a number of sites. States, Federal agencies, and
conservation organizations have invested significant resources into
golden paintbrush recovery, as well as general prairie and grassland
restoration and conservation for a variety of at-risk, prairie-
dependent species. We do not anticipate habitat for these prairie-
dependent species to contract further given the limited amount of
remaining prairie habitat and the long-term investments conservation
partners have made, and continue to make, to restore, rebuild,
maintain, and conserve these relatively rare regional
[[Page 46097]]
ecosystems (Dunwiddie and Bakker 2011, entire; Center for Natural Lands
Management 2012, in litt., entire; The News Tribune 2014, in litt.;
Altman et al. 2017, entire; The Nature Conservancy 2019, in litt.,
entire).
Golden paintbrush now occurs within 48 separate populations as a
result of the numerous reintroduction efforts implemented to recover
this species. Only three of these populations are on lands possibly
subject to future development. The remaining 45 populations are all
under some type of public or conservation ownership (Service 2019, pp.
11-14). Of the 48 extant populations, at least 81 percent (n=39) are on
land with some known level of protected status (at a minimum, formally
protected as a natural area or other such designation, although not all
of these designations are permanent) (Service 2019, pp. 42-44). In
addition, of the 39 populations with some protected land status, 19
also include stipulations for, or statements of specific protection of,
perpetual management of the golden paintbrush.
Although the total area occupied by the golden paintbrush at 19 of
the 48 sites is relatively small (less than 0.4 hectare (ha) (1 acre
(ac)), 14 of the 48 sites have between 0.4 to 1.6 occupied ha (1 to 3.9
ac), and another 14 of the 48 sites have from between 2 to 18.6
occupied ha (5 to 46 ac). We lack this information at one site (Service
2019, pp. 37-38). All but 4 of the 48 sites have available land for
future golden paintbrush population expansion or shifts in
distribution. Of the 33 sites with less than 2 ha (5 ac) of occupied
habitat, 10 have an estimated range of 0.8 to 2 ha (2 to 5 ac) of
additional habitat for expansion, and at least 13 have an estimated
range of 2 to 6 ha (5 to 15 ac) of additional habitat for future
expansion (Service 2019, pp. 37-38). In addition, the species is much
less reliant on expanding site-use and refugia than at the time of
listing, when only 10 extant populations of the golden paintbrush
remained. The reintroduction and seed production techniques developed
for golden paintbrush recovery have provided the means to more easily
establish or reestablish populations at prairie restoration sites than
were previously possible. Many of these sites have been specifically
acquired for their potential overall size, conservation value, and
conservation status. The golden paintbrush has been reintroduced and
established at prairie restoration sites that are well-distributed
across the species' historical range, well beyond the 10 extant sites
at the time of listing. As a result of these conditions, we do not
anticipate development in or around these sites to become a threat to
the golden paintbrush in the foreseeable future.
Recreational Picking and Trampling
At the time of listing, we considered overutilization from
recreational picking (flowers) to be a threat (62 FR 31740; June 11,
1997). Our concern with recreational picking or collection of flowers
was that it would reduce overall potential seed-set at a population.
Concern has also been noted regarding the direct harvesting of seed
capsules (Dunwiddie 2018, in litt.). Although there is evidence of
occasional recreational or possible commercial collection of capsules
that reduced the amount of seed available on a site, collection is no
longer considered a significant stressor to the species across its
range (Service 2019, p. 47). In addition, the current number of
established and protected golden paintbrush populations, many with
limited or restricted access, largely ameliorates this previously
identified threat. We acknowledge that the golden paintbrush is likely
a desirable species for some gardeners or plant collectors. However,
when delisted (see DATES, above), golden paintbrush seeds or plants are
likely to become available through controlled sale to the public from
regional prairie conservation partners and/or regional native plant
nurseries, similar to what occurs with other non-listed prairie plant
species. For these reasons, we do not expect the possible collection of
golden paintbrush flowers or seeds to become a threat to the species in
the foreseeable future.
At the time of listing, we identified trampling of golden
paintbrush plants by recreationalists as impacting the species at some
sites with high levels of public use, especially where and when
associated with recreational picking of golden paintbrush flowers.
Although some risk of trampling to plants will always be present across
public sites (e.g., State parks, national wildlife refuges), most sites
often have some level of restricted access when golden paintbrush
plants are in bloom (e.g., fenced from deer or inaccessible to the
public) or there are defined walking or viewing areas. Therefore, when
compared with the potential impact of trampling at the time of listing,
the current impact is likely insignificant, due to the number of
reestablished golden paintbrush populations, the large size of many of
these sites, and considerable abundance of golden paintbrush plants at
some of these sites. For the above reasons, we also do not anticipate
that trampling will become a threat in the foreseeable future.
Herbivory
At the time of listing, we considered predation (herbivory) on the
golden paintbrush by native (voles and deer) and introduced (rabbits)
species to be a threat to the plant (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997);
however, the best available information does not indicate it is a
current or future threat. Although deer and elk exhibit herbivory on
the golden paintbrush at some sites, there is annual and site-specific
variability in the overall level of herbivory (Service 2019, p. 48;
Martin 2021, p. 9). Herbivory impacts from rabbits and voles on the
golden paintbrush have not been broadly or consistently observed and
also appear to be variable across sites and years. Where herbivory by
deer or rabbits or both has been significant, control with fencing has
been successfully implemented, but controlling herbivory through
fencing over large areas is limited by cost (Service 2019, p. 48). In
addition, encouraging localized reduction of deer populations through
lethal removal near some sites (Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife 2019, in litt.; Pelant 2019, in litt.) and installing raptor
perch poles to control rodents and rabbits at some sites are also being
implemented to reduce impacts of herbivory on the golden paintbrush
(Service 2019, p. 48). As a consequence of the significant increase in
the number of golden paintbrush populations that have been successfully
established across the species' range since it was listed, and because
the impact of herbivory is being adequately managed in at least a
portion of those sites where noted as significant (potential site- or
population-level effect), we conclude predation (herbivory) no longer
has a significant impact across the majority of the golden paintbrush's
48 sites/populations, nor at the species level, and it is unlikely to
become a threat to the species in the foreseeable future.
Hybridization
As noted above, a potential threat to the golden paintbrush
identified after the species was listed in 1997 was the impact of
hybridization with the harsh paintbrush. The harsh paintbrush is one of
the host plants introduced to prairie sites targeted for endangered
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly recovery efforts. Our 2007 5-year status
review recommended, ``the evaluation of the potential for genetic
contamination of golden paintbrush populations by hybridization with
other species of Castilleja'' (Service 2007, p. 15). After
[[Page 46098]]
initial evaluation, the potential risk of hybridization was considered
relatively low and manageable (Kaye and Blakeley-Smith 2008, p. 13).
However, after further evaluation and additional observations in the
field, hybridization with the harsh paintbrush has now been identified
as a significant potential threat to golden paintbrush populations
where the two species occur together or in close proximity (Clark 2015,
entire; Sandlin 2018, entire). Three former golden paintbrush recovery
sites have now been discounted by the Service for the purposes of
recovery due to the level of hybridization at these sites (Service
2019, p. 15). At least one other site is currently vulnerable to the
effects of hybridization, but management efforts to date (removal of
plants that exhibit hybrid characteristics and creation of a zone of
separation between harsh paintbrush and golden paintbrush areas at the
site) have maintained this golden paintbrush population. Currently,
hybridization appears to be confined to those areas located in the
South Puget Sound prairie region where both species of Castilleja were
used at some of the same habitat restoration sites. The only known
incident of hybridization outside of this region was at Steigerwald
Lake National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Washington, where we
unknowingly used a seed mix that included the harsh paintbrush. This
site has since been eradicated of both Castilleja species, but we
anticipate reintroducing the golden paintbrush to the site in the
future (Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complex 2019, in litt.,
entire).
As a response to this emerging threat, efforts were implemented,
and are ongoing, to reduce or eliminate the risk of hybridization to
the golden paintbrush. These include efforts such as maintaining
isolated growing areas for the golden paintbrush and harsh paintbrush
at native seed production facilities used in prairie restoration
efforts, maintaining buffers between golden paintbrush and harsh
paintbrush patches at sites where both species are currently present,
and delineating which of the two species will be used at current and
future prairie conservation or restoration sites. We recently developed
a strategy and guidance document for securing golden paintbrush sites
to address containment of hybridization at existing contaminated sites
and prevention of unintentional spread of hybridization to other
regions within the golden paintbrush's range, specifically north Puget
Sound and the Willamette Valley (Service et al. 2021, entire). We have
also entered into an associated MOU with the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and WDNR to ensure the strategy is implemented
as agreed to by all prairie conservation partners in the range of the
golden paintbrush (Service et al. 2020, entire). The three agencies
have authority over these species and will oversee most prairie
restoration efforts in Washington, particularly in South Puget Sound.
This MOU is expected to facilitate awareness and compliance with the
hybridization strategy and guidance by our prairie conservation
partners across the range of the golden paintbrush. The formal adoption
and implementation of the hybridization strategy and guidance is
expected to prevent hybridization from becoming a threat to the golden
paintbrush in the foreseeable future. Please see our response to (12)
Comment, below, for additional discussion regarding hybridization.
Climate Change
At the time of listing, the potential impacts of climate change on
the golden paintbrush were not discussed. The term ``climate'' refers
to the mean and variability of relevant quantities (i.e., temperature,
precipitation, wind) over time (IPCC 2014, pp. 119-120). The term
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability
of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation)
that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer,
whether the change is due to internal processes or anthropogenic
changes (IPCC 2014, p. 120).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring. In particular, warming of the climate
system is unequivocal, and many of the observed changes in the last 60
years are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2014, p. 2).
The current rate of climate change may be as fast as any extended
warming period over the past 65 million years and is projected to
accelerate over the next 30 to 80 years (National Research Council
2013, p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change is adding to other sources of
extinction pressures, such as land use and invasive species, which will
likely place extinction rates in this era among just a handful of the
severe biodiversity crises observed in Earth's geological record
(American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2014, p.
7).
Global climate projections are informative, and in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate at the global scale and related
impacts can vary substantially across and within different regions of
the world (e.g., IPCC 2013 and 2014, entire) and within the United
States (Melillo et al. 2014, entire). Therefore, we use ``downscaled''
projections when they are available and have been developed through
appropriate scientific procedures, because such projections provide
higher resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales
used for analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61,
for a discussion of downscaling).
Climate change trends predicted for the Pacific Northwest (Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, and Montana) broadly consist of an increase in
annual average temperature; an increase in extreme precipitation
events; and, with less certainty, variability in annual precipitation
(Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 413; Dalton et al. 2013, pp. 31-38, figure
1.1; Snover et al. 2013, pp. 5-1-5-4).
Based on a 2014 climate change vulnerability assessment, the golden
paintbrush was considered ``presumed stable'' (Gamon 2014, entire).
After the completion of the SBR (Service 2019, entire), a new
assessment was conducted on sites in Washington, which evaluated only
the populations extant at the time of listing (11 extant and 11
populations that were extirpated; none of the 10 outplanted sites in
Washington); this new assessment considered golden paintbrush as
``highly vulnerable'' to climate change (Young et al. 2016, entire;
Kleinknecht et al. 2019, entire). Please see our response to (10)
Comment, below, for more discussion regarding this new information.
Prolonged or more intense summer droughts are likely to increase in
the Pacific Northwest due to climate change (Snover et al. 2013, p. 2-
1). Regional climate change literature suggests that prairie ecosystems
were established under warmer and drier conditions and are unlikely to
be disadvantaged from future increased summer drought (Bachelet et al.
2011, p. 417). However, although the golden paintbrush senesces as the
prairies dry out in the summer, increased intensity or length of
drought conditions will likely stress plants and increase mortality,
resulting in reduced numbers of individuals in populations at less-
than-optimal sites (Kaye 2018, in litt.).
As is the case with all stressors we assess, even if we conclude
that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a
negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it does not
necessarily follow that the species
[[Page 46099]]
meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' under the Act.
Predicted environmental changes resulting from climate change may
have both positive and negative effects on the golden paintbrush,
depending on the extent and type of impact and depending on site-
specific conditions within each habitat type. The primary predicted
negative effect includes drought conditions resulting in inconsistent
growing seasons. Likewise, future temperature changes may influence the
timing of native prairie plant phenology, which could lead to
asynchronies with pollinators (Reed et al. 2019, entire). This effect
will likely be buffered by the ability of the golden paintbrush to
survive in a range of soil conditions, as is evident by its
establishment on a wide variety of sites across its 300-mile geographic
range, with a number of different host plants, and under a range of
precipitation levels. We have not identified any predicted
environmental effects from climate change that may be positive for the
golden paintbrush at this time. Climate change could result in a
decline or change in bumble bee diversity within the range of the
golden paintbrush (Soroye et al. 2020, entire); the bumble bee is an
important pollinator for the golden paintbrush (Service 2019, pp. 6-7).
However, there are limited data at this time to indicate the potential
loss of bumble bee diversity is a specific and present threat to the
golden paintbrush. Also, observations of reduced seed production at
some Washington sites in recent years (2019-2021) could be the result
of recent drought events, although it remains unclear how these
observations translate to population abundance and trends over time.
Golden paintbrush populations can experience high variability in
abundance between years (Fertig 2021, pp. 24-27), and while climate
change is a stressor, given the species' high abundance and
distribution across the 300-mile range from British Columbia to Oregon,
we expect the golden paintbrush has sufficient resiliency and
redundancy to remain viable into the foreseeable future. Establishing
plant populations such as the golden paintbrush across the full
geographic and climatic range of Pacific Northwest prairies has been
identified as a ``climate-smart'' strategy given the extensive north-
south range encompassing variable temperature and precipitation
patterns (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 420). The species appears to have
sufficient resiliency and redundancy across its range to maintain
sufficient viability during drought years. As evidence, the last 4
years of monitoring (2017-2020) represent the 4 years with greatest
abundance rangewide despite extreme drought experienced between 2015
and 2016 in Oregon and Washington (Fertig 2021, p. 30; National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration National Integrated Drought Information
System (NOAA NIDIS) 2022, entire). In addition, the year 2020 also
represents the second-highest abundance of golden paintbrush in the
State of Washington at 202,208 flowering plants, which was a 47.8
percent increase from 136,846 in 2019. Additionally, several
outplantings have been initiated at new locations since 2018 in
Washington, and we are continuing to work with our partners to plan new
outplantings across the species' range that will further add to the
species' resiliency and redundancy.
In summary, climate change is affecting, and will continue to
affect, temperature and precipitation events within the range of the
golden paintbrush. The extent, duration, and impact of those changes
are unknown, but could potentially increase or decrease precipitation
in some areas and increase temperatures found within the range of the
golden paintbrush. Golden paintbrush may experience climate change-
related effects in the future, most likely at the individual or local
population scale; however, we anticipate the species will remain
viable, because: (1) It is more resilient than at the time of listing
as a result of increased abundance, number of sites, and geographic
distribution in a variety of ecological settings, contributing to the
species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation; (2) available
information indicates the golden paintbrush is somewhat adaptable to
some level of future variation in climate conditions (Service 2019, pp.
22-25, 45); (3) there are ongoing efforts to expand the golden
paintbrush to additional suitable sites across the species' range; and
(4) we now have the technical ability to effectively and more readily
establish populations, which could help to mitigate future population
losses. Therefore, based upon the best available scientific and
commercial information, we conclude that climate change does not
currently pose a threat to the golden paintbrush, nor is it likely to
become a threat to the golden paintbrush in the foreseeable future
(next 30 years).
Voluntary and Regulatory Conservation Mechanisms
For current federally listed species, we consider existing
regulatory mechanisms relative to how they reduce or ameliorate threats
to the species absent the protections of the Act. Therefore, we examine
whether other regulatory mechanisms would remain in place if the
species were delisted, and the extent to which those mechanisms will
continue to help ensure that future threats will be reduced or
eliminated. In the final listing rule (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997), we
noted that habitat management for the golden paintbrush was not
assured, despite the fact that most populations occurred in areas
designated as reserves or parks that typically afforded the golden
paintbrush and its habitat some level of protection through those
designations. As discussed in our SBR (Service 2019, pp. 47-52), the
threat of habitat loss from potential residential or commercial
development has decreased since the time of listing due to the
establishment of new golden paintbrush populations on protected sites.
Although a few privately owned sites are still at some potential risk,
development is no longer considered a significant threat to the
viability of the golden paintbrush due to the number of sites largely
provided protection from development (Service 2019, pp. 12-14).
Federal
Sikes Act--The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) provides the
authority and defines the responsibilities to facilitate effectual
planning, development, maintenance, and coordination of wildlife, fish,
and game conservation and rehabilitation on military installations. The
Sikes Act requires that conservation goals are cooperatively developed
and recorded in a planning document called an integrated natural
resources management plant (INRMP). One golden paintbrush population
currently occurs on a Federal military installation (Forbes Point,
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Island County, Washington) and is
managed under an INRMP (U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) 2013, pp. 3-
7) authorized by the Sikes Act. Special management and protection
requirements for golden paintbrush habitat in the INRMP include
maintenance of a 10-ac management area for the species, including:
maintaining and improving a fence around the population to exclude both
people and herbivores; posting signs that state the area is accessible
to ``authorized personnel only''; mowing and hand-cutting competing
shrubs in the area; outplanting nursery-grown plants from seeds
previously collected onsite; and implementing additional habitat
management actions, such as controlled burns or herbicide control of
[[Page 46100]]
competing vegetation, that are identified in the future to enhance the
golden paintbrush population (USDOD 2013, pp. 3-7). These protections
are effective in protecting the golden paintbrush on this site and are
expected to continue in the absence of protections under the Act
because the Sikes Act mandates the Department of Defense to conserve
and rehabilitate wildlife, fish, and game on military installations.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act--Ten golden
paintbrush populations currently occur on National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) lands (Dungeness NWR in Washington; and Ankeny, William L.
Finley, Tualatin River, and Baskett Slough NWRs in Oregon). As directed
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L.
105-57), 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. For example, William L. Finley
NWR (Benton County, Oregon) includes extensive habitat for the golden
paintbrush, including four known populations, while a number of
additional NWRs in Oregon (Ankeny NWR, Marion County; Tualatin River
NWR, Washington County; and Baskett Slough NWR, Polk County) and
Washington (Dungeness NWR, Clallam County) each also support at least
one golden paintbrush population.
The Willamette Valley comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for
William L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett Slough NWRs is a land management
plan finalized in 2011 with a 15-year term that directs maintenance,
protection, and restoration of the species and its habitat and
identifies specific objectives related to establishment of populations
and monitoring, as well as related habitat maintenance/management
(Service 2011, pp. 2-45-2-46, 2-66-2-70). Given the 15-year timeframe
of CCPs, these protections would remain in place until at least 2026,
regardless of the golden paintbrush's Federal listing status.
Tualatin River NWR finalized a CCP in 2013 (Service 2013a, entire),
and although it does not have conservation actions specific to the
golden paintbrush identified in the plan, it does have maintenance and
management activities for oak savanna habitat on the NWR, which
supports the golden paintbrush (Service 2013a, pp. 4-9-4-10). These
activities include various methods (e.g., mechanical and chemical) for
reducing encroachment of woody species, controlling nonnative and
invasive plant species, and reestablishing native grasses and forbs.
Given the 15-year timeframe of CCPs, protections outlined in the
Tualatin River NWR CCP are expected to remain in place until at least
2028, regardless of the golden paintbrush's Federal listing status.
Dungeness NWR also finalized a CCP in 2013 (Service 2013b, entire).
The CCP does not have any conservation actions specific to the golden
paintbrush identified; however, it does identify general actions taken
to control nonnative and invasive plant species that invade habitats on
the refuge, including those inhabited by the golden paintbrush (Service
2013b, pp. 4-44-4-45). The golden paintbrush population at this NWR's
headquarters continues to be maintained and protected.
In addition to specific protections for the golden paintbrush
provided under CCPs, the species is permanently protected by the
mission of all NWRs to manage their lands and waters for the
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats.
National Park Service Organic Act--One golden paintbrush site
currently occurs on National Park Service (NPS) lands (American Camp,
San Juan Island National Historical Park, Washington). The NPS Organic
Act of 1916 (54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq.), as amended, states the NPS will
promote and regulate the use of the National Park system to conserve
the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife therein, to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations
(54 U.S.C. 100101(a)). Further, in title 36 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at Sec. 2.1(a)(1)(ii), NPS regulations specifically
prohibit possessing, destroying, injuring, defacing, removing, digging,
or disturbing from their natural state plants, or the parts or products
thereof, on lands under NPS jurisdiction. This prohibition extends to
the golden paintbrush where it exists on NPS-managed lands. In
addition, the General Management Plan for the San Juan Island National
Historical Park includes the NPS's goal of restoring a prairie
community that support functions and values of native habitat,
including habitat for native wildlife and rare species, such as the
golden paintbrush (NPS 2008, p. 249).
Endangered Species Act--The golden paintbrush often co-occurs with
other plant and animal species that are listed under the Act, such as
the endangered Willamette daisy and endangered Taylor's checkerspot
butterfly. Therefore, some of the general habitat protections (e.g.,
section 7 consultation and ongoing recovery implementation efforts,
including prairie habitat restoration, maintenance, and protection) for
these other prairie-dependent, listed species will indirectly extend to
some golden paintbrush sites when we delist the golden paintbrush. We
acknowledge that some sites that support Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
will not be available for golden paintbrush due to the threat of
hybridization between golden and harsh paintbrush; however, given that
hybridization has only impacted populations in the South Puget Sound
area of Washington, and the extensive range of golden paintbrush in
other areas where hybridization is currently not a threat, we assume
that management for prairie-dependent species across the range will
benefit golden paintbrush beyond delisting. Likewise, the hybridization
strategy and guidance document and our partnership with State agencies
in Washington will ensure that hybridization is minimized or avoided
into the future (Service et al. 2020, entire; Service et al. 2021,
entire).
Protections in Canada--The golden paintbrush in Canada is currently
federally listed as ``endangered'' under the Species at Risk Act (SARA)
(COSEWIC 2007, entire). SARA regulations protect species from harm,
possession, collection, buying, selling, or trading (Statutes of Canada
2002, c. 29). SARA also prohibits damage to or destroying the habitat
of a species that is listed as an endangered species. The population at
Trial Island is on Canadian federal lands protected under SARA (COSEWIC
2011, in litt., p. 5). The golden paintbrush is not currently protected
under any provincial legislation in British Columbia. However, the
golden paintbrush occurs in the ecological reserves that include Trial
Island and Alpha Islet, which are protected under the British Columbia
Park Act (COSEWIC 2011, in litt., p. 5). The British Columbia Park Act
allows lands identified under the Ecological Reserve Act to be
regulated to restrict or prohibit any use, development, or occupation
of the land or any use or development of the natural resources in an
ecological reserve (Revised Statutes of British Columbia 1996, c. 103).
This includes particular areas where rare or endangered native plants
and animals in their natural habitat may be preserved.
State
Washington Natural Heritage Plan--Washington State's Natural
Heritage Plan identifies priorities for preserving natural diversity in
Washington State (WDNR 2018, entire). The plan aids WDNR in conserving
key habitats that
[[Page 46101]]
are currently imperiled, or are expected to be imperiled in the future.
The prioritization of conservation efforts provided by this plan is
expected to remain in place if we delist the golden paintbrush. The
golden paintbrush is currently identified as a priority 2 species
(species likely to become endangered across their range or in
Washington within the foreseeable future) in the State's 2018 plan
(WDNR 2018a, in litt., p. 4), which is a recent change from the
species' priority 1 designation (species are in danger of extinction
across their range, including Washington) in 2011 (WDNR 2018b, in
litt., p. 2). The State's conservation status is not necessarily
impacted by Federal delisting and is ultimately at the discretion of
WDNR. We anticipate that WDNR will continue to monitor the species
where it occurs on their own lands and more broadly as a partner in the
post-delisting monitoring plan. We also anticipate that WDNR will
continue to actively manage their golden paintbrush sites because these
areas are not only important to the long-term conservation of golden
paintbrush, but also to other at-risk prairie species.
Washington State Park Regulations and Management--In Washington,
State park regulations, in general, require an evaluation of any
activity conducted on a park that has the potential to damage park
resources, and require mitigation as appropriate (see title 352 of the
Washington Administrative Code). Wildlife, plants, all park buildings,
signs, tables, and other structures are protected; removal or damage of
any kind is prohibited (Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission 2019, in litt., p. 2). One golden paintbrush site currently
exists on Fort Casey Historical State Park. One of the objectives for
natural resources on Fort Casey Historical State Park under the Central
Whidbey State Parks Management Plan is to protect and participate in
the recovery of the golden paintbrush, including protecting native
plant communities, managing vegetative succession, and removing weeds
through integrated pest management (Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission 2008, p. 15). The plan further states that areas
where the golden paintbrush occurs will be classified as ``heritage
affording a high degree of protection,'' and the Nass Natural Area
Preserve (also known as Admiralty Inlet Natural Area Preserve) is
included in the long-term park boundary to also assure continued
preservation of the golden paintbrush in this area (Washington State
Parks and Recreation Commission 2008, p. 26).
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Chapter 564--Oregon Revised
Statutes, chapter 564, ``Wildflowers; Threatened or Endangered
Plants,'' requires State agencies to protect State-listed plant species
found on their lands. Any land action on Oregon land owned or leased by
the State, for which the State holds a recorded easement, and which
results, or might result, in the taking of an endangered or threatened
plant species, requires consultation with Oregon Department of
Agriculture staff (see ORS section 564.115). The golden paintbrush is
currently State-listed as endangered in Oregon. At this time, no
populations of the golden paintbrush are known to occur on State lands
in Oregon. However, should populations of the golden paintbrush occur
on Oregon State lands in the future, the removal of Federal protections
for the golden paintbrush would not affect State protection of the
species under this statute.
In summary, conservation measures and existing regulatory
mechanisms have minimized, and are continuing to address, the
previously identified threats to the golden paintbrush, including
habitat succession of prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and
forest lands; development of property for commercial, residential, and
agricultural use; recreational picking (including associated
trampling); and herbivory (on plants and seeds). As indicated above, we
anticipate the majority of these mechanisms will remain in place
regardless of the species' Federal listing status.
Cumulative Impacts
When multiple stressors co-occur, one may exacerbate the effects of
the other, leading to effects not accounted for when each stressor is
analyzed individually. The full impact of these synergistic effects may
be observed within a short period of time, or may take many years
before it is noticeable. For example, high levels of predation
(herbivory) on the golden paintbrush by deer could cause large
temporary losses in seed production in a population, but are not
generally considered to be a significant threat to long-term viability,
as populations that are relatively large and well-distributed should be
able to withstand such naturally occurring events. However, the
relative impact of predation (herbivory) by deer may be intensified
when it occurs in conjunction with other factors that may lessen the
resiliency of golden paintbrush populations, such as prolonged woody
species encroachment (prairie succession); extensive nonnative,
invasive plant infestations; or possible increased plant mortality
resulting from the effects of climate change (i.e., prolonged drought).
Although the types, magnitude, or extent of potential cumulative
impacts are difficult to predict, we are not aware of any combination
of factors that is likely to co-occur resulting in significant negative
consequences for the species. We anticipate that any negative
consequence of co-occurring threats will be successfully addressed
through the same active management actions that have contributed to the
ongoing recovery of the golden paintbrush and the conservation of
regional prairie ecosystems that are expected to continue into the
future.
Summary of Biological Status
To assess golden paintbrush viability, we evaluated the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). We assessed the
current resiliency of golden paintbrush sites (Service 2019, pp. 52-63)
by scoring each site's management level, site condition, threats
addressed, site abundance of plants, and site protection, resulting in
a high, moderate, or low condition ranking. One-third of sites were
determined to have a high condition ranking, one-third a moderate
condition ranking, and one-third a low condition ranking (Service 2019,
p. 63). This represents 32 sites in a moderate or higher condition
based on those important factors directly informing resiliency of
individual sites or populations within the SBR (Service 2019, p. 63).
This number of sites exceeds the 15 to 20 populations in stable
condition on protected lands that the recovery criteria identified as
needed to achieve recovery; this therefore provides sufficient
resiliency for the species.
Golden paintbrush sites are well-distributed across the species'
historical range and provide representation across the four geographic
areas within that range (British Columbia, North Puget Sound, South
Puget Sound, and the Willamette Valley). Multiple sites or populations
exist within each of these geographic areas, providing a relatively
secure level of redundancy across the historical range, with the lowest
relative level of redundancy within British Columbia. The resiliency of
the golden paintbrush is variable across the historical range given
differences in site or population abundance, level of management at a
site, and site condition. The best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that the golden paintbrush is composed of multiple
populations, primarily in
[[Page 46102]]
moderate to high condition (Service 2019, p. 63), which are
sufficiently resilient, well-distributed (redundancy and
representation), mostly in protected areas, and managed such that they
will be relatively robust or resilient to any potential cumulative
effects to which they may be exposed.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our June 30, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 34695), we requested
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by
August 30, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. Newspaper
notices inviting general public comment were published in The Oregonian
on July 11, 2021, and the Seattle Times on July 9 through July 13,
2021. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All
substantive information provided during the comment period either has
been incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below.
Public Comments
We received 10 public comments in response to the proposed rule. We
reviewed all comments we received during the public comment period for
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule.
Eight commenters provided substantive comments or new information
concerning the proposed delisting for golden paintbrush. Below, we
provide a summary of the substantive issues raised in the public
comments we received; however, comments outside the scope of the
proposed rule, and those without supporting information, do not warrant
an explicit response and, thus, are not presented here. Identical or
similar comments have been consolidated into responses based on comment
theme.
(1) Comment: We received multiple comments from WDNR and others
stating that golden paintbrush has not met all the recovery criteria
specified in the recovery plan.
Response: Recovery plans provide roadmaps to species recovery but
are not required in order to achieve recovery of a species, or to
evaluate it for delisting. In addition, recovery plans are also
nonbinding documents that rely on voluntary participation from
landowners, land managers, and other recovery partners. A determination
of whether a valid, extant species should be delisted is made solely on
the question of whether it meets the Act's definitions of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' Recovery criteria
and objectives are developed based on the information known at that
time, and much is learned about a species between the time the recovery
plan is developed and the time we reassess whether it meets the Act's
definition of endangered or threatened. Based on the best available
information, we have determined that golden paintbrush no longer meets
either of these definitions.
(2) Comment: We received several comments from WDNR and others
questioning the metric in recovery criterion 1 to evaluate a stable
population, suggesting it was no longer based on the best available
science and providing examples of populations that have declined. A
comment from WDNR also presented updated information on progress
towards meeting this criterion from 2018-2020.
Response: We updated this final rule to reflect the most up-to-date
progress toward this criterion (see discussion under Criterion 1 for
Delisting, above). As discussed earlier in this document, that
criterion states that to be deemed stable, a population must maintain a
5-year running average population size of at least 1,000 individuals,
where the actual count never falls below 1,000 individuals in any year.
The 2007 5-year review recommended counting only flowering individuals
and incorporating a stable or increasing population trend as based on a
zero or positive overall trend over 5 years (Service 2007, p. 3). While
we did not officially amend or make an addendum to the recovery plan,
we accepted that the most practical way to determine population
abundance was to count flowering plants. The recommendation to evaluate
populations based on stable or increasing trends in abundance was not
formally incorporated into an amended recovery plan. However, in
addition to evaluating progress toward the recovery criteria, we also
evaluated in the SBR (Service 2019, entire) the resiliency, redundancy,
and representation across the species' range in relation to the
potential threats to the species. In the SBR, we evaluated the current
condition of the species at sites using various parameters, including
the level of management, site condition, threats addressed, abundance,
and site protection status. We elicited the advice of experts to
evaluate sites based on these parameters. Populations were also
separately evaluated in the SBR with a site viability index that took
into account population stability and trend. All of this information
was considered when evaluating and making our determination as to
whether delisting is warranted.
Some populations that once maintained higher levels of abundance
have declined, and that abundance can vary markedly across populations
and annually within populations (Fertig 2021, p. 23). Despite this
variability in abundance, the species has sufficient resiliency and
redundancy across its range to maintain viability. In the current
condition analysis of the SBR, 16 sites were ranked as high condition,
with 9 of these sites in Oregon and 7 in Washington. This distribution
of high condition sites across the range of the species contributes to
the redundancy of golden paintbrush. We developed a post-delisting
monitoring plan that will help verify that golden paintbrush remains
secure into the future without the protections of the Act.
(3) Comment: The WDNR stated opposition to the proposed delisting
rule. Despite improvements in species condition from the time of
listing, the WDNR stated that delisting was premature based on concerns
regarding uncertainties related to golden paintbrush's long-term
abundance and viability. The WDNR and other commenters expressed
concern about the funding available for continued management and
monitoring once delisted.
Response: Our review of the best available scientific and
commercial data indicates that the threats to the golden paintbrush
have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the
Act (see Determination of Golden Paintbrush's Status, below).
Individual sites may experience variability in abundance, and while
some have declined, others have increased in recent years (see Range,
Distribution, Abundance, and Trends of Golden Paintbrush, above).
Despite variability in abundance, the successful establishment of
outplanted golden paintbrush populations, primarily in moderate to high
condition, and mostly in protected areas with management help to
increase the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species
and contribute to its viability. For more discussion of golden
paintbrush's population trends and viability, see Range, Distribution,
Abundance, and Trends of Golden Paintbrush Summary of Biological Status
and Threats, and Recovery Criteria, above.
Golden paintbrush is a management-dependent species, and even with
sufficient resources, populations can decline due to various factors.
Although
[[Page 46103]]
the majority of populations are under conservation ownership that
includes management practices to preserve essential characteristics of
golden paintbrush habitat, declines can still occur. Conservation
management will continue in these habitats, but not necessarily to the
same degree at all locations due to variations in capacity, need, or
constraints. As part of the current condition analysis in the SBR, the
management level was assessed for each site based on expert elicitation
and the best available information (see Service 2019, pp. 40-44). This
analysis indicated that the majority of the sites will receive, at
minimum, maintenance to preserve essential characteristics of golden
paintbrush habitat, with several sites operating under long-term
management plans with committed resources for management (see Service
2019, pp. 40-44). The number of and distribution of populations
established across the range contributes to the resiliency and
redundancy of the species, and its ability to maintain sufficient
viability despite some variability in management. Management will also
continue to adapt over time to address future challenges in maintaining
and restoring prairie ecosystems. Funding for some management
activities will likely decline post-delisting as some funding sources
are focused on the recovery of listed species; however, the commitments
of our partners to golden paintbrush conservation, as well as the
number of sites sharing similar habitat and conservation objectives for
other prairie species of concern, will help ensure continued management
of the species into the future. Additionally, our post-delisting
monitoring plan will assess abundance as well as site management and
protection over a minimum 5-year period after delisting.
Regarding continued monitoring by WNHP, golden paintbrush is
currently State-listed as priority 2 in the Washington State Natural
Heritage Plan, and State listing and prioritization is ultimately at
the discretion of the State. Like many State-listed plant species and
other plant species of State concern, we anticipate that the WDNR
through its WNHP and ODA will continue to monitor golden paintbrush in
Washington and Oregon, respectively, although monitoring efforts may
not occur as often as they have in the past.
(4) Comment: Several commenters stated concern over the likelihood
for post-delisting management to continue and be effective. Comments
included site-specific examples such as Forbes Point, American Camp,
Rocky Prairie, and Glacial Heritage where decline in golden paintbrush
abundance due to invasion by exotic grasses or other unknown factors
occurred despite support or management for the species.
Response: As we describe above in our response to Comment (3)
management will also continue to adapt over time to address future
challenges in maintaining and restoring prairie ecosystems and the PDM
plan will assess abundance as well as site management and protection
over a minimum 5-year period after delisting. Please see our response
to Comment (3), above, for a discussion of variation in abundance and
management for the species and our response to Comment (5), below,
about declines in abundance in some populations.
Regarding the site-specific examples provided by commenters, the
Forbes Points and American Camp sites are in low condition, the Rocky
Prairie site is in moderate condition and the Glacial Heritage site is
in high condition based on our current condition analysis in the SBR
which considered management level among other factors that can impact
site condition including habitat condition, threats, abundance, and
site protection status (Service 2019, p. 54).
(5) Comment: We received comments from WDNR and others providing
updated survey data from 2019 and 2020 for outplanted populations,
describing the variable survey effort and an overall decline in
abundance from 2018.
Response: WDNR and others provided updated abundance information
for outplanted populations since 2018, which we considered and
incorporated into this Final Rule (see Range, Distribution, Abundance,
and Trends of Golden Paintbrush, above). As described in their
comments, outplanted populations reached their highest peak to date in
2018 at 562,726 flowering plants and declined to 325,320 plants in
2019. In 2020, there was a reduction of survey effort, and 25
populations in Oregon were not surveyed due to COVID restrictions. If
2019 data were substituted for the 25 populations in Oregon that were
not surveyed in 2020, it is assumed, based on extrapolation, that the
estimated 2020 rangewide abundance would be greater than 370,000 plants
(Fertig 2021, p. 22). Even without the 25 sites that were not monitored
in 2020, the last 4 years of monitoring (2017-2020) represent the 4
years with greatest abundance rangewide. The year 2020 also represents
the second-highest abundance of golden paintbrush in Washington State
at 202,208, which was a 47.8 percent increase from 136,846 in 2019.
Several new outplantings have been initiated since 2018, and we are
continuing to work with our partners to plan new outplantings in Oregon
and Washington. Individual sites may experience variability, and while
some have declined, others have increased in recent years (Service
2019, pp. 27-29; Fertig 2021, pp. 11-29). The species appears to have
sufficient resiliency and redundancy across its range to maintain
sufficient viability, despite variability in abundance.
(6) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and several other
commenters highlighting concerns over population declines since 2012 in
the populations extant at the time of listing.
Response: At the time of listing in 1997, there were 10 known
golden paintbrush populations in Washington and British Columbia, and
the species was considered extirpated from Oregon. The SBR identified
48 populations established across the range of the species in 2018,
including 26 populations established in Oregon (Service 2019, p. 11).
The ten populations extant at the time of listing make up a small
proportion of the current total abundance of this species established
across its range. While many of the historical populations across the
range of the species were likely extirpated due to land-use changes,
such as development and agriculture, along with encroachment of trees
and other woody plants, the persistence of these ten extant populations
may be due to their protected locations that are not available for
conversion for agriculture or development. Studies suggest that like
other rare species, golden paintbrush may have been eliminated from the
most suitable sites with the remaining extant populations relegated to
marginal sites that did not provide optimal habitat at the time of
listing (Falk et al. 1996, p. 472; Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 12).
Sites with deeper soils and more moisture availability, along with a
more diverse native plant community are more likely to support the
species (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, entire), and successful
reintroduction to prairies in former agriculture lands with deeper
soils have had great success (Delvin 2013, p. 7). Thirty-seven
outplanted populations of golden paintbrush have been established and
represent the majority of the abundance of the species across its
historical range, including 26 populations in Oregon where the species
was previously extirpated. These outplanted populations help to
increase the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species
and contribute to its viability. While the 10 sites extant at the time
of listing remain
[[Page 46104]]
and continue to contribute to the species' recovery, these sites likely
do not represent the ideal site characteristics for the species.
Although the 10 populations at the time of listing have exhibited
decline, the efforts at outplanted sites across the range represent the
recovery of golden paintbrush. For more information, see the discussion
above on populations extant at the time of listing under Range,
Distribution, Abundance, and Trends of Golden Paintbrush.
(7) Comment: We received several comments addressing the
difficulties of establishing new populations, and highlighting the
variability in seeding success, even on sites with established
populations.
Response: We identified the difficulties in establishing new
populations and the variability in seeding success in the SBR for
golden paintbrush (Service 2019, p. 51) and took this into account in
our determination. It is not uncommon to have failed reintroduction or
introduction attempts for any species. For golden paintbrush, despite
some outplanting failures, outplanted populations have been largely
successful and represent the majority of the abundance of golden
paintbrush across the range. Furthermore, in Oregon, where the species
was previously extirpated, 26 populations have been established due to
outplanting. Golden paintbrush continues to be outplanted by our
partners at other conservation sites with the expectation of
establishing even more populations across the species' range in the
future.
(8) Comment: The WDNR and several other commenters disagreed that
direct seeded populations may initially undergo a period of rapid
growth followed by a period of decline to a more stabilized number. The
commenters stated that it is unknown if population stabilization will
occur.
Response: While there may be an initial period of rapid growth
following an establishment period, population trends following a peak
appear to vary greatly by site (Fertig 2021 pp. 24-27). After some
large declines, several sites rangewide increased from 2019 to 2020,
although not to the level of the initial spike in abundance. While some
populations show a boom-bust population trend as was documented at some
outplanted sites in Oregon (Kaye 2019, pp. 26-27), not all populations
across the range are experiencing consistent decline. Rangewide
abundance from 2017-2020 represent the four greatest abundances across
all of the years monitored, including 25 sites that were not monitored
in Oregon in 2020 (Fertig 2021, p. 22). As some commenters mentioned,
the addition of seed to some of these populations complicates the
assessment of population trends over time. Furthermore, population
variability seen following the initial peak could be attributed to
other impacts to the species from other stressors such as drought,
herbivory, or competition from invasive species at the site level.
Taken together, we find that the available information supports that
while golden paintbrush populations may peak in abundance following
initial establishment and may decline to lower levels, the pattern does
not suggest a species-level decline overall rangewide. We will continue
to monitor populations over 5 years using the post-delisting monitoring
plan, which will contribute data and increase our understanding of
population dynamics and persistence over those years.
(9) Comment: The WDNR commented that there was no mention of the
viability index developed by Dr. Tom Kaye for golden paintbrush in the
proposed rule. In addition to providing us with 2019 and 2020 golden
paintbrush survey data and their updated viability index for the
species, the WDNR stated that as of 2020, 9 of 52 populations had a
viability index score of 3, indicative of populations with positive
growth over time, relatively stable numbers, and greater than 1,000
flowering individuals averaged over 5 years.
Response: The Service considered the viability index developed by
Dr. Tom Kaye and summarized this information in the SBR which provides
the best available information to inform our listing decision under the
Act. In addition, in response to the information submitted by the WDNR,
we re-calculated the viability index with data that include the most-
recent survey year (either 2019 or 2020), since many sites were not
surveyed in 2020. This resulted in 10 out of 46 populations having a
score of three, an increase from the 6 out of 43 populations with a
score of 3 identified in the SBR, indicating there are now more
populations with high viability than what we identified in 2018. As we
mentioned in the SBR, indices of this type are useful for synthesizing
several pieces of information, but they can simplify or oversimplify
available information. This index was intended to provide a broad
evaluation of the species' population size and stability, and while
these data were taken into consideration, they were considered along
with the current condition analysis in the SBR. Additionally, we used
updated survey data to evaluate the status relative to the recovery
criteria (see Recovery Criteria, above).
(10) Comment: We received several comments (from WDNR and others)
expressing concern over potential impacts of climate change on the
species. We also received several comments from WDNR and others
highlighting WDNR's 2019 report updating an earlier climate change
vulnerability assessment of golden paintbrush.
Response: In this final rule, we have incorporated the new
information from the climate change vulnerability assessment
(Kleinknecht et al. 2019, entire) and have added to our discussion on
climate change. The Service reviews the best scientific and commercial
information available when conducting a threats analysis. In
considering what factors might constitute a threat, we look beyond the
mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the
exposure causes actual impacts to the species. The mere identification
of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to
compel a finding that listing (or maintaining a currently listed
species) on the Federal Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and
Plants is appropriate. In determining whether a species meets the
definition of a threatened or endangered species, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level, as well as the cumulative effect of the threats.
Drought, particularly in the spring and summer, likely impacts
golden paintbrush populations, with potentially larger impacts on
populations with low viability. Research conducted on microsite needs
for the species suggested that deeper soils with high richness of
native perennial forbs were more likely to support the species
(Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, entire). Establishing populations can be
difficult, particularly with annual variability in climate and drought
seen in recent years, and as a result, multiple outplantings have
failed. Despite this, seven new outplantings have been initiated since
2018 in Washington, including one on Protection Island. While it is
difficult to assess the success of these outplantings due to variable
monitoring efforts in recent years, two have been noted as likely
unsuccessful due to presence of nonnative weedy
[[Page 46105]]
annuals, but the others show promise (Martin 2021, pp. 10, 23-25).
On a rangewide scale, the species demonstrates sufficient
resiliency and representation to adapt to projected changes in climate.
We have established 17 populations with a 5-year average of greater
than 1,000 individuals over the species' range from British Columbia to
Oregon, on sites representing environmental diversity consisting of wet
and dry prairie, and valley foothills (Kaye 2019, p. 10). Total
abundance was greater than 325,320 flowering plants across the range in
2019, and 288,699 in 2020 (excluding 25 populations that were not
surveyed due to COVID restrictions); substituting 2019 data for
populations not surveyed in 2020 yields an estimated abundance of
greater than 370,000 flowering plants rangewide (Fertig 2021, p. 22).
Despite drought seen in recent years, abundance of populations extant
at the time of listing increased in 2020, and Washington populations
reached their second-highest total abundance of 202,208 flowering
plants, a 47.8 percent increase from 2019 (Fertig 2021, p. 11). Despite
evidence of the potential effects of drought on golden paintbrush
abundance in recent years (see Fertig 2021, p. 30; Martin 2021, p. 6),
periods of drought have not been documented to consistently impact
abundance across populations.
Regional climate change literature suggests that prairie ecosystems
were established under warmer and drier conditions and are unlikely to
be disadvantaged from future increased summer drought (Bachelet et al.
2011, p. 417). Golden paintbrush populations can experience high
variability in abundance between years (Fertig 2021, pp. 24-27), and
while climate change is a stressor, given the species' high abundance
and distribution across the range from British Columbia to Oregon,
golden paintbrush should have sufficient resiliency and redundancy to
remain viable into the future. Establishing plant species such as the
golden paintbrush to populate the full geographic and climatic range of
Pacific Northwest prairies has been identified as a ``climate-smart''
strategy (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 420). The post-delisting monitoring
plan will facilitate the evaluation of the species beyond delisting and
detect unanticipated levels and/or extent of declines in abundance.
Since the publication of the proposed rule (86 FR 34695; June 30,
2021), we received an updated climate change vulnerability index (CCVI)
report from our State partners at the WDNR's Washington Natural
Heritage Program (Kleinknecht et al. 2019, entire). This report was
provided as a comment from WDNR. We evaluated the report and compared
it to a similar assessment that was conducted in 2014 (Gamon 2014,
entire). The CCVI was conducted using a NatureServe protocol, which
relies on a species' natural history, distribution, and landscape to
inform whether and to what degree it will be impacted by climate change
(Young et al. 2016, entire). In the 2019 report, golden paintbrush was
ranked as ``Highly Vulnerable'' to climate change, a change from the
2014 report which ranked it as ``Presumed Stable'' (Kleinknecht et al.
2019, entire; Gamon 2014, entire).
While this 2019 CCVI report has helped inform our decision, it does
not change our final determination. The 2019 assessment looked only at
a small proportion of the species' range. It assessed only a subset of
sites from Washington, based on 22 native occurrences (11 extant and 11
extirpated or historical), not including the 10 outplanted sites in
Washington or any of the populations in Oregon. The distribution of
points used in the assessment were primarily in North Puget Sound, and
given that half of these represent sites that have already undergone
extirpation, this report is not necessarily representative of the
potential impact on golden paintbrush across its currently occupied
range.
Additionally, the guidelines for the CCVI describe that it works
best for the scale from the size of a National Park to a State, and at
larger scales may mask the vulnerability of local populations to
climate change (Young et al. 2016, p. 9). Based on the larger scale of
golden paintbrush's range, from Oregon to British Columbia, the CCVI
method is not likely to be appropriate to assess climate change
vulnerability.
(11) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and several others
expressing concern about the impacts of herbivory on golden
paintbrush's viability. Commenters provided examples of impacts at
specific sites, the difficulties in managing herbivory, and the
potential impacts to seed production.
Response: Herbivory was noted as a threat at the time of listing in
1997, especially due to the limited number (10) of extant populations.
Despite having a potential impact on abundance, a total of 48 golden
paintbrush populations are now represented across the species' range in
a variety of habitats and constitute a large geographic distribution
contributing to the species' resiliency and redundancy, and to the
species' ability to withstand stochastic events, including herbivory.
Active, targeted management may be important in curtailing significant
impacts, but it is not likely to occur across all sites at the same
level, and it is not intended to result in the complete elimination of
herbivory impacts on this species. Despite the recent examples of
herbivory provided in the comments and anecdotal observations for
specific sites and years, there are no consistent data linking
herbivory to population declines, especially at the rangewide scale.
Herbivory can vary by site, year, frequency, and level of impacts.
Populations of the species will likely retain moderate to high levels
of viability given the species' established redundancy across its range
and the suitable condition of the habitat despite variable herbivory
impacts; however, the post-delisting monitoring plan is designed to
help track site-specific management and potential impacts to species
abundance for at least 5 years following delisting. For more
information, please see the discussion of herbivory under Summary of
Biological Status and Threats, above.
(12) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and others expressing
concern over potential impacts of hybridization to golden paintbrush,
as well as expressing concern that the hybridization strategy and
guidance document was not available for review during the June 30,
2021, proposed rule's public comment period.
Response: Hybridization is a potential threat to golden paintbrush
that must continue to be managed, and we continue to work
collaboratively with our partners to find solutions and management for
sites that are already impacted by hybridization. Although a public
commenter noted two sites on Whidbey Island as having potential
hybridization impacts given a previous experimental study that seeded
both paintbrush species, given low recruitment of harsh paintbrush at
these sites, hybridization has never been identified by experts as a
concern in those sites.
While the details of the hybridization strategy and guidance were
not available during the June 30, 2021, proposed rule's public comment
period, when the document was finalized, we organized a public roll-out
where we presented details of the hybridization strategy and guidance,
answered questions, and highlighted to our conservation partners that
comments would be accepted to inform the next iteration of the document
to make further improvements to the strategy. The document was posted
on our website, and no comments were received.
[[Page 46106]]
Solutions presented in the hybridization strategy and guidance document
include, but are not limited to, preventing hybridization in other
geographic areas, implementing a decision-making framework for new
sites under consideration for paintbrush plantings, actively managing
sites that are hybridized, and mapping the distribution of both golden
and harsh paintbrush. Through the MOU and hybridization strategy and
guidance document, we and our State agency partners are committed to
managing hybridization and working collaboratively with our other
prairie conservation partners to ensure this potential threat is
adequately managed after the delisting of golden paintbrush.
(13) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and several others
noting the lack of seed production at some populations in recent years
(2019-2021), emphasizing the potential for declines given the species'
short-lived seed bank and the species' reliance on bumble bees for
pollination.
Response: Although we agree with the need to track and better
understand the magnitude and extent of possible impacts of reduced seed
production, based on the best available information, the observed
reduced seed production at some sites does not appear to be resulting
in notable demographic changes impacting the resiliency of golden
paintbrush populations. Any decline in seed production could negatively
impact a golden paintbrush population given its short-lived seedbank,
and there are many unknowns associated with the potential effects of
climate change on both golden paintbrush and pollinator communities. To
date, however, there are uncertainties regarding the frequency,
distribution, and scale of the lack of seed production, and uncertainty
whether these represent short-term, isolated events or a large-scale
change. Likewise, while golden paintbrush is reliant on bumble bees as
its primary pollinator, it is unknown if pollinator decline is
occurring across the range of golden paintbrush. Two bumble bees
identified at the species level in the SBR, Bombus vosnesenskii and B.
bifarius, were assessed as stable in the Pacific Northwest, and one
bumble bee, B. californicus (sometimes recognized as B. fervidus), is
less common in the Pacific Northwest than historically (Hatfield et al.
2021, pp. 15, 32, 72-73). However, the status and trends of these and
other pollinators have not been evaluated in golden paintbrush
populations. These anecdotal observations present important
information, yet it remains unclear how they translate to trends in
population abundance over time and the scope of the impact across the
species' range. We do not have information to conclude that these
concerns are impacting the species to a degree that would result in the
species meeting the Act's definition of either an endangered species or
a threatened species. Post-delisting monitoring will enable us to
monitor population abundance for at least 5 years after the species has
been delisted.
(14) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and several others
expressing concern over the number of small populations (fewer than 100
individuals) and the small size of habitat occupied by golden
paintbrush at some sites (less than 1 acre), suggesting that small
populations and small patches of habitat should be eliminated from
consideration regarding contribution towards recovery.
Response: We describe in the SBR that larger sites are likely
better for population viability, as they allow for the development of
larger populations and greater genetic diversity (Service 2019, pp. 35-
36); however, there is no basis to remove populations existing on less
than 1 acre or those with abundance of fewer than 100 individuals from
our assessment of sites contributing to recovery. While small
populations may inherently have a greater relative risk of extirpation
than larger populations, that does not mean they cannot or do not
contribute to species recovery. Site abundance is an important
consideration with regard to the potential for the species to persist
over time, and we used site abundance as part of our analysis of
current condition in the SBR (Service 2019, p. 27). These data were
incorporated into a population viability index as well as an assessment
of current condition, which were both considered when evaluating
whether the species needs protections under the Act. Habitat patch size
was discussed in the SBR (Service 2019, pp. 35-38), and as noted, there
are uncertainties regarding the importance of habitat patch size for
populations of golden paintbrush. The number of sites with more than
1,000 individuals and the wide distribution across the species'
historical range will likely provide sufficient resiliency and
redundancy to protect the species from stochastic events.
(15) Comment: We received multiple comments disagreeing with our
evaluation of progress toward recovery criterion 2 and our assessment
of the level of protection based on land ownership.
Response: In this final rule, we note that this criterion was not
precisely met as stated in the recovery plan (see Criterion 2 for
Delisting, above). However, a significantly greater number of
populations under conservation-focused ownership provide protection to
either the species or its habitat compared to the minimum number
identified in the criterion; this will help the species retain
sufficient viability into the future. Forty-five of the 48 golden
paintbrush populations are in either public ownership; are owned by a
conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization; or are under
conservation easement (Service 2019, p. 62). This number is much higher
than the number (15) required to provide protection in the recovery
plan's criterion 2. Such ownership is expected to protect sites from
development and land use that would have long-term, wide-ranging
deleterious effects on this species. Prairies are management-dependent
habitats, and while habitat management will likely continue to occur
across the majority of the sites, it will not necessarily occur to the
same degree due to variations in capacity, need, or constraints across
sites. We have developed a post-delisting monitoring plan to monitor
abundance, site management, and the protection status of populations
over at least 5 years following delisting.
(16) Comment: We received multiple comments expressing concern
regarding the potential of recovery sites being shared between golden
paintbrush and Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, given the threat of
hybridization between golden paintbrush and harsh paintbrush, the
latter a common host plant for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Response: Sites that support Taylor's checkerspot butterfly with
harsh paintbrush will not be available to support golden paintbrush.
However, there may be opportunities for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly
and golden paintbrush to share sites, particularly if other hosts
plants (in addition to golden paintbrush) are used, including English
plantain (Plantago lanceolata). Likewise, sites in Oregon that have
golden paintbrush and other host plants do support populations of
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. In this final rule, we address the fact
that hybridization with harsh paintbrush has led to the abandonment of
three recovery sites for golden paintbrush. Hybridization is a serious
potential threat, and we have entered into an MOU concerning
hybridization with our State partners (WDFW and WDNR) and created a
hybridization strategy and guidance
[[Page 46107]]
document to ensure the threat of hybridization with harsh paintbrush is
managed and coordinated between partners into the future.
(17) Comment: We received several comments providing information on
recent difficulties with seed availability at some sites, the potential
impacts to nursery seed production, and challenges with seed
production.
Response: These observations are concerning given the short-lived
seedbank of the species; however, it remains unclear if the local,
episodic events (due to herbivory or drought) represent a new long-term
scenario with consistent impacts across the range of the species. Our
post-delisting monitoring plan will direct efforts to track populations
to help determine if these observations continue and whether or not
there are broader impacts to golden paintbrush.
If populations of golden paintbrush decline below a certain
threshold, seed collection from certain sites could prove difficult or
inadvisable, and seed production for this species could be affected.
Seed production efforts might need to be supplemented by some
outplanted populations that originated from the populations extant at
the time of listing and could incorporate increased genetic diversity
into nursery production (St. Clair et al. 2020, pp. 587-590). While a
comment highlighted past difficulties in seed production for the
species at a seed farm in Washington, seed production efforts across
the range have been sufficient to support numerous outplantings that
have contributed to the recovery of the species across its range.
Currently, there are seed production programs at the Center for Natural
Lands Management, along with smaller scale operations in North Puget
Sound representing seed collected from the populations extant at the
time of listing on Whidbey Island, the San Juan Islands, and South
Puget Sound. New mixed-source beds for golden paintbrush have been
recently established at the Center for Natural Lands Management and the
Pacific Rim Institute, and we will continue to work with our partners
to ensure that seed sources for this species remain available as long
as considered necessary. These combined seed production efforts will
continue to support ongoing establishment of new populations and
augmentation of existing populations throughout the range of the
species.
(18) Comment: We received a few comments describing historical
habitat loss of Pacific Northwest prairies. We also received a comment
discussing the importance of these rare habitats to Tribes from a
public commenter unaffiliated with any Tribe.
Response: The rarity of prairies on the landscape presents
challenges to conservation of prairie-dependent species, including
golden paintbrush. Pacific Northwest prairies have experienced
significant declines from their historical distribution due to habitat
loss from development and agriculture, as well as changes in
disturbance regimes and the maintenance provided by indigenous Tribes
for thousands of years. While these comments were not submitted by a
Tribe, we know the success of prairie-dependent species conservation is
tied directly to the habitats that support the species and to the
extensive network of partners, including Tribes, working to restore and
maintain prairies across the species' range;. These partnerships will
continue to focus on restoration and maintenance of golden paintbrush
and other species that rely on these rare prairie communities into the
future. For more information, please see the discussion of habitat loss
under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, above.
(19) Comment: We received a comment that disagrees with the
information presented on genetic diversity in the June 30, 2021,
proposed rule, stating that golden paintbrush has reduced genetic
diversity because seed used to establish populations was sourced from
seed from the populations extant at the time of listing.
Response: Genetic studies have indicated that despite its limited
geographic range and isolation of its populations, golden paintbrush
has high levels of diversity (Godt et al. 2005, p. 87; Lawrence and
Kaye 2011, p. 173). Additionally, a recent study indicates that genetic
diversity has increased in reintroduced populations relative to extant
populations as a result of multiple source populations propagated
together in a nursery production setting (St. Clair et al. 2020, pp.
589-591). Establishing populations across the species' range and in a
variety of ecological settings will further contribute to the genetic
diversity and representation of the species.
(20) Comment: We received a comment disagreeing with the
established methodology of counting flowering plants to determine
abundance estimates, The commenter stated that survey information could
be unreliable due to the lack of non-flowering plant information.
Response: We developed the abundance estimate methodology in
coordination with the golden paintbrush technical team to provide a
consistent and reliable measure of adult plant abundance within
populations to track population status (Service 2007, p. 3). We and the
technical team determined it was impractical to count non-flowering
golden paintbrush plants, and recommended modifying Recovery Criterion
1 to specify a flowering plant metric (Service 2007, p. 3). Although
counting flowering plants could mean that populations might actually be
undercounted, because vegetative plants are not counted, flowering
plant abundance better informs the number of individuals most likely to
reproductively contribute to the population, and may also be the best
method to estimate a reasonable minimum population size.
(21) Comment: We received multiple comments highlighting potential
impacts on the golden paintbrush and its habitat from invasive plant
species given projected warmer temperatures.
Response: Habitat loss has been considered a threat to the species
since the time of listing (1997), and part of that consideration is
focused on invasive species. While invasive species will always be a
potential threat that will need adequate management, given the ongoing
invasive species management commitments across the species' range,
golden paintbrush is expected to maintain moderate to high viability.
Many of the exotic species in the Pacific Northwest have wide
distributions and are likely adaptable to climate change (Bachelet et
al. 2011, p. 417). As commenters mentioned, there are ongoing studies
focused on how to manage Vulpia ssp. (a winter annual grass) in South
Puget Sound prairie communities that will provide valuable information
on how to control this nonnative species within golden paintbrush
habitat across its range. Management techniques are constantly evolving
as new challenges arise from invasive species, climate change, and
unforeseen circumstances. This progression in management will likely
continue into the future; however, the level of success is not always
certain. We developed a post-delisting monitoring plan to track
population status, site-specific management actions, and the presence
of invasive species that will continue for at least 5 years following
delisting.
(22) Comment: We received multiple comments expressing concern over
the adequacy of the post-delisting monitoring plan to track the
species' condition over the 5-year timeframe. The commenters suggest
that estimating population size into categories (more than 1,000
flowering plants and more than 10,000 flowering plants) would be
[[Page 46108]]
inadequate to detect changes in size and population trend and reduces
the ability to understand why changes are occurring.
Response: The population size categories referenced in the post-
delisting monitoring plan are not meant to be a population target but
rather a threshold at which to review significance, methods, and
potential threats with States and other collaborators before numbers
might fall below the recovery objective. These thresholds are also
consistent with those used in the SBR current condition analysis.
Following delisting, the Act requires us to monitor effectively for not
less than 5 years the status of the species in cooperation with the
States that are within the range of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(g)(1)).
We developed a draft post-delisting monitoring plan for the golden
paintbrush, coordinated review of the plan with State agencies in
Washington and Oregon, and made the draft plan available for public
review and comment. Sustaining post-delisting monitoring efforts can be
challenging and subject to competing priorities for available
resources. Nonetheless, we designed the post-delisting monitoring
assuming limited resources. We are coordinating with State agencies in
Washington and Oregon to find funding to support post-delisting
monitoring efforts, but we fully anticipate some of the conservation
landowners will continue to monitor populations on their own because of
their ongoing interest in and commitment to conserving this species and
others. We will continue to work with our conservation partners to
ensure implementation of an effective and feasible post-delisting
monitoring plan for the golden paintbrush.
Determination of Golden Paintbrush's 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 ``endangered species'' or
``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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find, based on the best available information, and as
described in our analysis above, stressors identified at the time of
listing and several additional potential stressors analyzed for this
assessment do not affect golden paintbrush to a degree that causes it
to be in danger of extinction either now or in the foreseeable future.
Development of property for commercial, residential, and agricultural
use (Factor A) has not occurred to the extent anticipated at the time
of listing and is adequately managed; existing information indicates
this condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Potential constriction of habitat for expansion and refugia (Factor A)
also has not occurred to the extent anticipated at the time of listing,
and existing information indicates this condition is unlikely to change
in the foreseeable future. Habitat modification through succession of
prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and forest lands (Factor A) is
adequately managed, and existing information indicates this condition
is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Recreational picking
and associated trampling (Factor B) has not occurred to the extent
anticipated at the time of listing; the species appears to tolerate
current levels of this activity, and existing information indicates
that this condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Herbivory on plants and seeds (Factor C) has not occurred to the extent
anticipated at the time of listing; the species appears to tolerate
current levels of herbivory, and existing information indicates that
this condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Hybridization with the harsh paintbrush (Factor E) is adequately
managed, and existing information indicates this condition is unlikely
to change in the foreseeable future. Finally, golden paintbrush appears
to adequately tolerate the effects of climate change (Factor E), and
existing information indicates that this tolerance is unlikely to
substantially change in the foreseeable future. In addition, there are
means to help further mitigate for those effects of climate change
(e.g., continued outplanting across varied site conditions). The
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are sufficient to ensure
protection of the species at the reduced levels of threat that remain.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we determine
that golden paintbrush is not in danger of extinction, nor likely to
become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that the golden paintbrush is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
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 now or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other
question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for the golden paintbrush, we choose
to evaluate the status question first. We began by identifying portions
of the range where the biological status of the species may be
different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this
purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that
the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
For the golden paintbrush, we considered whether the threats or
their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful
portion of the species' range such that the species is in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that
portion. We examined the following threats: (1) Habitat succession of
prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and forest due to fire
suppression, interspecific competition, and invasive species; (2)
development of property for
[[Page 46109]]
commercial, residential, and agricultural use; (3) low potential for
expansion and refugia due to constriction of habitat by surrounding
development or land use; (4) recreational picking (including associated
trampling); (5) herbivory (on plants and seeds); (6) hybridization with
harsh paintbrush; and (7) the effects of climate change, including
cumulative effects. Although the impact of hybridization with the harsh
paintbrush is most evident in the South Puget Sound region of the
species' range, this impact was due to the unintended consequences of
seeding harsh paintbrush in aid of another species, so as a potential
stressor, it is being addressed throughout the species' range with the
hybridization strategy and guidance. We found no biologically
meaningful portion of the golden paintbrush' range where threats are
impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the
species elsewhere in its range, or where the condition of the species
differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status
of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other
portion of the species' range.
Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant
portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings
in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1131
(N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F.
Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this
conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), including the
definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be
invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the golden paintbrush does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we
remove the golden paintbrush from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants.
Effects of the Rule
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) by removing the golden
paintbrush from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. On the
effective date of this rule (see DATES, above), the prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to the golden paintbrush. Federal
agencies will not be required to consult with the Service under section
7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out may affect the golden paintbrush. There is no critical
habitat designated for this species, so there is 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 system to monitor effectively, for not less than
5 years, all species that have been recovered and delisted. 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 again
is not needed. The monitoring is designed to detect the failure of any
delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures
provided by the Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data
indicate that the protective status under the Act should be reinstated,
we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate,
emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of the
Act explicitly requires us to cooperate with the States in development
and implementation of post-delisting monitoring programs, but we remain
responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must
remain actively engaged in all phases of post-delisting monitoring. We
also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to
assume responsibilities for the species' conservation post-delisting.
We prepared a PDM plan that describes the methods for monitoring
the species after its delisting. Monitoring of flowering plants at each
golden paintbrush site extant in 2018 will take place every other year,
over a minimum of 5 years, beginning the first spring after the
effective date of this final delisting rule (see DATES, above).
Monitoring efforts will be slightly modified from prior protocols, by
only requiring a visual estimation of population size when the
population clearly exceeds 1,000 flowering individuals but is fewer
than 10,000, or when a population clearly exceeds 10,000 flowering
individuals as opposed to an actual count or calculated estimate of
flowering plants. This modification should streamline monitoring
efforts. It is our intent to work with our partners to maintain the
recovered status of golden paintbrush. The final PDM plan can be found
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, environmental analyses pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) need not be prepared in connection with determining a species'
listing status under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
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 acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 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 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 Native American culture, and to make information available
to Tribes.
We do not believe that any Tribes will be affected by this rule,
and we did not receive any comments on our June 30, 2021, proposed rule
from a Tribe. There are currently no golden paintbrush sites on Tribal
lands, although some sites may lie within the usual and accustomed
places for Tribal collection and gathering of resources.
[[Page 46110]]
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2020-0060, or upon request from the State Supervisor, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff of the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in coordination with the Pacific
Regional Office in Portland, Oregon.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants by removing the entry for ``Castilleja levisecta''
under FLOWERING PLANTS.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14971 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 19, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.