[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34695-34711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13882]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201]
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.
[[Page 34696]]
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring
plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
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 is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. We request information and comments from the public
regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring
plan for the golden paintbrush.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or August 30,
2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES, below), must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by August 16, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2020-0060, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click
on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the
left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more details).
Document availability: This proposed rule and supporting documents,
including the species biological report and the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan, are available at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060.
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. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine a
plant species is no longer an endangered or threatened species, we
remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
(i.e., we ``delist'' it). A species is an ``endangered species'' for
purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if
it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The golden
paintbrush is listed as a threatened species. We are proposing to
remove this species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants (List), because we have determined that it no longer meets the
definition of a threatened species, nor does it meet the definition of
an endangered species. Delisting a species can only be completed by
issuing a rule.
What this document does. This rule proposes to remove (delist) the
golden paintbrush from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants under the Act because it no longer meets the definition of
either a threatened species or an endangered species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more
of the following five factors or the cumulative effects thereof: (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. 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 an endangered or threatened
species under the Act.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain
listed as threatened instead of being delisted, or we may conclude that
the species should remain listed and be reclassified as an endangered
species.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from governmental agencies, Native American
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons why we should, or should not, remove the golden
paintbrush from the List;
(2) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or
lack thereof) to the golden paintbrush, including threats related to
its pollinators;
(3) New information on any existing regulations addressing threats
or any of the other stressors to the golden paintbrush;
(4) New information on any efforts by States, tribes, or other
entities to protect or otherwise conserve the species;
(5) New information concerning the range, distribution, population
size, or population trends of this species;
(6) New information on the current or planned activities in the
habitat or range of the golden paintbrush that may have adverse or
beneficial impacts on the species; and
(7) Information pertaining to post-delisting monitoring of the
golden paintbrush.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information provided.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the
[[Page 34697]]
action under consideration without providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as, supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule and the draft
post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan, will be available for public
inspection on http://www.regulations.gov.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES, above. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Supporting Documents
Staff at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (WFWO), in
consultation with other species experts, prepared a species biological
report for golden paintbrush. 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.
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270), our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the Peer Review
Process, and the Office of Management and Budget's December 16, 2004,
Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (revised June 2012),
we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information
contained in the golden paintbrush species biological report (Service
2019). 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 report forms the
scientific basis for our 5-year status review and this proposed rule.
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. The comments and
recommendations of the peer reviewers have been incorporated into the
species biological report, as appropriate. In addition, we have posted
the peer reviews on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-
ES-2020-0060.
Previous Federal Actions
On May 10, 1994, we proposed to list the golden paintbrush as a
threatened species (59 FR 24106). On June 11, 1997, we finalized the
listing (62 FR 31740). 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 (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 https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1764.pdf.
On January 22, 2018, we initiated 5-year status reviews for 18
plant and animal species, including the golden paintbrush, and
requested information on the species' status (83 FR 3014). This
proposed rule follows from the recommendation of that 5-year review for
the golden paintbrush, as well as the data and analysis contained in
the species biological report (Service 2019).
Proposed Delisting Determination
Background
Below, we summarize information for the golden paintbrush directly
relevant to this proposed rule. For more information on the
description, biology, ecology, and habitat of the golden paintbrush,
please refer to the species biological report for golden paintbrush
(Castilleja levisecta), completed in June 2019 (Service 2019, entire).
The species biological report is available under Supporting Documents
on http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060. Other
relevant supporting documents are available on the golden paintbrush's
species profile page on the Environmental Conservation Online System
(ECOS) at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=7706.
Species Description and Habitat Information
The golden paintbrush is native to the northwestern United States
and southwest 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; Sheehan and
Sprague 1984; Gamon 1995). The taxonomy of the golden paintbrush as a
full species is widely accepted as valid by the scientific community
(ITIS 2020).
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,
[[Page 34698]]
pp. 10-17). Anecdotal observations suggest that it 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 golden paintbrush (Wentworth 1994, p. 5; Kolar and
Fessler 2006, in litt.; Waters 2018, in litt,; Kaye 2019, in litt.),
although sweat bees (Halictidea), 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/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 wild populations suggests 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).
Populations currently occur on the mainland in Washington and
Oregon, and on islands in Washington and British Columbia. 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 (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 2019, p. 23).
Currently, the species occurs within British Columbia, Washington,
and Oregon, representing, generally, four distinct 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 wild population of
golden paintbrush has been discovered across the species' range
(Service 2007, p. 6). All other new populations (referred to as sites
or populations established since the time of listing) 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 occurrences that remained at the
time of listing (wild sites) (Service 2019, p. 5).
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). 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). In 2018, a minimum of 48 sites were documented
(Service 2019, pp. 11-14). In Washington, there are 19 sites: 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
[[Page 34699]]
sites within the Willamette Valley. In British Columbia, there are
three extant sites, each located on a separate island. Of these 48
sites, only three are on private property (Service 2019, p. 12). The
remaining 45 golden paintbrush sites are in either public ownership,
are owned by a conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization, or
are under conservation easement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN21.001
[[Page 34700]]
Trends in abundance for the golden paintbrush have been
consistently monitored since 2004 (Fertig 2019, p. 14), with
refinements to monitoring protocols made in 2008 and 2011 (Arnett 2011,
entire). As a whole, abundance has substantially increased from
approximately 11,500 flowering plants in 2011, to over 560,000
flowering plants counted in 2018 (Fertig 2019, pp. 9-12). We attribute
this rapid increase in abundance 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 sites in
Washington and Oregon's Willamette Valley were established by
incorporating direct seeding. The current population abundance is not
necessarily reflective of the eventual long-term population level at a
site; however, as a number of reestablished sites are going through a
period of prairie development/progression and species succession. For
example, at some reestablished sites, abundance initially increased
over several years then dropped to about 15-20 percent of the peak
abundance (Fertig 2019, pp. 10-11, 15-21). Drops in abundance are
somewhat expected as the populations stabilize after direct seeding,
and we anticipate that the long-term population level at these re-
established sites will meet recovery criteria.
In contrast to the newly-established golden paintbrush sites, there
has been a steady decline in overall abundance at the original wild
sites (golden paintbrush occurrences that were extant at the time of
listing) since about 2012. Abundance at these sites dropped from just
over 15,500 flowering plants in 2012, to just over 5,600 flowering
plants in 2018 (Fertig 2019, p. 11).
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. 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 list.''
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
Here, we provide a summary of progress made toward achieving the
recovery criteria for the 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 20 years, so
some aspects of the plan may no longer reflect the best scientific
information available for the golden paintbrush. For example, we did
not anticipate the ability to rapidly establish large golden paintbrush
populations through direct seeding at the time the recovery plan was
developed.
Since about 2012, a significant increase in the number of new
populations has occurred, because of direct seeding within the
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 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
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).
[[Page 34701]]
While we did not officially amend or make an addendum to the recovery
plan to incorporate this recommendation, we accepted that this is the
best way to count population abundance and more recent surveys
(starting about 2007) for the species counted only flowering plants.
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: As of 2018, 23 populations averaged at least 1,000
individual plant per year over the 5-year period from 2013 to 2018. Of
these 23 populations, 8 had a 5-year running average of at least 1,000
individuals, and an additional 5 populations had a 3-year running
average of at least 1,000 individuals between 2016 and 2018 (Hanson
2019, in litt.). While this does 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. 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.
Six populations currently number in the tens of thousands of
individuals, the largest totaling just over 224,000 flowering plants
(Pigeon Butte on Finley National Wildlife Refuge) (Service 2019, pp.
28-29). Prior to listing, the largest known population totaled just
over 15,000 individuals (Rocky Prairie Natural Area Preserve) (62 FR
31740; June 11, 1997). Although it is likely that a number of the more
recently established populations are still undergoing some level of
stabilization, population abundance at eight sites is significantly
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). Populations
numbering in the tens of thousands of individuals have a significantly
higher level of viability and significantly lower risk of extirpation
than populations near 1,000 individuals.
Finally, there are now a minimum of 26 golden paintbrush
populations in western Oregon's Willamette Valley, and these
populations are distributed across at least three (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). Therefore, significant progress
has been made toward achieving this criterion, and at some sites, 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 six sites across
Washington and Oregon number in the tens of thousands of individuals
(Service 2019, pp. 12-13), which significantly surpasses the minimum
1,000 individual threshold. This 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, we now have the ability to rapidly create new
populations through direct seeding, which is something that was not
considered when we developed this recovery criterion.
Criterion 2 for Delisting
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 and/or managed by a government agency or private
conservation organization that identifies maintenance of the species as
the 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: 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 at least the next year (Service 2019, pp. 40, 42-
44). Additionally, 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 three sites in Washington and 14 sites in Oregon also support
other prairie-dependent species currently listed as endangered or
threatened, and another five 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 and/or restore native prairie or
grassland habitats (for additional detail on species management status
at sites, see discussion under Summary of Biological Status and
Threats, Factor A, below).
Criterion 3 for Delisting
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: 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 Center for Natural Lands Management and the Institute for
Applied Ecology 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 extant
populations at the time of listing to maintain existing genetic
diversity across the historical range and to allow for the greatest
opportunity for local adaptation at reintroduction sites.
[[Page 34702]]
Criterion 4 for Delisting
Post-delisting monitoring of the condition of the species and the
status of all individual populations is ready to begin.
Progress: We have developed a draft post-delisting monitoring plan
in cooperation with our lead State partner in Washington, Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and in Oregon, Oregon Department
of Agriculture. The draft post-delisting monitoring plan is available
for public review on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R1-ES-2020-0060. We anticipate that the WDNR's Natural Heritage Program
would coordinate future monitoring of the golden paintbrush if the
species is delisted. In the post-delisting monitoring plan, we propose
to monitor, at a minimum, all populations established and counted in
2018 that were identified in the species biological report (Service
2019, pp. 12-13). These populations would be monitored every other year
after final delisting for a 5-year period (i.e., years 1, 3, and 5).
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 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
Post-delisting procedures for the ecological management of habitats
for all populations have been initiated.
Progress: This criterion has not been met as phrased in the
recovery plan, because 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--more than the 20 populations originally envisioned
for these recovery criteria--meet this criterion. 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, but note that 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, Factor A, 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 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. The Service has developed a
strategy and guidance document for securing golden paintbrush sites and
has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with prairie
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) (for more on the conservation strategy, see discussion under
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, Factor E, 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
[[Page 34703]]
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 delisting
or downlisting 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 (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 sites (45 of
48), which occur on conserved/protected lands (Service 2019, p. 62).
Analytical Framework
The species biological report 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 on whether the species should be reclassified as a
threatened species 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 http://www.regulations.gov.
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
In this section, 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. 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 (on plants
and seeds) (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997). For our analysis, we assessed
their influence 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
according to species (e.g., mowing, prescribed fire, mechanical
removal, selective-herbicide application, restoration reseeding, etc.).
At least 24 of the 48 sites have prairie or grassland management plans
in place for the next 3 or more 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). Three golden paintbrush
sites in Washington also currently support other prairie- or grassland-
dependent species listed under the Act--the endangered Taylor's
[[Page 34704]]
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) and three 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 are included in designated critical habitat for
the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
Although these five critical habitat sites are currently unoccupied
by the butterfly, they were designated because they were found to be
essential to the conservation of Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (78 FR
61452; October 3, 2013). Specifically, these areas will be managed in a
way that is conducive for eventual reintroduction of Taylor's
checkerspot butterflies, which will maintain the prairie ecosystem
characteristics that are supportive of long-term conservation of the
golden paintbrush. 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--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 these 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 (see Factor D discussion, below).
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
ecosystems (Dunwiddie and Bakker 2011, entire; Center of 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 at 48 separate sites, as a result of
the numerous reintroduction efforts implemented to recover this
species. Only three of these sites are on lands possibly subject to
future development. The remaining 45 sites are all under some type of
public or conservation ownership (Service 2019, pp. 11-14). Of the 48
extant sites, 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 sites 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
sites is relatively small (less than 0.4 hectare (ha) (1 acre (ac)), 14
sites have from between 2 to 18.6 occupied ha (5 to 46 ac) (Service
2019, pp. 37-38). All but four sites have available land for future
golden paintbrush population expansion or shifts in distribution. Of
the 34 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
sites 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. 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 site. Concern
has also been noted regarding the direct harvesting of seed capsules
(Dunwiddie in litt. 2018). 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 sites, 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, if delisted, 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 sites, 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.
[[Page 34705]]
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). Deer
continue to exhibit significant herbivory on the golden paintbrush at
some sites; however, there is annual and site-specific variability in
the overall level of herbivory (Service 2019, p. 48). Herbivory impacts
from 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 and/or rabbits 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 sites that have
been successfully established since the species was listed, and because
the impact of herbivory is being successfully managed in at least a
portion of those sites where noted as significant (potential site/
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 is unlikely to
become a threat to the species in the foreseeable future.
Hybridization
A potential threat to the golden paintbrush identified after the
species was listed in 1997 was the impact of hybridization with the
harsh paintbrush (Castilleja hispida). 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 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 seemingly preserved 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. 2020). We have also
entered into an associated MOU with the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife and WDNR to ensure the strategy is implemented as agreed
to by all prairie conservation partners in the range of the golden
paintbrush. 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. 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.
Climate Change
At the time of listing, the potential impacts of climate change on
the golden paintbrush was 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 in 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 (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 and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2013, 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
[[Page 34706]]
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
(Dalton et al. 2013, pp. 31-38, Figure 1.1; Snover et al. 2013, pp. 5-
1-5-4).
According to the NatureServe Climate Vulnerability Index, the
golden paintbrush has experienced mean annual precipitation variation
over the last 50 years ranging from 53 cm to 130 cm (21 to 51 in),
resulting in a rating of ``Somewhat Decreased Vulnerability'' to
climate change (Young et al. 2011, pp. 26-27; Gamon 2014, pp. 1, 5;
Climate Change Sensitivity Database 2014, in litt., p. 4). 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). Even
though 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 meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act.
Knowledge regarding the vulnerability of the species to, and known or
anticipated impacts from, climate-associated changes in environmental
conditions can be used to help devise appropriate conservation
strategies.
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 is drought conditions resulting in inconsistent growing
seasons. This effect will likely be buffered by the ability of the
golden paintbrush to survive in a range of soil conditions, 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. However, there are limited data at this time to indicate
this is a specific and present threat to the golden paintbrush.
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. The golden paintbrush may experience climate change-
related effects in the future, most likely at the individual or local
population scale. Regional occurrences may experience some shifts;
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
geographic distribution in a variety of ecological settings; (2)
available information indicates the golden paintbrush is somewhat
adaptable to some level of future variation in climatic conditions
(Service 2019, pp. 22-25, 45); (3) there are ongoing efforts to expand
the golden paintbrush to additional suitable sites; and (4) we now have
the technical ability to readily establish populations, which could
help to mitigate any future population losses. Therefore, based upon
the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude
that climate change does not currently pose a significant threat, nor
is it likely to become a significant threat in the foreseeable future
(next 30 years), to the golden paintbrush.
Voluntary and Regulatory Conservation Mechanisms
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into
account ``those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign
nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to
protect such species.'' We interpret this language to require us to
consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and
other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats or otherwise
enhance conservation of the species. We give the strongest weight to
statutes and their implementing regulations and to management direction
that stems from those laws and regulations; an example would be State
governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution or
Federal action under the statute.
For currently 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. At the time of listing (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 species biological report (Service
2019), 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
National Environmental Policy Act--The National Environmental
Policy Act requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental
effects of their proposed actions (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Federal agency NEPA analyses may identify and disclose potential
effects of Federal actions on the golden paintbrush if the species is
delisted. However, NEPA does not require that adverse impacts be
mitigated, only disclosed. Therefore, it is unclear what level of
protection would be conveyed to the golden paintbrush through NEPA, in
the absence of protections under the Act.
Sikes Act--One golden paintbrush site currently occurs on a Federal
military installation (Forbes Point, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island
in Island County, Washington) and is managed under an integrated
natural resources management plan (INRMP) (USDOD 2012, pp. 4-6)
authorized by the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.). 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
[[Page 34707]]
and hand-cutting competing shrubs from the area, outplanting nursery-
grown plants from seeds previously collected on site, and implementing
additional habitat management actions that are identified in the future
to enhance the golden paintbrush population such as control burns or
herbicide control of competing vegetation (USDOD 2012, pp. 3-5). 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
reservations.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act--Ten golden
paintbrush sites 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 occupied sites, 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 occupied site.
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, 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 site 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, as amended (39 Stat. 535), states the NPS shall promote
and regulate the use of the National Park system ``to conserve the
scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life'' 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)(i) and (a)(1)(ii), NPS
regulations specifically prohibit possessing, destroying, injuring,
defacing, removing, digging, or disturbing from its natural state
living or dead wildlife, fish, or plants, or 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 if we delist the golden paintbrush.
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 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
[[Page 34708]]
designation (species are in danger of extinction across their range,
including Washington) in 2011 (WDNR 2018b, in litt. p. 2). If we delist
the golden paintbrush, WDNR may assign the species a priority 3
designation (species that are vulnerable or declining and could become
threatened without active management or removal of threats to their
existence) in the next iteration of their plan, which may result in
WDNR expending less effort in the continued conservation of the golden
paintbrush. However, 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--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 (Washington Administrative Code
2016, entire). 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 Park 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 Park 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 (Oregon Revised Statutes 2017, entire). 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. 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;
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).
Golden paintbrush sites are well-distributed across the species'
historical range and provide representation across the four distinct
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 level of redundancy within British Columbia. The resiliency
of the golden paintbrush is more variable across the historical range
given differences in site or population abundance, level of management
at a site, and site condition, but overall most sites appear to be in
moderate and high condition. The best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that the golden paintbrush is composed of multiple
populations, primarily in moderate to high condition (Service 2019, p.
63), which are sufficiently resilient, well-distributed (redundancy and
representation), largely protected, and managed such that they will be
relatively robust or resilient to any potential cumulative effects to
which they may be exposed.
Determination of Golden Paintbrush 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''
[[Page 34709]]
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.'' For a more detailed discussion on the factors considered when
determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species and our analysis on how we determine
the foreseeable future in making these decisions, please see Regulatory
and Analytical Framework.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the 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 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 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
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 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
future. Hybridization with the harsh paintbrush (Factor E) is
adequately managed, and existing information indicates this condition
is unlikely to change in the future. Finally, golden paintbrush appears
to tolerate the effects of climate change (Factor E), and existing
information indicates that this condition is unlikely to change in the
future. 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, or 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 consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is endangered or threatened.
For golden paintbrush, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. 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 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 potential
stressor is being addressed throughout the species' range with the
hybridization strategy and guidance. We found no concentration of
threats in any portion of the golden paintbrush's range at a
biologically meaningful scale. Therefore, no portion of the species'
range can provide a basis for determining that the species is in danger
of extinction now, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, in
a significant portion of its range, and we find 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 is consistent
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the
Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d,
946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).
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
propose to remove the golden paintbrush from the List.
Effects of the Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by
removing the golden paintbrush from the List. The prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to the golden paintbrush.
Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with the
Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the golden paintbrush. There
is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there would be
no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to implement a system to
monitor effectively, for not less than 5 years, all species that have
been recovered and delisted (50 CFR 17.11, 17.12). The purpose of this
post-delisting
[[Page 34710]]
monitoring is to verify that a species remains secure from the risk of
extinction after it has been removed from the protections of the Act.
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 propose to delist the golden paintbrush in light of new
information available and recovery actions taken. We prepared a draft
post-delisting monitoring plan that describes the methods proposed for
monitoring the species, if it is removed from the List. Monitoring of
flowering plants at each golden paintbrush site extant in 2018 would
take place every other year, over a minimum of 5 years after final
delisting. Proposed monitoring efforts would be slightly modified from
prior protocols, by only requiring a visual estimation of population
size when clearly numbering >1,000 but <10,000, or >=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. With publication of this
proposed rule, we seek public and peer review comments on the draft
post-delisting monitoring plan, including its objectives and methods
(see Public Comments, above). The draft post-delisting monitoring plan
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2020-0060.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 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 Secretarial 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 would be affected if we adopt
this rule as proposed. 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. We
welcome input from potentially affected Tribes on our proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov 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 proposed rule are the staff of the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office.
Signing Authority
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha
Williams, Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority
of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document
on June 21, 2021, for publication.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Castilleja
levisecta'' under
[[Page 34711]]
FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Anissa Craghead,
Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics,
Risk Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-13882 Filed 6-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P