Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34695

§ 9.19 Reliability of covered 911 service digital reception are well-documented, which can be found in § 1.1204(a) of the providers. and that the Commission has recognized Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a). (a) * * * the deleterious effects of manmade See §§ 1.415 and 1.420 of the (4) * * * noise on the reception of digital VHF Commission’s rules for information (i) * * * signals. The Petitioner also believes that regarding the proper filing procedures (B) Operates one or more central the channel substitution will allow for for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. offices that directly serve a PSAP. For more efficient construction of WVPT’s List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 purposes of this section, a central office post-incentive auction facilities. The directly serves a PSAP if it hosts a Petitioner explains that it initially Television. selective router or ALI/ANI database, planned to retune WVPT’s existing Federal Communications Commission. provides equivalent NG911 capabilities, Distributed Transmission System (DTS) Thomas Horan, or is the last service-provider facility transmitters from channel *11 to Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. through which a 911 trunk or channel *12, its repacked channel. The administrative line (i.e., a business line transmitter and antenna manufacturers, Proposed Rule or line group that connects to a PSAP however, were unable to support the For the reasons discussed in the but is not used as the default or primary planned retuning effort. Meanwhile, a preamble, the Federal Communications route over which 911 calls are structural analysis of WVPT’s existing Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR transmitted to the PSAP) passes before tower revealed that it could not support part 73 as follows: connecting to a PSAP. a replacement antenna for VHF channel * * * * * 12. According to the Petitioner, the PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST [FR Doc. 2021–13974 Filed 6–29–21; 8:45 am] tower can support a lighter weight UHF SERVICES antenna, and thus, allowing WVPT to BILLING CODE 6712–01–P ■ move to channel *15 will obviate the 1. The authority citation for part 73 need to construct a new tower, saving continues to read as follows: FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS both time and money. It further states Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, COMMISSION that the proposed channel *15 facility 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. will result in a net gain of 56,814 ■ 2. In § 73.622(i), amend the Post- 47 CFR Part 73 people, and while there is a loss area of Transition Table of DTV Allotments [MB Docket No. 21–248; RM–11910; DA 21– 27,033 people, only seven people would under Virginia by revising the entry for 694; FR ID 34410] lose their only PBS noncommercial Staunton to read as follows: educational service, a number the Television Broadcasting Services Commission considers de minimis. § 73.622 Digital television table of Staunton, Virginia This is a synopsis of the allotments. Commission’s Notice of Proposed * * * * * AGENCY: Federal Communications Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21–248; (i) * * * Commission. RM–11910; DA 21–694, adopted June ACTION: Proposed rule. 15, 2021, and released June 15, 2021. Community Channel No. The full text of this document is SUMMARY: The Commission has before it available for download at https:// a petition for rulemaking filed by VPM ***** www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials Media Corporation (Petitioner), the in accessible formats (braille, large Virginia licensee of noncommercial educational print, computer diskettes, or audio television station WVPT (PBS), channel recordings), please send an email to *11, Staunton, Virginia. The Petitioner [email protected] or call the Consumer & ***** requests the substitution of channel *15 Government Affairs Bureau at (202) for channel *11 at Staunton in the DTV Staunton ...... * 15 418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432 Table of Allotments. (TTY). ***** DATES: Comments must be filed on or This document does not contain before July 30, 2021 and reply information collection requirements [FR Doc. 2021–13564 Filed 6–29–21; 8:45 am] comments on or before August 16, 2021. subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act BILLING CODE 6712–01–P ADDRESSES: Federal Communications of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 therefore, it does not contain any L Street NE, , DC 20554. In proposed information collection burden DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR addition to filing comments with the ‘‘for small business concerns with fewer FCC, interested parties should serve than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Service counsel for the Petitioner as follows: Ari Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of Meltzer, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 50 CFR Part 17 Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0060; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 612, do not apply to this proceeding. 418–1647; or at [email protected]. Members of the public should note RIN 1018–BE72 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support that all ex parte contacts are prohibited Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of its channel substitution request, the from the time a Notice of Proposed and ; Removing Golden Petitioner states that the proposed Rulemaking is issued to the time the Paintbrush From the Federal List of channel substitution would resolve matter is no longer subject to Endangered and Threatened Plants significant over the air reception Commission consideration or court problems in the WVPT service area. The review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Petitioner states that the challenges of however, exceptions to this prohibition, Interior.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 34696 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of Document availability: This proposed existence. Based on an assessment of the draft post-delisting monitoring plan. rule and supporting documents, best available information regarding the including the species biological report status of and threats to the golden SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and and the draft post-delisting monitoring paintbrush, we have determined that the Wildlife Service (Service), propose to plan, are available at http:// species no longer meets the definition of remove the golden paintbrush ( www.regulations.gov under Docket No. an endangered or threatened species levisecta) from the Federal List of FWS–R1–ES–2020–0060. under the Act. Endangered and Threatened Plants as it FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Because we will consider all no longer meets the definition of an Direct all questions or requests for comments and information we receive endangered or threatened species under additional information to: GOLDEN during the comment period, our final the Act of 1973, as PAINTBRUSH QUESTIONS, Brad determination may differ from this amended (Act). The golden paintbrush Thompson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish proposal. Based on the new information is a flowering native to and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish we receive (and any comments on that southwestern British Columbia, western and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive new information), we may conclude that Washington, and western Oregon. Our SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503; the species should remain listed as review of the best available scientific telephone: 360–753–9440. If you use a threatened instead of being delisted, or and commercial data indicates threats to telecommunications device for the deaf we may conclude that the species the golden paintbrush have been (TDD), please call the Federal Relay should remain listed and be reclassified eliminated or reduced to the point that Service at 800–877–8339. as an endangered species. the species is not in danger of or likely to become so in the foreseeable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Requested future. We request information and Executive Summary Public Comments comments from the public regarding Why we need to publish a rule. Under this proposed rule and the draft post- We intend that any final action the Act, if we determine a plant species delisting monitoring plan for the golden resulting from this proposed rule will be is no longer an endangered or paintbrush. based on the best scientific and threatened species, we remove it from commercial data available and be as DATES: We will accept comments the Federal List of Endangered and accurate and as effective as possible. received or postmarked on or August 30, Threatened Plants (i.e., we ‘‘delist’’ it). Therefore, we request comments or 2021. Comments submitted A species is an ‘‘endangered species’’ information from governmental electronically using the Federal for purposes of the Act if it is in danger agencies, Native American Tribes, the eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, of extinction throughout all or a scientific community, industry, or any below), must be received by 11:59 p.m. significant portion of its range and is a other interested parties concerning this Eastern Time on the closing date. We ‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely to proposed rule. must receive requests for a public become an endangered species within We particularly seek comments hearing, in writing, at the address the foreseeable future throughout all or concerning: shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION a significant portion of its range. The (1) Reasons why we should, or should CONTACT by August 16, 2021. golden paintbrush is listed as a not, remove the golden paintbrush from ADDRESSES: You may submit written threatened species. We are proposing to the List; comments by one of the following remove this species from the Federal (2) New biological or other relevant methods: List of Endangered and Threatened data concerning any threat (or lack Plants (List), because we have thereof) to the golden paintbrush, (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal determined that it no longer meets the including threats related to its eRulemaking Portal: http:// definition of a threatened species, nor pollinators; www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, does it meet the definition of an (3) New information on any existing enter Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020– endangered species. Delisting a species regulations addressing threats or any of 0060, which is the docket number for can only be completed by issuing a rule. the other stressors to the golden this rulemaking. Then, click on the What this document does. This rule paintbrush; Search button. On the resulting page, in proposes to remove (delist) the golden (4) New information on any efforts by the Search panel on the left side of the paintbrush from the Federal List of States, tribes, or other entities to protect screen, under the Document Type Endangered and Threatened Plants or otherwise conserve the species; heading, check the Proposed Rule box to under the Act because it no longer (5) New information concerning the locate this document. You may submit meets the definition of either a range, distribution, population size, or a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment threatened species or an endangered population trends of this species; Now!’’ species. (6) New information on the current or (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail The basis for our action. Under the planned activities in the habitat or range to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Act, we can determine that a species is of the golden paintbrush that may have FWS–R1–ES–2020–0060, U.S. Fish and an endangered or threatened species adverse or beneficial impacts on the Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 based on any one or more of the species; and Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– following five factors or the cumulative (7) Information pertaining to post- 3803. effects thereof: (A) The present or delisting monitoring of the golden We request that you send comments threatened destruction, modification, or paintbrush. only by the methods described above. curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Please include sufficient information We will post all comments on http:// overutilization for commercial, with your submission (such as scientific www.regulations.gov. This generally recreational, scientific, or educational journal articles or other publications) to means that we will post any personal purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) allow us to verify any scientific or information you provide us (see the inadequacy of existing regulatory commercial information provided. Information Requested, below, for more mechanisms; or (E) other natural or Please note that submissions merely details). manmade factors affecting its continued stating support for, or opposition to, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34697

action under consideration without negative and beneficial) affecting the for the golden paintbrush, as well as the providing supporting information, species. data and analysis contained in the although noted, will not be considered In accordance with our July 1, 1994, species biological report (Service 2019). in making a determination, as section peer review policy (59 FR 34270), our Proposed Delisting Determination 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et August 22, 2016, Director’s Memo on seq.) directs that determinations as to the Peer Review Process, and the Office Background whether any species is an endangered or of Management and Budget’s December Below, we summarize information for threatened species must be made 16, 2004, Final Information Quality the golden paintbrush directly relevant ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific Bulletin for Peer Review (revised June to this proposed rule. For more 2012), we solicited independent and commercial data available.’’ information on the description, biology, You may submit your comments and scientific reviews of the information ecology, and habitat of the golden materials concerning the proposed rule contained in the golden paintbrush paintbrush, please refer to the species by one of the methods listed in species biological report (Service 2019). biological report for golden paintbrush ADDRESSES. We request that you send We sent the report to four appropriate (Castilleja levisecta), completed in June comments only by the methods and independent specialists with 2019 (Service 2019, entire). The species described in ADDRESSES. knowledge of the biology and ecology of biological report is available under If you submit information via http:// the golden paintbrush and received Supporting Documents on http:// www.regulations.gov, your entire three responses. The report forms the www.regulations.gov in Docket No. submission—including any personal scientific basis for our 5-year status identifying information—will be posted review and this proposed rule. The FWS–R1–ES–2020–0060. Other relevant on the website. If your submission is purpose of peer review is to ensure that supporting documents are available on made via a hardcopy that includes our determination regarding the status the golden paintbrush’s species profile personal identifying information, you of the species under the Act is based on page on the Environmental may request at the top of your document scientifically sound data, assumptions, Conservation Online System (ECOS) at that we withhold this information from and analyses. The comments and https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/ public review. However, we cannot recommendations of the peer reviewers speciesProfile?sId=7706. guarantee that we will be able to do so. have been incorporated into the species Species Description and Habitat We will post all hardcopy submissions biological report, as appropriate. In Information on http://www.regulations.gov. addition, we have posted the peer Comments and materials we receive, reviews on http://www.regulations.gov The golden paintbrush is native to the as well as, supporting documentation under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020– northwestern United States and we used in preparing this proposed rule 0060. southwest British Columbia. It has been and the draft post-delisting monitoring historically reported from more than 30 Previous Federal Actions (PDM) plan, will be available for public sites from , British inspection on http:// On May 10, 1994, we proposed to list Columbia, to the Willamette Valley of www.regulations.gov. the golden paintbrush as a threatened Oregon (Hitchcock et al., 1959; Sheehan species (59 FR 24106). On June 11, and Sprague 1984; Gamon 1995). The Public Hearing 1997, we finalized the listing (62 FR of the golden paintbrush as a Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 31740). The final rule included a full species is widely accepted as valid a public hearing on this proposal, if determination that the designation of by the scientific community (ITIS 2020). requested. Requests must be received by critical habitat for the golden paintbrush The golden paintbrush is a short-lived the date specified in DATES, above. Such was not prudent. perennial herb formerly included in the requests must be sent to the address In August 2000, we finalized a figwort or snapdragon family shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION recovery plan for the species (Service (Scrophulariaceae), with current CONTACT. We will schedule a public 2000, entire), which we supplemented classification in the hearing on this proposal, if requested, in May 2010 with the final recovery family. The genus Castilleja is and announce the date, time, and place plan for the prairie species of western hemiparasitic, with roots of of the hearing, as well as how to obtain Oregon and southwestern Washington paintbrushes capable of forming reasonable accommodations, in the (Service 2010, entire). parasitic connections to roots of other Federal Register and local newspapers On July 6, 2005, we initiated 5-year plants; however, paintbrush plants are at least 15 days before the hearing. For reviews for 33 plant and animal species, probably not host-specific (Mills and the immediate future, we will provide including the golden paintbrush, under Kummerow 1988, entire) and can grow these public hearings using webinars section 4(c)(2) of the Act (70 FR 38972). successfully, though not as well, even that will be announced on the Service’s The 5-year status review, completed in without a host. Golden paintbrush has website, in addition to the Federal September 2007 (Service 2007, entire), superior performance (survival, height, Register. The use of these virtual public resulted in a recommendation to number of flowering stems, number of hearings is consistent with our maintain the status of the golden fruiting stems, number of seed capsules) regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). paintbrush as threatened. The 2007 5- where it co-occurs with certain prairie year status review is available on the species, including several perennial Supporting Documents Service’s website at https:// native forbs (e.g., common woolly Staff at the Washington Fish and ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/ sunflower or Oregon sunshine Wildlife Office (WFWO), in consultation doc1764.pdf. (Eriophyllum lanatum) and common with other species experts, prepared a On January 22, 2018, we initiated 5- yarrow (Achillea millefolium)), as well species biological report for golden year status reviews for 18 plant and as species in other functional groups, paintbrush. The report represents a animal species, including the golden including grasses (e.g., Roemer’s fescue compilation of the best scientific and paintbrush, and requested information (Festuca roemeri) and California commercial data available concerning on the species’ status (83 FR 3014). This oatgrass (Danthonia californica)) and the status of the species, including the proposed rule follows from the shrubs (e.g., snowberry impacts of past and present factors (both recommendation of that 5-year review (Symphoricarpos albus)) (Schmidt 2016,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 34698 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules

pp. 10–17). Anecdotal observations different years with seed from various of golden paintbrush plants year-to-year suggest that it grows poorly when wild populations suggests that (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 1). associated with annual grasses (Gamon germination rates can vary extremely Range, Distribution, Abundance, and 1995, p. 17). widely both between sites and between Trends of Golden Paintbrush Individual golden paintbrush plants years (Wentworth 1994, entire). have a median survival of 1 to 5 years, Germination tests also revealed that The golden paintbrush is endemic to but some plants can survive for more seeds likely remain viable in the wild the , historically than a decade (Service 2019, p. 7). for several years (Wentworth 1994, p. occurring from southeastern Vancouver Plants are up to 30 centimeters (cm) (12 17). Island and adjacent islands in British inches (in)) tall and are covered with Individuals of the golden paintbrush Columbia, Canada, to the San Juan soft, somewhat sticky hairs. Stems may require open prairie soils, near-bedrock Islands and Puget Trough in western be erect or spreading, in the latter case soils, or clayey alluvial soils with Washington and into the Willamette giving the appearance of being several suitable host plants. These suitable Valley of western Oregon (Fertig 2019, plants, especially when in tall grass. habitats occur from zero to 100 meters p. 23). The lower leaves are broader, with one (330 feet) above sea level (Service 2000, Currently, the species occurs within to three pairs of short lateral lobes. The p. 5). The golden paintbrush may have British Columbia, Washington, and are softly hairy and sticky, golden historically grown in deeper soils, but Oregon, representing, generally, four yellow, and about the same width as the nearly all of these soils within the distinct geographic areas (British upper leaves. known range of the species have been Columbia, North , South Golden paintbrush plants typically converted to agriculture (Lawrence and Puget Sound, and the Willamette emerge in early March, with flowering Kaye 2006, p. 150; Dunwiddie and Valley). The species’ historical generally beginning the last week in Martin 2016, p. 1). distribution—before European April and continuing until early June. Populations currently occur on the settlement and modern development in Most plants complete flowering by early mainland in Washington and Oregon, the Pacific Northwest—is unknown. to mid-June, although occasionally and on islands in Washington and However, the species’ current plants flower throughout the summer British Columbia. Mainland and island distribution is generally representative and into October. Based on historical populations form two broad categories of the areas where we suspect the collections and observations, flowering of populations that can vary slightly in species occurred historically. seems to occur at about the same time habitat setting. Individuals in mainland Since its Federal listing in 1997, only throughout the species’ range. populations are found in open, one new wild population of golden Individual plants of golden paintbrush undulating remnant prairies dominated paintbrush has been discovered across typically need pollinators to set seed. by Roemer’s fescue and red fescue the species’ range (Service 2007, p. 6). Bumble bee species (Bombus) appear to () on gravelly or clayey All other new populations (referred to be the most common pollinators visiting glacial outwash. Individuals in island as sites or populations established since golden paintbrush (Wentworth 1994, p. populations are often on the upper the time of listing) across the range are 5; Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt.; Waters slopes or rims of steep, southwest- or the result of reintroductions through 2018, in litt,; Kaye 2019, in litt.), west-facing sandy bluffs that are outplanting or direct seeding. Seeds although sweat bees (Halictidea), miner exposed to salt spray. Individuals in used to grow plugs for outplanting, and bee (Andrena chlorogaster), syrphid fly island populations may also occur on plant stock for seed production, were (Eristalis hirta), and bee fly (Bombylius remnant coastal prairie flats on glacial derived from occurrences that remained major) have also been observed visiting deposits of sandy loam. Island prairies at the time of listing (wild sites) (Service golden paintbrush plants (Kolar and may have historically been dominated 2019, p. 5). Fessler 2006, in litt.; Waters 2018, in by forbs and foothill sedge (Carex At the time of listing (see 62 FR litt,). tumulicola) rather than grasses (WDNR 31740; June 11, 1997), there were 10 Fruits typically mature from late June 2004b, pp. 11, 17); however, many known golden paintbrush populations: through July, with seed capsules island sites are now dominated by red 8 in Washington and 2 in British beginning to open and disperse seed in fescue or weedy forbs. All golden Columbia. No golden paintbrush August. By mid-July, plants at most sites paintbrush sites are subject to populations were known from Oregon at are in senescence (the process of encroachment by woody vegetation if the time of listing (Sheehan and Sprague deterioration with age), although this not managed. 1984, pp. 8–9; WDNR 2004b). Despite can vary considerably depending on Historically, fire was significant in its limited geographic range and available moisture. Capsules persist on maintaining open prairie conditions in isolation of populations, the golden the plants well into the winter, and parts of the range of the golden paintbrush retained exceptionally high often retain seed into the following paintbrush (Boyd 1986, p. 82; Gamon levels of genetic diversity, possibly spring. Seeds are likely shaken from the 1995, p. 14; Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. because there were several large seed capsules by wind, with most 162). The golden paintbrush is a poor populations that remained (Godt et al. falling a short distance from the parent competitor, intolerant of shade cast by 2005, p. 87). plant (Godt et al. 2005, p. 88). The seeds encroaching tall nonnatives and litter Since its Federal listing, the are light (approximately 8,000 seeds/ duff in fire-suppressed prairies. Native distribution and abundance of golden gram) and could possibly be dispersed perennial communities are likely to paintbrush have increased significantly short distances by wind (Kaye et al. support more host species appropriate as a result of outplanting (seeding or 2012, p. 7). Additionally, there is at for the golden paintbrush than those plugging). In 2018, a minimum of 48 least one reported instance of short- dominated by nonnative annuals sites were documented (Service 2019, distance movement of seeds via vole (Lawrence and Kaye 2011, p. 173). pp. 11–14). In Washington, there are 19 activity (Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt.). Thus, habitats with low presence of sites: 5 in the South Puget Sound prairie Therefore, natural colonization of new nonnative annuals and high presence of landscape, 6 in the San Juan Islands, 7 sites would likely occur only over short a diverse assemblage of perennial, on Whidbey Island, and 1 near distances as plants disperse from native prairie species are more likely to Dungeness Bay in the Strait of Juan de established sites. Germination tests in provide the best conditions for survival Fuca. In Oregon, there are 26 extant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34699

sites within the Willamette Valley. In private property (Service 2019, p. 12). nongovernmental organization, or are British Columbia, there are three extant The remaining 45 golden paintbrush under conservation easement. sites, each located on a separate island. sites are in either public ownership, are Of these 48 sites, only three are on owned by a conservation-oriented,

Current Distribution ofGolden Paintbrush Populations

.Uf"OVW

LEGEND

® Wild sll¢(eldaiit' !rt)997) * ~~di~ kiiom!!ters /\./Highways O 25 50 100 1 ·,, , .. , 1., .. , I I ■ Major Cities I I [I.I I I 01530 60 ['.] Stites Miles Q Counties D Bl'itish Columbia

Figure 1. Extant sites ("populations") of golden paintbrush across the species' known range.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP30JN21.001 34700 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Trends in abundance for the golden condition. However, they are not direct seeding within the historical paintbrush have been consistently regulatory documents and do not range in Washington and Oregon, with monitored since 2004 (Fertig 2019, p. substitute for the determinations and perhaps the most significant being the 14), with refinements to monitoring promulgation of regulations required reestablishment of the golden protocols made in 2008 and 2011 under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A paintbrush at a number of sites in (Arnett 2011, entire). As a whole, decision to revise the status of a species, Oregon’s Willamette Valley, where the abundance has substantially increased or to delist a species is ultimately based species was once extirpated. In addition from approximately 11,500 flowering on an analysis of the best scientific and to improved propagation techniques, plants in 2011, to over 560,000 commercial data available to determine substantial research has been conducted flowering plants counted in 2018 (Fertig whether a species is no longer an on the population biology, fire ecology, 2019, pp. 9–12). We attribute this rapid endangered species or a threatened and restoration of the golden paintbrush increase in abundance to the species, regardless of whether that (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, entire; Gamon development of direct seeding information differs from the recovery 2001, entire; Kaye 2001, entire; Kaye techniques for establishing new plan. and Lawrence 2003, entire; Swenerton populations, as opposed to outplanting There are many paths to 2003, entire; Wayne 2004, entire; WDNR individual plants (or plugs) grown in accomplishing recovery of a species, 2004b, entire; Lawrence 2005, entire; greenhouses. Most of the sites in and recovery may be achieved without Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, entire; Washington and Oregon’s Willamette all of the criteria in a recovery plan Lawrence 2015, entire; Schmidt 2016, Valley were established by being fully met. For example, one or entire). incorporating direct seeding. The more criteria may be exceeded while The results of these studies have been current population abundance is not other criteria may not yet be used to guide management of the necessarily reflective of the eventual accomplished. In that instance, we may species at sites being managed for native long-term population level at a site; determine that the threats are prairie and grassland . Active however, as a number of reestablished minimized sufficiently and that the management to promote the golden sites are going through a period of species is robust enough that it no paintbrush is being done to varying prairie development/progression and longer meets the definition of an degrees (from targeted to infrequent) species succession. For example, at endangered species or a threatened across prairie and grassland sites. An some reestablished sites, abundance species. In other cases, we may discover active seed production program has initially increased over several years new recovery opportunities after having been maintained to provide golden then dropped to about 15–20 percent of finalized the recovery plan. Parties paintbrush seeds and other native the peak abundance (Fertig 2019, pp. seeking to conserve the species may use prairie plant seeds to land managers for 10–11, 15–21). Drops in abundance are these opportunities instead of methods population augmentation and somewhat expected as the populations identified in the recovery plan. restoration projects across the species’ stabilize after direct seeding, and we Likewise, we may learn new range in Washington and Oregon. anticipate that the long-term population information about the species after we Additionally, as recommended by the level at these re-established sites will finalize the recovery plan. The new recovery plan for the golden paintbrush meet recovery criteria. information may change the extent to (Service 2000, p. 31), the State of In contrast to the newly-established which existing criteria are appropriate Washington prepared a reintroduction golden paintbrush sites, there has been for identifying recovery of the species. plan for the Service as both internal and a steady decline in overall abundance at The recovery of a species is a dynamic external guidance (WDNR 2004a, the original wild sites (golden process requiring adaptive management entire). paintbrush occurrences that were extant that may, or may not, follow all of the Below are the delisting criteria at the time of listing) since about 2012. guidance provided in a recovery plan. described in the 2000 golden paintbrush Abundance at these sites dropped from Here, we provide a summary of recovery plan (Service 2000, p. 24), as just over 15,500 flowering plants in progress made toward achieving the supplemented in 2010, and the progress 2012, to just over 5,600 flowering plants recovery criteria for the golden made to date in achieving each in 2018 (Fertig 2019, p. 11). paintbrush. More detailed information criterion. related to conservation efforts can be Criterion 1 for Delisting Recovery Criteria found below under Summary of Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to Biological Status and Threats. We There are at least 20 stable develop and implement recovery plans completed a final recovery plan for the populations distributed throughout the for the conservation and survival of golden paintbrush in 2000 (Service historical range of the species. To be endangered and threatened species 2000, entire), and later supplemented deemed stable, a population must unless we determine that such a plan the plan for part of the species’ range in maintain a 5-year ‘running’ average will not promote the conservation of the 2010 (Service 2010, entire). The 2000 population size of at least 1,000 species. Recovery plans must, to the plan includes objective, measurable individuals, where the actual count maximum extent practicable, include criteria for delisting; however, the plan never falls below 1,000 individuals in ‘‘objective, measurable criteria which, has not been updated for 20 years, so any year. The golden paintbrush when met, would result in a some aspects of the plan may no longer technical team recommended in the determination, in accordance with the reflect the best scientific information 2007 5-year status review that this provisions [of section 4 of the Act], that available for the golden paintbrush. For criterion should be modified. Because it the species be removed from the list.’’ example, we did not anticipate the is impractical to count individual Recovery plans provide a roadmap for ability to rapidly establish large golden vegetative plants, the team us and our partners on methods of paintbrush populations through direct recommended that the criterion should enhancing conservation and minimizing seeding at the time the recovery plan be modified to specifically account for threats to listed species, as well as was developed. a recovered population as equal to 1,000 measurable criteria against which to Since about 2012, a significant flowering individuals and known to be evaluate progress towards recovery and increase in the number of new stable or increasing as evidenced by assess the species’ likely future populations has occurred, because of population trends (Service 2007, p. 3).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34701

While we did not officially amend or level of viability and significantly lower from development and land use that make an addendum to the recovery plan risk of extirpation than populations near would have long-term, wide-ranging to incorporate this recommendation, we 1,000 individuals. deleterious effects on this species. accepted that this is the best way to Finally, there are now a minimum of Additionally, 37 sites currently have count population abundance and more 26 golden paintbrush populations in management practices that at least recent surveys (starting about 2007) for western Oregon’s Willamette Valley, preserve essential characteristics of the species counted only flowering and these populations are distributed golden paintbrush habitat, and 24 sites plants. across at least three (Corvallis West, have management plans and resources The Service supplemented this Salem West, Portland, Eugene West) of for their implementation for at least the criterion in its 2010 recovery plan for the recovery zones (Kaye 2019, pp. 11– next year (Service 2019, pp. 40, 42–44). the prairie species of western Oregon 23) identified in the 2010 supplement to Additionally, two of the five and southwestern Washington by the species’ recovery plan (Service 2010, conservation easement sites are also identifying locations for golden pp. IV–4, IV–37). Therefore, significant enrolled in the Service’s Partners for paintbrush reintroductions, specifically progress has been made toward Fish and Wildlife Program, which to establish five additional populations achieving this criterion, and at some provides technical and financial distributed across at least three of the sites, the progress is well beyond assistance to private landowners to following recovery zones: Southwest numerical levels that were anticipated restore, enhance, and manage private Washington, Portland, Salem East, at the time of recovery criteria land to improve native habitat. At least Salem West, Corvallis East, Corvallis development. Although we three sites in Washington and 14 sites West, Eugene East, and Eugene West. acknowledge annual variability of in Oregon also support other prairie- Priority was given to reestablishing abundance across sites, at least six sites dependent species currently listed as populations in zones with historical across Washington and Oregon number endangered or threatened, and another records of golden paintbrush (Southwest in the tens of thousands of individuals five are part of designated critical Washington, Portland, Salem East, (Service 2019, pp. 12–13), which habitat for one of these species. Corvallis East) (Service 2010, p. IV–37). significantly surpasses the minimum Therefore, we anticipate prairie Progress: As of 2018, 23 populations 1,000 individual threshold. This management or maintenance will be averaged at least 1,000 individual plant increases our confidence that the overall ongoing at these golden paintbrush sites per year over the 5-year period from viability of the species is secured, for the foreseeable future. Two of the 2013 to 2018. Of these 23 populations, despite having fewer than 20 three extant sites in British Columbia 8 had a 5-year running average of at populations with a 5-year running that are managed by Parks Canada are least 1,000 individuals, and an average of at least 1,000 individuals. In also located within designated additional 5 populations had a 3-year addition, we now have the ability to ‘‘ecological reserves’’ (Service 2019, p. running average of at least 1,000 rapidly create new populations through 14). The level of management specific to individuals between 2016 and 2018 direct seeding, which is something that golden paintbrush varies at each site, (Hanson 2019, in litt.). While this does was not considered when we developed but all sites are generally being managed not meet the recovery criteria (of 20 this recovery criterion. to conserve and/or restore native prairie such populations), we find that many of Criterion 2 for Delisting or grassland habitats (for additional the species’ populations are sufficiently detail on species management status at resilient to make up for the smaller At least 15 populations over 1,000 sites, see discussion under Summary of number of populations based on the individuals are located on protected Biological Status and Threats, Factor A, following analysis. As noted above, we sites. In order for a site to be deemed below). only count flowering plants during protected, it must be either owned and/ monitoring, so in most years a or managed by a government agency or Criterion 3 for Delisting proportion of individual plants may not private conservation organization that Genetic material, in the form of seeds be represented in annual counts, identifies maintenance of the species as adequately representing the geographic because they are not flowering during the primary management objective for distribution or genetic diversity within surveys. the site, or the site must be protected by the species, is stored in a facility Six populations currently number in a permanent conservation easement or approved by the Center for Plant the tens of thousands of individuals, the covenant that commits present and Conservation. largest totaling just over 224,000 future landowners to the conservation of Progress: This recovery criterion is flowering plants (Pigeon Butte on Finley the species. met. Seeds are being stored at two National Wildlife Refuge) (Service 2019, Progress: This recovery criterion has approved facilities, the Rae Selling pp. 28–29). Prior to listing, the largest not been met as phrased in the recovery Berry Seed Bank at Portland State known population totaled just over plan, because the primary management University and the Miller Seed Vault at 15,000 individuals ( objective of the protected sites is not the University of Washington Botanic Natural Area Preserve) (62 FR 31740; always to protect only golden Garden. In addition, the active seed June 11, 1997). Although it is likely that paintbrush. However, we find that the production programs at Center for a number of the more recently goal of the criterion, a significant Natural Lands Management and the established populations are still number of populations under Institute for Applied Ecology continue undergoing some level of stabilization, conservation ownership protective of to provide golden paintbrush seeds to population abundance at eight sites is the species that are likely to be self- land managers for population significantly greater (approximately sustaining over time, has been greatly augmentation and prairie restoration 10,000 or more flowering plants) than exceeded. Forty-five of the 48 golden projects. Production programs were the 1,000 individual threshold paintbrush sites are in either public started using seeds from nearly all the established at the time of the drafting of ownership, are owned by a extant populations at the time of listing the recovery plan for this species conservation-oriented, nongovernmental to maintain existing genetic diversity (Service 2019, pp. 12–13). Populations organization, or are under conservation across the historical range and to allow numbering in the tens of thousands of easement (Service 2019, p. 62). Such for the greatest opportunity for local individuals have a significantly higher ownership is expected to protect sites adaptation at reintroduction sites.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 34702 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Criterion 4 for Delisting across sites based on these same factors ‘‘likely to become an endangered Post-delisting monitoring of the (Service 2019, pp. 40, 42–44) (see species within the foreseeable future condition of the species and the status additional discussion regarding ongoing throughout all or a significant portion of of all individual populations is ready to site management under Summary of its range.’’ The Act requires that we begin. Biological Status and Threats, Factor A, determine whether any species is an Progress: We have developed a draft below). The most actively managed sites ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened post-delisting monitoring plan in may include plantings, fencing, species’’ because of any of the following cooperation with our lead State partner prescribed fire, herbicide use for weed factors: (A) The present or threatened in Washington, Washington Department control, mowing, and controlled public destruction, modification, or of Natural Resources (WDNR) and in use. As described above under ‘‘Criterion 2 for Delisting,’’ at least 17 curtailment of its habitat or range; Oregon, Oregon Department of (B) Overutilization for commercial, Agriculture. The draft post-delisting sites currently contain multiple, prairie- dependent species and an additional 5 recreational, scientific, or educational monitoring plan is available for public purposes; review on http://www.regulations.gov sites are designated critical habitat for another prairie-dependent species. (C) Disease or predation; under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020– (D) The inadequacy of existing 0060. We anticipate that the WDNR’s Those golden paintbrush sites that support multiple, prairie-dependent regulatory mechanisms; or Natural Heritage Program would (E) Other natural or manmade factors species listed under the Act are coordinate future monitoring of the affecting its continued existence. golden paintbrush if the species is anticipated to receive the most These factors represent broad delisted. In the post-delisting consistent ecological management into categories of natural or human-caused monitoring plan, we propose to monitor, the future. While this recovery criterion actions or conditions that could have an at a minimum, all populations has not been fully achieved (i.e., not all effect on a species’ continued existence. established and counted in 2018 that populations have post-delisting In evaluating these actions and were identified in the species biological management procedures in place), conditions, we look for those that may report (Service 2019, pp. 12–13). These ecological management of habitat is have a negative effect on individuals of populations would be monitored every expected to occur on the vast majority the species, as well as other actions or other year after final delisting for a 5- of the known sites and management will conditions that may ameliorate any year period (i.e., years 1, 3, and 5). occur on far more than the originally negative effects or may have positive Several key prairie conservation projected 15 sites identified above effects. partners may choose to monitor these under ‘‘Criterion 2 for Delisting.’’ We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in golden paintbrush sites more frequently With the more recently identified general to actions or conditions that are and may also choose to monitor threat of hybridization from harsh known to or are reasonably likely to additional golden paintbrush sites as paintbrush (Castilleja hispida), negatively affect individuals of a more become established across the additional measures are being species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes range in Oregon and Washington. Parks implemented and refined to address the actions or conditions that have a direct Canada oversees periodic monitoring of impacts to golden paintbrush on impact on individuals (direct impacts), the three extant populations within contaminated sites and prevent the as well as those that affect individuals British Columbia, Canada. Therefore, spread of harsh paintbrush to through alteration of their habitat or this recovery criterion is met. uncontaminated golden paintbrush required resources (stressors). The term sites. The Service has developed a ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either Criterion 5 for Delisting strategy and guidance document for together or separately—the source of the Post-delisting procedures for the securing golden paintbrush sites and action or condition or the action or ecological management of habitats for has signed a memorandum of condition itself. all populations have been initiated. understanding (MOU) with prairie However, the mere identification of Progress: This criterion has not been conservation partners to ensure any threat(s) does not necessarily mean met as phrased in the recovery plan, hybridization is contained and the that the species meets the statutory because procedures for ecological conservation strategy is followed to definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or management for all populations are not benefit golden paintbrush while a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining in place. However, we find that the supporting recovery of other sympatric whether a species meets either intent of this criterion has been met (occurring within the same geographical definition, we must evaluate all because a substantial proportion of area) prairie species listed under the Act identified threats by considering the known golden paintbrush sites—more (Service et al. 2020) (for more on the species’ expected response and the than the 20 populations originally conservation strategy, see discussion effects of the threats—in light of those envisioned for these recovery criteria— under Summary of Biological Status and actions and conditions that will meet this criterion. As described earlier, Threats, Factor E, below). ameliorate the threats—on an significant strides have been made in Regulatory and Analytical Framework individual, population, and species the ecological management techniques level. We evaluate each threat and its for restoration and maintenance of Regulatory Framework expected effects on the species, then prairie landscapes and the Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) analyze the cumulative effect of all of reintroduction and management of and its implementing regulations (50 the threats on the species as a whole. golden paintbrush at these and other CFR part 424) set forth the procedures We also consider the cumulative effect sites. The current level of management for determining whether a species is an of the threats in light of those actions varies across extant sites, influenced by ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened and conditions that will have positive need, conservation partner capacity, and species.’’ The Act defines an effects on the species, such as any funding availability. We anticipate endangered species as a species that is existing regulatory mechanisms or ongoing management at a minimum of ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all conservation efforts. The Secretary 37 of these sites, but note that the level or a significant portion of its range,’’ and determines whether the species meets of management will continue to vary a threatened species as a species that is the definition of an ‘‘endangered

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34703

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only provide consistent predictions within listing: (1) Succession of prairie and after conducting this cumulative that timeframe (IPCC 2014, p. 11). We grassland habitats to shrub and forest analysis and describing the expected consider 30 years a relatively lands (due to fire suppression, effect on the species now and in the conservative timeframe in view of the interspecific competition, and invasive foreseeable future. long-term protection afforded to 93 species); (2) development of property for The Act does not define the term percent of the species’ occupied sites commercial, residential, and ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in (45 of 48), which occur on conserved/ agricultural use; (3) low potential for the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened protected lands (Service 2019, p. 62). expansion and refugia due to species.’’ Our implementing regulations constriction of habitat (from Analytical Framework at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a surrounding development or land use); framework for evaluating the foreseeable The species biological report (4) recreational picking (including future on a case-by-case basis. The term documents the results of our associated trampling); and (5) herbivory foreseeable future extends only so far comprehensive biological review of the (on plants and seeds) (62 FR 31740; June into the future as we can reasonably best scientific and commercial data 11, 1997). For our analysis, we assessed determine that both the future threats regarding the status of the species. The their influence on the current status of and the species’ responses to those report does not represent our decision the species, as well as the influence of threats are likely. In other words, the on whether the species should be two potential threats not considered at foreseeable future is the period of time reclassified as a threatened species the time of listing, hybridization of in which we can make reliable under the Act. It does, however, provide golden paintbrush with harsh predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean the scientific basis that informs our paintbrush, and the impacts of climate ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide regulatory decisions, which involve the change. We also assessed current a reasonable degree of confidence in the further application of standards within voluntary and regulatory conservation prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable the Act and its implementing mechanisms relative to how they reduce if it is reasonable to depend on when regulations and policies. The following or ameliorate existing threats to golden making decisions. is a summary of the key results and paintbrush. It is not always possible or necessary conclusions from the report, which can to define foreseeable future as a be found at Docket FWS–R1–ES–2020– Habitat Loss particular number of years. Analysis of 0060 on http://www.regulations.gov. At the time of listing, the principal the foreseeable future uses the best To assess golden paintbrush viability, cause of ongoing habitat loss was scientific and commercial data available we used the three conservation biology succession of prairie and grassland and should consider the timeframes principles of resiliency, redundancy, habitats to shrub and forest due to fire applicable to the relevant threats and to and representation (Shaffer and Stein suppression, interspecific competition, the species’ likely responses to those 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency and (62 FR 31740; June threats in view of its life-history supports the ability of the species to 11, 1997). The potential for characteristics. Data that are typically withstand environmental and development at, or surrounding, extant relevant to assessing the species’ demographic stochasticity (for example, sites for commercial, residential, and biological response include species- wet or dry, warm or cold years); agricultural purposes also posed a threat specific factors such as lifespan, redundancy supports the ability of the to the golden paintbrush at the time of reproductive rates or productivity, species to withstand catastrophic events listing. Both of these threat factors were certain behaviors, and other (for example, droughts, large pollution preventing or limiting extant demographic factors. events), and representation supports the populations from expanding and For species that are already listed as ability of the species to adapt over time recruiting into new or adjacent areas endangered or threatened species, this to long-term changes in the environment and afforded no refugia for the species analysis of threats is an evaluation of (for example, climate changes). In in the case of catastrophic events. both the threats currently facing the general, the more resilient and Currently, ongoing prairie or species and the threats that are redundant a species is and the more grassland management or maintenance reasonably likely to affect the species in representation it has, the more likely it occurs at the majority of extant golden the foreseeable future following the is to sustain populations over time, even paintbrush sites. This management delisting or downlisting and the under changing environmental includes removal or suppression of trees removal of the Act’s protections. A conditions. Using these principles, we and both native and nonnative woody recovered species is one that no longer identified the species’ ecological shrubs, as well as control of nonnative, meets the Act’s definition of an requirements for survival and invasive grassland plant species through endangered species or a threatened reproduction at the individual, a number of different approaches species. For the golden paintbrush, we population, and species levels, and according to species (e.g., mowing, consider 30 years to be a reasonable described the beneficial and risk factors prescribed fire, mechanical removal, period of time within which reliable influencing the species’ viability. We selective-herbicide application, predictions can be made for stressors use this information to inform our restoration reseeding, etc.). At least 24 and species’ response. This time period regulatory decision. of the 48 sites have prairie or grassland includes multiple generations of the management plans in place for the next golden paintbrush, generally includes Summary of Biological Status and 3 or more years. An additional 13 sites the term of and likely period of response Threats that lack a long-term management plan to many of the management plans for In this section, we review the for the golden paintbrush receive basic the species and/or its habitat, and biological condition of the species and maintenance to preserve the prairie encompasses planning horizons for its resources, and the threats that characteristics of golden paintbrush prairie habitat conservation efforts (e.g., influence the species’ condition in order habitat (Service 2019, pp. 42–44). Three Dunwiddie and Bakker 2011, pp. 86–88; to assess the species’ overall viability golden paintbrush sites in Washington Service 2011, entire; Altman et al. 2017, and the risks to that viability. The also currently support other prairie- or pp. 6, 20); additionally, various global following potential threats were grassland-dependent species listed climate models and emission scenarios identified for this species at the time of under the Act—the endangered Taylor’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 34704 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules

checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas the long-term investments conservation the golden paintbrush in the foreseeable editha taylori) and three subspecies of partners have made, and continue to future. Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys make, to restore, rebuild, maintain, and mazama spp.) (Olympia pocket gopher conserve these relatively rare regional Recreational Picking and Trampling (Thomomys mazama pugetensis), ecosystems (Dunwiddie and Bakker At the time of listing, we considered Tenino pocket gopher (Thomomys 2011, entire; Center of Natural Lands overutilization from recreational picking mazama tumuli), and Yelm pocket Management 2012, in litt., entire; The (flowers) to be a threat (62 FR 31740; gopher (Thomomys mazama News Tribune 2014, in litt.; Altman et June 11, 1997). Our concern with yelmensis))—while an additional five al. 2017, entire; The Nature recreational picking or collection of sites are included in designated critical Conservancy 2019, in litt., entire). habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot Golden paintbrush now occurs at 48 flowers was that it would reduce overall butterfly. separate sites, as a result of the potential seed-set at a site. Concern has Although these five critical habitat numerous reintroduction efforts also been noted regarding the direct sites are currently unoccupied by the implemented to recover this species. harvesting of seed capsules (Dunwiddie butterfly, they were designated because Only three of these sites are on lands in litt. 2018). Although there is evidence they were found to be essential to the possibly subject to future development. of occasional recreational or possible conservation of Taylor’s checkerspot The remaining 45 sites are all under commercial collection of capsules that butterfly (78 FR 61452; October 3, 2013). some type of public or conservation reduced the amount of seed available on Specifically, these areas will be ownership (Service 2019, pp. 11–14). Of a site, collection is no longer considered managed in a way that is conducive for the 48 extant sites, at least 81 percent a significant stressor to the species eventual reintroduction of Taylor’s (n=39) are on land with some known across its range (Service 2019, p. 47). In checkerspot butterflies, which will level of protected status (at a minimum, addition, the current number of maintain the prairie formally protected as a natural area or established and protected golden characteristics that are supportive of other such designation, although not all paintbrush sites, many with limited or long-term conservation of the golden of these designations are permanent) restricted access, largely ameliorates paintbrush. In addition, at least 14 (Service 2019, pp. 42–44). In addition, this previously identified threat. We golden paintbrush sites in Oregon’s of the 39 sites with some protected land acknowledge that the golden paintbrush Willamette Valley currently support one status, 19 also include stipulations for, is likely a desirable species for some or more other prairie- or grassland- or statements of specific protection of, gardeners or plant collectors. However, dependent species listed under the perpetual management of the golden if delisted, golden paintbrush seeds or Act—the endangered Fender’s blue paintbrush. plants are likely to become available butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Although the total area occupied by through controlled sale to the public endangered Willamette daisy (Erigeron the golden paintbrush at 19 sites is from regional prairie conservation decumbens), threatened Kincaid’s relatively small (less than 0.4 hectare lupine (Lupinus oreganus var. kincaidii, (ha) (1 acre (ac)), 14 sites have from partners and/or regional native plant listed as Lupinus sulphureus ssp. between 2 to 18.6 occupied ha (5 to 46 nurseries, similar to what occurs with kincaidii), and threatened Nelson’s ac) (Service 2019, pp. 37–38). All but other non-listed prairie plant species. checker-mallow ( nelsoniana) four sites have available land for future For these reasons, we do not expect the (Institute for Applied Ecology 2019, in golden paintbrush population possible collection of golden paintbrush litt.). expansion or shifts in distribution. Of flowers or seeds to become a threat to We expect a number of these golden the 34 sites with less than 2 ha (5 ac) the species in the foreseeable future. paintbrush sites in both Washington and of occupied habitat, 10 have an At the time of listing, we identified Oregon to continue to be managed in a estimated range of 0.8 to 2 ha (2 to 5 ac) trampling of golden paintbrush plants way that supports the recovery of other of additional habitat for expansion, and by recreationalists as impacting the prairie- or grassland-dependent species at least 13 have an estimated range of 2 species at some sites with high levels of in addition to the long-term to 6 ha (5 to 15 ac) of additional habitat public use, especially where and when conservation of the golden paintbrush. for future expansion (Service 2019, pp. associated with recreational picking of As long as periodic management or 37–38). In addition, the species is much golden paintbrush flowers. Although maintenance continues to occur at less reliant on expanding site-use and some risk of trampling to plants will golden paintbrush sites across the refugia than at the time of listing, when always be present across public sites species’ range, the threat of prairie or only 10 extant sites of the golden (e.g., State parks, national wildlife grassland succession is expected to paintbrush remained. The refuges), most sites often have some remain adequately addressed into the reintroduction and seed production foreseeable future. State and Federal techniques developed for golden level of restricted access when golden management plans include specific paintbrush recovery have provided the paintbrush plants are in bloom (e.g., objectives to continue to protect and means to more easily establish or fenced from deer or inaccessible to the conserve the golden paintbrush at a reestablish populations at prairie public) or there are defined walking or number of sites (see Factor D restoration sites. Many of these sites viewing areas. Therefore, when discussion, below). States, Federal have been specifically acquired for their compared with the potential impact of agencies, and conservation potential overall size, conservation trampling at the time of listing, the organizations have invested significant value, and conservation status. The current impact is likely insignificant, resources into golden paintbrush golden paintbrush has been due to the number of reestablished recovery, as well as general prairie and reintroduced and established at prairie golden paintbrush sites, the large size of grassland restoration and conservation restoration sites that are well distributed many of these sites, and considerable for a variety of at-risk prairie-dependent across the species’ historical range, well abundance of golden paintbrush plants species. We do not anticipate habitat for beyond the 10 extant sites at the time of at some of these sites. For the above these prairie-dependent species to listing. As a result of these conditions, reasons, we also do not anticipate that contract further given the limited we do not anticipate development in or trampling will become a threat in the amount of remaining prairie habitat and around these sites to become a threat to foreseeable future.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34705

Herbivory evaluation and additional observations all prairie conservation partners in the At the time of listing, we considered in the field, hybridization with the range of the golden paintbrush. The predation (herbivory) on the golden harsh paintbrush has now been three agencies have authority over these paintbrush by native (voles and deer) identified as a significant potential species and will oversee most prairie and introduced (rabbits) species to be a threat to golden paintbrush populations restoration efforts in Washington, threat to the plant (62 FR 31740; June where the two species occur together or particularly in south Puget Sound. This 11, 1997). Deer continue to exhibit in close proximity (Clark 2015, entire; MOU is expected to facilitate awareness significant herbivory on the golden Sandlin 2018, entire). Three former and compliance with the hybridization paintbrush at some sites; however, there golden paintbrush recovery sites have strategy and guidance by our prairie conservation partners. The formal is annual and site-specific variability in now been discounted by the Service for adoption and implementation of the the overall level of herbivory (Service the purposes of recovery due to the level hybridization strategy and guidance is 2019, p. 48). Herbivory impacts from of hybridization at these sites (Service expected to prevent hybridization from voles on the golden paintbrush have not 2019, p. 15). At least one other site is becoming a threat to the golden been broadly or consistently observed currently vulnerable to the effects of paintbrush in the foreseeable future. and also appear to be variable across hybridization, but management efforts sites and years. Where herbivory by deer to date (removal of plants that exhibit Climate Change and/or rabbits has been significant, characteristics and creation of a zone of separation between harsh At the time of listing, the potential control with fencing has been impacts of climate change on the golden successfully implemented, but paintbrush and golden paintbrush areas at the site) have seemingly preserved paintbrush was not discussed. The term controlling herbivory through fencing ‘‘climate’’ refers to the mean and over large areas is limited by cost this golden paintbrush population. Currently, hybridization appears to be variability of relevant quantities (i.e., (Service 2019, p. 48). In addition, temperature, precipitation, wind) over encouraging localized reduction of deer confined to those areas located in the south Puget Sound prairie region where time (IPCC 2014, pp. 119–120). The populations through lethal removal near term ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a some sites (Washington Department of both species of Castilleja were used at some of the same habitat restoration change in the mean or variability of one Fish and Wildlife 2019, in litt.; Pelant or more measures of climate (e.g., 2019, in litt.) and installing raptor perch sites. The only known incident of hybridization outside of this region was temperature or precipitation) that poles to control rodents and rabbits at persists for an extended period, at Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife some sites are also being implemented typically decades or longer, whether the Refuge in southwestern Washington, to reduce impacts of herbivory on the change is due to internal processes or where we unknowingly used a seed mix golden paintbrush (Service 2019, p. 48). anthropogenic changes (IPCC 2014, p. that included the harsh paintbrush. This As a consequence of the significant 120). increase in the number of golden site has since been eradicated of both Scientific measurements spanning paintbrush sites that have been Castilleja species, but we anticipate several decades demonstrate that successfully established since the reintroducing the golden paintbrush to changes in climate are occurring. In species was listed, and because the the site in the future (Ridgefield particular, warming of the climate impact of herbivory is being National Wildlife Refuge Complex 2019, system is unequivocal, and many of the successfully managed in at least a in litt., entire). observed changes in the last 60 years are portion of those sites where noted as As a response to this emerging threat, unprecedented over decades to significant (potential site/population efforts were implemented, and are millennia (IPCC 2014, p. 2). The current level effect), we conclude predation ongoing, to reduce or eliminate the risk rate of climate change may be as fast as (herbivory) no longer has a significant of hybridization to the golden any extended warming period over the impact across the majority of the golden paintbrush. These include efforts such past 65 million years and is projected to paintbrush’s 48 sites/populations, nor at as maintaining isolated growing areas accelerate in the next 30 to 80 years the species level, and is unlikely to for the golden paintbrush and harsh (National Research Council 2013, p. 5). become a threat to the species in the paintbrush at native seed production Thus, rapid climate change is adding to foreseeable future. facilities used in prairie restoration other sources of extinction pressures, efforts, maintaining buffers between such as land use and invasive species, Hybridization golden paintbrush and harsh paintbrush which will likely place extinction rates A potential threat to the golden patches at sites where both species are in this era among just a handful of the paintbrush identified after the species currently present, and delineating severe biodiversity crises observed in was listed in 1997 was the impact of which of the two species will be used Earth’s geological record (AAAS 2014, hybridization with the harsh paintbrush at current and future prairie p. 7). (Castilleja hispida). The harsh conservation or restoration sites. We Global climate projections are paintbrush is one of the host plants recently developed a strategy and informative, and in some cases, the only introduced to prairie sites targeted for guidance document for securing golden or the best scientific information endangered Taylor’s checkerspot paintbrush sites to address containment available for us to use. However, butterfly recovery efforts. Our 2007 5- of hybridization at existing projected changes in climate and related year status review recommended ‘‘the contaminated sites and prevention of impacts can vary substantially across evaluation of the potential for genetic unintentional spread of hybridization to and within different regions of the contamination of golden paintbrush other regions within the golden world (e.g., IPCC 2013, 2014; entire) and populations by hybridization with other paintbrush’s range, specifically north within the United States (Melillo et al. species of Castilleja’’ (Service 2007, p. Puget Sound and the Willamette Valley 2014, entire). Therefore, we use 15). After initial evaluation, the (Service et al. 2020). We have also ‘‘downscaled’’ projections when they potential risk of hybridization was entered into an associated MOU with are available and have been developed considered relatively low and the Washington Department of Fish and through appropriate scientific manageable (Kaye and Blakeley-Smith Wildlife and WDNR to ensure the procedures, because such projections 2008, p. 13). However, after further strategy is implemented as agreed to by provide higher resolution information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 34706 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules

that is more relevant to spatial scales this time. Climate change could result in mechanisms relative to how they reduce used for analyses of a given species (see a decline or change in bumble bee or ameliorate threats to the species Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a diversity within the range of the golden absent the protections of the Act. discussion of downscaling). paintbrush (Soroye et al. 2020, entire); Therefore, we examine whether other Climate change trends predicted for the bumble bee is an important regulatory mechanisms would remain in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, pollinator for the golden paintbrush. place if the species were delisted, and Washington, Idaho, and Montana) However, there are limited data at this the extent to which those mechanisms broadly consist of an increase in annual time to indicate this is a specific and will continue to help ensure that future average temperature; an increase in present threat to the golden paintbrush. threats will be reduced or eliminated. At extreme precipitation events; and, with In summary, climate change is the time of listing (62 FR 31740; June less certainty, variability in annual affecting, and will continue to affect, 11, 1997), we noted that habitat precipitation (Dalton et al. 2013, pp. 31– temperature and precipitation events management for the golden paintbrush 38, Figure 1.1; Snover et al. 2013, pp. 5– within the range of the golden was not assured, despite the fact that 1–5–4). paintbrush. The extent, duration, and most populations occurred in areas According to the NatureServe Climate impact of those changes are unknown, designated as reserves or parks that Vulnerability Index, the golden but could potentially increase or typically afforded the golden paintbrush paintbrush has experienced mean decrease precipitation in some areas. and its habitat some level of protection annual precipitation variation over the The golden paintbrush may experience through those designations. As last 50 years ranging from 53 cm to 130 climate change-related effects in the discussed in our species biological cm (21 to 51 in), resulting in a rating of future, most likely at the individual or report (Service 2019), the threat of ‘‘Somewhat Decreased Vulnerability’’ to local population scale. Regional habitat loss from potential residential or climate change (Young et al. 2011, pp. occurrences may experience some commercial development has decreased 26–27; Gamon 2014, pp. 1, 5; Climate shifts; however, we anticipate the since the time of listing due to the Change Sensitivity Database 2014, in species will remain viable, because: (1) establishment of new golden paintbrush litt., p. 4). Prolonged or more intense It is more resilient than at the time of populations on protected sites. summer droughts are likely to increase listing as a result of increased Although a few privately owned sites in the Pacific Northwest due to climate geographic distribution in a variety of are still at some potential risk, change (Snover et al. 2013, p. 2–1). Even ecological settings; (2) available development is no longer considered a though the golden paintbrush senesces information indicates the golden significant threat to the viability of the as the prairies dry out in the summer, paintbrush is somewhat adaptable to golden paintbrush due to the number of increased intensity or length of drought some level of future variation in sites largely provided protection from conditions will likely stress plants and climatic conditions (Service 2019, pp. development (Service 2019, pp. 12–14). increase mortality, resulting in reduced 22–25, 45); (3) there are ongoing efforts numbers of individuals in populations to expand the golden paintbrush to Federal at less-than-optimal sites (Kaye 2018, in additional suitable sites; and (4) we now National Environmental Policy Act— litt.). have the technical ability to readily The National Environmental Policy Act As is the case with all stressors we establish populations, which could help requires Federal agencies to consider assess, even if we conclude that a to mitigate any future population losses. the environmental effects of their species is currently affected or is likely Therefore, based upon the best available proposed actions (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 to be affected in a negative way by one scientific and commercial information, et seq.). Federal agency NEPA analyses or more climate-related impacts, it does we conclude that climate change does may identify and disclose potential not necessarily follow that the species not currently pose a significant threat, effects of Federal actions on the golden meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered nor is it likely to become a significant paintbrush if the species is delisted. species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ threat in the foreseeable future (next 30 However, NEPA does not require that under the Act. Knowledge regarding the years), to the golden paintbrush. adverse impacts be mitigated, only vulnerability of the species to, and disclosed. Therefore, it is unclear what known or anticipated impacts from, Voluntary and Regulatory Conservation level of protection would be conveyed climate-associated changes in Mechanisms to the golden paintbrush through NEPA, environmental conditions can be used Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires in the absence of protections under the to help devise appropriate conservation the Service to take into account ‘‘those Act. strategies. efforts, if any, being made by any State Sikes Act—One golden paintbrush Predicted environmental changes or foreign nation, or any political site currently occurs on a Federal resulting from climate change may have subdivision of a State or foreign nation, military installation (Forbes Point, both positive and negative effects on the to protect such species.’’ We interpret Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in golden paintbrush, depending on the this language to require us to consider Island County, Washington) and is extent and type of impact and relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, managed under an integrated natural depending on site-specific conditions regulations, and other such mechanisms resources management plan (INRMP) within each habitat type. The primary that may minimize any of the threats or (USDOD 2012, pp. 4–6) authorized by predicted negative effect is drought otherwise enhance conservation of the the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.). conditions resulting in inconsistent species. We give the strongest weight to Special management and protection growing seasons. This effect will likely statutes and their implementing requirements for golden paintbrush be buffered by the ability of the golden regulations and to management habitat in the INRMP include paintbrush to survive in a range of soil direction that stems from those laws and maintenance of a 10-ac management conditions, with a number of different regulations; an example would be State area for the species, including host plants, and under a range of governmental actions enforced under a maintaining and improving a fence precipitation levels. We have not State statute or constitution or Federal around the population to exclude both identified any predicted environmental action under the statute. people and , posting signs effects from climate change that may be For currently listed species, we that state the area is accessible to positive for the golden paintbrush at consider existing regulatory ‘‘authorized personnel only,’’ mowing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34707

and hand-cutting competing shrubs habitat on the NWR, which supports the Endangered Species Act—The golden from the area, outplanting nursery- golden paintbrush (Service 2013a, pp. paintbrush often co-occurs with other grown plants from seeds previously 4–9—4–10). These activities include plant and animal species that are listed collected on site, and implementing various methods (e.g., mechanical and under the Act, such as the endangered additional habitat management actions chemical) for reducing encroachment of Willamette daisy and endangered that are identified in the future to woody species, controlling nonnative Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly. enhance the golden paintbrush and invasive plant species, and Therefore, some of the general habitat population such as control burns or reestablishing native grasses and forbs. protections (e.g., section 7 consultation herbicide control of competing Given the 15-year timeframe of CCPs, and ongoing recovery implementation vegetation (USDOD 2012, pp. 3–5). protections outlined in the Tualatin efforts, including prairie habitat These protections are effective in River NWR CCP are expected to remain restoration, maintenance, and protecting the golden paintbrush on this in place until at least 2028, regardless of protection) for these other prairie- site and are expected to continue in the the golden paintbrush’s Federal listing dependent, listed species will indirectly absence of protections under the Act status. extend to some golden paintbrush sites because the Sikes Act mandates the Dungeness NWR also finalized a CCP if we delist the golden paintbrush. Department of Defense to conserve and in 2013 (Service 2013b, entire). The CCP Protections in Canada—The golden rehabilitate wildlife, fish, and game on does not have any conservation actions paintbrush in Canada is currently military reservations. specific to the golden paintbrush federally listed as ‘‘endangered’’ under National Wildlife Refuge System identified; however, it does identify the Species at Risk Act (SARA) Improvement Act—Ten golden general actions taken to control (COSEWIC 2007, entire). SARA paintbrush sites currently occur on nonnative and invasive plant species regulations protect species from harm, National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lands that invade habitats on the refuge, possession, collection, buying, selling, (Dungeness NWR in Washington, and including those inhabited by the golden or trading (Statutes of Canada 2002, c. Ankeny, William L. Finley, Tualatin paintbrush (Service 2013b, pp. 4–44— 29). SARA also prohibits damage to or River, and Baskett Slough NWRs in 4–45). The golden paintbrush site at this destroying the habitat of a species that Oregon). As directed by the National NWR’s headquarters continues to be is listed as an endangered species. The Wildlife Refuge System Improvement maintained and protected. In addition to population at Trial Island is on Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–57), refuge specific protections for the golden Canadian federal lands protected under managers have the authority and paintbrush provided under CCPs, the SARA (COSEWIC 2011, in litt., p. 5). responsibility to protect native species is permanently protected by the The golden paintbrush is not currently ecosystems, fulfill the purposes for mission of all NWRs to manage their protected under any provincial which an individual refuge was lands and waters for the conservation of legislation in British Columbia. founded, and implement strategies to fish, wildlife, and plant resources and However, the golden paintbrush occurs achieve the goals and objectives stated their habitats. in the ecological reserves that include in management plans. For example, National Park Service Organic Act— Trial Island and Alpha Islet, which are William L. Finley NWR (Benton County, One golden paintbrush site currently protected under the British Columbia Oregon) includes extensive habitat for occurs on National Park Service (NPS) Park Act (COSEWIC 2011, in litt., p. 5). the golden paintbrush, including four lands (American Camp, San Juan Island The British Columbia Park Act allows known occupied sites, while a number National Historical Park, Washington). lands identified under the Ecological of additional NWRs in Oregon (Ankeny The NPS Organic Act of 1916, as Reserve Act to be regulated to restrict or NWR, Marion County; Tualatin River amended (39 Stat. 535), states the NPS prohibit any use, development, or NWR, Washington County; and Baskett shall promote and regulate the use of occupation of the land or any use or Slough NWR, Polk County) and the National Park system ‘‘to conserve development of the natural resources in Washington (Dungeness NWR, Clallam the scenery, natural and historic objects, an ecological reserve (Revised Statutes County) each also support at least one and wild life’’ therein, to provide for the of British Columbia 1996, c. 103). This golden paintbrush occupied site. enjoyment of the same in such manner includes particular areas where rare or The Willamette Valley comprehensive and by such means ‘‘as will leave them endangered native plants and animals in conservation plan (CCP) for William L. unimpaired for the enjoyment of future their natural habitat may be preserved. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett Slough generations’’ (54 U.S.C. 100101(a)). NWRs is a land management plan Further, in title 36 of the Code of State finalized in 2011 with a 15-year term Federal Regulations (CFR) at Washington Natural Heritage Plan— that directs maintenance, protection, § 2.1(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii), NPS Washington State’s Natural Heritage and restoration of the species and its regulations specifically prohibit Plan identifies priorities for preserving habitat and identifies specific objectives possessing, destroying, injuring, natural diversity in Washington State related to establishment of populations defacing, removing, digging, or (WDNR 2018, entire). The plan aids and monitoring, as well as related disturbing from its natural state living or WDNR in conserving key habitats that habitat maintenance/management dead wildlife, fish, or plants, or parts or are currently imperiled, or are expected (Service 2011, pp. 2–45—2–46, 2–66— products thereof, on lands under NPS to be imperiled in the future. The 2–70). Given the 15-year timeframe of jurisdiction. This prohibition extends to prioritization of conservation efforts CCPs, these protections would remain the golden paintbrush where it exists on provided by this plan is expected to in place until at least 2026, regardless of NPS-managed lands. In addition, the remain in place if we delist the golden the golden paintbrush’s Federal listing General Management Plan for the San paintbrush. The golden paintbrush is status. Juan Island National Historical Park currently identified as a priority 2 Tualatin River NWR finalized a CCP includes the NPS’s goal of restoring a species (species likely to become in 2013, and although it does not have prairie community that support endangered across their range or in conservation actions specific to the functions and values of native habitat, Washington within the foreseeable golden paintbrush identified in the including habitat for native wildlife and future) in the State’s 2018 plan (WDNR plan, it does have maintenance and rare species, such as the golden 2018a, in litt. p. 4), which is a recent management activities for oak savanna paintbrush (NPS 2008, p. 249). change from the species’ priority 1

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 34708 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules

designation (species are in danger of action on Oregon land owned or leased likely to co-occur resulting in significant extinction across their range, including by the State, for which the State holds negative consequences for the species. Washington) in 2011 (WDNR 2018b, in a recorded easement, and which results, We anticipate that any negative litt. p. 2). If we delist the golden or might result, in the taking of an consequence of co-occurring threats will paintbrush, WDNR may assign the endangered or threatened plant species, be successfully addressed through the species a priority 3 designation (species requires consultation with Oregon same active management actions that that are vulnerable or declining and Department of Agriculture staff. The have contributed to the ongoing could become threatened without active golden paintbrush is currently State- recovery of the golden paintbrush and management or removal of threats to listed as endangered in Oregon. At this the conservation of regional prairie their existence) in the next iteration of time, no populations of the golden ecosystems that are expected to their plan, which may result in WDNR paintbrush are known to occur on State continue into the future. expending less effort in the continued lands in Oregon. However, should Summary of Biological Status conservation of the golden paintbrush. populations of the golden paintbrush However, we anticipate that WDNR will occur on Oregon State lands in the To assess golden paintbrush viability, continue to monitor the species where future, the removal of Federal we evaluated the three conservation it occurs on their own lands and more protections for the golden paintbrush biology principles of resiliency, broadly as a partner in the post-delisting would not affect State protection of the redundancy, and representation (Shaffer monitoring plan. We also anticipate that species under this statute. and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). We WDNR will continue to actively manage In summary, conservation measures assessed the current resiliency of golden their golden paintbrush sites, because and existing regulatory mechanisms paintbrush sites (Service 2019, pp. 52– these areas are not only important to the have minimized, and are continuing to 63) by scoring each site’s management long-term conservation of golden address, the previously identified level, site condition, threats addressed, paintbrush, but also to other at-risk threats to the golden paintbrush, site abundance of plants, and site prairie species. including habitat succession of prairie protection, resulting in a high, Washington State Park Regulations and grassland habitats to shrub and moderate, or low condition ranking. and Management—State park forest lands; development of property One-third of sites were determined to regulations, in general, require an for commercial, residential, and have a high condition ranking, one-third evaluation of any activity conducted on agricultural use; recreational picking a moderate condition ranking, and one- a park that has the potential to damage (including associated trampling); and third a low condition ranking (Service park resources, and require mitigation herbivory (on plants and seeds). As 2019, p. 63). as appropriate (Washington indicated above, we anticipate the Golden paintbrush sites are well- Administrative Code 2016, entire). majority of these mechanisms will distributed across the species’ historical Wildlife, plants, all park buildings, remain in place regardless of the range and provide representation across signs, tables, and other structures are species’ Federal listing status. the four distinct geographic areas within protected; removal or damage of any that range (British Columbia, North Cumulative Impacts kind is prohibited (Washington State Puget Sound, South Puget Sound, and Parks and Recreation Commission 2019, When multiple stressors co-occur, one the Willamette Valley). Multiple sites or in litt., p. 2). One golden paintbrush site may exacerbate the effects of the other, populations exist within each of these currently exists on Fort Casey Historical leading to effects not accounted for geographic areas, providing a relatively State Park. One of the objectives for when each stressor is analyzed secure level of redundancy across the natural resources on Fort Casey individually. The full impact of these historical range, with the lowest level of Historical State Park under the Central synergistic effects may be observed redundancy within British Columbia. Whidbey State Parks Management Plan within a short period of time, or may The resiliency of the golden paintbrush is to protect and participate in the take many years before it is noticeable. is more variable across the historical recovery of the golden paintbrush, For example, high levels of predation range given differences in site or including protecting native plant (herbivory) on the golden paintbrush by population abundance, level of communities, managing vegetative deer could cause large temporary losses management at a site, and site succession, and removing weeds in seed production in a population, but condition, but overall most sites appear through integrated pest management are not generally considered to be a to be in moderate and high condition. (Washington State Park and Recreation significant threat to long-term viability; The best scientific and commercial data Commission 2008, p. 15). The plan populations that are relatively large and available indicate that the golden further states that areas where the well-distributed should be able to paintbrush is composed of multiple golden paintbrush occurs will be withstand such naturally occurring populations, primarily in moderate to classified as ‘‘heritage affording a high events. However, the relative impact of high condition (Service 2019, p. 63), degree of protection,’’ and the Nass predation (herbivory) by deer may be which are sufficiently resilient, well- Natural Area Preserve (also known as intensified when it occurs in distributed (redundancy and Admiralty Inlet Natural Area Preserve) conjunction with other factors that may representation), largely protected, and is included in the long-term park lessen the resiliency of golden managed such that they will be boundary to also assure continued paintbrush populations, such as relatively robust or resilient to any preservation of the golden paintbrush in prolonged woody species encroachment potential cumulative effects to which this area (Washington State Park and (prairie succession); extensive they may be exposed. Recreation Commission 2008, p. 26). nonnative, invasive plant infestations; Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), or possible increased plant mortality Determination of Golden Paintbrush Chapter 564—Oregon Revised Statutes, resulting from the effects of climate Status chapter 564, ‘‘Wildflowers; Threatened change (i.e., prolonged drought). Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) or Endangered Plants,’’ requires State Although the types, magnitude, or and its implementing regulations (50 agencies to protect State-listed plant extent of potential cumulative impacts CFR part 424) set forth the procedures species found on their lands (Oregon are difficult to predict, we are not aware for determining whether a species meets Revised Statutes 2017, entire). Any land of any combination of factors that is the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34709

or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines appears to tolerate the effects of climate development or land use; (4) an endangered species as a species that change (Factor E), and existing recreational picking (including is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout information indicates that this condition associated trampling); (5) herbivory (on all or a significant portion of its range,’’ is unlikely to change in the future. The plants and seeds); (6) hybridization with and a threatened species as a species existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor harsh paintbrush; and (7) the effects of that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered D) are sufficient to ensure protection of climate change, including cumulative species within the foreseeable future the species at the reduced levels of effects. Although the impact of throughout all or a significant portion of threat that remain. hybridization with the harsh paintbrush its range.’’ For a more detailed Thus, after assessing the best available is most evident in the south Puget discussion on the factors considered information, we determine that golden Sound region of the species’ range, this when determining whether a species paintbrush is not in danger of potential stressor is being addressed meets the definition of an endangered extinction, or likely to become so in the throughout the species’ range with the species or a threatened species and our foreseeable future, throughout all of its hybridization strategy and guidance. We analysis on how we determine the range. found no concentration of threats in any foreseeable future in making these Status Throughout a Significant Portion portion of the golden paintbrush’s range decisions, please see Regulatory and of Its Range at a biologically meaningful scale. Analytical Framework. Therefore, no portion of the species’ Under the Act and our implementing range can provide a basis for Status Throughout All of Its Range regulations, a species may warrant determining that the species is in danger After evaluating threats to the species listing if it is in danger of extinction or of extinction now, or likely to become and assessing the cumulative effect of likely to become so in the foreseeable so in the foreseeable future, in a the threats under the section 4(a)(1) future throughout all or a significant significant portion of its range, and we factors, we find, based on the best portion of its range. Having determined find the species is not in danger of available information, and as described that the golden paintbrush is not in extinction now, or likely to become so in our analysis above, stressors danger of extinction or likely to become in the foreseeable future, in any identified at the time of listing and so in the foreseeable future throughout significant portion of its range. This is several additional potential stressors all of its range, we now consider consistent with the courts’ holdings in analyzed for this assessment do not whether it may be in danger of Desert Survivors v. Department of the affect golden paintbrush to a degree that extinction or likely to become so in the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 causes it to be in danger of extinction foreseeable future in a significant WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), either now or in the foreseeable future. portion of its range—that is, whether and Center for Biological Diversity v. Development of property for there is any portion of the species’ range Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. commercial, residential, and for which both (1) the portion is Ariz. 2017). agricultural use (Factor A), has not significant; and (2) the species is in occurred to the extent anticipated at the danger of extinction now or likely to Determination of Status time of listing and is adequately become so in the foreseeable future in Our review of the best available managed; existing information indicates that portion. Depending on the case, it scientific and commercial information this condition is unlikely to change in might be more efficient for us to address indicates that the golden paintbrush the future. Potential constriction of the ‘‘significance’’ question or the does not meet the definition of an habitat for expansion and refugia (Factor ‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to endangered species or a threatened A) also has not occurred to the extent address either question first. Regardless species in accordance with sections 3(6) anticipated at the time of listing, and of which question we address first, if we and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we existing information indicates this reach a negative answer with respect to propose to remove the golden condition is unlikely to change in the the first question that we address, we do paintbrush from the List. future. Habitat modification through not need to evaluate the other question succession of prairie and grassland for that portion of the species’ range. Effects of the Rule habitats to shrub and forest lands In undertaking this analysis for the This proposal, if made final, would (Factor A) is adequately managed, and golden paintbrush, we choose to revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by removing the existing information indicates this evaluate the status question first—we golden paintbrush from the List. The condition is unlikely to change in the consider information pertaining to the prohibitions and conservation measures future. Recreational picking and geographic distribution of both the provided by the Act, particularly associated trampling (Factor B) has not species and the threats that the species through sections 7 and 9, would no occurred to the extent anticipated at the faces to identify any portions of the longer apply to the golden paintbrush. time of listing; the species appears to range where the species is endangered Federal agencies would no longer be tolerate current levels of this activity, or threatened. required to consult with the Service and existing information indicates that For golden paintbrush, we considered under section 7 of the Act in the event this condition is unlikely to change in whether the threats are geographically that activities they authorize, fund, or the future. Herbivory on plants and concentrated in any portion of the carry out may affect the golden seeds (Factor C) has not occurred to the species’ range at a biologically paintbrush. There is no critical habitat extent anticipated at the time of listing; meaningful scale. We examined the designated for this species, so there the species appears to tolerate current following threats: (1) Habitat succession would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.96. levels of herbivory, and existing of prairie and grassland habitats to information indicates that this condition shrub and forest due to fire suppression, Post-Delisting Monitoring is unlikely to change in the future. interspecific competition, and invasive Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us Hybridization with the harsh paintbrush species; (2) development of property for to implement a system to monitor (Factor E) is adequately managed, and commercial, residential, and effectively, for not less than 5 years, all existing information indicates this agricultural use; (3) low potential for species that have been recovered and condition is unlikely to change in the expansion and refugia due to delisted (50 CFR 17.11, 17.12). The future. Finally, golden paintbrush constriction of habitat by surrounding purpose of this post-delisting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 34710 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules

monitoring is to verify that a species (2) Use the active voice to address as proposed. There are currently no remains secure from the risk of readers directly; golden paintbrush sites on Tribal lands, extinction after it has been removed (3) Use clear language rather than although some sites may lie within the from the protections of the Act. The jargon; usual and accustomed places for Tribal monitoring is designed to detect the (4) Be divided into short sections and collection and gathering of resources. failure of any delisted species to sustain sentences; and We welcome input from potentially (5) Use lists and tables wherever itself without the protective measures affected Tribes on our proposal. provided by the Act. If, at any time possible. during the monitoring period, data If you feel that we have not met these References Cited indicate that the protective status under requirements, send us comments by one A complete list of all references cited the Act should be reinstated, we can of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To initiate listing procedures, including, if better help us revise the rule, your in this proposed rule is available on the appropriate, emergency listing under comments should be as specific as internet at http://www.regulations.gov at section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of possible. For example, you should tell Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0060, or the Act explicitly requires us to us the names of the sections or upon request from the State Supervisor, cooperate with the States in paragraphs that are unclearly written, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office development and implementation of which sections or sentences are too (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). long, the sections where you feel lists or post-delisting monitoring programs, but Authors we remain responsible for compliance tables would be useful, etc. with section 4(g) and, therefore, must National Environmental Policy Act The primary authors of this proposed remain actively engaged in all phases of It is our position that, outside the rule are the staff of the Washington Fish post-delisting monitoring. We also seek jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals and Wildlife Office. active participation of other entities that for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to are expected to assume responsibilities Signing Authority prepare environmental analyses for the species’ conservation post- pursuant to the National Environmental The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife delisting. We propose to delist the golden Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. Service, approved this document and paintbrush in light of new information 4321 et seq.) in connection with authorized the undersigned to sign and available and recovery actions taken. regulations adopted pursuant to section submit the document to the Office of the We prepared a draft post-delisting 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice Federal Register for publication monitoring plan that describes the outlining our reasons for this electronically as an official document of methods proposed for monitoring the determination in the Federal Register the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. species, if it is removed from the List. on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This Martha Williams, Principal Deputy Monitoring of flowering plants at each position was upheld by the U.S. Court Director Exercising the Delegated golden paintbrush site extant in 2018 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and would take place every other year, over (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d Wildlife Service, approved this a minimum of 5 years after final 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 document on June 21, 2021, for U.S. 1042 (1996)). delisting. Proposed monitoring efforts publication. would be slightly modified from prior Government-to-Government protocols, by only requiring a visual Relationship With Tribes List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 estimation of population size when In accordance with the President’s Endangered and threatened species, clearly numbering >1,000 but <10,000, ≥ memorandum of April 29, 1994 Exports, Imports, Reporting and or 10,000 flowering individuals, as (Government-to-Government Relations recordkeeping requirements, opposed to an actual count or calculated with Native American Tribal Transportation. estimate of flowering plants. This Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive modification should streamline Order 13175 (Consultation and Proposed Regulation Promulgation monitoring efforts. It is our intent to Coordination with Indian Tribal work with our partners to maintain the Accordingly, we propose to amend Governments), and the Department of part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title recovered status of golden paintbrush. the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, With publication of this proposed rule, acknowledge our responsibility to as set forth below: we seek public and peer review communicate meaningfully with comments on the draft post-delisting recognized Federal Tribes on a monitoring plan, including its objectives PART 17—ENDANGERED AND government-to-government basis. In THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS and methods (see Public Comments, accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 above). The draft post-delisting of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 monitoring plan can be found at http:// Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust www.regulations.gov under Docket No. Responsibilities, and the Endangered continues to read as follows: FWS–R1–ES–2020–0060. Species Act), we acknowledge our Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Required Determinations responsibilities to work directly with 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise Tribes in developing programs for noted. Clarity of the Rule healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that We are required by Executive Orders tribal lands are not subject to the same § 17.12 [Amended] 12866 and 12988 and by the controls as Federal public lands, to ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, remain sensitive to Native American entry for ‘‘Castilleja levisecta’’ under 1998, to write all rules in plain culture, and to make information language. This means that each rule we available to Tribes. publish must: We do not believe that any Tribes (1) Be logically organized; would be affected if we adopt this rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34711

FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands 2010, but has declined and remained Endangered and Threatened Plants. Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. below 20 active vessels annually. In 176, Honolulu, HI 96818. response, the Council developed Anissa Craghead, Instructions: NMFS may not consider Amendment 9 to reduce the Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division comments sent by any other method, to programmatic barriers that may be of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, any other address or individual, or limiting small vessel participation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. received after the end of the comment purpose of Amendment 9 is to reduce [FR Doc. 2021–13882 Filed 6–29–21; 8:45 am] period. All comments received are a the complexity of the limited entry part of the public record, and NMFS program and provide for sustained BILLING CODE 4333–15–P will generally post them for public community participation, especially for viewing on www.regulations.gov small vessels. Amendment 9 could DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE without change. All personal identifying allow new entrants to obtain a small information (e.g., name, address, etc.), vessel permit by removing requirements National Oceanic and Atmospheric confidential business information, or that previously would have made some Administration otherwise sensitive information new entrants ineligible. If approved, submitted voluntarily by the sender will Amendment 9 would do the following: 50 CFR Part 665 be publicly accessible. NMFS will (a) Replace the four vessel classes RIN 0648–BH65 accept anonymous comments (enter with two, where Class A and B vessels ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish would be classified as ‘‘small’’ vessels, Pacific Island Fisheries; Amendment 9 to remain anonymous). and Class C and D vessels would be to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Amendment 9 includes a draft classified as ‘‘large’’ vessels; Pelagic Fisheries of the Western environmental assessment (EA) that (b) Restrict permit holders to U.S. Pacific; Modifications to the American analyzes the potential impacts of the citizens and nationals, and eliminate the Samoa Longline Fishery Limited Entry proposed measures and alternatives requirement to have documented Program considered. Copies of Amendment 9, including the draft EA and a Regulatory history of participation to be eligible for AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Impact Review (RIR), and other a permit, but maintain the priority Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and supporting documents, are available at ranking system based on earliest Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), https://www.regulations.gov, or from the documented history of fishing Commerce. Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, participation in vessel class size, if there ACTION: Notification of availability of a Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808–522–8220, is competition between two or more fishery ecosystem plan amendment; www.wpcouncil.org. applicants for a permit; request for comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate (c) Require that permits can only be SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Taylor, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS transferred among U.S. citizens or Western Pacific Fishery Management PIR, 808–725–5182. nationals, and eliminate the Council (Council) proposes to amend SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS and requirement for documented the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic the Council manage the American participation in the fishery to receive a Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). If Samoa longline fishery under the FEP transferred permit; approved, Amendment 9 would reduce and implementing regulations. The (d) Reduce the small vessel minimum regulatory barriers that may be limiting fishery targets primarily albacore, which harvest requirement to 500 lb (227 kg) small vessel participation in the are sold frozen to the fish processing of pelagic management unit species American Samoa longline fishery. industry in Pago Pago, American Samoa. within a 3-year period, but maintain the Specifically, Amendment 9 would During the 1980s and 1990s, the existing 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) harvest consolidate vessel class sizes, modify longline fleet was mainly comprised of requirement for large vessels; permit eligibility requirements, and alia, locally-built catamarans between (e) Require that the entire minimum reduce the minimum harvest 24 and 38 ft in length. In the early harvest amounts for the respective requirements for small vessels. The 2000s, the longline fishery expanded vessel classes are to be landed in ≥ Council recommended Amendment 9 to rapidly with the influx of large ( 50 ft) American Samoa within a three-year provide for sustained community and conventional vessels similar to the type permit period, but that the minimum indigenous American Samoan used in the Hawaii-based longline harvests not be required to be caught participation in the small vessel fishery, including some vessels from within the U.S. EEZ around American longline fishery. Hawaii. Samoa; DATES: NMFS must receive comments To manage capacity in the then- on Amendment 9 by August 30, 2021. rapidly developing fishery, the Council (f) Specify a fixed three-year permit period that is the same as the three-year ADDRESSES: You may submit comments in 2001 (through Amendment 11 to the period to make a minimum harvest on this document, identified by NOAA– Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic requirement; and NMFS–2018–0023, by either of the Fisheries of the Western Pacific, following methods: superseded by the FEP) established a (g) Clarify that the minimum harvest • Electronic Submission: Submit all limited entry program with vessel size period would not restart in the event of electronic comments via the Federal e- classes and criteria for participation. In a permit transfer. If the minimum Rulemaking Portal. Go to http:// 2005, NMFS implemented the limited harvest amount has not been caught at www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– entry program and issued 60 permits to the time of transfer, the new permit NMFS–2018–0023 in the Search box, qualified candidates among four vessel holder would be required to meet the click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete the size classes. harvest requirement based on the required fields, and enter or attach your Only a few small vessels have been following formula: The product of comments. active in the fishery since 2007. percentage of time left within the three- • Mail: Send written comments to Participation by large vessels was year permit period and the minimum Michael D. Tosatto, Regional somewhat stable from 2001 through harvest amount.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Jun 29, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM 30JNP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS