13200 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * * proposed rule to remove Bradshaw’s No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–0013, under [FR Doc. 2021–04720 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am] lomatium from the List of Endangered Supporting Documents. The SSA report BILLING CODE 6560–50–P and Threatened Plants (i.e., to ‘‘delist’’ documents the results of our the species). Please refer to that comprehensive biological status review proposed rule for a detailed description for Bradshaw’s lomatium, and has DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR of the Federal actions concerning this undergone peer review. The SSA report species that occurred prior to November does not represent any decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service 26, 2019. Service regarding the status of Bradshaw’s lomatium under the Act (16 50 CFR Part 17 Summary of Changes From the U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). It does, however, Proposed Rule provide the scientific basis that [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–0013; In response to public comments and FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212] informed our most recent 5-year status in the process of developing this final review, which resulted in a RIN 1018–BD59 rule, we have made the following recommendation that the species should changes from our November 26, 2019, be removed from the List. The SSA Endangered and Threatened Wildlife proposed rule (84 FR 65067): report also served as one of the bases for and Plants; Removing Bradshaw’s • We added language in the final this final rule and our regulatory Lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii) post-delisting monitoring plan to decision, which involves the further From the Federal List of Endangered indicate that additional Bradshaw’s application of standards within the Act and Threatened Plants lomatium populations may be visited and its implementing regulations and upon occasion, as time and resources AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, policies. allow, to provide for a ‘‘spot check’’ on In this final rule, we present only a Interior. the status of additional populations that summary of the key results and ACTION: Final rule. are outside of the 18 priority sites conclusions from the SSA report; the full report is available at http:// SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and identified for regular visits during the Wildlife Service (Service), remove post-delisting monitoring period. These www.regulations.gov, as referenced Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium abbreviated field visits may collect above. bradshawii, also known as Bradshaw’s information through assessment of Summary of the Biology of the Species desert parsley), a plant found in western population abundance, photo points, and/or evaluation of management Bradshaw’s lomatium is a perennial Oregon and southwestern Washington, herb in the carrot or parsley family from the Federal List of Endangered and practices and habitat condition. • We incorporated into the preamble (Apiaceae) that is endemic to wet prairie Threatened Plants. Our review of the to this final rule mention of the recently habitats in western Oregon’s Willamette best available scientific and commercial developed MOU among the U.S. Army Valley and adjacent southwestern data indicates that the threats to Core of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Washington. These seasonally wet Bradshaw’s lomatium have been Management, the Natural Resource habitats may be flooded in the spring, or eliminated or reduced to the point that Conservation Service and the Service, to have soils saturated at or near the the species no longer meets the provide for the long-term conservation surface due to factors such as heavy definition of an endangered or of Bradshaw’s lomatium, regardless of precipitation in winter and spring, threatened species under the listing status. flooding, and poor drainage. A high Endangered Species Act of 1973, as • We made minor editorial changes in light environment is important for amended (Act). the preamble of this final rule, including Bradshaw’s lomatium to complete its DATES: This rule is effective April 7, revising our description of how we life cycle and reproduce, as reduced 2021. develop and implement recovery plans, sunlight is associated with lower flower ADDRESSES: This final rule is available adding additional discussion about and seed production (Alverson 1993, on the internet at http:// which recovery criteria were met, unpublished data). This species is often www.regulations.gov under Docket No. inserting an updated description of our associated with tufted hairgrass FWS–R1–ES–2019–0013. Comments regulatory and analytical frameworks, (Deschampsia cespitosa), and frequently and materials we received, as well as updating our description of how we occurs on and around the small mounds supporting documentation we used in determine species status throughout all created by senescent tufted hairgrass preparing this rule, are available for or a portion of the species’ range, and plants. In wetter areas, Bradshaw’s lomatium occurs on the edges of tufted public inspection at http:// making minor textual updates to our hairgrass or sedges in patches of bare or www.regulations.gov under FWS–R1– assessment of Bradshaw’s lomatium’s open soil. In drier areas, it is found in ES–2019–0013. status throughout a portion of its range. low areas, such as small depressions, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul I. Final Delisting Determination trails, or seasonal channels, with open, Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Background exposed soils. Self-fertilization is rare in Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Bradshaw’s lomatium (Kaye and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Status Assessment for Bradshaw’s Kirkland 1994, p. 8), indicating that Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; Lomatium pollinator-mediated outcrossing is telephone 503–231–6179. If you use a A thorough review of the taxonomy, required for reproduction. Over 30 telecommunications device for the deaf life history, and ecology of Bradshaw’s species of solitary bees, flies, wasps, and (TDD), please call the Federal Relay lomatium is presented in the document beetles have been observed visiting the Service at 800–877–8339. ‘‘Species Status Assessment Report for flowers (Kaye 1992, p. 3; Kaye and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium Kirkland 1994, p. 9; Jackson 1996, pp. bradshawii (Rose ex. Math.) Mathias & 72–76). Bradshaw’s lomatium does not Previous Federal Actions Constance) Version 1.0’’ (SSA report) reproduce asexually and depends On November 26, 2019, we published (Service 2018), which is available at exclusively on seeds for reproduction in the Federal Register (84 FR 65067) a http://www.regulations.gov in Docket (Kaye 1992, p. 2), but does not maintain

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13201

a persistent seed bank in the soil. for identifying recovery of the species. discovered or introduced within these Although some fruit survives in the soil The recovery of a species is a dynamic zones, they could be considered as for 1 year, the seeds are not viable (Kaye process requiring adaptive management contributing to the recovery criteria for et al. 2001, p. 1376). Further that may, or may not, follow all of the the species (under the category information on the basic biology and guidance provided in a recovery plan. ‘‘Additional Populations’’). ecology of Bradshaw’s lomatium is In 2010, we finalized the revised The expression of recovery criteria in summarized in the SSA report (Service recovery plan for Bradshaw’s lomatium terms of population abundance, 2018, entire). (Service 2010). The recovery plan states numbers of populations, and that Bradshaw’s lomatium could be distribution across recovery zones Recovery and Recovery Plan considered for downlisting to reflects a foundational principle of Implementation threatened status when there are 12 conservation biology: That there is a Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to populations and 60,000 plants positive relationship between the develop and implement recovery plans distributed in such a way as to reflect relative viability of a species over time for the conservation and survival of the species’ historical geographic and the resiliency, redundancy, and endangered and threatened species distribution, when the number of representation of its constituent unless we determine that such a plan individuals in the populations have populations (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. will not promote the conservation of the been stable or increasing over a period 307–310; Wolf et al. 2015, entire). To species. Recovery plans must, to the of 10 years, when sites are managed to look at it another way, extinction risk is maximum extent practicable, include meet established habitat quality generally reduced as a function of objective, measurable criteria which, guidelines, when a substantial portion increased population abundance when met, would result in a of the species’ habitat is protected for (resiliency), numbers of populations determination, in accordance with the conservation, and when populations are (redundancy), and distribution or provisions of section 4 of the Act, that managed to ensure maintenance of geographic or genetic diversity the species be removed from the List. habitat and to control threats. (representation). The recovery criteria Recovery plans provide a roadmap for The recovery plan states that, in laid out in the recovery plan for us and our partners on methods of addition to the criteria described above, Bradshaw’s lomatium were, therefore, enhancing conservation and minimizing Bradshaw’s lomatium could be informative for our review of the status threats to listed species, as well as considered for delisting when there are of the species, as that analysis leans measurable criteria against which to 20 populations and 100,000 plants upon these measures of viability to evaluate progress towards recovery and properly distributed, genetic material is assess the current and future status of assess the species’ likely future stored in a facility approved by the the species (Service 2018, pp. 1–2). condition. However, they are not Center for Plant Conservation, and post- The downlisting criteria for number regulatory documents and do not delisting monitoring plans and and distribution of populations and substitute for the determinations and monitoring agreements are in place. numbers of plants were intended to help promulgation of regulations required Given our current understanding of this identify the point at which imminent under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species, the criteria addressing threats to Bradshaw’s lomatium had decision to revise the status of a species, abundance, distribution, and site been ameliorated so that the or to delist a species, is ultimately based management and protection are the populations were no longer in on an analysis of the best scientific and most important in assessing recovery. immediate risk of extirpation; the commercial data available to determine Accordingly, these criteria are the basis delisting criteria for number and whether a species is no longer an of our analysis of resiliency, distribution of populations and numbers endangered species or a threatened redundancy, and representation, and the of plants were intended to identify the species, regardless of whether that focus of the discussion that follows. The point at which the species was unlikely information differs from the recovery remaining two criteria have also been to become in danger of extinction. In plan. met; genetic material is preserved at the our analysis, only populations with There are many paths to Institute of Applied Ecology seed bank, moderate to high overall condition and accomplishing recovery of a species, and post-delisting monitoring plans and with more than 200 plants were and recovery may be achieved without agreements are in place (see Post- considered to have met the recovery all of the criteria in a recovery plan Delisting Monitoring). criteria, as populations with lower being fully met. For example, one or To reflect the historical distribution of overall condition or abundance were more criteria may be exceeded while Bradshaw’s lomatium, the species’ range considered too high risk to be counted other criteria may not yet be was divided into eight recovery zones toward recovery. An estimated accomplished. In that instance, we may (Southwest Washington, Portland, 11,276,253 plants in 17 populations determine that the threats are Salem West, Salem East, Corvallis West, meet this standard (Service 2018, p. 39, minimized sufficiently and that the Corvallis East, Eugene West, and Eugene updated based on Wilderman 2018, species is robust enough that it no East), and targets for number of entire), an increase from approximately longer meets the definition of an populations and number of plants for 25,000 to 30,000 individuals in 11 endangered species or a threatened each zone were established based on populations at listing in 1988. An species. In other cases, we may discover historical presence, to the extent known additional 1,361 plants, distributed new recovery opportunities after having (Service 2010, pp. IV–1—IV–6, IV–31— among 7 populations, comprise the finalized the recovery plan. Parties IV–34). grand total number of known seeking to conserve the species may use Two of the recovery zones (Portland Bradshaw’s lomatium plants. In total, 24 these opportunities instead of methods and Salem West) are within the range of populations occur on 71 distinct sites identified in the recovery plan. Bradshaw’s lomatium, but do not have that are owned by a mix of Federal, Likewise, we may learn new population targets for the species based State, and local governments; information about the species after we on a lack of historical occurrence data. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); finalize the recovery plan. The new These recovery zones were nonetheless and private citizens. Multiple sites are information may change the extent to retained because if any populations of considered to be part of the same which existing criteria are appropriate Bradshaw’s lomatium were to be population when those sites are within

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 13202 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

a defined pollinator flight distance of 3 within the range of the species have (addressing habitat loss), and site kilometers (km) (2 miles (mi)) of each been surveyed, and recent visits to management (addressing woody other. The current population estimate previously unsurveyed areas have encroachment and invasive species). For is the combined count data from all resulted in the identification of formerly details on evaluation and ranking of sites; for some sites the plant count was unknown populations (e.g., Service population condition, see the SSA the result of a full census (54 sites), 2018, p. 10). report (Service 2018, pp. 26–43). while for others it was derived by visual In our SSA report, we evaluated and The table below summarizes our estimate or calculated from count ranked the resiliency of each population subsamples that were then extrapolated of Bradshaw’s lomatium using the current knowledge of the abundance over the total area of the site (17 sites). following criteria: (1) Population size, and distribution of Bradshaw’s The increase in known populations and (2) current habitat conditions, (3) lomatium relative to the downlisting number of plants over time is due to a protection of the site from development, and delisting criteria presented in the combination of population and (4) site management to restore and recovery plan for the species (from augmentation and introductions, maintain appropriate habitat condition. Service 2018, p. 39, updated based on improved habitat management, and Using these criteria, each population Wilderman 2018, entire). Because the increased survey effort across the range was given a rank of high, moderate, or table below summarizes only the of the species. Bradshaw’s lomatium has low condition (Service 2018, pp. 26–30). abundance and distribution data for the been the focus of concentrated recovery The resiliency score for each population species, the information in the table efforts since it was listed in 1988. We incorporates the degree to which the must be considered in conjunction with now estimate there are likely more primary threats to the species have been the five-factor analysis of threats to plants across the range of Bradshaw’s addressed at each site as well as arrive at the status determination for lomatium than we have accounted for recovery criteria (population size and Bradshaw’s lomatium. because not all areas of suitable habitat habitat quality), site protection BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13203

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER08MR21.000 13204 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Based on the most recent count, the recovery is 11,276,253, with an populations with fewer than 200 number of plants counted towards additional 1,361 plants occurring in individuals, which we did not count

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER08MR21.001 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13205

toward recovery. Of the total number of populations across the historical range Wildlife Program (Service 2018, pp. 30– known plants, an estimated 10,790,658 of the species in Oregon and distributed 35, 36, 38, Appendix A). The remaining occur in a single population in among 69 known sites under various 11 sites are on private lands and are not southwestern Washington. The other types of land ownership. We considered currently under any formal protection approximately 486,956 plants are within the abundance and distribution of agreements. 23 populations in Oregon. If we Bradshaw’s lomatium without including The figure below shows the results of consider only the populations in the roughly 10.8 million individuals this assessment across the range of the moderate or high condition, and with concentrated in a single population species. Of the 24 known populations, more than 200 plants (i.e., those we are (made up of 2 sites) in southwestern 4 are in low condition, 9 are in counting toward recovery and presented Washington to ensure our evaluation moderate condition, 10 are in high in the table), we estimate there are considered the abundance and condition, and 1 is in unknown 485,595 plants within Oregon distribution of the species across its condition due to a lack of data (Service populations. These populations are entire range and also to ensure our 2018, pp. 36–39). Populations occur in distributed from southeast of Salem, overall evaluation was not unduly all recovery zones that have population Oregon, south to Creswell, Oregon, both influenced by this single extremely large goals. As noted above, the Portland and east and west of the Willamette River. population. Of the 71 known sites, 51 Salem West Recovery Zones contain no The greatest density of populations are in public ownership, are within a known current populations, were not occurs in the southern portion of the public right-of-way, or are owned by a assigned specific targets by the Recovery Willamette Valley near Eugene, Oregon. conservation-oriented NGO. Of the 20 Team, and have no documented Therefore, the most recent counts of remaining sites, 9 are under historical occurrences of the species Bradshaw’s lomatium identify nearly conservation easement or are enrolled in within them. 500,000 individuals in 23 known the Service’s Partners for Fish and BILLING CODE 4333–15–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 13206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Based on this information, we listing and is distributed throughout its percent of known Bradshaw’s lomatium conclude Bradshaw’s lomatium is much known historical range. Across the 23 plants are found on sites receiving some more numerous than at the time of populations in Oregon, greater than 99 degree of protection from development

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES ER08MR21.002 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13207

such as public lands, conservancy Although not considered as a basis for (B) Overutilization for commercial, lands, or private lands with this delisting, a memorandum of recreational, scientific, or educational conservation easements (Service 2018, understanding (MOU) among the purposes; Appendix A). Two sites in southwestern Bureau of Land Management, the (C) Disease or predation; Washington collectively comprise the Natural Resources Conservation Service, (D) The inadequacy of existing single largest population of the species the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and regulatory mechanisms; or with millions of plants. The vast the Service has been developed with the (E) Other natural or manmade factors majority of plants in the southwestern express purpose of providing for the affecting its continued existence. Washington population occur on private long-term conservation and sustained These factors represent broad property that is not under formal recovery of Bradshaw’s lomatium categories of natural or human-caused protection, but over the years the site (Service et al. 2020, entire). Together actions or conditions that could have an has been consistently managed in a these agencies own or manage at least effect on a species’ continued existence. manner conducive to supporting the 35 of the 71 known Bradshaw’s In evaluating these actions and largest population of Bradshaw’s lomatium sites. The MOU describes the conditions, we look for those that may lomatium known. The other portion of ongoing commitment of the cooperating have a negative effect on individuals of the population in southwestern management agencies to maintain wet the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any Washington, owned by the Washington prairie habitats containing Bradshaw’s negative effects or may have positive Department of Natural Resources lomatium populations at a sufficient effects. We consider these same five (WDNR), contains approximately 658 quality to support the resilience of those factors in delisting (removal from the plants. The WDNR has been actively populations, to the best of their abilities, Federal Lists of Endangered and protecting, managing, and augmenting irrespective of any change in the Threatened Wildlife and Plants) or this smaller portion of the southwestern species’ legal status and its standing downlisting (reclassification from Washington population, and they are under the Act. This MOU did not enter endangered to threatened) a species (see currently working to further expand into our consideration of the delisting of 50 CFR 424.11(c) through (e)). protection at this site. Furthermore, the Bradshaw’s lomatium. However, it is We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in WDNR is working to conserve the added evidence of the strength of the general to actions or conditions that are sizeable Bradshaw’s lomatium site that ongoing collaborative efforts of known to or are reasonably likely to is on private land. conservation partners dedicated to the negatively affect individuals of a Due to ongoing threats from woody recovery of the native prairie species species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes encroachment and the spread of and ecosystems of the Willamette actions or conditions that have a direct nonnative, invasive plants, sites Valley. impact on individuals (direct impacts), containing Bradshaw’s lomatium These and other data that we analyzed as well as those that affect individuals require regular management to maintain indicate that most threats identified at through alteration of their habitat or the open prairie conditions that support listing and in the recovery plan are required resources (stressors). The term robust populations. Management reduced in areas occupied by ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either activities may include, but are not Bradshaw’s lomatium. The status of the together or separately—the source of the limited to, herbicide application, species has improved primarily due to: action or condition or the action or mowing, and prescribed fire. Although (1) Discovery of previously unknown condition itself. guarantee of management into populations; (2) reestablishment and However, the mere identification of perpetuity exceeds the requirements of augmentation of populations over the 30 any threat(s) does not necessarily mean the Act in evaluating whether a species years since the species was listed; (3) that the species meets the statutory meets the statutory definition of improvement in habitat management; definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or endangered or threatened, it is and (4) an increase in protection from a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining necessary to evaluate whether current development. whether a species meets either and expected future management is definition, we must evaluate all sufficient to maintain resilient Regulatory and Analytical Framework identified threats by considering the populations of Bradshaw’s lomatium Regulatory Framework species’ expected response and the into the foreseeable future. Across the effects of the threats—in light of those range of Bradshaw’s lomatium, 75 Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) actions and conditions that will percent of sites receive some form of and its implementing regulations (50 ameliorate the threats—on an management as described above, CFR part 424) set forth the procedures individual, population, and species accounting for greater than 99 percent of for determining whether a species is an level. We evaluate each threat and its known Bradshaw’s lomatium plants. ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened expected effects on the species, then Sites receiving management span all species.’’ The Act defines an analyze the cumulative effect of all of ownership types. Rangewide, 58 percent endangered species as a species that is the threats on the species as a whole. of sites have a management plan with in danger of extinction throughout all or We also consider the cumulative effect goals for the conservation of Bradshaw’s a significant portion of its range, and a of the threats in light of those actions lomatium, or with goals for maintenance threatened species as a species that is and conditions that will have positive of the wet prairie habitat upon which likely to become an endangered species effects on the species—such as any this species depends. Sites with within the foreseeable future throughout existing regulatory mechanisms or management plans include those owned all or a significant portion of its range. conservation efforts. The Secretary by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Act requires that we determine determines whether the species meets Bureau of Land Management, the whether any species is an endangered the definition of an ‘‘endangered Service, The Nature Conservancy, and species or a threatened species because species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only privately owned sites covered by the of any of the following factors: after conducting this cumulative Natural Resources Conservation (A) The present or threatened analysis and describing the expected Service’s Wetland Reserve Program destruction, modification, or effect on the species now and in the (Service 2018, pp. 30–35, Appendix A). curtailment of its habitat or range; foreseeable future.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 13208 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

The Act does not define the term (for example, droughts, large pollution 50 years to provide the best balance of ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in events); and representation supports the scope of impacts considered versus the the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened ability of the species to adapt over time certainty of those impacts being species.’’ Our implementing regulations to long-term changes in the environment realized. at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a (for example, climate changes). In At the time of listing, the primary framework for evaluating the foreseeable general, the more resilient and threats to Bradshaw’s lomatium were future on a case-by-case basis. The term redundant a species is and the more habitat loss due to land use conversion foreseeable future extends only so far representation it has, the more likely it for agriculture or urbanization and the into the future as we can reasonably is to sustain populations over time, even invasion of prairie vegetation by various determine that both the future threats under changing environmental woody plant species (53 FR 38449– and the species’ responses to those conditions. Using these principles, we 38450; September 30, 1988). The listing threats are likely. In other words, the identified the species’ ecological rule did not find that overutilization for foreseeable future is the period of time requirements for survival and commercial, recreational, scientific, or in which we can make reliable reproduction at the individual, educational purposes posed a threat to predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean population, and species levels, and Bradshaw’s lomatium. The listing rule ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide described the beneficial and risk factors noted that several parasitic organisms (a a reasonable degree of confidence in the influencing the species’ viability. fungus, spittle bug, and two aphids) prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable The SSA process can be categorized could potentially have negative effects if it is reasonable to depend on it when into three sequential stages. During the on smaller, stressed populations of the making decisions. first stage, we evaluated the individual plant (but not the species as a whole) It is not always possible or necessary species’ life-history needs. The next and questioned whether inbreeding to define foreseeable future as a stage involved an assessment of the depression might pose a threat to the particular number of years. Analysis of historical and current condition of the species since the populations known at the foreseeable future uses the best species’ demographics and habitat the time appeared to be small and scientific and commercial data available characteristics, including an isolated from one another. The rule and should consider the timeframes explanation of how the species arrived noted that further study was required to applicable to the relevant threats and to at its current condition. The final stage determine the significance of any such the species’ likely responses to those of the SSA involved making predictions threats. Finally, the listing rule noted threats in view of its life-history about the species’ responses to positive that State and Federal regulations characteristics. Data that are typically and negative environmental and existing at the time did not adequately relevant to assessing the species’ anthropogenic influences. Throughout protect the plant from habitat loss or biological response include species- all of these stages, we used the best other potential threats (53 FR 38450; specific factors such as lifespan, available information to characterize September 30, 1988). By the time the reproductive rates or productivity, viability as the ability of a species to recovery plan was developed in 1993, certain behaviors, and other sustain populations in the wild over these same threats were still considered demographic factors. time. We use this information to inform relevant (Service 1993, p. 12). There are our regulatory decision. three potential threats that were either Analytical Framework not known or considered at the time of Summary of Biological Status and The SSA report documents the results listing: (1) Competition from nonnative, Threats of our comprehensive biological review invasive plant species; (2) potential of the best scientific and commercial In this discussion, we review the impacts resulting from the effects of data regarding the status of the species, biological condition of Bradshaw’s climate change; and (3) predation by including an assessment of the potential lomatium and its resources, and the voles (Microtus spp.), which has been threats to the species. The SSA report threats that influence the species’ observed within Bradshaw’s lomatium does not represent our decision on current and future condition, in order to sites. Subsequently, we conducted a 5- whether the species should be assess the species’ overall viability and year status review based on the SSA downlisted or delisted under the Act. It the risks to that viability. report for Bradshaw’s lomatium that does, however, provide the scientific We consider 25 to 50 years to be a includes an analysis of all factors basis that informs our regulatory reasonable period of time within which known to affect the viability of the decisions, which involve the further reliable predictions can be made for species (Service 2018, entire). application of standards within the Act potential stressors and responses for As discussed in our 2018 SSA report, and its implementing regulations and Bradshaw’s lomatium. This period of the threat of habitat loss from land policies. The following is a summary of time is sufficient to observe population conversion for agriculture and the key results and conclusions from the trends for the species, based on its life urbanization has decreased since the SSA report; the full SSA report can be history characteristics, and captures the time of listing due to land protection found at Docket FWS–R1–ES–2019– terms of many of the management plans efforts. Although a few privately owned 0013 on http://www.regulations.gov. that are in effect at Bradshaw’s sites are still at risk, land use conversion To assess the viability of Bradshaw’s lomatium sites; it is also the length of is no longer considered a significant lomatium, we used the three time over which we conclude we can threat to the viability of Bradshaw’s conservation biology principles of make reliable prediction about the lomatium due to the number of sites resiliency, redundancy, and anticipated effects of climate change. now receiving some degree of protection representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, Although information exists regarding from development (Service 2018, pp. pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency potential impacts from climate change 36–39, Appendix A). In Oregon, which supports the ability of the species to beyond a 50-year timeframe, the supports 23 of the 24 known withstand environmental and projections depend on an increasing populations of the species, greater than demographic stochasticity (for example, number of assumptions, and thus 99 percent of known Bradshaw’s wet or dry, warm or cold years); become more uncertain with lomatium plants occur on sites redundancy supports the ability of the increasingly long timeframes. We, protected through public or NGO species to withstand catastrophic events therefore, use a maximum timeframe of ownership, through designation as a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13209

right-of-way, or by conservation pp. 352–353), and is greater than that representation. We estimated that easements on private lands. In found in other rare Lomatium species populations currently in low condition Washington, one of two sites that (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2000, p. 787), or with very low abundance may be support Bradshaw’s lomatium is owned although the most disjunct population extirpated due to the combined effects by the WDNR, and the State is actively in southwestern Washington showed of climate change impacts and working toward the conservation of the relatively lower genetic diversity than stochastic events; this translated to an very large adjacent site that supports the less geographically isolated populations estimated loss of up to five small majority of known individuals of the (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2001, p. 353). populations, with other populations species. As the threat posed to The threat of inbreeding depression is reduced in size. However, even with a Bradshaw’s lomatium from habitat loss further considered reduced since we presumed 50 percent reduction in is no longer considered significant, we now understand Bradshaw’s lomatium abundance, at least 14 to 16 populations additionally no longer consider State or to be primarily an outcrossing species of Bradshaw’s lomatium in moderate or Federal protections to be inadequate to (which promotes increased genetic high condition are expected to remain address this threat. diversity), rather than an obligate self- on the landscape with ongoing The present threat to Bradshaw’s pollinating species as was believed at management. We do not anticipate any lomatium from modification of habitat the time of listing (Service 2018, pp. 7, significant effect on representation, that due to invasion of prairies by nonnative, 20). is, the ability of the species to adapt to invasive plants and by woody species The potential threat posed to changing environmental conditions over has been reduced in many populations Bradshaw’s lomatium from the effects of time (Service 2018, pp. 42–46). due to active habitat management using climate change is difficult to predict. herbicides, mowing, and prescribed fire, Cumulative Impacts The primary threat to the species from but ongoing habitat management is When multiple stressors co-occur, one the effects of climate change is likely required to maintain these may exacerbate the effects of the other, reduced moisture availability due to improvements. As noted above, across leading to effects not accounted for warmer temperatures and alterations to the range of Bradshaw’s lomatium, 75 when each stressor is analyzed precipitation patterns resulting in percent of the known sites receive active individually. The full impact of these increased evapotranspiration (Bachelet management that benefits the species, synergistic effects may be observed et al. 2011, p. 414; Steel et al. 2011, pp. and 58 percent of total sites have a within a short period of time or may 43; Kaye et al. 2013, p. 18. The management plan in place with goals for take many years before they are the conservation of Bradshaw’s vulnerability of Bradshaw’s lomatium to noticeable. For example, high levels of lomatium, or for maintenance of the wet the effects of climate change, assessed predation on Bradshaw’s lomatium prairie habitat upon which it depends over a range of potential future during vole outbreaks can cause large (Service 2018, pp. 36–39, Appendix A). emissions scenarios, has been ranked as temporary population declines but are Based on the high proportion of sites anywhere from low to moderate (Steel et not generally considered a significant protected or managed, the history of al. 2011, pp. 25, 89) to highly vulnerable threat to long-term viability; positive management observed to date, (Kaye et al. 2013, p. 20). Possible effects populations that are relatively large and and ongoing efforts to further restore of climate change on Bradshaw’s well-distributed should be able to and protect wet prairie habitats, we lomatium include increased withstand such naturally occurring have confidence that management of reproduction after increased early events. However, the relative impact of Bradshaw’s lomatium sites will precipitation, temporal shifts in life predation by voles may be intensified continue to provide adequate protection cycle completion to earlier in spring when outbreaks occur in conjunction to the species in the long term. This (earlier germination and seed set), with other factors that may lessen the confidence is affirmed by the MOU increased mortality, and decreased resiliency of Bradshaw’s lomatium committing to long-term conservation of recruitment (USFWS 2018, p. 43). We populations, such as prolonged woody Bradshaw’s lomatium on Federal lands assessed the potential impacts of species encroachment; extensive regardless of its listing status. We found climate change on Bradshaw’s lomatium nonnative, invasive plant infestations; no evidence that negative impacts due projected out over a period up to 50 or possible hydrological alterations to parasitic organisms constitute a threat years in the future. Published resulting from the effects of climate to the viability of Bradshaw’s lomatium. assessments provide only qualitative change. Predation by voles appears to vary year appraisals of the potential response of Although the types, magnitude, or to year, and can substantially reduce Bradshaw’s lomatium to the effects of extent of potential cumulative impacts aboveground biomass and reproduction climate change; therefore, we are difficult to predict, we are not aware in years when vole abundance is high. characterized a ‘‘worst case’’ future of any combination of factors that is However, the effect on populations is scenario in terms we could use in our likely to co-occur with significant estimated to be minimal over time as analysis of future condition. In negative consequences for the species. long as there is sufficient time for consultation with species experts and We anticipate that any negative Bradshaw’s lomatium to regenerate conservation partners, we defined the consequence of co-occurring threats will taproot reserves between vole outbreaks worst case scenario as one where be successfully addressed through the (Drew 2000, pp. 54–55), and no increased mortality and decreased same active management actions that consistent long-term declines recruitment culminate in a 50 percent have contributed to the ongoing attributable to vole predation have been reduction of all populations. We recovery of Bradshaw’s lomatium and reported (Service 2018, p. 20). considered this to be a conservative that are expected to continue into the Concerns over the possibility of approach, in that the actual effects on future. The best scientific and inbreeding depression expressed at the populations size are likely to be more commercial data available indicate that time of listing are now reduced due to moderate. Even in the face of such a Bradshaw’s lomatium is composed of a subsequent study indicating that severe population reduction, the species multiple populations, primarily in overall genetic diversity in Bradshaw’s is anticipated to remain viable as moderate to high condition, which are lomatium is relatively high for a rare indicated by appreciable levels of sufficiently resilient, well distributed, species (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2001, resiliency, redundancy, and protected, and managed such that they

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 13210 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

will be robust in the face of potential because it accumulates and evaluates of Bradshaw’s lomatium to the threat of cumulative effects to which they may be the effects of all the factors that may be habitat degradation through exposed. influencing the species, including encroachment of woody vegetation and Overall, we conclude that under threats and conservation efforts. nonnative plants. In particular, the current conditions, most populations of Because the SSA framework considers commenter argued that if only 58 Bradshaw’s lomatium are resilient, not just the presence of the factors, but percent of total sites have a management because they have abundant numbers of to what degree they collectively plan with conservation goals for individuals. There are redundant influence risk to the entire species, our Bradshaw’s lomatium or wet prairie populations of Bradshaw’s lomatium, assessment integrates the cumulative habitat, a ‘‘worst case’’ future scenario meaning that multiple populations effects of the factors and replaces a could leave the remaining 42 percent of occur in most recovery zones, indicating standalone cumulative effects analysis. sites unmanaged, or under-managed, in that the species has the ability to See the SSA report (Service 2018, terms of habitat maintenance. Overall, minimize potential loss from entire) for a more detailed discussion of the commenter suggested that more catastrophic events. The concern at the our evaluation of the biological status of measures are needed to formalize the time of listing about a possible genetic Bradshaw’s lomatium and the commitment of landowners to continue bottleneck has been alleviated by influences that may affect its continued Bradshaw’s lomatium habitat genetic studies demonstrating that existence. Our conclusions are based management efforts to ensure habitat for Bradshaw’s lomatium has relatively upon the best available scientific and the species remains protected from high genetic diversity for a rare species. commercial data and the expert degradation following delisting, with Also, with populations distributed opinions of the species status particular emphasis on non-Federal across the known historical range of the assessment team members. public sites and the large population in species (Service 2018, p. 40), Summary of Comments and Washington. Bradshaw’s lomatium has likely Recommendations Our Response: Our evaluation of the retained much of its adaptive capacity level of protection and active (i.e., representation). We also In the proposed rule published in the management provided to populations of considered the potential future Federal Register on November 26, 2019 Bradshaw’s lomatium, required to conditions of Bradshaw’s lomatium, (84 FR 65067), we requested that all effectively ameliorate the threat of taking into account the current interested parties submit written habitat degradation now and into the condition and additional stressors not comments on our proposal to delist considered at the time of recovery plan Bradshaw’s lomatium by January 27, future, was one of our primary development (e.g., the effects of climate 2020. We also contacted appropriate considerations in determining the change). Projecting 25 to 50 years into Federal and State agencies, scientific appropriate status of the species. As the future, under a conservative experts and organizations, and other described in the November 26, 2019, estimate that conditions could interested parties and invited them to proposed rule (84 FR 65067) and in potentially worsen such that all existing comment on the proposal. Newspaper Appendix A of the SSA report, our populations are reduced by half, the notices inviting general public comment information indicates that in Oregon, species would retain its resiliency and were published in The Oregonian. We where 69 of the 71 sites of Bradshaw’s redundancy. With an estimated 14 to 16 did not receive any requests for a public lomatium are found, nearly 99 percent populations in moderate or high hearing. All substantive information of Bradshaw’s lomatium individuals condition expected to remain on the provided during the comment period now receive protection from further landscape with ongoing management, has either been incorporated directly habitat loss and fragmentation due to representation was not anticipated to be into this final rule or is addressed land ownership by Federal, State, or affected (Service 2018, p. 44). As noted below. other public entities, or by NGOs, or due earlier, the degree to which threats to to protections through management Public Comments the species have been successfully agreements or conservation easements addressed is incorporated into the We received three comments from the on private lands. Nearly all of these evaluation of population resiliency at public on our November 26, 2019, management commitments are long- each site (i.e., site protection and proposed rule. One of these generally term or perpetual (61), and the short- management actions were considered in opposed the delisting of Bradshaw’s term management agreements (8) are the scoring of each population’s current lomatium but did not provide renewable. Of the 71 total known sites, condition; Service 2018, p. 28). The substantive comments to respond to or 51 are in public ownership and 9 have continuation of these conservation address. The remaining two provided either a conservation easement or measures was an assumption of our substantive comments on the proposed Partners for Fish and Wildlife agreement projection. rule or the draft post-delisting in place. There are only 11 sites on We note that, by using the SSA monitoring plan, and are addressed privately owned lands without a formal framework to guide our analysis of the below. agreement in place, but even without scientific information documented in Comment (1): One commenter formal protections, several of these are the SSA report, we have not only expressed concerns that Federal managed such that they provide habitat analyzed individual effects on the delisting of Bradshaw’s lomatium would for Bradshaw’s lomatium, and they species, but we have also analyzed their likely result in a petition for State support relatively few plants overall. potential cumulative effects. We delisting as well, resulting in a potential The 58 percent of sites with a incorporate the cumulative effects into threat from the inadequacy of regulatory management plan mentioned by the our SSA analysis when we characterize mechanisms to require habitat commenter refers only to those sites that the current and future condition of the maintenance for the species (Factor D). have a plan specific to Bradshaw’s species. Our assessment of the current The commenter states that habitat lomatium or the maintenance of wet and future conditions encompasses and management benefitting this prairie habitat; even without such a incorporates the threats individually conservation-reliant species may not plan, many of these sites do have and cumulatively. Our current and necessarily continue after delisting, management plans, and the majority of future condition assessment is iterative which would again expose populations sites experience some degree of habitat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13211

protection and management that undergo review if delisting is initiated. In addition, this commenter suggested benefits the species, even if that benefit This review process can take years. expedited site visits to additional lower is incidental to, and not focused Removal from the State list is, therefore, priority sites after delisting. These visits specifically on, Bradshaw’s lomatium. not necessarily imminent. In addition, could include collection of data that is Based on all of these considerations, we the habitat protections afforded listed informative but less time-consuming to do not foresee a future in which it is plants by both Federal and State laws collect, such as identifying whether likely that up to 42 percent of sites are limited. Under the provisions of management is continuing, identifying would be unmanaged or under- both the Act and Oregon State law (see whether flowering plants are present, managed, as the commenter suggests. OAR 603–073–0090 and Oregon Revised photo monitoring, and estimating The largest single population of Statute (ORS) 564.120), listed plants are population size-class. Bradshaw’s lomatium plants, located in protected by prohibitions from certain Our Response: Monitoring a southwestern Washington, is privately activities (for example, cutting, digging, representative subsample of sites as owned, and WDNR continues to actively damaging, destroying; transport and outlined in the draft post-delisting pursue avenues for the perpetual sale) but nothing in either law requires monitoring plan will give us an early conservation and management of this the maintenance of habitat for listed indication if declines are occurring or if site. However, as noted above and as plants. We, therefore, would not expect threats such as habitat degradation are described earlier in this document, even State delisting of Bradshaw’s lomatium resurgent. Limited resources preclude without formal protections, the regular to have much practical effect on the our ability to completely survey all of mowing that occurs at this site on a maintenance of habitat for the species or the known Bradshaw’s lomatium sites consistent basis year after year has protection from habitat degradation. each year; thus, we endeavored to craft provided for the most vast and robust After the protections of the Act no a post-delisting monitoring plan that population of the species known, the longer apply, we are planning for a 6- would effectively capture trends in owners have voluntarily placed signs to year post-delisting monitoring period to population size, habitat quality, and alert the public to the presence of the ensure Bradshaw’s lomatium’s status management direction across a plant, and the site faces no known does not deteriorate. If a substantial representative sample of sites. threats. decline in the species (numbers of The 18 priority sites for post-delisting The fact that the majority of individuals or populations) or an monitoring have been selected to Bradshaw’s lomatium sites are in some increase in threats is detected during represent the full geographic range of form of public or NGO ownership, or that period, we will implement the species, a variety of ownerships under conservation easement or other measures to halt the species’ decline so (informative regarding habitat agreement, gives us confidence that that re-proposing it as an endangered or management; see below), and a range of appropriate habitat management is threatened species is not needed. The population sizes. We specifically likely to continue into the foreseeable objective of the post-delisting designed post-delisting monitoring to future. The MOU committing to long- monitoring plan is to verify that address whether, and what type of, term conservation of Bradshaw’s Bradshaw’s lomatium remains secure management has occurred on the site in lomatium on Federal lands regardless of from the risk of extinction after the the previous year, as well as the its listing status, recently developed by protections of the Act have been ownership status of the site, precisely the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, removed. The plan is specifically because Bradshaw’s lomatium is a Bureau of Land Management, Natural designed to detect any significant conservation-reliant species and is so Resources Conservation Service, and the declines in Bradshaw’s lomatium dependent on appropriate habitat Service, which collectively own or populations, should any occur, with management. Conservation programs manage at least 35 of the 71 known reasonable certainty and precision (see offered through the Service’s Partners Bradshaw’s lomatium sites, further adds also our response to Comment (2), for Fish and Wildlife Program and to this confidence (Service et al. 2020, below). various Farm Bill programs entire). As noted above, this MOU did Comment (2): One commenter administered through the Natural not enter into our consideration of the expressed concerns that the draft post- Resources Conservation Service will potential delisting of Bradshaw’s delisting monitoring plan prioritizes continue to be available to private lomatium. However, it offers further monitoring of only 18 sites, or about 25 landowners for the long-term support for our confidence in the percent of all known sites, which could maintenance and protection of strength of the established conservation leave the status of most sites unknown important Bradshaw’s lomatium alliances for the preservation of prairie and possibly allow a serious decline in populations on private lands after the species and ecosystems in the critical populations to be missed. The species is delisted. As described in the Willamette Valley, and the likelihood commenter recommended including post-delisting monitoring plan, a 6-year that these efforts are likely to continue. more sites, and choosing those sites post-delisting monitoring period will Monitoring under the post-delisting based on their recovery value; including provide time for sites to undergo two to monitoring plan (see our response to smaller, more vulnerable populations three management cycles, allowing Comment (2), below) is designed to that play an important role in terms of monitoring efforts to identify potential confirm that appropriate management species viability (redundancy or deficiencies in management outcomes. continues and that degradation of representation) as a priority for The sites chosen for monitoring habitat for the species does not follow monitoring; and prioritizing sites for include representation from all of the delisting. monitoring that lack management plans recovery zones across the range of the Details about the State of Oregon’s or are otherwise at high risk of being species, different land ownerships, and criteria for delisting plants from the threatened following delisting. With different population sizes (ranging from State Endangered Species List can be regard to some of the smaller as few as 83 individuals to nearly found in Oregon Administrative Rule populations that are contributing to 75,000). The monitoring history of sites (OAR) 603–073–0030. Under this OAR, recovery, the commenter suggested that was an important consideration in their when a plant is removed from the population trend information be selection for post-delisting monitoring; Federal list, it is not automatically presented in addition to measures of to the extent possible we chose sites that removed from the State list, but must plant abundance. have already been monitored for long

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 13212 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

periods of time and have established the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ populations in high or moderate population trends, which allows us to or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines condition and with greater than 200 build on this existing data set and an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species plants, the most recent counts provides a more robust analysis of trend that is in danger of extinction demonstrate an estimated 485,595 information post-delisting. The plan throughout all or a significant portion of known individuals are distributed calls for post-delisting monitoring to its range, and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as throughout the historical range of the follow methods previously used at each a species that is likely to become an species (this count does not include the site so that reliable long-term trends can endangered species within the southwestern Washington population to be determined based on standardized foreseeable future throughout all or a ensure our evaluation was not unduly data collection. significant portion of its range. For a influenced by this single extremely large Of the 18 sites, 4 are privately owned, more detailed discussion on the factors population). and only 2 of those are without considered when determining whether a Our analysis of current population conservation and management species meets the definition of an condition on the basis of plant agreements. Fourteen of the 18 sites are endangered species or a threatened abundance, habitat quality, on Federal, State, municipal, or other species and our analysis on how we management, and protection from conservation ownership with active determine the foreseeable future in development resulted in rankings of 10 management plans. The 18 priority sites making these decisions, please see populations in high condition overall, 9 are just that: The priority sites for Regulatory and Analytical Framework, populations in moderate condition, and monitoring. Additional sites may be above. 4 populations in low condition. monitored as resources allow, and the Therefore, we are significantly less post-delisting monitoring plan Status Throughout All of Its Range concerned about small population sizes specifically allows for future After evaluating threats to the species or limited distribution of the species modification as needed or appropriate. and assessing the cumulative effect of than we were at the time of listing. The We have incorporated the commenter’s the threats under the Act’s section increase in known populations is due in recommendation to add expedited site 4(a)(1) factors, we found that the known large part to increased survey efforts and visits and abbreviated data collection at range of Bradshaw’s lomatium was incidental discovery of more occupied additional sites as time and opportunity considered dramatically reduced when habitat, leaving open the potential of allows, which would provide for an we listed it as an endangered species in finding even more populations of occasional check on the status of other 1988; at that time, we estimated that Bradshaw’s lomatium in the future. Bradshaw’s lomatium populations, into there were 11 small populations that Acquisition by conservation NGOs, or our final post-delisting monitoring plan. included a total of roughly 25,000 to enrollment into conservation easement Through the implementation of the 30,000 individuals. In addition, the programs, of sites containing post-delisting monitoring plan, the species faced threats from habitat loss Bradshaw’s lomatium populations has implementation of the aforementioned due to land conversion for agriculture substantially reduced the risk of habitat MOU, and the continued work of the and urbanization, as well as natural and population losses due to land use various native plant work groups and succession to woody species dominance conversion (Factor A). In addition, conservation partnerships focused on due to loss of historical disturbance population augmentation or the recovery of native plants, we regimes. As such, the species was introduction, combined with ongoing conclude that sufficient monitoring is in perceived to be upon the brink of active management of woody place to detect any significant changes extinction. Bradshaw’s lomatium has encroachment and of nonnative, in the populations of Bradshaw’s been the subject of intensive recovery invasive plant infestations, has lomatium. If data show that the species efforts since it was listed under the Act ameliorated the threat posed by these is declining, or if one or more factors 30 years ago, and the discovery of new, processes (Factor A) and increased the that have the potential to cause a previously unknown populations; resilience of many Bradshaw’s decline are identified, we may continue success in augmentation and habitat lomatium populations on protected monitoring beyond the 6-year period restoration and management efforts; and sites. Other potential threats identified and modify the post-delisting the protection of Bradshaw’s lomatium at the time of listing have either never monitoring plan based on an evaluation populations and habitats on public materialized (parasitism by other of the results, or reinitiate listing if lands and on private lands through organisms (Factor C), negative effects of necessary. conservation easements and inbreeding depression (Factor E)) or Section 4(g)(2) of the Act directs the management agreements with NGOs and have been addressed through other Service to make prompt use of its other parties have led to a significant means (i.e., habitat protections and emergency listing authorities under reduction in threats and improvement management, addressing Factor D). section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a in the status of the species since listing. Since listing, we have become aware significant risk to the well-being of any Recovery goals for delisting of the potential for the effects of climate recovered species. While not Bradshaw’s lomatium were set at a change (Factor E) to affect organisms specifically mentioned in section 4(g) of minimum of 20 populations with a total and ecosystems, including potentially the Act, authorities to list species in of 100,000 individual plants distributed Bradshaw’s lomatium. We considered accordance with the process prescribed across the species’ historical range. the potential consequences of climate in sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act Under current conditions, 24 change and evaluated a range of future may also be used to reinstate species on populations of Bradshaw’s lomatium are scenarios, including one with up to a 50 the List, if warranted. distributed throughout the species’ percent reduction in the size of all historical range; if we consider only known populations across the range of Determination of Bradshaw’s those populations in high or moderate the species. Even in the face of such a Lomatium’s Status condition and containing at least 200 severe population reduction, the species Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) individuals as contributing to recovery, retained appreciable levels of resiliency, and its implementing regulations (50 17 such populations occur throughout redundancy, and representation such CFR part 424) set forth the procedures the range of the species (see table, that we do not consider the effects of for determining whether a species meets above). Considering only those 17 climate change to pose a threat such that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13213

it would place the species at risk of prevent these stressors from constituting management. Of the two sites that extinction in the future (Service 2018, a threat to the species such that it would comprise the sole population of pp. 42–46). To be conservative, our meet the definition of an endangered Bradshaw’s lomatium in southwestern analysis of future conditions did not species or a threatened species. Thus, Washington, one is located on a consider that ongoing efforts to improve after assessing the best available privately owned golf course and population sizes and habitat quality information, we determine that contained approximately 10.8 million have the potential to further increase the Bradshaw’s lomatium is not in danger of Bradshaw’s lomatium plants at the most number of resilient populations of extinction now or likely to become so in recent survey. This site currently has Bradshaw’s lomatium. Many stressors to the foreseeable future throughout all of high-quality habitat. Current the species are being addressed through its range. management at the site, as in past years, supports open, wet prairie conditions habitat management and population Status Throughout a Significant Portion (Service 2018, pp. 29, 57), primarily augmentation, but ongoing management of Its Range is necessary to maintain resilient through mowing. Although no formal populations throughout the species’ Under the Act and our implementing protections are in place that would range. regulations, a species may warrant prevent future development, we have no listing if it is in danger of extinction or In sum, significant impacts at the time information to indicate that it is likely likely to become so in the foreseeable of listing such as habitat loss due to the site would be developed or that future throughout all or a significant habitat management will change in any land use conversion and woody portion of its range. Having determined encroachment that could have resulted way that would substantially impact that Bradshaw’s lomatium is not in Bradshaw’s lomatium. In addition, the in the extirpation of all or parts of danger of extinction or likely to become populations have been either eliminated areas occupied by Bradshaw’s lomatium so in the foreseeable future throughout are within wetlands, which may have or reduced since listing. An assessment all of its range, we now consider of likely future conditions, including protections from development under whether it may be in danger of State or Federal law. Based on the the status of known stressors, extinction or likely to become so in the management trends, and possible current protections of the other foreseeable future in a significant Washington site, a preserve owned and impacts of climate change, finds that portion of its range—that is, whether managed by the WDNR, the lack of any although populations may decline in there is any portion of the species’ range present threat of destruction or abundance, at least 14 to 16 populations for which both (1) the portion is degradation at the privately owned golf across the range of the species are significant, and (2) the species is in course site, and ongoing appropriate expected to maintain high or moderate danger of extinction now or likely to management at both sites, we have resiliency over a timeframe of 25 to 50 become so in the foreseeable future in confidence that habitat at these sites years into the future (Service 2018, pp. that portion. Depending on the case, it will continue to support Bradshaw’s 42–46). We, therefore, conclude that the might be more efficient for us to address lomatium for the foreseeable future. In previously recognized impacts to the ‘‘significance’’ question or the Oregon, greater than 99 percent of Bradshaw’s lomatium from present or ‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to known Bradshaw’s lomatium plants threatened destruction, modification, or address either question first. Regardless occur on sites protected through public curtailment of its habitat or range of which question we address first, if we or NGO ownership, through designation (specifically, habitat development for reach a negative answer with respect to as a right-of-way, or by conservation agriculture or urbanization and invasion the first question that we address, we do easements on private lands. Rangewide, of prairie vegetation by various woody not need to evaluate the other question 75 percent of the known sites receive plant species) (Factor A); disease or for that portion of the species’ range. In active management that benefits the predation (specifically, parasitism by undertaking this analysis for Bradshaw’s species. Thus, we have found no insects and predation by voles) (Factor lomatium, we choose to address the evidence that the present or threatened C); the inadequacy of existing regulatory status question first—we consider destruction, modification, or mechanisms (Factor D); and other information pertaining to the geographic curtailment of habitat (Factor A) is natural or manmade factors affecting its distribution of both the species and the concentrated within any portion of continued existence (specifically, threats that the species faces to identify Bradshaw’s lomatium’s range, or will be genetic isolation, inbreeding depression, any portions of the range where the within the foreseeable future. and the effects of climate change) species is endangered or threatened. We We found no evidence that negative (Factor E) do not rise to a level of considered whether the threats to impacts due to parasitic organisms significance, either individually or in Bradshaw’s lomatium are geographically constitute a threat to the viability of combination, such that the species is in concentrated in any portion of the Bradshaw’s lomatium in any part of its danger of extinction now or likely to species’ range at a biologically range, now or in the foreseeable future. become so within the foreseeable future. meaningful scale. We examined the Predation by voles appears to vary Overutilization for commercial, following threats: Habitat loss from land year to year and can substantially recreational, scientific, or educational conversion or invasion of prairies by reduce aboveground biomass and purposes (Factor B) was not a factor in nonnative, invasive, and woody species; reproduction of Bradshaw’s lomatium in listing and based on the best available parasitic organisms; predation by voles; years when vole abundance is high. information, we conclude that it does inadequate State or Federal protections; However, the effect on populations is not constitute a threat to Bradshaw’s inbreeding depression; climate change; found to be minimal over time, as long lomatium now or in the foreseeable and the cumulative effects of these as there is sufficient time for Bradshaw’s future. The Service recognizes that threats. lomatium to regenerate taproot reserves woody encroachment and nonnative, The threat of habitat loss from land between vole outbreaks (Drew 2000, pp. invasive plant species are stressors with conversion and invasion of prairies by 54–55), and no consistent long-term ongoing impacts to Bradshaw’s nonnative, invasive, and woody species declines attributable to vole predation lomatium, but finds that current and has decreased in all portions of the have been reported (Service 2018, p. expected trends in site protection and range since the time of listing, due to 20). The best available information does habitat management are sufficient to land protection efforts and active habitat not indicate that predation is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES 13214 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

concentrated with any portion of the five small populations, with other provided by the Act, particularly range of Bradshaw’s lomatium, or will populations reduced in size. However, through sections 7 and 9, no longer be within the foreseeable future (Factor even with a presumed 50 percent apply to this species, and Federal C). reduction in abundance, at least 14 to 16 agencies are no longer required to Current State and Federal protections populations of Bradshaw’s lomatium in consult with the Service under section appear adequate to address the loss of moderate or high condition are expected 7 of the Act in the event that activities Bradshaw’s lomatium habitat to remain throughout the range with they authorize, fund, or carry out may throughout its range, and we do not ongoing management. We, therefore, affect Bradshaw’s lomatium. There is no foresee changes to these protections in have no information to indicate that critical habitat designated for this the foreseeable future (Factor D). As other natural or manmade factors pose species, so there will be no change to 50 described above, we do not consider a threat to the continued existence of CFR 17.96. habitat loss to be concentrated within Bradshaw’s lomatium (Factor E), now or any portion of its range. Of the two within the foreseeable future, in any Post-Delisting Monitoring known sites containing Bradshaw’s portion of the range. lomatium in southwestern Washington, Although the types, magnitude, or Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the one is protected through ownership by extent of potential cumulative impacts Secretary of the Interior, through the the WDNR. Although the second, larger are difficult to predict, we are not aware Service and in cooperation with the site lacks formal protection, it faces no of any combination of factors that are States, to implement a monitoring currently known threat of habitat loss or likely to co-occur with significant program for not less than 5 years for all degradation, either now or within the negative consequences for the species species that no longer meet the foreseeable future. Additionally, the within any portion of its range. We definition of endangered or threatened WDNR continues to make efforts to anticipate that any negative and, therefore, have been delisted. The provide additional conservation at the consequence of co-occurring threats will purpose of this post-delisting site. Bradshaw’s lomatium remains be successfully addressed through the monitoring is to verify that a species listed as endangered by the State of same active management actions that remains secure from risk of extinction Washington. have contributed to the ongoing after the protections of the Act have Concerns over the possibility of recovery of Bradshaw’s lomatium and been removed. The monitoring is inbreeding depression expressed at the that are expected to continue into the time of listing are now reduced due to future. designed to detect the failure of any a subsequent study indicating that We found no concentration of threats delisted species to sustain itself without overall genetic diversity in Bradshaw’s in any portion of Bradshaw’s the protective measures provided by the lomatium is relatively high for a rare lomatium’s range at a biologically Act. If, at any time during the species (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2001, meaningful scale. Therefore, no portion monitoring period, data indicate that the pp. 352–353), and is greater than that of the species’ range can provide a basis protective status under the Act should found in other rare Lomatium species for determining that the species is in be reinstated, we can initiate listing (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2000, p. 787). danger of extinction now or likely to procedures, including, if appropriate, Although the most disjunct population become so in the foreseeable future in emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) in southwestern Washington showed a significant portion of its range, and we of the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act relatively lower genetic diversity than find the species is not in danger of explicitly requires us to cooperate with less geographically isolated populations extinction now or likely to become so in the States in post-delisting monitoring (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2001, p. 353), the foreseeable future in any significant programs, but we remain responsible for the threat of inbreeding depression is portion of its range. This is consistent compliance with section 4(g) of the Act considered reduced, as we now with the courts’ holdings in Desert and, therefore, must remain actively understand Bradshaw’s lomatium to be Survivors v. Department of the Interior, engaged in all phases of post-delisting primarily an outcrossing species (which No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL monitoring. We also seek active promotes increased genetic diversity), 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and participation of other entities that are rather than an obligate self-pollinating Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, species as was believed at the time of expected to assume responsibilities for 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. the species’ conservation post-delisting. listing (Service 2018, pp. 7, 20). We 2017). have no information indicating that We prepared a post-delisting inbreeding depression constitutes a Determination of Status monitoring plan for Bradshaw’s threat to the viability of Bradshaw’s Our review of the best available lomatium. The plan discusses the lomatium in any part of its range, now scientific and commercial information current status of the species and or in the foreseeable future. indicates that Bradshaw’s lomatium describes the methods for monitoring In our SSA report, we assessed the does not meet the definition of an the species subsequent to its removal potential impacts of climate change on endangered species or a threatened from the Federal List of Endangered and Bradshaw’s lomatium projected up to 50 species in accordance with sections 3(6) Threatened Plants. The final post- years in the future, and conservatively and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we are delisting monitoring plan is available at evaluated a future scenario in which the removing Bradshaw’s lomatium from http://www.regulations.gov under potential negative effects of climate the List of Endangered and Threatened Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–0013. change were such that all populations Plants. were reduced in size by up to 50 We will work closely with our partners percent. Under such a scenario, we Effects of This Rule to maintain the recovered status of estimated that populations currently in This rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) to Bradshaw’s lomatium and ensure post- low condition or with very low remove Bradshaw’s lomatium from the delisting monitoring is conducted and abundance may be extirpated due to the Federal List of Endangered and future management strategies are combined effects of climate change Threatened Plants. On the effective date implemented (as necessary) to benefit impacts and stochastic events; this of this rule (see DATES, above), the Bradshaw’s lomatium. translated to an estimated loss of up to prohibitions and conservation measures

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13215

Required Determinations recordkeeping requirements, GOA exclusive economic zone Transportation. according to the Fishery Management National Environmental Policy Act (42 Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Regulation Promulgation Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North We have determined that Accordingly, we amend part 17, Pacific Fishery Management Council environmental assessments and subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the under authority of the Magnuson- environmental impact statements, as Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth Stevens Fishery Conservation and defined under the authority of the below: Management Act. Regulations governing National Environmental Policy Act of fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not PART 17—ENDANGERED AND with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 be prepared in connection with THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of The A season allowance of the 2021 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 the Act. We published a notice outlining Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher/ continues to read as follows: our reasons for this determination in the processors using hook-and-line gear in Federal Register on October 25, 1983 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA (48 FR 49244). 1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. is 588 metric tons (mt) as established by § 17.12 [Amended] the final 2021 and 2022 harvest Government-to-Government specifications for groundfish in the GOA ■ Relationship With Tribes 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the (86 FR 10184, February 19, 2021). In accordance with the President’s entry for ‘‘Lomatium bradshawii’’ under In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), memorandum of April 29, 1994 FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of the Regional Administrator has (Government-to-Government Relations Endangered and Threatened Plants. determined that the A season allowance with Native American Tribal Martha Williams, of the 2021 Pacific cod TAC Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Principal Deputy Director Exercising the apportioned to catcher/processors using Order 13175 (Consultation and Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish hook-and-line gear in the Western Coordination with Indian Tribal and Wildlife Service. Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon Governments), and the Department of [FR Doc. 2021–04693 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am] be reached. Therefore, the Regional the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Administrator is establishing a directed readily acknowledge our responsibility fishing allowance of 588 mt and is to communicate meaningfully with setting aside the remaining 0 mt as recognized Federal Tribes on a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE bycatch to support other anticipated government-to-government basis. In groundfish fisheries. In accordance with accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 National Oceanic and Atmospheric § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Administration Administrator finds that this directed Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust fishing allowance has been reached. Responsibilities, and the Endangered 50 CFR Part 679 Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting Species Act), we readily acknowledge [Docket No. 210210–0018; RTID 0648– directed fishing for Pacific cod by our responsibilities to work directly XA787] catcher/processors using hook-and-line with Tribes in developing programs for gear in the Western Regulatory Area of healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic the GOA. Tribal lands are not subject to the same Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by While this closure is effective the controls as Federal public lands, to Catcher/Processors Using Hook-and- maximum retainable amounts at remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Line Gear in the Western Regulatory § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time to make information available to Tribes. Area of the Gulf of Alaska during a trip. We have determined that no Tribes will AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Classification be affected by this rule because no Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and NMFS issues this action pursuant to Tribal lands, sacred sites, or resources Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens will be affected by the removal of Commerce. Act. This action is required by 50 CFR Bradshaw’s lomatium from the List of ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. part 679, which was issued pursuant to Endangered and Threatened Plants. section 304(b), and is exempt from References Cited SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed review under Executive Order 12866. fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/ Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there A complete list of all references cited processors using hook-and-line gear in is good cause to waive prior notice and in this rule is available on the internet the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf an opportunity for public comment on at http://www.regulations.gov under of Alaska (GOA). This action is this action, as notice and comment Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–0013 or necessary to prevent exceeding the A would be impracticable and contrary to upon request from the State Supervisor, season allowance of the 2021 total the public interest, as it would prevent Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod by NMFS from responding to the most FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). catcher/processors using hook-and-line recent fisheries data in a timely fashion Authors gear in the Western Regulatory Area of and would delay the closure of Pacific the GOA. The primary authors of this rule are cod by catcher/processors using hook- the staff of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION time (A.l.t.), March 3, 2021, through publish a notice providing time for CONTACT). 1200 hrs, A.l.t., June 10, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: public comment because the most List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Krista Milani, 907–581–2062. recent, relevant data only became Endangered and threatened species, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS available as of March 2, 2021. Exports, Imports, Reporting and manages the groundfish fishery in the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:10 Mar 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08MRR1.SGM 08MRR1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES