Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Island Bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island Dudleya From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 73722-73741 [2022-25974]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73722-73741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25974]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0066; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BF51


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Island 
Bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island Dudleya From the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring 
plans.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove island bedstraw (Galium buxifolium) and Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya (Dudleya nesiotica) from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants on the basis of recovery. Both of these native plant 
species occur in the Channel Islands National Park off the coast of 
California. This proposed rule is based on our review of the best 
available scientific and commercial data, which indicates that the 
threats to island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya have been 
eliminated or reduced to the point that these species have recovered 
and no longer meet the definition of an endangered or threatened 
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We 
request information and comments from the public regarding this 
proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring plans for island 
bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before

[[Page 73723]]

January 30, 2023. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule and the draft 
post-delisting monitoring plans for island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2022-0066, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed 
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2022-0066, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and 
supporting documents, including the 5-year reviews, recovery plan, 
draft post-delisting monitoring plans, and the species status 
assessment (SSA) reports for island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya, are available at https://ecos.fws.gov, or at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0066 (also see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In addition, the supporting files for 
this proposed rule will be available for public inspection by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road #B, 
Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805-644-1766.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; by telephone 805-644-1766. 
Direct all questions or requests for additional information to: island 
bedstraw and/or Santa Cruz Island dudleya questions, to the address 
above. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard 
of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is 
determined no longer to be an endangered or threatened species, we may 
reclassify the species or remove it from the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants due to recovery. Island 
bedstraw is listed as endangered, and Santa Cruz Island dudleya is 
listed as threatened. We are proposing to remove these species from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., delist these 
species) because we have determined that they are no longer in danger 
of extinction now or within the foreseeable future. Delisting a species 
can be completed only by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. This rule proposes to remove island 
bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants in title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (at 50 CFR 17.12(h)) based on their recovery.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered species or threatened species based on any of 
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same 
five factors in removing a species from the List (delisting).
    Under the Act, we must review the status of all listed species at 
least once every five years. We must delist a species if we determine, 
on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, that 
the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered species. 
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11 identify three reasons why we might 
determine that a listed species is neither an endangered species nor a 
threatened species: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has 
recovered, or (3) the original data used at the time the species was 
classified were in error. Here, we have determined that island bedstraw 
and Santa Cruz Island dudleya have recovered, therefore we are 
proposing to delist them.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Reasons we should or should not remove island bedstraw and 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants. Please include any biological qualitative and/or quantitative 
data to support the reasons.
    (2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to 
island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya, particularly any data on 
the possible effects of climate change.
    (3) The extent of State protection and management that would be 
provided to these plants as delisted species.
    (4) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya that may negatively 
impact or benefit the species.
    (5) The draft post-delisting monitoring plans and the methods and 
approaches detailed in them.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.

[[Page 73724]]

    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information received 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that one or both of 
the species should remain listed as their current status (island 
bedstraw as endangered and Santa Cruz Island dudleya as threatened) or 
we may determine that one or both species should be reclassified.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website. The use of 
virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared SSA reports for 
both island bedstraw (Service 2021a, entire) and Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya (Service 2021b, entire). The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. These SSA 
reports represent a compilation of the best scientific and commercial 
data available concerning the status of the species, including the 
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and 
beneficial) affecting both of the species.
    In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994), the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on 
the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews of 
the information contained in the SSA reports for island bedstraw and 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya. We sent the island bedstraw SSA report to 
three independent peer reviewers and received three responses. We sent 
the Santa Cruz Island dudleya SSA report to three independent peer 
reviewers and received one response. Results of this peer review 
process can be found at https://ecos.fws.gov. The island bedstraw SSA 
report was also submitted to our Federal, State, and Tribal partners 
for scientific review. We received one partner review from the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS; Channel Islands Field Station in Ventura, 
California). The Santa Cruz Island dudleya SSA report was also 
submitted to our Federal, State, and Tribal partners for scientific 
review. We received two partner reviews from The Nature Conservancy 
(TNC) and USGS (Channel Islands Field Station in Ventura, California). 
In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these 
reviews, as appropriate, into the final SSA reports for both species, 
which are the foundation for this proposed rule.

Previous Federal Actions

Island Bedstraw

    On July 31, 1997, we listed island bedstraw as an endangered 
species (62 FR 40954), based primarily on the threats of soil loss, 
habitat alteration, and herbivory from feral pig rooting and sheep 
grazing. At the time of listing, we found that designation of critical 
habitat was not prudent, and no further action regarding critical 
habitat has been taken (62 FR 40954, July 31, 1997; p. 40971). The 
Recovery Plan that includes island bedstraw was signed on September 26, 
2000 (71 FR 54837-54838). The downlisting and delisting criteria for 
island bedstraw that are in the Recovery Plan (Service 2000, pp. 65-66) 
are listed below in Recovery Goals and Objectives.
    By the time the Recovery Plan was signed in 2000, sheep had been 
removed from all of the northern Channel Islands. Additionally, TNC and 
National Park Service (NPS) also initiated an 18-month feral pig 
removal program that removed all pigs from Santa Cruz Island by the end 
of 2006 (Parkes et al. 2010, entire). No feral pigs occurred on San 
Miguel Island after 1900 (McEachern et al. 2016, p. 759). In 2009, we 
conducted a 5-year review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)(A) in which 
we determined that island bedstraw still met the definition of an 
endangered species based on the following threats: (1) soil loss and 
erosion resulting from years of feral pig rooting and sheep grazing, 
(2) loss of habitat to nonnative, invasive plants, (3) random naturally 
occurring events due to its limited distribution and small population 
size, and (4) effects from climate change (Service 2009b, entire). We 
published a notice announcing the initiation of a new 5-year review of 
the status of island bedstraw on June 18, 2018 (83 FR 28251-28254). We 
developed the SSA that formed the basis for this action as part of our 
5-year review process. This action constitutes the 5 year review for 
island bedstraw.

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya

    On July 31, 1997, we listed Santa Cruz Island dudleya as a 
threatened species (62 FR 40954-40974), based primarily on the threats 
of soil loss, herbivory by feral pigs, disturbance by pig rooting, and 
vulnerability to collecting for botanical or horticultural use. At the 
time of listing, we found that designation of critical habitat was not 
prudent, and no further action regarding critical habitat has been 
taken (62 FR 40954, July 31, 1997; p. 40971). The Recovery Plan that 
covers island bedstraw also includes Santa Cruz Island dudleya. The 
delisting criteria for Santa Cruz Island dudleya that are in the 
Recovery Plan (Service 2000, p. 65) are listed below in Recovery Goals 
and Objectives.
    TNC and NPS initiated an 18-month feral pig removal program that 
removed all pigs from Santa Cruz Island by the end of 2006 (Parkes et 
al. 2010, entire). In 2009, we conducted a 5-year review pursuant to 16 
U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)(A) in which we determined that Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya still met the definition of a threatened species based on the 
following threats: (1) soil loss and degradation, (2) competition from 
invasive plant species, and (3) stochastic events on the species' 
single population with limited geographic range. We published a notice 
announcing the initiation of a new 5-year review of the status of Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya on July 26, 2019 (84 FR 36116-36118). We developed 
the SSA that formed the basis for this action as part of our 5-year 
review process. This action constitutes the 5 year review for Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya.

[[Page 73725]]

Proposed Delisting Determination

Background

Island Bedstraw

    Island bedstraw occurs on Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands of the 
Channel Islands in Santa Barbara County, California (figure 1). It is a 
long-lived, flowering woody shrub that can be more than 1 m (3 ft) tall 
and may sprawl laterally wider than it is tall. The basal stem diameter 
can exceed 13 millimeters (mm) (0.5 inch (in)) (McEachern et al. 2019a, 
p. 20). Stems can be glabrous, scabrous, or sparsely hairy. Its leaves 
are large for the genus and tend to turn red and be lost under summer 
drought stress conditions. Flowers are small (3-4 mm or 0.10-0.15 in 
diameter) and are greenish white, often with darker petal tips or 
centers. The fruit is a schizocarp (a dry fruit that splits into parts 
when ripe) comprising two single-seeded mericarps, typically referred 
to as nutlets. It is not known how long adult plants can live. They can 
likely live more than 20 years, if not longer (McEachern pers. comm. 
2020).
    Historically, island bedstraw has been characterized as restricted 
to coastal bluffs, steep rocky slopes, and sea cliffs in the coastal-
bluff scrub vegetation (Junak et al. 1995, p. 254; Dempster 1993, p. 
982; Soza 2012, p. 1211). However, the plant has also been found in 
other places, like in pine forest and at interior locations. For Santa 
Cruz Island, the number of known island bedstraw sites has increased 
with each successive survey effort, from 13 to 27 to 36 over the course 
of 20 years and 3 survey efforts. The number of sites on San Miguel 
Island has remained at six. Each site represents a separate population 
of island bedstraw for the purposes of this analysis. Where data are 
available, the estimated number of plants within sites has increased 
over time, sometimes dramatically. Plant totals have gone from about 
100 to about 10,000 for Santa Cruz Island, and the most recent total 
does not include most of the terraces or cliffs on the coastal sites. 
The total number of known plants on San Miguel Island has increased 
from about 500 to about 5,000, again not including most cliff face 
plants. Most of the 42 total sites are either extant or presumed to be 
extant. Island bedstraw seems to be expanding on terraces and other 
non-cliff habitats; this expansion is demonstrated at several sites. 
Further information on the basic biology and ecology of island bedstraw 
is summarized in the SSA report (Service 2021a, entire).

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya

    Santa Cruz Island dudleya is a succulent perennial, known from only 
one population (represented by five subpopulations) on the westernmost 
tip of Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, California (figure 
1). In general, little is known specifically about the life history of 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya. The species is a perennial succulent that is 
known to reproduce only by seed. The seed is extremely small and may be 
transported only a short distance by wind or water where it may 
germinate quickly if conditions allow or remain viably dormant for 
years. Many Dudleya species recruit most successfully into a 
cryptogamic substrate, but it is unknown if this substrate is a 
requirement for Santa Cruz Island dudleya. Seedlings require open 
spaces for germination and are not reproductive in their first year. 
Plants are self-compatible but require pollinators, some of which may 
be native bees. Seed production is not pollinator limited, and a 
reproductive plant can produce more than 1,000 seeds per year. Plants 
can live for at least several years. Older plants that have previously 
flowered may have years when they do not flower. Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya is found mostly on the lowest marine terraces from about 20-30 
m (66-98 ft) elevation. The soils are sandy and marine sediment derived 
or have a greater clay fraction derived from basaltic rock (Klinger et 
al. unpublished p. 6). The more coastal soils are considered to be more 
saline (Vivrette 2002, entire). Further information on the basic 
biology and ecology of Santa Cruz Island dudleya is summarized in the 
SSA report (Service 2021b, entire).

[[Page 73726]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01DE22.000

Figure 1. Locations of island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya in 
the Channel Islands National Park off the coast of California.

Recovery Plan and Recovery Criteria

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii) 
of the Act, recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, 
include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in 
a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to 
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan's delisting 
or downlisting criteria.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently, and that the 
species is robust enough, that it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may 
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery 
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may or may not follow all of the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    The Recovery Plan (Service 2000, p. 62) describes the recovery 
goals, objectives, and criteria that need to be achieved to consider 
removing island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. We summarize the goals and 
then discuss progress toward meeting the recovery criteria in the 
following sections.

Recovery Goals and Objectives

    In a recovery plan, the overall recovery goal is to improve the 
status of the species such that the protections of the Act are no 
longer needed. Preliminary goals and objectives include (1) stabilizing 
and protecting populations, (2) conducting research necessary to refine 
recovery criteria, and (3) reclassifying to threatened (downlisting) 
those species currently listed as endangered (reclassification being 
appropriate when a taxon is no longer in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range). Because data 
upon which to base decisions about reclassification and recovery were 
mostly lacking when the Recovery Plan was developed, downlisting and 
recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan are necessarily preliminary 
(Service 2000, p. 62).
    The following Recovery Plan criteria that generally apply to both 
of these species have been met: (1) provide protection and adaptive 
management of currently known (and in some cases historical) sites, (2) 
provide evidence

[[Page 73727]]

that the populations at these sites are stable or increasing over a 
number of years, which is determined by the life history of the 
individual species, (3) preserve the genetic diversity of the species 
by storing seeds in cooperating facilities, and (4) develop reliable 
seed germination and propagation techniques.
    Determining whether a species' current status meets the overall 
recovery goal and associated objectives requires a broad evaluation of 
the trends in the observed numbers of occurrences indicated by surveys 
and monitoring, the abundance and distribution of suitable habitat, 
evaluation of the seed bank, and the effectiveness of protective 
measures that have been implemented to reduce threats from human 
activities such as soil loss and herbivory by feral pigs and ungulates, 
disturbance by pig rooting, collecting for botanical and horticultural 
use, and trampling by humans. In addition, we also examine the 
effectiveness of protective measures that have been implemented to 
reduce threats from nonnative plants, the risk associated with small 
population size, climate change, and fire. In order to evaluate threats 
to the species, we must consider potential impacts within the 
foreseeable future. The Recovery Plan (Service 2000, entire) used 10-15 
years as the period of time to evaluate population stability because 
that time period reflects a typical multiyear precipitation cycle 
(Service 2000, p. 63). Unique recovery criteria for island bedstraw and 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya are covered in the Recovery Plan (Service 
2000, pp. 64-68) and are discussed below.

Recovery Criteria

Island Bedstraw Downlisting Criteria
    The Recovery Plan identified seven criteria for reclassifying 
island bedstraw to a threatened species (Service 2000, pp. 64-68):
     Downlisting Criterion 1: Stabilize or increase populations 
on Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands with evidence of natural 
recruitment for a period of 20 years that includes the normal 
precipitation cycle.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Since the time of listing, 
researchers have found 20 new sites on Santa Cruz Island, increasing 
the total number of sites from 19 to 39. On San Miguel Island, for 
three of the six historical sites that were surveyed, significant 
increases in numbers occurred between the time of listing and the most 
recent survey. Combined numbers for both islands have increased from 
512-603 at time of listing to at least 15,730 individuals at the time 
of 2015/2017 helicopter surveys. We conclude that this criterion has 
been met.
     Downlisting Criterion 2: Reintroduce plants to historical 
locations.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: No introduction of island 
bedstraw to any of the historical locations where it is possibly 
extirpated and no outplantings to augment extant historical sites have 
occurred. However, at the historical sites, plant numbers are generally 
increasing without plants being added artificially. Although this 
criterion has not been met, we conclude it is no longer needed.
     Downlisting Criterion 3: Seed stored in CPC cooperating 
facilities.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Currently, only a small 
amount of seed from a few sites on Santa Cruz Island is stored at the 
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, a Center for Plant Conservation (CPC) 
facility. Thorough conservation seed banking requires seed in storage 
from a good representation of sites over the range of the species. A 
few sites with currently only a small amount of seed is not sufficient 
to cover that standard. We conclude that this criterion has not been 
met. While there are plans to bolster the conservation seed bank, with 
its substantial natural recovery of island bedstraw this criterion no 
longer has the urgency it did at the time of listing. Because so many 
new populations have been documented, and the abundance is so great, 
conservation seed banking is not as important as it was thought to be 
at the time of the recovery plan.
     Downlisting Criterion 4: Seed germination and propagation 
techniques understood.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: While seeds have been 
germinated and the resulting plants have grown for several years, the 
conditions in which the seeds were germinated were fairly general, and 
optimal protocols have not been developed. We conclude that this 
criterion has not been met. However, we do not think Downlisting 
Criterion 4 is needed anymore because the numbers of island bedstraw 
are increasing naturally.
     Downlisting Criterion 5: Life-history research conducted.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Research over a 10-year 
period on the life history of the species, particularly flower biology 
and demography, has shown recruitment episodes and documented 
transitions through life-history stages. We conclude that this 
criterion has been met.
     Downlisting Criterion 6: Surveys of historical locations 
conducted.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Most of the 13 historical 
sites on Santa Cruz Island have been resurveyed at least once, and 
plants were found at most of those sites. In addition, most of the 14 
new locations found in 2004-2006 were either remapped or had plant 
numbers estimated in 2015 surveys. Most of the six historical sites on 
San Miguel Island have also been resurveyed, and plants were also found 
at all of those resurveyed sites. We conclude that this criterion has 
been met.
     Downlisting Criterion 7: If declining, determine cause and 
reverse trend.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: The species has not been 
declining on either Santa Cruz or San Miguel Islands. Rather, it has 
been dramatically increasing, and many new sites have been found since 
the time of listing. We conclude that this criterion has been met.
Island Bedstraw Delisting Criteria
    The Recovery Plan identified three criteria for removing island 
bedstraw from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
(Service 2000, pp. 64-68):
     Delisting Criterion 1: Discover or establish five 
additional populations per island (San Miguel and Santa Cruz).
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Researchers have discovered 
23 previously unknown sites on Santa Cruz Island. No new sites have 
been discovered or established on San Miguel Island. San Miguel Island 
lacks the extensive suitable habitat of Santa Cruz Island, and there 
may not be additional undiscovered populations; however, surveyed 
populations have increased in numbers of individuals. We conclude that 
this criterion has been met for Santa Cruz Island but not for San 
Miguel Island, but the criterion may not be possible for San Miguel 
Island.
     Delisting Criterion 2: No decline after downlisting for 10 
years.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: We conclude that this 
criterion is not relevant since we have not downlisted the species.
     Delisting Criterion 3: All potential habitat surveyed.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Currently, not every part 
of the north coast of Santa Cruz Island has been surveyed, nor have 
detailed surveys occurred everywhere on San Miguel Island or in 
potential habitat on the north coast of Santa Rosa Island. 
Additionally, historical interior sites have not been resurveyed 
sufficiently. We conclude that this criterion has not been met. 
However, this criterion may

[[Page 73728]]

no longer be needed because the numbers of island bedstraw plants have 
increased substantially on the islands from which it is known.
Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Delisting Criteria
    The Recovery Plan identified six criteria for removing Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants (Service 2000, pp. 64-68):
     Delisting Criterion 1: Maintain the existing population as 
stable with evidence of natural recruitment for a period of 20 years 
that includes the normal precipitation cycle.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Data indicate that the 
population size is stable at between 40,000 and 200,000 plants 
estimated per survey over the last 25 years, with the last estimate of 
120,000 in 2019. In 2019 a robust repeatable survey protocol was 
established, and baseline data have been collected to assess future 
trends. This criterion has been met.
     Delisting Criterion 2: Seed stored in CPC cooperating 
facilities.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: An abundance of recently 
collected seed is stored at the SBBG. This criterion has been met.
     Delisting Criterion 3: Seed germination and propagation 
techniques understood.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: While no specific work has 
been done with Santa Cruz Island dudleya, seed germination and plant 
propagation techniques are well understood for many other Dudleya 
species, including other closely related species in the same subgenus. 
We conclude that this criterion has been met.
     Delisting Criterion 4: Weed competition understood and 
managed.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: The vegetation of Santa 
Cruz Island is still changing since the complete removal of feral 
ungulates. Some aspects of the interactions of nonnative annual grasses 
and Santa Cruz Island dudleya were investigated more than 20 years ago, 
but little has been done recently. We conclude this criterion has not 
been met. However, Santa Cruz Island dudleya has not been observed to 
have been competitively impacted by weeds and is at least stable in 
population size at 40,000-200,000 individuals over the last 25 years, 
so while weeds may be a threat, they have not seemed to have had an 
impact on population stability.
     Delisting Criterion 5: Pig damage controlled.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Pigs were completely 
removed from Santa Cruz Island by 2006, and substantial passive 
vegetation recovery has occurred. This criterion has been met.
     Delisting Criterion 6: Life-history research conducted.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: While originally planned, 
no additional life-history research has been conducted specifically on 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya since the time of listing. However, many 
life-history characteristics are similar throughout Dudleya and 
applicable to this species. The criterion is considered met through 
knowledge of the biology of similar species.

Summary of Recovery Criteria

    In the Recovery Plan, the overall recovery goal is to improve the 
status of the species such that the protections of the Act are no 
longer needed. Preliminary goals and objectives include stabilizing and 
protecting populations, conducting research, and reclassifying species 
to threatened (downlisting) when appropriate. The Recovery Plan 
criteria that generally apply to both of these species have been met. 
The Recovery Plan's unique recovery criteria for island bedstraw and 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya (Service 2000, pp. 64-68) are discussed above 
and summarized below.
    Research and survey efforts have clarified the distribution, 
abundance, and habitat characteristics of island bedstraw and Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya. This information has resulted in a better 
understanding of the species' ecology and has shown an increase in the 
species' range, and numbers of sites and individuals for island 
bedstraw, and has shown population stability and increase in 
distribution for Santa Cruz Island dudleya.
    Overall, the intent of the recovery criteria has been met in 
collaboration with our partners. TNC and NPS have provided protection 
and adaptive management of historical and recent sites. USGS, TNC, and 
others have provided survey evidence that the populations at these 
sites are stable or increasing over a number of years. TNC and NPS have 
coordinated to preserve the genetic diversity of both species by 
conservation banking of seeds in approved facilities. Both species are 
considered recovered without reliable seed germination and propagation 
techniques being developed. Therefore, we conclude that, based on the 
best available information, the intent of the recovery criteria in the 
Recovery Plan has been achieved and the recovery goal identified in the 
Recovery Plan has been met for both island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. On 
July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
California vacated regulations that the Service (jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service) promulgated in 2019 modifying how 
the Services add, remove, and reclassify threatened and endangered 
species and the criteria for designating listed species' critical 
habitat (Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-
JST, Doc. 168 (CBD v. Haaland). As a result of that vacatur, 
regulations that were in effect before those 2019 regulations now 
govern species classification and critical habitat decisions. Our 
analysis for this proposal applied those pre-2019 regulations. However, 
given that litigation remains regarding the court's vacatur of those 
2019 regulations, we also undertook an analysis of whether the proposal 
would be different if we were to apply the 2019 regulations. We 
concluded that the proposal would have been the same if we had applied 
the 2019 regulations. The analysis based on the 2019 regulations is 
included in the decision file for this proposal.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive

[[Page 73729]]

effects. We consider these same five factors (50 CFR 424.11(c) and (e)) 
when considering downlisting a species from endangered to threatened 
and when considering delisting a species.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Because 
the decision in CBD v. Haaland vacated our 2019 regulations regarding 
the foreseeable future, we refer to a 2009 Department of the Interior 
Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The Meaning of `Foreseeable Future' in 
Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-37021). That 
Solicitor's opinion states that the foreseeable future ``must be rooted 
in the best available data that allow predictions into the future'' and 
extends as far as those predictions are ``sufficiently reliable to 
provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light 
of the conservation purposes of the Act.'' Id. at 13.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya SSA reports 
document the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best 
scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, 
including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The 
SSA reports do not represent our decision on whether the species should 
be proposed for removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants (``delisted''). However, they provide the scientific basis that 
informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application 
of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and 
policies. The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions 
from the island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya SSA reports; the 
full SSA reports for both species can be found at Docket FWS-R8-ES-
2022-0066 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://ecos.fws.gov.
    To assess island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya viability, 
we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). 
Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years); redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a 
species is, and the more representation it has, the more likely it is 
to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we briefly review the biological condition of 
the species and their resources, and the threats that influence the 
species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' 
overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Island Bedstraw Biological Condition

    Plants like the bedstraw, with functionally unisexual flowers, need 
flowers of opposite gender for successful seed set, requiring one or 
more pollinators. Seeds need to be able to survive until germination 
conditions are appropriate, and they need a stable location to 
germinate and grow. Larger plants also need stable locations for long-
term survival. A sufficient amount of moisture is needed for all island 
bedstraw life stages, and some of this moisture may be provided by fog. 
Island bedstraw populations need suitable habitat that supports 
survival and reproduction of an adequate number of individuals with 
vital rates that maintain self-sustaining populations despite 
stochastic events. Overall, the species needs sufficiently resilient 
populations distributed across its range to withstand catastrophic 
events. Population sizes should be large enough so that the species has 
the ability to adapt to changing conditions.
    At the time of listing, there were 19 known sites of island 
bedstraw, 13 on Santa Cruz Island and 6 on San Miguel Island. There may 
have been 44-133 or more plants on Santa Cruz Island and more than 470 
on San Miguel Island, with an estimated 515-603 plants on the 2 islands 
combined.
    After listing in 1997, from 2004 through 2006, significant efforts 
were

[[Page 73730]]

made to survey Santa Cruz Island for island bedstraw. Of the 13 
historical sites, 10 were surveyed, and no plants were found at 3 of 
those sites. An additional 14 new sites were discovered, expanding the 
distribution of sites to the west and east of the historical sites. At 
least 692-792 plants were counted at the historical sites, and at least 
459 plants were counted at the new sites, for a total of at least 
1,151-1,251 plants. No comparable surveys occurred on San Miguel 
Island; the only observations were counts at two sites in 1998 
(McEachern et al. 2019b, pp. 14-16).
    In 2015 on Santa Cruz Island and in 2017 on San Miguel Island, 
Wildlands Conservation Science (Lompoc, CA) used helicopter surveys to 
conduct rare plant surveys (Ball and Olthof 2017, entire; Ball et al. 
2018, entire). Additional observations, not associated with helicopter 
surveys, were made on both islands. For the helicopter surveys 
conducted in 2015 on Santa Cruz Island, 28 sites were visited 
consisting of 9 new sites, the 17 sites surveyed in 2004-2006, and 2 
previously unsurveyed historical sites. Additional sites discovered 
during the survey brought the total number of known sites to 36 (13 
historical prelisting sites, 14 additional sites discovered 2004-2006, 
9 sites in 2015 helicopter surveys), and the known geographical 
distribution of island bedstraw on the island eastward. Most sites were 
only photographed, but percent cover and area was estimated for level 
terraces at seven sites. And with an average plant canopy area derived 
from monitoring data, researchers estimated that those 7 sites had 
8,421 plants. An additional observation in 2019 estimated another 1,000 
or more plants at another terrace site.
    The 2017 helicopter surveys also conducted on San Miguel Island did 
not reveal new sites. Three of the six historical sites were visited, 
and percent cover and area of island bedstraw were estimated for level 
terraces at those sites. Using the average plant canopy area, 
researchers estimated that there were 5,339 plants at the 3 sites. A 
fourth site was previously confirmed to be extant in 2014; the other 
two sites have not been surveyed but are also presumed to have extant 
plants.
    On Santa Cruz Island, the total number of known island bedstraw 
sites has increased from 13 at the time of listing, to 27 at the time 
of the 2004-2006 surveys, to 36 after the 2015 helicopter surveys 
(Service 2021a, table 14, p. 37). On San Miguel Island, the number of 
known sites is six, which is the same as at the time of listing. Of the 
36 total number of known sites on Santa Cruz Island, 28 are known to be 
extant based on recent helicopter surveys and observations (Service 
2021a, table 13, figure 9, pp. 35-36); five are presumed extant (four 
sites had plants in the 2004-2006 surveys but were not surveyed 
thereafter, and one site has not been surveyed since before listing); 
and three sites are possibly extirpated (targeted surveys took place in 
2004-2006, but sites were not relocated or mapped by the 2015 
helicopter surveys). Similarly, of the six known sites on San Miguel 
Island, four are known to be extant based on the 2017 helicopter survey 
and 2014 observational data (Service 2021a, table 13, figure 10, pp. 
35-36), and the remaining two are presumed extant (but have not been 
surveyed since before listing). There are no known possibly extirpated 
sites on San Miguel Island.
    The current totals, therefore, are 33 known or presumed extant on 
Santa Cruz Island and 6 on San Miguel Island. The total estimated 
number of known individuals within those sites on both islands combined 
has increased from 512-603 before listing to at least 15,730 after 
recent helicopter surveys.
    Currently, island bedstraw appears to have increasing abundance and 
distribution. It has shown demographic capacity for population growth 
at one site studied over a 10-year span and adaptive capacity by 
expansion beyond historically occupied areas into more diverse habitats 
(e.g., from cliff faces to terraces above the cliffs, and movement into 
nonnative-dominated vegetation). The species also shows the ability to 
withstand catastrophic events because it is distributed on two islands, 
has more sites now than at the time of listing, and has gaps between 
groups of sites within islands.

Island Bedstraw Threats

    In 1997, island bedstraw was listed as an endangered species due to 
effects (habitat alteration and herbivory) resulting from feral 
livestock grazing and trampling, and subsequent soil erosion (62 FR 
40954-40974, July 31, 1997). By the time the Recovery Plan was signed 
in 2000, sheep had been removed from both Santa Cruz and San Miguel 
Islands, but their residual effects remained. No feral pigs occurred on 
San Miguel Island after 1900, and TNC and NPS initiated an 18-month 
program that removed all pigs from Santa Cruz Island by the end of 
2006. In the 2009 5-year review, we determined that island bedstraw 
still met the definition of an endangered species based on the 
following threats: (1) soil loss and erosion resulting from years of 
feral pig rooting and sheep grazing, (2) loss of habitat to nonnative, 
invasive plants, (3) random naturally occurring events due to its 
limited distribution and small population size, and (4) effects from 
climate change.
    The major threats to island bedstraw at the time of listing, feral 
livestock grazing, trampling, and resulting erosion, have largely been 
eliminated, which consequently also reduced the threats of small 
population size and nonnative vegetation identified at the time of the 
2009 5-year review. Effects from climate change remain but are not to 
the level where we conclude that the species is in danger of 
extinction. We determined that overutilization, disease, predation 
(herbivory), and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms are 
not threats to island bedstraw, so we do not discuss them in detail in 
this proposed rule. For more information, see the island bedstraw SSA 
(Service, 2021a).
Soil Loss and Erosion
    Currently, vegetation cover has increased significantly on Santa 
Cruz Island since the eradication of herbivores (Beltran et al. 2014, 
p. 7), leading to reduced erosion. This trend appears similar on San 
Miguel Island.
Competition From Nonnative Plants
    Nonnative invasive plants were not specifically identified as a 
threat for this species at the time of listing but were discussed in 
the 2009 5-year review. While the competitive ability of island 
bedstraw against nonnative plants is unknown, the species seems to be 
able to colonize areas dominated by relatively short nonnative annuals, 
such as the terrace at the ``Bluffs East of Prisoners'' site. Island 
bedstraw may also have an advantage because native perennials in 
general tend to be at an advantage over nonnatives at sites that are 
relatively more mesic (Corry 2006, p. 97), such as the north-facing 
cliffs, terraces, and slopes on the north coasts of Santa Cruz and San 
Miguel Islands where island bedstraw is found. Additionally, the loss 
of leaves by island bedstraw during dry summer conditions may give it 
another edge over nonnatives (Corry 2006, p. 185) by allowing it to 
survive drier soil conditions through dormancy.
Random Extinctions of Small Populations
    On Santa Cruz Island, historical populations with known numbers of 
plants had 50 or fewer individuals, and 2004-2006 surveyed populations 
may have had hundreds of plants. While only a few of the 2015 surveyed 
sites

[[Page 73731]]

have population estimates, these estimates are in the thousands of 
individuals, and it is likely that more of the unsurveyed sites also 
have large numbers of plants. These sites with hundreds or thousands of 
plants have a greater likelihood of future persistence than sites with 
fewer than 50 plants. The three possibly extirpated historical sites on 
Santa Cruz Island that could not be located during the most recent 
surveys (Service 2021b, table 6, p. 26) probably had small numbers of 
individuals (Service 2021b, table 4, p. 22). Two of those sites were in 
relatively interior locations and could have gone undetected because of 
poor location descriptions. Similarly, the third site, while coastal, 
is in an area of extremely dense vegetation and could also have been 
equally difficult to find. Assuming extirpation, we estimate that these 
sites are exceptions to the general trend of increasing plant numbers 
at sites and represent only 3 of the 36 Santa Cruz Island sites. San 
Miguel Island has demonstrated similar trends of increasing numbers of 
plants within sites, from historical numbers of 250 or less, to 
estimates of 1,000 or more plants observed during the 2016 surveys 
(Service 2021b, table 12, p. 34). The general trend of increasing plant 
numbers at sites suggests that the threat of random extinction of small 
populations has been reduced.
Climate Change
    The northern Channel Islands lie off mainland Santa Barbara and 
Ventura Counties. Of the two counties, Santa Barbara County is the 
better model for assessing climate impacts on the species since the 
flora of the northern Channel Islands, in general, is considered to 
have more northern affinities (Raven and Axelrod, 1995, pp. 63-64). 
Annual average (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) 2019a) and 
maximum (NOAA NCEI 2019b) temperatures for Santa Barbara County for 
2014-2018 have been the highest recorded since 1895. Rainfall does not 
show such distinct trends. However, except for 2017, annual rainfall 
for 2011-2018 has been below the 1885-2018 mean (NOAA NCEI 2109c), with 
2013 and 2015 being two of the five driest years since 1885.
    These recent increases in annual average and maximum temperatures 
and lower annual rainfall do not seem to have adversely affected recent 
island bedstraw survivorship and expansion. The monitoring data at 
Pelican Bay (figure 13, McEachern et al. 2019b, p. 26) show an increase 
in the number of reproductive plants in 2014 compared to 2011. No sites 
are known to have been extirpated between 2004 and 2019. Spread from 
cliff locations to adjacent terraces has also been confirmed during 
that time period. It is unknown how further increases in temperature 
and decreases in rainfall may affect the species.
    The threat of fire increases with increases in annual average and 
maximum temperatures and lower annual rainfall. Neither natural nor 
anthropogenic fires are as common on the northern Channel Islands as on 
the adjacent mainland (Carroll et al. 1993, pp. 75-78). Just four 
natural fires are known to have occurred on the northern Channel 
Islands in the last 165 years, none of which have affected island 
bedstraw sites. Changes in future climate may increase this risk; 
however, we have no evidence that natural wildfires will be such a 
serious threat in the future that listing continues to be warranted.
Resiliency, Representation, and Redundancy
Resiliency
    Resiliency describes the ability of populations to withstand 
stochastic disturbance. Resiliency is positively related to population 
size and growth rate and may be influenced by connectivity among 
populations. Currently, island bedstraw has populations that are 
increasing in numbers of individuals and spatial extent. Island 
bedstraw abundances have increased from 512-603 before listing to at 
least 15,730 currently, the largest recorded abundance. Individual 
sites are larger than they were at the time of previous surveys, and 
larger than at the time of listing. Observations show that populations 
have spread from cliffs to adjacent level terraces. The rate of growth 
appears to be positive, from both demographic research and observations 
of increasing areal extent at individual sites. At least 1,000 plants 
in half a hectare has been documented in an area that was known to have 
no plants 15 years earlier. Recent observations show this pattern 
repeating at other sites.
Representation
    Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions over time. It is characterized by the 
breadth of genetic and environmental diversity within and among 
populations. Island bedstraw has historically occupied different parts 
of the islands, from sea cliff faces to the interior of the islands. It 
is now colonizing terraces above the cliffs. Given how readily island 
bedstraw moves off the bluffs, onto flats, and into native and 
nonnative vegetation, the genetic breadth can be interpreted as 
sufficiently wide to occupy diverse niches. Finally, although the 
genetics of island bedstraw have not been similarly analyzed, the close 
relative G. catalinense ssp. acrispum has been shown to retain high 
genetic diversity after a ranching period with a similar grazing 
history (Riley et al. 2010, pp. 2020-2024) and occupies a similar range 
of habitats.
Redundancy
    Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand 
catastrophic events. Redundancy is characterized by having sufficiently 
resilient populations distributed within the ecological settings of the 
species and across its range. Island bedstraw exhibits redundancy at 
two scales: across the northern islands and within each island where it 
occurs. First, it is distributed on two islands separated by a third, 
so the entire species is unlikely to be affected by any one 
catastrophic event. Second, more sites are known than at the time of 
listing on Santa Cruz Island, and population sizes are larger on both 
islands. Sites are distributed across the breadth of the northern 
shores of each island with gaps between groups of sites such that a 
single island catastrophe (like fire) would be unlikely to affect all 
sites at once.

Summary--Current Condition, Threats Influencing Viability

    The major threats to island bedstraw at the time of listing were 
feral livestock grazing, trampling, and the resulting erosion. These 
major threats are either no longer relevant or have been minimized. The 
threats of small population size and loss of habitat to nonnative, 
invasive plants identified at the time of the 2009 5-year review have 
also been reduced. Additionally, there have been no apparent negative 
effects since the 2009 5-year review that are attributable to 
temperature and precipitation patterns associated with projected 
climate change trends.
    Currently, island bedstraw is increasing in abundance and 
distribution and expanding beyond historically occupied areas and into 
more diverse habitats (e.g., from cliff faces to terraces above the 
cliffs and movement into nonnative-dominated vegetation), indicating 
increasing resiliency, representation, and general overall adaptive 
capacity. Additionally, with a distribution on two islands (separated 
by a third) and more sites

[[Page 73732]]

now than at the time of listing with gaps between groups of sites 
within islands, a single island catastrophe would be unlikely to affect 
all sites at once. The catastrophic loss on one island would not affect 
the other islands, and the populations are spread out enough that there 
is some redundancy within islands.
    The major remaining potential factor influencing island bedstraw 
population viability is climate change. Our current data do not show 
that the species is experiencing any significant effects from changing 
climate conditions.
Future Condition
    Of the threats that have been discussed above, climate change 
remains the most reasonably foreseeable threat to persist and 
potentially affect island bedstraw. It is a potential catalyst of 
change for other threats and is expected to have multiple effects in 
the California Central Coast Region, including an increase in 
temperatures, changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and an increase 
in fire frequency (Langridge 2018, pp. 12-23). Fifty years is the 
evaluation timeframe for climate change because the best available 
information presented in the current integrated climate assessment for 
the Central California Coast forecast uses 2069 as its climate change 
analysis interval (Langridge 2018, pp. 12-23). The 50-year period 
integrates a wide amount of interannual variability in temperature and 
rainfall and contains typical drought cycles (NOAA NCEI 2019a, 2019b, 
2019c). Sea level rise projections are from Griggs et al. 2017 (pp. 24-
27), which is cited by Langridge 2018 (p. 24) as the latest California-
focused sea level rise projections; Griggs et al. 2017 uses an 80-year 
timeframe.
    We developed two future scenarios that capture the range of 
plausible effects to the species from a projected change in the factors 
influencing its viability over a 50-year period.
    Future Scenario 1 summarizes effects of Representative 
Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, and Future Scenario 2 summarizes 
effects of RCP8.5. The RCPs are based on alternate projections for 
climate change in the California Central Coast region based on 
Langridge (2018, pp. 12-22, 29-31) and Griggs et al. (2017, p. 27). 
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 are described more fully in the SSA (Service 2021a, 
entire).
    Under Future Scenario 1, the combination of increased temperature 
and increased rainfall support continued recruitment and expansion of 
island bedstraw over the next 50 years. Most vegetation is recovering 
island wide, and as it recovers, leaf litter depth and area of cover 
increase, as do subsurface roots. These factors protect the soil from 
direct impact and allow increased percolation of water into the soil. 
Surface flows are moderated, and erosion is reduced. Therefore, 
increasing rainfall does not substantially increase erosion, largely 
because most vegetation would benefit from the moderate additional 
rainfall and vegetation reduces the intensity of runoff. Moderate sea 
level rise could cause minor impacts from landslides on some Santa Cruz 
Island sites but not at the population level. If sea level rise is only 
a few feet, it will not directly impact many plants or sites because 
they are substantially higher in elevation. Because most sites are on 
relatively tough igneous rock, enough erosion will not occur to 
undermine and cause collapse of these coastal sites. Moreover, the 
negative effects of fire frequency on the species are not expected to 
increase, as vegetation flammability and ignition sources are not 
projected to increase. Few minor negative and some potential positive 
effects of climate change would occur under this future scenario, and 
sites are likely to persist while the species' abundance and range will 
continue to expand. Overall, Future Scenario 1 projects increases in 
abundance and expansion, which suggests resiliency would increase and 
representation and redundancy would remain stable for island bedstraw.
    Under Future Scenario 2, during the next 50 years, temperatures are 
projected to increase over the current baseline even more than under 
Scenario 1, with rainfall also increasing over baseline but less than 
under Scenario 1. In addition, there is a projected increase in year-
to-year variability with an increase in extreme dry events, drought 
conditions, and extreme rain events. The increase in extreme rain 
events would lead to flashier, more intense runoff.
    Increased drying and drought events could lead to decreased soil 
moisture that will affect recruitment and adult survival, leading to 
less population expansion and possibly smaller increases in abundance, 
relative to Scenario 1. Rainfall events may increase the severity of 
runoff, which may dislodge or cover plants and lead to decreases in 
abundance. If conditions are severe enough, sites could be extirpated. 
The effects of sea level rise could be greater than in Scenario 1 for 
sites on sedimentary cliffs on the eastern end of the species' 
distribution on Santa Cruz Island. Undercutting from surf could 
increase landslides, eliminating some if not all plants in sites. Fire 
frequency and size could increase on Santa Cruz Island because of 
warmer temperatures, drier vegetation, windier conditions, increased 
lightning strikes, and increased visitor use over time that may lead to 
increased wildfire starts by the public. Fires could reduce abundance 
and eliminate sites. Overall, Future Scenario 2 projects decreases in 
abundance and expansion and potentially extirpation of sites, which 
suggests resiliency, representation, and redundancy could decrease for 
island bedstraw; however, given the improved habitat conditions for the 
species and increasing baseline distribution and abundance, we do not 
expect these threats to affect the species at the population level.

Summary of Species Potential Future Condition

    Under Future Scenario 1, changes in abundance and distribution of 
island bedstraw continue on their current positive trajectory, with 
increasing numbers and site expansion. Under Scenario 2, some sites may 
decline and possibly become extirpated. Decreased soil moisture and 
drought are likely to negatively affect the species because 
recruitment, survivorship, and the rate of expansion would be slower 
than under Future Scenario 1, reducing resiliency. Increased soil and 
shoreline erosion and fire would also negatively affect island bedstraw 
by killing individuals and degrading habitat, reducing representation 
and redundancy. Given the improved habitat conditions for the species 
and increasing baseline distribution and abundance, we do not expect 
threat levels under either future scenario to affect the island 
bedstraw at the species level.
Island Bedstraw Overall Synthesis
    Island bedstraw occurs on Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands. At the 
time of listing, there were 19 known sites of island bedstraw, 13 on 
Santa Cruz Island and 6 on San Miguel Island. Currently, the number of 
sites known or presumed to be extant is 33 on Santa Cruz Island and 6 
on San Miguel Island. The total estimated number of known individuals 
within those sites on both islands combined has increased from 512-603, 
at the time of listing, to at least 15,730, after recent helicopter 
surveys. This number (15,730) is likely an underestimate, because plant 
number estimates were not done at most sites during the helicopter 
surveys, but last had plant counts in the mid-2000s. Given the increase 
in the number of individuals at sites where plant number estimates were 
conducted during the

[[Page 73733]]

helicopter surveys, the sites that were last counted in the mid-2000s 
likely have more individuals. The major threats to island bedstraw at 
the time of listing, feral livestock grazing, trampling, and resulting 
erosion, are either no longer relevant or have been minimized. The 
threats of small population size and nonnative vegetation identified at 
the time of the 2009 5-year review have also been minimized. Currently, 
island bedstraw is increasing in abundance and distribution. It has 
shown demographic capacity for population growth at one site studied 
over a 10-year span and adaptive capacity by expansion beyond 
historically occupied areas and into more diverse habitats (e.g., from 
cliff faces to terraces above the cliffs and movement into nonnative-
dominated vegetation). The species also shows the ability to withstand 
some catastrophic events with its distribution on two islands 
(separated by a third), having more sites now than at the time of 
listing, and gaps between groups of sites within islands.
    Potentially negative effects of future climate change remain, and 
we developed two future scenarios that capture the range of plausible 
effects to the species from projected changes in the factors 
influencing viability over a 50-year period. Climate change is expected 
to have multiple effects in the California Central Coast Region, 
including an increase in temperatures, change in precipitation, sea 
level rise, and increase in fire frequency. Future Scenarios 1 and 2 
summarize effects of RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, respectively, based on 
projections for climate change in the California Central Coast Region 
derived from Langridge (2018, entire). Under Future Scenario 1, changes 
in abundance and distribution of island bedstraw continue on their 
current positive trajectory, with increasing numbers and site 
expansion. Under Future Scenario 2, some sites may decline and possibly 
become extirpated. Decreased soil moisture and drought are likely to 
negatively affect the species because recruitment, survivorship, and 
the rate of expansion would be slower than under Future Scenario 1. 
Increased erosion and fire would also negatively affect island bedstraw 
by killing individuals and reducing habitat. Given the improved habitat 
conditions for the species and increasing baseline distribution and 
abundance, we do not expect threat levels under either future scenario 
to affect the species at the population level.
    Cumulative and synergistic interactions are possible between the 
effects of climate change and the effects of other potential threats, 
such as small population size, fire, and nonnative plant invasion. 
Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation are likely to 
cause increases in nonnative grasses, which are abundant in island 
bedstraw habitat. Increased grass abundance has the potential to carry 
fire more readily, which could affect the geographically limited 
population of island bedstraw. Uncertainty about how different plant 
species will respond under climate change, combined with uncertainty 
about how changes in plant species composition would affect suitability 
of island bedstraw habitat, make projecting possible cumulative and 
synergistic effects of climate change on island bedstraw challenging.
    Our draft post-delisting monitoring plans will provide guidelines 
for evaluating both species following delisting to detect substantial 
declines that may lead to consideration of re-listing to threatened or 
endangered. Changes in land use will still be subject to State and 
Federal environmental review.

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Biological Condition

    The genus Dudleya is typically considered to be made up of three 
subgenera: Dudleya, Stylophyllum, and Hasseanthus, each of which at 
some time has been considered a distinct genus; Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya is in subgenus Hasseanthus.
    Santa Cruz Island dudleya needs the right combination of position 
in soil, litter depth, and light to emerge from the seed and survive to 
and past the seedling stage. Seedlings and larger plants need seasonal 
soil moisture, light availability, and space to survive the dry season, 
reach a reproductive size, and successfully reproduce. The species, 
comprising a single population, needs a sufficiently broad distribution 
to adapt to changing environmental conditions and withstand 
catastrophic events. Finally, Santa Cruz Island dudleya needs a 
sufficient community of generalist pollinators to ensure effective 
pollination and seed set.
    Santa Cruz Island dudleya is composed of one population and five 
subpopulations that occur in a general area of about 200 ha, although 
the total occupied area within that general area is about 13.7 ha 
(Schneider and Carson 2019, p. 10). The best information available 
suggests that, over the last 25 years, the population has fluctuated 
between at least 40,000 and 200,000 individuals and the current 
abundance is in the middle of that range (approximately 120,000 
individuals). Past survey methods were not standardized, which limits 
our ability to confirm a definitive trend in abundance over time. 
However, the population at 120,000 is stable, and the most recent 
survey (Schneider and Carson 2019, entire) established robust survey 
methods that can be used in the future to detect changes in 
distribution and abundance.

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Threats

    At the time of listing, soil loss, herbivory by feral pigs (Sus 
scrofa), disturbance by pig rooting, and collecting for botanical or 
horticultural use were identified as threats to the species. The 
Recovery Plan identified the additional threats of competition from 
nonnative grasses, trampling by humans, and an increased risk of 
extinction from naturally occurring random events due to the species' 
limited distribution (Service 2000, p. 35). The 2009 5-year review also 
considered the effects of low genetic variability, climate change, and 
fire (Service 2009a, p. 12).
Soil Loss, Herbivory by Feral Pigs, Disturbance by Pig Rooting
    In the original listing, the source of soil loss is specified as 
the result of feral ungulate activities (62 FR 40954, July 31, 1997; p. 
40966). All feral ungulates were removed from Santa Cruz Island by 2006 
(McEachern et al. 2016, pp. 759-760), eliminating that source of soil 
loss. Vegetation cover has increased significantly on Santa Cruz Island 
since 2006 (Beltran et al. 2014, p. 7), leading to reduced erosion and 
mitigating this threat.
Collecting for Botanical and Horticultural Use, Trampling by Humans
    While Santa Cruz Island dudleya has a limited geographical range, 
it is very abundant where it is found. While Moran (1979) considered 
collecting to be a threat, McCabe (2004) did not. The species is in 
cultivation (e.g., Trager 2004, entire) but is not often available for 
sale. It may be that the seasonal ephemerality of plants in the 
subgenus Hasseanthus makes Santa Cruz Island dudleya a plant not sought 
out for personal collections.
    Trampling by humans is still a possible threat to the species, but 
it is unlikely to be a primary threat. TNC maintains a permit system 
for boaters that plan to land on TNC property (TNC 2020, p. 2), and 
offroad travel in the Fraser Point/Forney Cove area is prohibited to 
protect resources. TNC has erected signage in the area to reinforce the 
closure (Knapp pers. comm. 2021). Trespass occurs infrequently, and its

[[Page 73734]]

effects on Santa Cruz Island dudleya are likely to be light, especially 
in grassland locations away from the immediate coast because 
trespassers are more likely to stay close to the ocean.
Competition From Nonnative Annual Plants
    Klinger et al. (unpublished entire) investigated the effects of 
nonnative grasses on Santa Cruz Island dudleya density. While the study 
offered no data about trends in overall abundance, Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya density declined in study plots in which annual grass density 
and litter increased. The study occurred before a major increase in the 
nonnative annual grass Aegilops cylindrica and does not explain a 
seemingly steady abundance of Santa Cruz Island dudleya over the years 
despite that increase. These differing findings suggest that the 
interactions among nonnative annual grasses and Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya are complex.
    Moran (1979, p. 1) lists the nonnative annual succulent 
Mesembryanthemum cystallinum (crystalline ice plant) as found with 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya at Fraser Point. McCabe (2004, p. 269) lists 
M. crystallinum as a threat to Santa Cruz Island dudleya but does not 
define how it is a threat. M. crystallinum can dominate coastal 
vegetation by increasing soil salinity to levels higher than that 
tolerated by some native plants (Vivrette and Muller 1977, pp. 315-
317), but it is unknown if this situation is a threat to Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya. M. crystallinum has been reported to be periodically 
abundant in the coastal bluff scrub vegetation, cycling with Lasthenia 
gracilis (common goldfields), depending on rainfall and temperature 
combinations (Vivrette 2002, entire). Schneider and Carson (2019) do 
not report M. crystallinum as common in their surveys. The data do not 
indicate if M. crystallinum is at a low abundance in a cycle or if 
there has been a major change in vegetation that may have disrupted the 
cycle.
Random Extinctions of Small Populations
    The Recovery Plan identified randomly occurring natural events as 
threats to Santa Cruz Island dudleya (Service 2000, p. 35) because the 
species has a single population with a limited distribution over a 
small range. The 2009 5-year review (Service 2009a, p. 12) specified 
low genetic variability (inferred by small population size), climate 
change, and fire and emphasized their importance as threats to the 
continued existence of Santa Cruz Island dudleya, given its single 
population and limited distribution.
Low Genetic Variability
    Because Santa Cruz Island dudleya has a single population with a 
small range, the genetic variability and the resiliency of the species 
to human-caused or natural disasters may be low (Ellstrand and Elam 
1993, pp. 232-237). No studies have been done of genetic variability in 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya, but the 2009 5-year review speculated that 
species might have inherently low genetic diversity. If so, this 
situation has likely been the case throughout the existence of this 
species, and there is no indication that this level of genetic 
variability is a threat to the species or contributes to low population 
resiliency or viability.
Climate Change
    Santa Cruz Island lies off mainland Santa Barbara and Ventura 
Counties. Of the two counties, Santa Barbara County is the better model 
for assessing climate impacts on the species since the flora of the 
northern Channel Islands is generally considered to have similar 
affinities (Raven and Axelrod 1995, pp. 63-64). Annual average (NOAA 
NCEI 2019a) and maximum (NOAA NCEI 2019b) temperatures for Santa 
Barbara County for 2014-2018 have been the highest recorded since 1895. 
Rainfall does not show such distinct trends. However, except for 2017, 
annual rainfall for 2011-2018 has been below the 1885-2018 mean (NOAA 
NCEI 2109c), with 2013 and 2015 being two of the five driest years 
since 1885.
    In general, increased temperature and decreased rainfall could 
negatively affect survival and reproduction of the species. However, 
these recent increases in annual average and maximum temperatures and 
lower annual rainfall (combined with the removal of nonnative 
herbivores) do not seem to have adversely affected Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya abundance or distribution. The most recent survey (Schneider 
and Carson 2019, p. 11) shows an increased overall abundance and an 
additional subpopulation (figure 5) since the last surveys of 2006 
(McEachern et al. 2010, p. 12), although one subpopulation did decrease 
in abundance.
    A new threat to the species may be sea level rise. Sea level rise 
has been slow over the 20th century but has accelerated and is expected 
to keep accelerating (Sievanen et al. 2018, pp. 16-18). Sea level is 
expected to rise 0.4 to 1.1 m (16-43 in) by 2100 (Griggs et al. 2017, 
pp. 24-27). Sea level rise could affect Santa Cruz Island dudleya in 
two ways. First, some plants are close enough to the ocean that they 
can be directly impacted and dislodged by surf action. However, most 
plants are high enough up on the marine terrace that direct impacts of 
the surf would not affect them. Second, rising sea level and larger 
waves could undercut the sea cliffs and bluffs, causing slumps and 
landslides, and disturbing or destroying whole groups of plants. Most 
plants, however, are sufficiently inland that they would not be 
affected.
Fire
    Neither natural nor anthropogenic fires are as common on the 
northern Channel Islands as on the adjacent mainland (Carroll et al. 
1993, pp. 82-85). Just four natural fires have been known to occur on 
the northern Channel Islands in the last 165 years. More human-caused 
fires, mostly from machinery operation or uncontrolled campfires, have 
occurred. Campfires are prohibited in Channel Islands National Park, 
but they occasionally happen on isolated beaches on TNC property on 
Santa Cruz Island (Knapp pers. comm. 2020), and clandestine prohibited 
smoking is frequent. Three human-caused brush fires have occurred on 
Santa Cruz in the last 15 years: a vehicle-caused fire in 2007 (Knapp 
pers. comm. 2020), a biomass reduction burn escape in 2018 (Knapp pers. 
comm. 2020), and a construction-related fire in 2020 (KEYT 2020).
    While no fires are known to have impacted the species, fire has 
been and remains a concern for land managers (Knapp pers. comm. 2020). 
Passive restoration after removal of feral ungulates (Beltran et al. 
2014, entire) has increased fuel loads, and the results of a fire could 
be severe. With five distinct subpopulations across different 
vegetation types, the chance of a fire causing the extinction of the 
entire population of the species is reduced. However, each 
subpopulation is still within 400 m of another, which is relatively 
close in the event of a wind-driven wildfire.
Resiliency, Representation, Redundancy
Resiliency
    Resiliency describes the ability of populations to withstand 
stochastic events. Resiliency is positively related to population size 
and growth rate and may be influenced by connectivity among 
populations. Recent research and survey efforts have shown Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya is at least stable in population size at 40,000-200,000 
individuals over the last 25 years with

[[Page 73735]]

an increase in distribution (Schneider and Carson 2019, entire).
    Currently, the single Santa Cruz Island dudleya population appears 
to have no trend of increasing or decreasing abundance, but the lack of 
standardized surveys makes it difficult to draw conclusions about 
changes in species abundance and distribution. Additional surveys over 
an appropriate time span and area are needed to document changes in 
abundance and further changes in distribution.
    Threats to the species identified at listing have been removed, 
including soil loss, herbivory by feral pigs, disturbance by pig 
rooting, and collecting for botanical or horticultural use (62 FR 
40954, July 31, 1997; p. 40959). We have found no evidence to show that 
trampling by humans or low genetic variability are currently affecting 
abundance, and resiliency is not increasing or decreasing. Remaining 
potential threats include competition from nonnative grasses, climate 
change, and fire. These threats may affect sparsely vegetated areas, 
suitable temperatures, and adequate soil moisture/rainfall needed for 
survival and reproduction, thereby decreasing the abundance and 
distribution of Santa Cruz Island dudleya. However, except for negative 
effects of nonnative grasses (Klinger unpublished entire), the effects 
of these factors on resiliency have not been studied, but they do not 
appear to be currently adversely affecting the species.
Representation
    Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions over time. It is characterized by the 
breadth of genetic, phenotypic, and ecological diversity within and 
among populations. No genetic analysis has been conducted to reveal the 
genetic diversity within Santa Cruz Island dudleya compared to other 
Dudleya, especially other members of subgenus Hasseanthus. Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya is limited to a small area, but within that area, plants 
are growing in a variety of combinations of distance from the ocean, 
substrate type, and vegetation type, which may reflect some amount of 
adaptive capacity within the population. It is unknown whether 
representation has changed for this species since it was first 
described.
Redundancy
    Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand 
catastrophic events. Redundancy is characterized by having multiple, 
sufficiently resilient populations distributed within the ecological 
settings of the species and across its range. Santa Cruz Island dudleya 
has inherently low redundancy as a narrow endemic with only a single 
population in a relatively small geographic range. However, there are 
physical gaps between subpopulations, and the subpopulations occur in 
different vegetation types that could carry fire differently. 
Subpopulations also occur at different elevations, and some are 
protected from extreme wave events. Although germinable seeds are found 
in natural soil samples, the amount of seed in the natural soil seed 
bank is unknown (Wilken 1996, p. 25). Redundancy is somewhat bolstered 
by a high number of seeds that have recently been seed-banked at the 
SBBG (Service 2000, table 3, p. 25).
    Additionally, an active grant issued under section 6 of the Act 
(Schneider 2017, pp. 4-6, 13) calls for bulking that banked seed (in 
progress) and establishing two new ``populations'' on Santa Cruz Island 
(planned but delayed because of the Covid-19 pandemic). These 
activities will continue into 2023 with additional NPS funding 
(McEachern et al. 2019a, pp. 9, 11).

Summary--Current Condition, Threats Influencing Viability

    Several major threats to Santa Cruz Island dudleya identified at 
the time of listing, including soil loss, herbivory by feral pigs, and 
disturbance by pig rooting, have been removed or are no longer 
occurring. Collecting for botanical and horticultural use and trampling 
by humans also no longer pose threats to the species due to controls on 
access. Nonnative plants continue to occur with the species and do not 
seem to have affected population size, although no recent study on the 
specific effects of particular nonnatives or how changes in the 
nonnative assemblage might alter those effects has been undertaken. The 
threat of small population size still exists, as does concern about 
climate change and fire, but since the 2009 5-year review, there is no 
evidence that these potential threats have affected the species.
    Santa Cruz Island dudleya abundance is apparently not increasing or 
decreasing in an obvious way, but data over time are lacking. Recent 
research and survey efforts have shown Santa Cruz Island dudleya is at 
least stable in population size over the last 25 years with an increase 
in distribution (Schneider and Carson 2019, entire).
    Some amount of adaptive capacity is demonstrated in the variation 
in vegetation types and elevation where Santa Cruz Island dudleya is 
found. While the elevational range seems small and vegetation 
differences may seem negligible if gauged simply by absolute plant 
height, the locations where individuals of the species grow are 
remarkably varied. At the lowest elevations, the plants are in open 
native forb scrub that are likely subjected to relatively high amounts 
of salt spray. Soils here are influenced by the wind and are somewhat 
rocky. We suspect that here the primary stressors on the plants are 
from the physical environment. By contrast, higher up on the terraces, 
plants are in dense nonnative grassland with deeper soil that is less 
affected by salt spray. Given how dense the grasses are, we suspect 
that the primary stressor to the species must be competition. The two 
habitats grade into each other at some sites. In both situations, the 
species seems to be doing fine, and robust plants are showing good 
reproductive effort. The adaptability of this plant through disparate 
habitat zones is similar to a large species of tree capable of growing 
in open deserts or savanna to dense forests with similar-sized trees. 
We suspect that there must be quite a bit of phenotypic plasticity or 
genetic variability (adaptive capacity) that lets the species do well 
in such different conditions.
    With only one population, redundancy is inherently low, but that 
issue may be mitigated somewhat by the diversity of the locations in 
which the species occurs, the presence of a seed bank, and the limited 
potential and extent of the most likely catastrophic threat. The most 
likely potential catastrophic threat to the species is fire. Fire has 
affected some mainland Dudleya species dramatically, while others seem 
to endure little mortality from being burned. We do not have specific 
fire data for Santa Cruz Island dudleya. While fire could be carried in 
areas where it occurs in dense grass, lower elevation areas are so open 
that fire is unlikely to spread there, so there is redundancy for the 
species, even over its small geographic range.
Future Condition
    Of the threats that have been discussed above, climate change 
remains the most reasonably foreseeable to persist and potentially 
affect Santa Cruz Island dudleya. It is a potential catalyst of change 
for other threats and is expected to have multiple effects in the 
California Central Coast Region, including an increase in temperatures, 
change in precipitation, sea level rise, and increase in fire frequency 
(Langridge 2018, pp. 12-23). Fifty years is the evaluation timeframe 
for climate change because the best available

[[Page 73736]]

information presented in the current integrated climate assessment for 
the Central California Coast forecast uses 2069 as its climate change 
analysis interval (Langridge 2018, pp. 12-23). The 50-year period 
integrates a wide amount of interannual variability in temperature and 
rainfall and contains typical drought cycles (NOAA NCEI 2019a, 2019b, 
2019c). Sea level rise projections are from Griggs et al. 2017 (pp. 24-
27), which is cited by Langridge 2018 (p. 24) as the latest California-
focused sea level rise projections; Griggs et al. 2017 uses an 80-year 
timeframe.
    We developed two future scenarios that capture the range of 
plausible effects to the species from projected changes in the factors 
influencing its viability over a 50-year period. Future Scenario 1 
summarizes effects of RCP4.5, and Future Scenario 2 summarizes effects 
of RCP8.5. The RCPs are alternate projections for climate change in the 
California Central Coast Region based on Langridge (2018, pp. 12-22, 
29-31) and Griggs et al. (2017, p. 27). Under Future Scenario 1 (RCP 
scenario 4.5 for climate change), the combination of increased 
temperature and rainfall continue over the next 50 years but not at 
levels anticipated to affect current levels of recruitment and 
survivorship. Moderate sea level rise could cause minor impacts from 
coastal bluff undercutting at the lowest elevation sites. Under RCP4.5, 
anticipated sea level rise is less than 1 m, which is less likely to 
cause damage than the sea level rise under RCP8.5. Negative effects of 
fire frequency on the species are not expected to increase, as 
vegetation flammability and ignition sources are not projected to 
increase. Because there are few negative effects of climate change 
under RCP4.5, the population is likely to maintain viability, if not 
expand. Overall, under Scenario 1, we project stability or increases in 
abundance and distribution, which suggests resiliency, representation, 
and redundancy would remain similar to the current condition for Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya.
    Under Future Scenario 2 (RCP scenario 8.5 for climate change), 
temperature and rainfall increase, with fewer, more intense rain 
events, with a net result that soil moisture decreases over the next 50 
years. The decreased soil moisture affects recruitment and adult 
survival, leading to decreases in expansion, and possibly abundance. If 
conditions are severe enough, subpopulations could be extirpated. The 
effects of competition with nonnative annual grasses will increase with 
rising temperatures and likely affect recruitment and expansion of the 
species. The effects of sea level rise could be substantial for plants 
on coastal bluffs. Undercutting from surf and erosion from episodic 
rainfall could increase the occurrence of landslides, eliminating some 
if not all plants on coastal bluffs. Fire frequency and size could 
increase because of warmer temperatures, drier vegetation, windier 
conditions, increased lightning strikes, and increased visitor use over 
time due to increases in human population. Fires could reduce abundance 
and distribution of the species. Overall, under Scenario 2, we project 
a decrease in abundance and a reduced rate of expansion, and 
potentially the extirpation of subpopulations, which suggests 
resiliency, representation, and redundancy could decrease for Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya. Given the improved habitat conditions for the 
species and apparently stable baseline distribution and abundance, we 
do not expect threat levels under either future scenario to affect the 
species at the population level.

Summary of Species Potential Future Condition

    Under Future Scenario 1, maintenance of recruitment and 
survivorship continue over the next 50 years. Because few negative 
effects of climate change are expected under Scenario 1, the population 
is likely to maintain viability, if not expand. Overall, Scenario 1 
predicts little or no change in abundance and distribution, which 
suggests resiliency, representation, and redundancy would remain 
comparable to current levels for Santa Cruz Island dudleya. Under 
Scenario 2, decreases in abundance and reduced geographic expansion and 
potentially extirpation of subpopulations could occur, which suggests 
resiliency, representation, and redundancy could decrease for Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya. Given the improved habitat conditions for the 
species and apparently stable baseline distribution and abundance, we 
do not expect threat levels under either future scenario to affect the 
species at the population level.
Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Overall Synthesis
    Santa Cruz Island dudleya is composed of one population and five 
subpopulations that occur in a total occupied area of 13.7 ha in a 
general area of about 200 ha (Schneider and Carson 2019, p. 10) on the 
westernmost tip of Santa Cruz Island. Over the last 25 years, the 
population has fluctuated between at least 40,000 and 200,000 
individuals, and abundance is currently approximately 120,000 
individuals.
    Several major threats to Santa Cruz Island dudleya identified at 
the time of listing have been removed or are no longer occurring. 
Collecting for botanical and horticultural use and trampling by humans 
also no longer pose threats to the species due to controls on access. 
Nonnative plants continue to occur with the species. The risk 
associated with small population size still exists, as does concern 
about climate change and fire, but since the 2009 5-year review, there 
is no evidence that these risk factors have affected the species. Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya abundance is apparently not increasing or 
decreasing in an obvious way, nor is resiliency increasing or 
decreasing. Some amount of representation is demonstrated in variation 
in vegetation types and elevation where Santa Cruz Island dudleya is 
found. Redundancy is inherently low with only one population, but that 
issue may be mitigated somewhat by the diversity of the locations in 
which the species occurs and the presence of a seed bank, and the 
limited potential and extent of wildfire. We do not have specific fire 
data for Santa Cruz Island dudleya. While fire could be carried in 
areas where it occurs in dense grass, lower elevation areas are so open 
that fire is unlikely to spread there, so there is redundancy for the 
species, even over its small geographic range.
    Under Future Scenario 1 (RCP scenario 4.5 for climate change), the 
combination of increased temperature and rainfall continue over the 
next 50 years but not at levels anticipated to affect current levels of 
recruitment and survivorship. Moderate sea level rise could cause minor 
impacts from coastal bluff undercutting at the lowest elevation sites. 
The effects of fire on the species are not expected to increase. 
Because few negative effects of climate change are expected under 
RCP4.5, the population is likely to maintain viability, if not expand. 
Overall, under Scenario 1, we project stability or increases in 
abundance and distribution, which suggests resiliency, representation, 
and redundancy would remain similar to the current condition for Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya.
    Under Future Scenario 2 (RCP scenario 8.5 for climate change), 
temperature and rainfall increase, with fewer, more intense rain 
events, with a net result that soil moisture decreases (due to drought) 
over the next 50 years. The decreased soil moisture affects recruitment 
and adult survival, leading to decreases in expansion, and possibly 
abundance. If conditions are severe

[[Page 73737]]

enough, subpopulations could be extirpated. The effects of competition 
with nonnative annual grasses will increase and likely affect 
recruitment and expansion of the species. The effects of sea level rise 
could be substantial for plants on coastal bluffs. Undercutting from 
surf and erosion from episodic rainfall could increase the occurrence 
of landslides, eliminating some if not all plants on coastal bluffs. 
Fire frequency and size could increase because of warmer temperatures, 
drier vegetation, windier conditions, increased lightning strikes, and 
increased visitor use over time with increases in the human population. 
Fires could reduce abundance and distribution of the species. Overall, 
under Scenario 2, we project a decrease in abundance and a reduced rate 
of expansion, and potentially the extirpation of subpopulations, which 
suggests resiliency, representation, and redundancy could decrease for 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya. Given the improved habitat conditions for 
the species and apparently stable baseline distribution and abundance, 
we do not expect threat levels under either future scenario to affect 
the species at the population level.
    Cumulative and synergistic interactions are possible between the 
effects of climate change and the effects of other potential threats, 
such as small population size, fire, and nonnative plant invasion. 
Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation are likely to 
cause increases in nonnative grasses, which are abundant in Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya habitat. Increased grass abundance can possibly more 
readily carry fire, which could affect the geographically limited 
population of Santa Cruz Island dudleya. Uncertainty about how 
different plant species will respond under climate change, combined 
with uncertainty about how changes in plant species composition would 
affect suitability of Santa Cruz Island dudleya habitat, make 
projecting possible cumulative and synergistic effects of climate 
change on Santa Cruz Island dudleya challenging.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on each of the species, but we have 
also analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and 
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis 
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then 
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be 
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. 
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the 
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
    Our draft post-delisting monitoring plan will provide guidelines 
for evaluating both species following delisting to detect substantial 
declines that may lead to consideration of re-listing to threatened or 
endangered. Changes in land use will still be subject to State and 
Federal environmental review.

Island Bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Conservation Efforts and 
Regulatory Mechanisms

State Protections

    Island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya are both listed as 
State Rare by the State of California under the Native Plant Protection 
Act of 1977 (Fish and Game Code chapter 10, sections 1900-1913) and the 
California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (California Code of 
Regulations, title 14, chapter 6, sections 783.0-787.9; Fish and Game 
Code chapter 1.5, sections 2050-2115.5) and so they receive special 
considerations for their protection by the State of California under 
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for California 
permitted projects on private TNC land. The official California listing 
of endangered and threatened species is contained in the California 
Code of Regulations, title 14, section 670.5.
    Island bedstraw is listed as 1B.2 by the California Native Plant 
Society (CNPS), meaning it is considered rare, threatened, or 
endangered in California or elsewhere and moderately threatened in 
California. Santa Cruz Island dudleya is listed as 1B.1 by the 
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), meaning it is considered rare, 
threatened, or endangered in California or elsewhere and seriously 
threatened in California. A cooperative relationship exists between the 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife--California Natural 
Diversity Database (CNDDB) (the State) and CNPS. The ``threatened'' 
category means two different things in the CNPS rankings. The first 
``threatened category'' (``considered rare, threatened, or endangered 
in California or elsewhere'') refers to a government agency (e.g., 
Service, CDFW) or nongovernmental organization (NGO) (e.g., CNPS, 
NatureServe) having formally declared a plant in some sense to be rare, 
threatened, or endangered. The second threatened category (``moderately 
threatened in California'' for bedstraw and ``seriously threatened in 
California'' for dudleya) are estimates at the time of listing (by CNPS 
or CDFW) about the degree to which the species is under threat (in the 
sense that something might harm the species). They have different 
ranking systems for rare plants but work together on them. Because of 
the efforts of the CNDDB program and CNPS to bring attention to rare 
plants through these parallel ranking systems, these plants receive 
some attention via the CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act 
(CNDDB and CNPS, 2020).

Federal and Federal Partner Protections

    We evaluated whether any existing regulatory mechanisms or other 
voluntary conservation efforts may have ameliorated any of the threats 
acting on island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya. All of the 
land on which both species occur is managed by TNC or NPS for 
conservation of unique island species and habitats. The most 
significant single action has been the elimination of feral ungulates 
and feral pigs by TNC and NPS, as discussed above. The elimination of 
feral ungulates and feral pigs has eliminated the major sources of soil 
loss, habitat alteration, and herbivory affecting the species. This 
effort has resulted in passive restoration of the vegetation. It is 
likely that the positive effects of the feral ungulate and feral pig 
removal will continue into the future.

Determination of Status for Island Bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 
Dudleya

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires 
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the 
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
Overutilization for commercial,

[[Page 73738]]

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or 
predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 
Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout the Range

Island Bedstraw
    Through this proposed rule, we have assessed the section 4(a)(1) 
factors by evaluating the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by 
island bedstraw. We have found that the major threats to island 
bedstraw at the time of listing, feral livestock grazing (Factor A), 
trampling (Factor A), and the resulting erosion (Factor A), have either 
been removed or have been minimized. The threats of risk from small 
population size (Factor E) and loss of habitat to nonnative invasive 
plants (Factor A) identified in the 2009 5-year review have also been 
minimized.
    At the time of listing, there were 19 known sites of island 
bedstraw, 13 on Santa Cruz Island and 6 on San Miguel Island. 
Currently, the number of sites known or presumed to be extant has grown 
to 33 on Santa Cruz Island and continues at 6 on San Miguel Island. The 
total estimated number of known individuals within those sites on both 
islands combined has increased from 512-603 before listing to at least 
15,730. Currently, island bedstraw is increasing in abundance and 
distribution. It has shown demographic capacity for population growth 
and adaptive capacity by expansion beyond historically occupied areas 
into more diverse habitats (e.g., from cliff faces to terraces above 
the cliffs and movement into nonnative-dominated vegetation), 
indicating increasing resiliency, representation, and generally overall 
adaptive capacity. The species also shows the ability to withstand 
catastrophic events because it is distributed on two islands, has more 
sites now than at the time of listing, and has gaps between groups of 
sites within islands. A single island catastrophe would be unlikely to 
affect all sites at once.
    Although climate change (Factor E) has had no apparent effects 
since the 2009 5-year review, the potentially negative effects of 
climate change remain and may still impact the species, but such 
impacts are not currently causing the species to be in danger of 
extinction. The best available information indicates that 
overutilization (Factor B), disease (Factor C), predation (herbivory) 
(Factor C), and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
(Factor D) are not currently affecting the species throughout its 
range. The existing regulatory mechanisms will remain in place to 
ensure the continued persistence of island bedstraw occurrences and 
suitable potential habitat even if the species is delisted and 
protections under the Act are removed.
    All of the occurrences of island bedstraw are on Federal and 
private lands that are protected and managed for conservation by the 
NPS and TNC. Both NPS and TNC have natural resource conservation as 
part of their mission. For example, the mission of TNC is to conserve 
the lands and waters on which all life depends. The TNC vision is a 
world where the diversity of life thrives and people act to conserve 
nature for its own sake and its ability to fulfill our needs and enrich 
lives. The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources 
and values of the NPS System for the enjoyment, education, and 
inspiration of this and future generations. The NPS cooperates with 
partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource 
conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the 
world. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we 
conclude that island bedstraw is not currently in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range and, therefore, does not meet the 
definition of an endangered species.
    In order to assess whether the species is likely to become in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future, we evaluated any 
remaining future threats. The major remaining potential threat 
influencing island bedstraw population viability in the future is 
climate change. Future climate change is expected to have multiple 
effects in the California Central Coast Region, including increases in 
temperatures, changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and increases 
in fire frequency (Langridge 2018, pp. 12-23). Fifty years is the 
evaluation timeframe for climate change because the best available 
information presented in the current integrated climate assessment for 
the Central California Coast forecast uses 2069 as its climate change 
analysis interval (Langridge 2018, pp. 12-23). The 50-year period 
integrates a wide amount of interannual variability in temperature and 
rainfall and contains typical drought cycles (NOAA NCEI 2019a, 2019b, 
2019c). Sea level rise projections are from Griggs et al. 2017 (pp. 24-
27), which is cited by Langridge 2018 (p. 24) as the latest California-
focused sea level rise projections; Griggs et al. 2017 uses an 80-year 
timeframe.
    We developed two future scenarios that capture the range of 
plausible effects to the species from projected changes in factors 
influencing viability over a 50-year period. Future Scenario 1 
summarizes effects of RCP4.5, and Future Scenario 2 summarizes effects 
of RCP8.5 projections for climate change in the California Central 
Coast Region based on Langridge (2018, entire). Under Future Scenario 
1, changes in abundance and distribution of island bedstraw continue on 
their current positive trajectory, with increasing numbers and site 
expansion. Under Future Scenario 2, some sites may decline and possibly 
become extirpated. Decreased soil moisture and drought are likely to 
negatively affect the species because recruitment, survivorship, and 
the rate of expansion would be lower. Increased erosion and fire would 
also negatively affect island bedstraw by killing individuals and 
reducing habitat. Negative impacts to individuals may occur under 
RCP8.5 but given the current improvement in habitat and increases in 
distribution and abundance, we do not think that the impacts will rise 
to a population level such that the species is likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future throughout its range. Therefore, 
the currently predicted changes in climate do not indicate that the 
species may become endangered due to those changes in the foreseeable 
future throughout its range. Thus, after assessing the best available 
information, we conclude that island bedstraw is not currently in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range.
Santa Cruz Island Dudleya
    Through this proposed rule, we have assessed the section 4(a)(1) 
factors by evaluating the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya. We have found that the major threats to 
Santa Cruz Island dudleya identified at the time of listing have either 
been removed or have been minimized, due to the removal of feral pigs 
from Santa Cruz Island by NPS. Those prior threats included soil loss 
(Factor A), herbivory by feral pigs (Factor A), and disturbance by pig 
rooting (Factor A). The threats of collecting for botanical and 
horticultural use (Factor B) and trampling by humans (Factor A) also 
have been reduced by conservation and protection measures implemented 
by NPS and no longer

[[Page 73739]]

appear to pose threats to the species. At the time of listing, 
nonnative plants (Factor A) as a whole were considered a threat to 
island native plant species in general, though there have been no 
recent studies of the effects of individual nonnative species or of the 
shifting composition of nonnatives on the persistence of Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya. However, non-native plants are not considered to be a 
concern as they were at the time of listing because the species is 
stable. The threats presented by the risk of small population size 
(Factor E), climate change (Factor E), and fire (Factor E) still exist, 
but since the 2009 5-year review there is no evidence that these 
threats have affected Santa Cruz Island dudleya. We determined that 
disease (Factor C), predation (herbivory) (Factor C), and the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are not 
currently affecting Santa Cruz Island dudleya throughout its range. The 
existing regulatory mechanisms in place ensure the continued 
persistence of Santa Cruz Island dudleya occurrences and suitable 
potential habitat even if the species is delisted and protections under 
the Act are removed; the single occurrence is on private land and is 
protected and managed for conservation by TNC. Thus, after assessing 
the best available information, we conclude that Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range and, therefore, does not meet the definition of an endangered 
species.
    In order to assess whether the species is likely to become in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future, we evaluated any 
remaining future threats. Similar to island bedstraw, as discussed 
above, the major remaining potential factor influencing Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya viability in the future is climate change. Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya occurs with nonnative plants (Factor A), which are still 
considered a threat, though there have been no comprehensive studies 
that project the future effects of individual nonnative species or of 
the shifting composition of nonnatives on the persistence of Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya. However, non-native plants are not considered to be a 
concern as they were at the time of listing because the species is 
projected to be either increasing or stable in the future. The threats 
presented by the risk of small population size (Factor E), climate 
change (Factor E), and fire (Factor E) may continue into the future, 
but since the 2009 5-year review, there is no evidence that these 
threats have significantly affected Santa Cruz Island dudleya and we do 
not think this will change in the foreseeable future. Negative impacts 
to individuals may occur under climate change RCP8.5 but given the 
improvement in habitat conditions and apparent baseline population 
stability, we find that the impacts will not likely rise to a 
population level such that the species would be likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the currently 
predicted changes in climate do not indicate that the species may 
become endangered due to those changes in the foreseeable future.
    Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude 
that Santa Cruz Island dudleya is not currently in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of 
its range.

Status in Significant Portion of Their Ranges

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Since we determined that neither species warrants continued 
listing as endangered or threatened throughout their ranges, we proceed 
to evaluating whether the species are threatened or endangered in a 
significant portion of their range--that is, whether there is any 
portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is 
significant and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now, or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, in that portion. 
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the 
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can 
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question 
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the 
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range.
    In undertaking this analysis for island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya, we choose to address the status question first. We 
consider information pertaining to the geographic distribution of the 
species and the threats that the species faces to identify any portions 
of the range where the species may be threatened or endangered.
    For island bedstraw, we considered whether the threats are 
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a 
biologically meaningful scale. Island bedstraw consists of 33 sites on 
Santa Cruz Island and 6 sites on San Miguel Island where each site is 
treated as a separate population. The total estimated number of known 
individuals is at least 15,730 after recent helicopter surveys occurred 
in a general area of about 6,000 ha (15,000 acres), although the total 
occupied area within that general area is much less (has not been 
estimated). We examined the following threats to island bedstraw: feral 
livestock grazing, trampling, erosion, small population size, and 
climate change including cumulative effects.
    We found that the major threats to island bedstraw at the time of 
listing, feral livestock grazing, trampling, and resulting erosion, 
have largely been eliminated on both Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands. 
The elimination of these threats also minimized the threats of small 
population size and nonnative vegetation on both islands. The major 
remaining potential factor influencing island bedstraw population 
viability is climate change. Our current analysis does not show that 
the species is experiencing any significant effects from changing 
climate conditions in any of the populations on either island, or that 
the species will in the foreseeable future. We did not find any 
biologically meaningful portion of island bedstraw's range where the 
condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its 
range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from 
any other portion of the species' range either now or in the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, there is no difference in the status of 
the species in any portion of the range because we have determined that 
the threat of climate change is acting on the species evenly throughout 
the range now and in the foreseeable future.
    Thus, there are no portions of the species' range where the species 
has a different status from its rangewide status. Therefore, no portion 
of the species' range can provide a basis for determining that the 
species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range, and we find 
the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range.
    Two court decisions (Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-1074 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 
2017)) held that aspects of the definition of ``significant'' in the 
Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of 
Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (``Final Policy''; 79 FR 37577, 
July 1, 2014), are invalid. However, in

[[Page 73740]]

reaching our conclusion regarding island bedstraw, we did not need to 
consider whether any portions of the range are significant. Therefore, 
this finding does not conflict with the courts' holdings regarding the 
definition of ``significant.''
    Santa Cruz Island dudleya occurs in a general area of about 200 ha, 
although the total occupied area within that general area is about 13.7 
ha (Schneider and Carson 2019 p. 10). The area can be divided into five 
sites or subpopulations, each within 400 m of another, that function as 
a single, contiguous population. Therefore, according to the definition 
of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2018 p. 3), these 
sites comprise a single occurrence. Previous work on gene flow in a 
population of another member of the subgenus Hasseanthus, Dudleya 
multicaulis (Marchant et al. 1998, pp. 217-219) that is similarly 
dispersed, suggests that all D. nesiotica subpopulations probably 
comprise a single mixing population. Thus, due to being a narrow 
endemic that functions as a single, contiguous population and occurs 
within a very small area, there is no biologically meaningful way to 
break the limited range of Santa Cruz Island dudleya into notable 
portions. This means that no portions of the species' range have a 
different status from its rangewide status. Therefore, no portion of 
the species' range can provide a basis for determining that the species 
is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range.
    As explained above for our finding regarding island bedstraw, this 
finding does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors 
v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-1074 
(N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 
Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this 
conclusion, we did not need to consider whether any portions are 
significant and therefore did not apply the aspects of the Final 
Policy's definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions held 
were invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available 
indicates that island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya do not 
meet the definition of endangered species or threatened species in 
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with 
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2), Island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya have recovered. Therefore, we propose to remove island 
bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Effects of This Rule

    This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by 
removing island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and 
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to these species. Federal 
agencies would no longer be required to consult with the Service under 
section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, 
or carry out may affect island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya. 
No critical habitat is designated for island bedstraw or Santa Cruz 
Island dudleya, so this rulemaking action would have no effect on 50 
CFR 17.96.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. The purpose of 
this requirement is to develop a program that detects the failure of 
any delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures 
provided by the Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data 
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we 
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency 
listing.
    We are proposing to delist island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 
dudleya based on our analysis in the SSA report, expert opinions, and 
conservation and recovery actions taken. Since delisting would be, in 
part, due to conservation actions taken by stakeholders, we have 
prepared draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plans for island 
bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya. The draft PDM plans describe 
the methods proposed for monitoring if we delist these taxa. The draft 
PDM plans: (1) describe frequency and duration of monitoring; (2) 
discuss monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes; (3) define 
what potential triggers will be evaluated to address the need for 
additional monitoring; (4) outline reporting requirements and 
procedures; (5) propose a schedule for implementing the PDM plans; and 
(6) define responsibilities. It is our intent to work with our partners 
towards maintaining the recovered status of island bedstraw and Santa 
Cruz Island dudleya. We will seek public and peer reviewer comments on 
the draft PDM plans, including their objectives and procedures (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and Information Requested, above), with the 
publication of this proposed rule.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with determining a species' listing status under 
the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons 
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 
FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206

[[Page 73741]]

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes. No Tribal lands are associated with this proposed rule.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Ventura Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  17.12, in paragraph (h) amend the table ``List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants'' by removing the entries for 
``Dudleya nesiotica'' and ``Galium buxifolium'' under Flowering Plants.

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-25974 Filed 11-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P