Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Golden Paintbrush From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 46088-46110 [2023-14971]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46088-46110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 234]
RIN 1018-BE72


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Golden 
Paintbrush From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), remove the 
golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants as it no longer meets the definition 
of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act). The golden paintbrush is a flowering plant 
native to southwestern British Columbia, western Washington, and 
western Oregon. Our review of the best available scientific and 
commercial data indicates threats to the golden paintbrush have been 
eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective August 18, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct all questions or requests for 
additional information to: GOLDEN PAINTBRUSH QUESTIONS, Brad Thompson, 
State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503; 
telephone: 360-753-9440. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, 
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. 
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services 
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine a 
plant species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species, we remove it from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants (i.e., we ``delist'' it). Delisting a species can 
be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative 
Procedure Act rulemaking process.
    What this document does. This rule removes (delists) the golden 
paintbrush from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
because it no longer meets the Act's definition of either a threatened 
species or an endangered species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of the 
following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. The determination to delist a 
species must be based on an analysis of the same factors. Based on an 
assessment of the best available information regarding the status of 
and threats to the golden paintbrush, we have determined that the 
species no longer meets the definition of a threatened species or an 
endangered species under the Act.
    We have determined that golden paintbrush is not in danger of 
extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future based 
on a comprehensive review of its status and listing factors. 
Specifically, our recent review indicated: (1) An increase in the known 
number of occurrences of the species within its geographic range, and 
increased abundance in many populations; (2) resiliency of the species 
to existing and potential threats; (3) 45 of 48 sites with golden 
paintbrush are in either public ownership; are owned by a conservation-
oriented, nongovernmental organization; or are under conservation 
easement; and (4) the implementation of beneficial management practices 
for the species. Accordingly, the golden paintbrush no longer meets the 
definition of a threatened species or an endangered species under the 
Act.
    Peer review and public comment. The purpose of peer review is to 
ensure that our determination regarding the status of the species under 
the Act is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We prepared a species biological report (SBR) for golden 
paintbrush (Service 2019) and sought peer review on the report in 
accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act. We sent the report to four appropriate 
and independent specialists with knowledge of the biology and ecology 
of the golden paintbrush and received three responses. The comments and 
recommendations of the peer reviewers have been incorporated into the 
SBR as appropriate, and they informed the proposed rule. We posted the 
peer reviews on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2020-0060. Furthermore, in our June 30, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 
34695), we requested that all interested parties submit written 
comments on the proposal by August 30, 2021. We received 10 public 
comments in response to the proposed rule as discussed below in Summary 
of Comments and Recommendations.

[[Page 46089]]

Supporting Documents

    Staff at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (WFWO), in 
consultation with other species experts, prepared the SBR for golden 
paintbrush (Service 2019). The report represents a compilation of the 
best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of 
the species, including the impacts of past and present factors (both 
negative and beneficial) affecting the species. The report formed the 
scientific basis for our 5-year status review and this final rule. The 
report is posted on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R1-ES-2020-0060.

Previous Federal Actions

    On May 10, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 24106) 
a proposed rule to list the golden paintbrush as a threatened species 
under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On June 11, 1997, we published 
in the Federal Register (62 FR 31740) a final rule to list the species 
as a threatened species under the Act. The final rule included a 
determination that the designation of critical habitat for the golden 
paintbrush was not prudent.
    In August 2000, we finalized a recovery plan for the species 
(Service 2000, entire), which we supplemented in May 2010 with the 
final recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and 
southwestern Washington (Service 2010, entire).
    On July 6, 2005, we initiated 5-year reviews for 33 plant and 
animal species, including the golden paintbrush, under section 4(c)(2) 
of the Act, and requested information on the species' status (see 70 FR 
38972). The 5-year status review, completed in September 2007 (Service 
2007, entire), resulted in a recommendation to maintain the status of 
the golden paintbrush as threatened. The 2007 5-year status review is 
available on the Service's website at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1764.pdf.
    On January 22, 2018, we initiated 5-year status reviews for 18 
plant and animal species, including the golden paintbrush, under 
section 4(c)(2) of the Act, and requested information on the species' 
status (see 83 FR 3014). In 2019, we completed our SBR (Service 2019).
    On June 30, 2021, we published in the Federal Register (86 FR 
34695) a proposed rule to remove golden paintbrush from the List, and 
we made available our draft post-delisting monitoring plan for public 
review and comment. Our proposed rule followed from the recommendation 
of the most recent 5-year review for the golden paintbrush, as well as 
the data and analysis contained in the SBR (Service 2019).

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments from the public on the June 30, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 
34695) and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We updated 
information presented in the proposed rule based on comments and 
additional information provided as follows:
    (1) We included updated survey information provided to the Service.
    (2) We incorporated additional information regarding stressors and 
potential threats to the species.
    (3) We made many small, nonsubstantive clarifications and 
corrections throughout this rule, including under Summary of Biological 
Status and Threats, below, in order to ensure better consistency, 
clarify some information, and update or add new references.
    We considered whether this additional information altered our 
analysis of the magnitude or severity of threats facing the species. We 
conclude that the information we received during the comment period for 
the proposed rule did not change our previous analysis of the magnitude 
or severity of threats facing the species or our determination that 
golden paintbrush is no longer a threatened species and warrants 
delisting.

Background

    Below, we summarize information for the golden paintbrush directly 
relevant to this final rule. For more information on the description, 
biology, ecology, and habitat of the golden paintbrush, please refer to 
the SBR for golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), completed in June 
2019 (Service 2019, entire). The SBR is available under Supporting 
Documents on https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-
0060. The SBR and other relevant supporting documents are available on 
the golden paintbrush's species profile page on the Environmental 
Conservation Online System (ECOS) at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7706.

Species Description and Habitat Information

    The golden paintbrush is native to the northwestern United States 
and southwestern British Columbia. It has been historically reported 
from more than 30 sites from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to the 
Willamette Valley of Oregon (Hitchcock et al. 1959, entire; Sheehan and 
Sprague 1984, p. 5; Gamon 1995, pp. 5-7). The taxonomy of the golden 
paintbrush as a full species is widely accepted as valid by the 
scientific community (Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 
2020, entire).
    The golden paintbrush is a short-lived perennial herb formerly 
included in the figwort or snapdragon family (Scrophulariaceae), with 
current classification in the Orobanchaceae family. The genus 
Castilleja is hemiparasitic, with roots of paintbrushes capable of 
forming parasitic connections to roots of other plants; however, 
paintbrush plants are probably not host-specific (Mills and Kummerow 
1988, entire) and can grow successfully, though not as well, even 
without a host. Golden paintbrush has superior performance (survival, 
height, number of flowering stems, number of fruiting stems, number of 
seed capsules) where it co-occurs with certain prairie species, 
including several perennial native forbs (e.g., common woolly sunflower 
or Oregon sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum) and common yarrow (Achillea 
millefolium)), as well as species in other functional groups, including 
grasses (e.g., Roemer's fescue (Festuca roemeri) and California 
oatgrass (Danthonia californica)) and shrubs (e.g., snowberry 
(Symphoricarpos albus)) (Schmidt 2016, pp. 10-17). Anecdotal 
observations suggest that golden paintbrush grows poorly when 
associated with annual grasses (Gamon 1995, p. 17).
    Individual golden paintbrush plants have a median survival of 1 to 
5 years, but some plants can survive for more than a decade (Service 
2019, p. 7). Plants are up to 30 centimeters (cm) (12 inches (in)) tall 
and are covered with soft, somewhat sticky hairs. Stems may be erect or 
spreading, in the latter case giving the appearance of being several 
plants, especially when in tall grass. The lower leaves are broader, 
with one to three pairs of short lateral lobes. The bracts are softly 
hairy and sticky, golden yellow, and about the same width as the upper 
leaves.
    Golden paintbrush plants typically emerge in early March, with 
flowering generally beginning the last week in April and continuing 
until early June. Most plants complete flowering by early to mid-June, 
although occasionally plants flower throughout the summer and into 
October. Based on historical collections and observations, flowering 
seems to occur at about the same time throughout the species' range. 
Individual plants of golden paintbrush typically need pollinators to 
set seed. Bumble bee species (Bombus) appear to be the most common 
pollinators visiting

[[Page 46090]]

golden paintbrush (Wentworth 1994, p. 5; Kolar and Fessler 2006, in 
litt.; Waters 2018, in litt.; Kaye 2019, in litt.), although sweat bees 
(Halictidae), miner bee (Andrena chlorogaster), syrphid fly (Eristalis 
hirta), and bee fly (Bombylius major) have also been observed visiting 
golden paintbrush plants (Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt.; Waters 
2018, in litt.).
    Fruits typically mature from late June through July, with seed 
capsules beginning to open and disperse seed in August. By mid-July, 
plants at most sites are in senescence (the process of deterioration 
with age), although this can vary considerably depending on available 
moisture. Capsules persist on the plants well into the winter, and 
often retain seed into the following spring. Seeds are likely shaken 
from the seed capsules by wind, with most falling a short distance from 
the parent plant (Godt et al. 2005, p. 88). The seeds are light 
(approximately 8,000 seeds per gram) and could possibly be dispersed 
short distances by wind (Kaye et al. 2012, p. 7). Additionally, there 
is at least one reported instance of short-distance movement of seeds 
via vole activity (Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt.). Therefore, 
natural colonization of new sites would likely occur only over short 
distances as plants disperse from established sites. Germination tests 
in different years with seed from various populations suggest that 
germination rates can vary extremely widely both between sites and 
between years (Wentworth 1994, entire). Germination tests also revealed 
that seeds likely remain viable in the wild for several years 
(Wentworth 1994, p. 17).
    Individuals of the golden paintbrush require open prairie soils, 
near-bedrock soils, or clayey alluvial soils with suitable host plants. 
These suitable habitats occur from zero to 100 meters (330 feet) above 
sea level (Service 2000, p. 5). The golden paintbrush may have 
historically grown in deeper soils, but nearly all of these soils 
within the known range of the species have been converted to 
agriculture (Lawrence and Kaye 2006, p. 150; Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, 
p. 1). Reintroduction efforts have targeted sites or microsites, with 
features such as mounds or swales and deeper soils where these efforts 
were more likely to be effective (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 15).
    Populations currently occur on the mainland in the States of 
Washington and Oregon, and on islands in the State of Washington and in 
British Columbia, Canada. Mainland and island populations form two 
broad categories of populations that can vary slightly in habitat 
setting. Individuals in mainland populations are found in open, 
undulating remnant prairies dominated by Roemer's fescue and red fescue 
(Festuca rubra) on gravelly or clayey glacial outwash. Individuals in 
island populations are often on the upper slopes or rims of steep, 
southwest- or west-facing, sandy bluffs that are exposed to salt spray. 
Individuals in island populations may also occur on remnant coastal 
prairie flats on glacial deposits of sandy loam. Island prairies may 
have historically been dominated by forbs and foothill sedge (Carex 
tumulicola) rather than grasses (Washington Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR) 2004b, pp. 11, 17); however, many island sites are now 
dominated by red fescue or weedy forbs. All golden paintbrush sites are 
subject to encroachment by woody vegetation if not managed.
    Historically, fire was significant in maintaining open prairie 
conditions in parts of the range of the golden paintbrush (Boyd 1986, 
p. 82; Gamon 1995, p. 14; Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 162). The golden 
paintbrush is a poor competitor, intolerant of shade cast by 
encroaching tall nonnatives and litter duff in fire-suppressed 
prairies. Native perennial communities are likely to support more host 
species appropriate for the golden paintbrush than those dominated by 
nonnative annuals (Lawrence and Kaye 2011, p. 173). Thus, habitats with 
low presence of nonnative annuals and high presence of a diverse 
assemblage of perennial, native prairie species are more likely to 
provide the best conditions for survival of golden paintbrush plants 
year-to-year (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 1).

Range, Distribution, Abundance, and Trends of Golden Paintbrush

    The golden paintbrush is endemic to the Pacific Northwest, 
historically occurring from southeastern Vancouver Island and adjacent 
islands in British Columbia, Canada, to the San Juan Islands and Puget 
Trough in western Washington and into the Willamette Valley of western 
Oregon (Fertig 2021, pp. 33-34).
    Currently, the species occurs within British Columbia, Washington, 
and Oregon, representing, generally, four geographic areas (British 
Columbia, North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound, and the Willamette 
Valley). The species' historical distribution--before European 
settlement and modern development in the Pacific Northwest--is unknown. 
However, the species' current distribution is generally representative 
of the areas where we suspect the species occurred historically.
    Since its Federal listing in 1997, only one new population of 
golden paintbrush that was likely extant at the time of listing has 
been discovered across the species' range (Service 2007, p. 6). All 
other new populations across the range are the result of 
reintroductions through outplanting or direct seeding. Seeds used to 
grow plugs for outplanting, and plant stock for seed production, were 
derived from populations that were extant at the time of listing 
(referred to as ``wild sites'' in the SBR and other documents) (Service 
2019, p. 5). Please note that in previous Service documents (Service 
2000, Service 2007, Service 2019), the terms ``site'' and 
``population'' were used interchangeably. For the purpose of this 
document, we will use ``population'' to be more consistent with how the 
data have been reported over time (Fertig 2019, pp. 11-38).
    At the time of listing (see 62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997), there were 
10 known golden paintbrush populations: 8 in Washington and 2 in 
British Columbia. No golden paintbrush populations were known from 
Oregon at the time of listing (Sheehan and Sprague 1984, pp. 8-9; WDNR 
2004b, p. 2). Despite its limited geographic range and isolation of 
populations, the golden paintbrush retained exceptionally high levels 
of genetic diversity, possibly because there were several large 
populations that remained (Godt et al. 2005, p. 87).
    Since its Federal listing, the distribution and abundance of golden 
paintbrush have increased significantly as a result of outplanting 
(seeding or plugging). During the last rangewide assessment, a minimum 
of 48 populations were documented (Service 2019, pp. 11-14). Based on 
these data, in Washington, there are 19 populations: 5 in the South 
Puget Sound prairie landscape, 6 in the San Juan Islands, 7 on Whidbey 
Island, and 1 near Dungeness Bay in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In 
Oregon, there are 26 extant populations within the Willamette Valley. 
In British Columbia, there are three extant populations, each located 
on a separate island. Of these 48 populations, only 3 are on private 
property (Service 2019, p. 12). The remaining 45 golden paintbrush 
populations are in either public ownership; are owned by a 
conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization; or are under 
conservation easement.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 46091]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY23.160

BILLING CODE 433-15-C
    Trends in abundance for the golden paintbrush have been 
consistently monitored since 2004 (Fertig 2021, pp. 11-38), with 
refinements to monitoring protocols made in 2008 and 2011 (Arnett 2011, 
entire). Rangewide abundance has substantially increased from 
approximately 11,500 flowering plants in 2011, to more than 560,000 
flowering plants counted in 2018 (Fertig 2021, p. 22). In 2019, the 
number of

[[Page 46092]]

flowering plants declined to 325,320 (Fertig 2021, p. 22). Although 
this appears to be a drop in abundance, we attribute the rapid increase 
in abundance in 2018 to the development of direct seeding techniques 
for establishing new populations, as opposed to outplanting individual 
plants (or plugs) grown in greenhouses. Most of the populations in 
Washington and Oregon's Willamette Valley were established by 
incorporating direct seeding. The 2018 rangewide population abundance 
was not necessarily reflective of the eventual long-term population 
level at a site. A number of reestablished populations have been going 
through a period of prairie development/progression and species 
succession. For example, at some reestablished populations, abundance 
initially increased over several years then dropped to about 15-20 
percent of the peak abundance (Fertig 2021, pp. 23-27). Drops in 
abundance are somewhat expected as the populations experience 
variability after direct seeding, and we anticipate that long-term 
population levels at these reestablished sites will meet recovery 
criteria.
    In 2020, there was a reduction of survey effort due to limitations 
related to the COVID pandemic, and while the majority of populations 
were surveyed consistently in Washington, 25 populations in Oregon were 
not surveyed. The last 4 years of monitoring rangewide (2017-2020) 
represent the 4 years with greatest abundance, even without data from 
the 25 sites in Oregon that were not monitored in 2020 (Fertig 2021, p. 
14). The year 2020 also represents the second highest abundance of 
golden paintbrush in the State of Washington at 202,208 flowering 
plants, which was a 47.8 percent increase from 136,846 in 2019 (Fertig 
2021, p. 11).
    In contrast to the newly established golden paintbrush populations 
(referred to as ``outplantings''), there has been a steady decline in 
overall abundance of the populations extant at the time of listing 
since 2012. Abundance at these populations dropped from just over 
15,500 flowering plants in 2012, to 2,223 flowering plants in 2020 
(Fertig 2021, p. 11).
    The Service considers the demographics and site conditions of all 
golden paintbrush populations across the species' range when 
determining the status of the species, including populations extant at 
the time of listing, as well as new populations outplanted since the 
time of listing. In past Service documents, the sites with populations 
extant at the time of listing have often been referred to as ``wild'' 
sites, and trends of abundance have been tracked separately from 
outplanted populations (see Fertig 2021, p. 14, and Service 2019, p. 
30). Because seed from many of the populations extant at the time of 
listing was used to establish populations across the range, all 
outplanted populations have representation from original source 
populations, though the outplanted populations have increased genetic 
diversity from their source populations due to mixed-source production 
beds (St. Clair et al. 2020, p. 590). While declines in abundance have 
been occurring steadily in the populations extant at the time of 
listing, we do not believe these sites should be considered ``wild'' or 
different from outplanted populations, as many have been managed and/or 
augmented over time and many share genetics with the outplanted 
populations. Success of golden paintbrush outplantings has been 
associated with microsites with deeper soils and high richness of 
native perennial forbs (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 1); these 
microsites were likely where golden paintbrush persisted historically, 
but many of these were tilled for agricultural purposes or developed. 
Many of the golden paintbrush populations extant at the time of listing 
may represent marginal or less optimal remnant habitats or sites that 
were not suitable for other uses (Dunwiddie et al. 2016, pp. 207-209). 
For the purposes of assessing recovery of the species across its range, 
the Service acknowledges that individual populations will vary in 
viability, and these differences between populations have been 
accounted for in our current condition analysis within the SBR (Service 
2019, entire) and in our evaluation of the species' overall resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation.

Recovery Criteria

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to 
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition 
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we 
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the 
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    Here, we provide a summary of progress made toward achieving the 
recovery criteria for the golden paintbrush. More detailed information 
related to conservation efforts can be found below under Summary of 
Biological Status and Threats. We completed a final recovery plan for 
the golden paintbrush in 2000 (Service 2000, entire), and later 
supplemented the plan for part of the species' range in 2010 (Service 
2010, entire). The 2000 plan includes objective, measurable criteria 
for delisting; however, the plan has not been updated for more than 20 
years, so some aspects of the plan may no longer reflect the best 
scientific information available for the golden paintbrush.
    Since about 2012, a significant increase in the number of new 
populations has occurred, because of direct seeding within the species'

[[Page 46093]]

historical range in Washington and Oregon, with perhaps the most 
significant being the reestablishment of the golden paintbrush at a 
number of sites in Oregon's Willamette Valley, where the species was 
once extirpated. In addition to improved propagation techniques, 
substantial research has been conducted on the population biology, fire 
ecology, and restoration of the golden paintbrush (Dunwiddie et al. 
2001, entire; Gamon 2001, entire; Kaye and Lawrence 2003, entire; 
Swenerton 2003, entire; Wayne 2004, entire; WDNR 2004b, entire; 
Lawrence 2005, entire; Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, entire; Lawrence 
2015, entire; Schmidt 2016, entire).
    The results of these studies have been used to guide management of 
the species at sites being managed for native prairie and grassland 
ecosystems. Active management to promote the golden paintbrush is being 
done to varying degrees (from targeted to infrequent) across prairie 
and grassland sites. An active seed production program has been 
maintained to provide golden paintbrush seeds and other native prairie 
plant seeds to land managers for population augmentation and 
restoration projects across the species' range in Washington and 
Oregon. Additionally, as recommended by the recovery plan for the 
golden paintbrush (Service 2000, p. 31), the State of Washington 
prepared a reintroduction plan for the Service as both internal and 
external guidance (WDNR 2004a, entire).
    Below are the delisting criteria described in the 2000 golden 
paintbrush recovery plan (Service 2000, p. 24), as supplemented in 
2010, and the progress made to date in achieving each criterion.

Criterion 1 for Delisting

    Criterion 1 is that there are at least 20 stable populations 
distributed throughout the historical range of the species. To be 
deemed stable, a population must maintain a 5-year running average 
population size of at least 1,000 individuals, where the actual count 
never falls below 1,000 individuals in any year. The golden paintbrush 
technical team recommended in the 2007 5-year status review that this 
criterion should be modified. Because it is impractical to count 
individual vegetative plants, the team recommended that the criterion 
should be modified to specifically account for a recovered population 
as equal to 1,000 flowering individuals and known to be stable or 
increasing as evidenced by population trends (Service 2007, p. 3). 
While we did not officially amend or make an addendum to the recovery 
plan to incorporate this recommendation, we accepted this as the best 
way to count population abundance, since monitoring has consistently 
counted flowering plants, following a standardized methodology set by 
the Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program 
(WNHP) (Arnett and Birkhauser 2008, entire; Arnett 2011, entire).
    The Service supplemented this criterion in its 2010 recovery plan 
for the prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern Washington 
by identifying locations for golden paintbrush reintroductions, 
specifically to establish five additional populations distributed 
across at least three of the following recovery zones: Southwest 
Washington, Portland, Salem East, Salem West, Corvallis East, Corvallis 
West, Eugene East, and Eugene West. Priority was given to 
reestablishing populations in zones with historical records of golden 
paintbrush (Southwest Washington, Portland, Salem East, Corvallis East) 
(Service 2010, p. IV-37).
Progress on Criterion 1
    At the time of the proposed rule (data through 2018), 23 
populations averaged at least 1,000 individuals per year over the 5-
year period, with 8 populations with a 5-year running average of at 
least 1,000 individuals. As of 2020, 17 populations averaged at least 
1,000 individual plants per year over the 5-year period with most 
recent data from 2016 to 2020 (2015 to 2019 for sites with no data in 
2020). Of these 17 populations, 7 had a 5-year running average of at 
least 1,000 individuals, and an additional 6 populations had a 3-year 
running average of at least 1,000 individuals (Gray 2022, in litt.). As 
noted above, we only count flowering plants during monitoring, so in 
most years a proportion of individual plants may not be represented in 
annual counts because they are not flowering during surveys. While the 
most recent data do not meet the recovery criteria (of 20 such 
populations), we find that many of the species' populations are 
sufficiently resilient to make up for the smaller number of populations 
based on the following analysis.
    Eight populations currently number in the tens of thousands of 
individuals, the largest totaling 82,692 flowering plants (Glacial 
Heritage) (Fertig 2021, pp. 16-20). Prior to listing, the largest known 
population totaled just over 15,000 individuals (Rocky Prairie Natural 
Area Preserve) (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997). Abundance at these eight 
populations is greater (approximately 10,000 or more flowering plants) 
than the 1,000-individual threshold established at the time of the 
drafting of the recovery plan for this species (Service 2019, pp. 12-
13). These large populations are distributed across the species' range 
in both Oregon and Washington, contributing to the species' ability to 
withstand stochastic or catastrophic events. Although it is likely that 
a number of the more recently established populations are still 
experiencing variability and may experience an initial peak in 
abundance followed by a decline to a lower abundance level, these 
larger populations are more likely to be self-sustaining in the wild 
over time, are more able to withstand stochastic disturbance, have 
higher viability, and face an overall lower risk of extirpation than 
populations at or just above the threshold of 1,000 individuals.
    In addition, there are now a minimum of 26 golden paintbrush 
populations in western Oregon's Willamette Valley, and these 
populations are distributed across 4 (Corvallis West, Salem West, 
Portland, Eugene West) of the recovery zones (Kaye 2019, pp. 11-23) 
identified in the 2010 supplement to the species' recovery plan 
(Service 2010, pp. IV-4, IV-37). In summary, we conclude that 
significant progress has been made toward achieving this criterion, and 
for some populations, the progress is well beyond numerical levels that 
were anticipated at the time of recovery criteria development. Although 
we acknowledge annual variability of abundance across sites, at least 
eight sites across Washington and Oregon number in the tens of 
thousands of individuals (Fertig 2021, pp. 16-20), which significantly 
surpasses the minimum 1,000-individual threshold. This number of 
individuals increases our confidence that the overall viability of the 
species is secured, despite having fewer than 20 populations with a 5-
year running average of at least 1,000 individuals. In addition, new 
populations can now be more quickly established through direct seeding 
and there are multiple sites where the species has recently been 
seeded. There are also plans to add new outplantings into the future 
(Fertig 2021, p. 11).

Criterion 2 for Delisting

    Criterion 2 is that at least 15 populations over 1,000 individuals 
are located on protected sites. In order for a site to be deemed 
protected, it must be either owned or managed by a government agency or 
private conservation organization that identifies maintenance of the 
species as the

[[Page 46094]]

primary management objective for the site, or the site must be 
protected by a permanent conservation easement or covenant that commits 
present and future landowners to the conservation of the species.
Progress on Criterion 2
    This recovery criterion has not been met as phrased in the recovery 
plan, because the primary management objective of the protected sites 
is not always to protect only golden paintbrush. However, we find that 
the goal of the criterion, a significant number of populations under 
conservation ownership protective of the species that are likely to be 
self-sustaining over time, has been greatly exceeded. Forty-five of the 
48 golden paintbrush sites are in either public ownership; are owned by 
a conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization; or are under 
conservation easement (Service 2019, p. 62). Such ownership is expected 
to protect sites from development and land use that would have long-
term, wide-ranging deleterious effects on this species. Additionally, 
37 sites currently have management practices that at least preserve 
essential characteristics of golden paintbrush habitat, and 24 sites 
have management plans and resources for their implementation for 
multiple years (Service 2019, pp. 40, 42-44). In addition, at least two 
of the five conservation easement sites are also enrolled in the 
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides 
technical and financial assistance to private landowners to restore, 
enhance, and manage private land to improve native habitat. At least 3 
sites in Washington and 14 sites in Oregon also support other prairie-
dependent species currently listed as endangered or threatened species 
under the Act, and another 5 are part of designated critical habitat 
for one of these species. Therefore, we anticipate prairie management 
or maintenance will be ongoing at these golden paintbrush sites for the 
foreseeable future. Two of the three extant sites in British Columbia 
that are managed by Parks Canada are also located within designated 
``ecological reserves'' (Service 2019, p. 14). The level of management 
specific to golden paintbrush varies at each site, but all sites are 
generally being managed to conserve or restore native prairie or 
grassland habitats. For additional detail on species management status 
at sites, see the discussion under Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats, below.

Criterion 3 for Delisting

    Criterion 3 is that genetic material, in the form of seeds 
adequately representing the geographic distribution or genetic 
diversity within the species, is stored in a facility approved by the 
Center for Plant Conservation.
Progress on Criterion 3
    This recovery criterion is met. Seeds are being stored at two 
approved facilities, the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank at Portland State 
University and the Miller Seed Vault at the University of Washington 
Botanic Garden. In addition, the active seed production programs at the 
Center for Natural Lands Management in the South Puget Sound, 
Washington, and two smaller nurseries in the North Puget Sound, 
Washington, continue to provide golden paintbrush seeds to land 
managers for population augmentation and prairie restoration projects. 
Production programs were started using seeds from nearly all the 
populations extant at the time of listing to maintain existing genetic 
diversity across the species' historical range and to allow for the 
greatest opportunity for local adaptation at reintroduction sites.

Criterion 4 for Delisting

    Criterion 4 is that post-delisting monitoring of the condition of 
the species and the status of all individual populations is ready to 
begin.
Progress on Criterion 4
    We have developed a post-delisting monitoring plan in cooperation 
with our lead State partners in Washington (Washington Department of 
Natural Resources (WDNR)) and in Oregon (Oregon Department of 
Agriculture (ODA)). The final post-delisting monitoring plan is 
available for public review on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060. We anticipate that the WDNR's WNHP and ODA 
will coordinate future monitoring. In the post-delisting monitoring 
plan, we include the monitoring of, at a minimum, all populations 
established and counted in 2018 that were identified in the SBR 
(Service 2019, pp. 12-13). These populations will be monitored every 
other year after final delisting for a 5-year period (i.e., three 
times, in years 1, 3, and 5, after this final rule is effective). 
Several key prairie conservation partners may choose to monitor these 
golden paintbrush sites more frequently and may also choose to monitor 
additional golden paintbrush sites as more become established across 
the species' range in Oregon and Washington. Parks Canada oversees 
periodic monitoring of the three extant populations within British 
Columbia, Canada. Therefore, this recovery criterion is met.

Criterion 5 for Delisting

    Criterion 5 is that post-delisting procedures for the ecological 
management of habitats for all populations of golden paintbrush have 
been initiated.
Progress on Criterion 5
    This criterion has not been met as phrased in the recovery plan, as 
procedures for ecological management for all populations are not in 
place. However, we find that the intent of this criterion has been met 
because a substantial proportion of known golden paintbrush sites, 
i.e., 37 out of 48,--more than the 20 populations originally envisioned 
for these recovery criteria--meet this criterion. At least 24 of the 48 
golden paintbrush sites have had prairie or grassland management plans 
in place for multiple years. An additional 13 sites that lack a long-
term management plan for the golden paintbrush receive basic 
maintenance to preserve the prairie characteristics of golden 
paintbrush habitat (Service 2019, pp. 42-44). As described earlier, 
significant strides have been made in the ecological management 
techniques for restoration and maintenance of prairie landscapes and 
the reintroduction and management of golden paintbrush at these and 
other sites. The current level of management varies across extant 
sites, influenced by need, conservation partner capacity, and funding 
availability. We anticipate ongoing management at a minimum of 37 of 
these sites, although the level of management will continue to vary 
across sites based on these same factors (Service 2019, pp. 40, 42-44) 
(see additional discussion regarding ongoing site management under 
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below). The most actively 
managed sites may include plantings, fencing, prescribed fire, 
herbicide use for weed control, mowing, and controlled public use. As 
described above under Criterion 2 for Delisting, at least 17 sites 
currently contain multiple, prairie-dependent species and an additional 
5 sites are designated critical habitat for another prairie-dependent 
species. Those golden paintbrush sites that support multiple, prairie-
dependent species listed under the Act are anticipated to receive the 
most consistent ecological management into the future. While this 
recovery criterion has not been fully achieved (i.e., not all 
populations have post-delisting management procedures in place), 
ecological management of habitat

[[Page 46095]]

is expected to occur on the vast majority of the known sites and 
management will occur on far more than the originally projected 15 
sites identified above under Criterion 2 for Delisting.
    With the more recently identified threat of hybridization from 
harsh paintbrush (Castilleja hispida), additional measures are being 
implemented and refined to address the impacts to golden paintbrush on 
contaminated sites and prevent the spread of harsh paintbrush to 
uncontaminated golden paintbrush sites in the South Puget Sound 
geographic area in Washington. The Service has developed a strategy and 
guidance document for securing golden paintbrush sites and outlining 
solutions necessary for the long-term protection of golden paintbrush 
from hybridization (Service et al. 2021, entire). In addition, the 
Service has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with our State 
conservation partners to ensure hybridization is contained and the 
conservation strategy is followed to benefit golden paintbrush while 
supporting recovery of other sympatric (occurring within the same 
geographical area) prairie species listed under the Act (Service et al. 
2020, entire). We provide more information and discussion on the 
hybridization conservation strategy and how it fits into the 
conservation of golden paintbrush in Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats, and our response to (15) Comment, below.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened 
species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that 
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.
    For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened 
species, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats 
currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely 
to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the 
downlisting or delisting and the removal of the Act's protections. A 
recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of 
an endangered species or a threatened species. For the golden 
paintbrush, we consider 30 years to be a reasonable period of time 
within which reliable predictions can be made for stressors and 
species' response. This time period includes multiple generations of 
the golden paintbrush, generally includes the term of and likely period 
of response to many of the management plans for the species and/or its 
habitat, and encompasses planning horizons for prairie habitat 
conservation efforts (e.g., Dunwiddie and Bakker 2011, pp. 86-88; 
Service 2011, entire; Altman et al. 2017, pp. 6, 20); additionally, 
various global climate models and emission scenarios provide consistent 
predictions within that timeframe (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) 2014, p. 11). We consider 30 years a relatively 
conservative timeframe in view of the long-term protection afforded to 
93 percent of the species' occupied populations (45 of 48), which occur 
on conserved/protected lands (Service 2019, p. 62).

Analytical Framework

    The SBR documents the results of our comprehensive biological 
review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status 
of the species. The report does not represent our decision

[[Page 46096]]

on whether the species should be delisted under the Act. It does, 
however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory 
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within 
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. The following is 
a summary of the key results and conclusions from the report, which can 
be found at Docket FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060 on https://www.regulations.gov.
    To assess golden paintbrush viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a 
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to 
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability. We use 
this information to inform our regulatory decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    Below, we review the biological condition of the species and its 
resources, and the threats that influence the species' condition in 
order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that 
viability. In addition, the SBR (Service 2019, entire) documents our 
comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an 
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The following 
potential threats were identified for this species at the time of 
listing: (1) Succession of prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and 
forest lands (due to fire suppression, interspecific competition, and 
invasive species); (2) development of property for commercial, 
residential, and agricultural use; (3) low potential for expansion and 
refugia due to constriction of habitat (from surrounding development or 
land use); (4) recreational picking (including associated trampling); 
and (5) herbivory (predation on plants and seeds) (62 FR 31740; June 
11, 1997). For our analysis, we assessed the influence of these 
potential threats on the current status of the species, as well as the 
influence of two potential threats not considered at the time of 
listing: hybridization of golden paintbrush with harsh paintbrush, and 
the impacts of climate change. We also assessed current voluntary and 
regulatory conservation mechanisms relative to how they reduce or 
ameliorate existing threats to golden paintbrush.

Habitat Loss

    At the time of listing, the principal cause of ongoing habitat loss 
was succession of prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and forest 
due to fire suppression, interspecific competition, and invasive 
species (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997). The potential for development at, 
or surrounding, extant sites for commercial, residential, and 
agricultural purposes also posed a threat to the golden paintbrush at 
the time of listing. Both of these threat factors were preventing or 
limiting extant populations from expanding and recruiting into new or 
adjacent areas and afforded no refugia for the species in the case of 
catastrophic events.
    Currently, ongoing prairie or grassland management or maintenance 
occurs at the majority of extant golden paintbrush sites. This 
management includes removal or suppression of trees and both native and 
nonnative woody shrubs, as well as control of nonnative, invasive 
grassland plant species through a number of different approaches (e.g., 
mowing, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, selective-herbicide 
application, restoration reseeding, etc.). Most golden paintbrush sites 
have either had prairie or grassland management plans in place for 
multiple years or receive basic maintenance to preserve the prairie 
characteristics of golden paintbrush habitat (Service 2019, pp. 42-44). 
Three golden paintbrush sites in Washington also currently support 
other prairie- or grassland-dependent species listed under the Act--the 
endangered Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) 
and three threatened subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys 
mazama spp.) (Olympia pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis), 
Tenino pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama tumuli), and Yelm pocket gopher 
(Thomomys mazama yelmensis))--while an additional five sites in 
Washington are included in designated critical habitat for the Taylor's 
checkerspot butterfly.
    Although these five critical habitat sites are currently unoccupied 
by the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, they were designated because 
they were found to be essential for the conservation of the butterfly 
(78 FR 61506; October 3, 2013). Harsh paintbrush (Castilleja hispida) 
is a host plant for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly in the South Puget 
Sound geographic area in Washington. As we discuss further below (see 
Hybridization), golden paintbrush generally cannot co-occur with harsh 
paintbrush due to the threat of hybridization. However, as we continue 
to work with our conservation partners to follow the hybridization 
strategy and guidance document to prioritize sites for both golden 
paintbrush and Taylor's checkerspot butterfly we also continue to 
explore opportunities to conserve both species on individual sites 
where appropriate. In addition, at least 14 golden paintbrush sites in 
Oregon's Willamette Valley currently support one or more other prairie- 
or grassland-dependent species listed under the Act that do not present 
the threat of hybridization--the endangered Fender's blue butterfly 
(Icaricia icarioides fenderi), endangered Willamette daisy (Erigeron 
decumbens), threatened Kincaid's lupine (Lupinus oreganus var. 
kincaidii, listed as Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii), and threatened 
Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) (Institute for Applied 
Ecology 2019, in litt.).
    We expect a number of golden paintbrush sites in both Washington 
and Oregon to continue to be managed in a way that supports the 
recovery of other prairie- or grassland-dependent species in addition 
to the long-term conservation of the golden paintbrush. As long as 
periodic management or maintenance continues to occur at golden 
paintbrush sites across the species' range, the threat of prairie or 
grassland succession is expected to remain adequately addressed into 
the foreseeable future. State and Federal management plans include 
specific objectives to continue to protect and conserve the golden 
paintbrush at a number of sites. States, Federal agencies, and 
conservation organizations have invested significant resources into 
golden paintbrush recovery, as well as general prairie and grassland 
restoration and conservation for a variety of at-risk, prairie-
dependent species. We do not anticipate habitat for these prairie-
dependent species to contract further given the limited amount of 
remaining prairie habitat and the long-term investments conservation 
partners have made, and continue to make, to restore, rebuild, 
maintain, and conserve these relatively rare regional

[[Page 46097]]

ecosystems (Dunwiddie and Bakker 2011, entire; Center for Natural Lands 
Management 2012, in litt., entire; The News Tribune 2014, in litt.; 
Altman et al. 2017, entire; The Nature Conservancy 2019, in litt., 
entire).
    Golden paintbrush now occurs within 48 separate populations as a 
result of the numerous reintroduction efforts implemented to recover 
this species. Only three of these populations are on lands possibly 
subject to future development. The remaining 45 populations are all 
under some type of public or conservation ownership (Service 2019, pp. 
11-14). Of the 48 extant populations, at least 81 percent (n=39) are on 
land with some known level of protected status (at a minimum, formally 
protected as a natural area or other such designation, although not all 
of these designations are permanent) (Service 2019, pp. 42-44). In 
addition, of the 39 populations with some protected land status, 19 
also include stipulations for, or statements of specific protection of, 
perpetual management of the golden paintbrush.
    Although the total area occupied by the golden paintbrush at 19 of 
the 48 sites is relatively small (less than 0.4 hectare (ha) (1 acre 
(ac)), 14 of the 48 sites have between 0.4 to 1.6 occupied ha (1 to 3.9 
ac), and another 14 of the 48 sites have from between 2 to 18.6 
occupied ha (5 to 46 ac). We lack this information at one site (Service 
2019, pp. 37-38). All but 4 of the 48 sites have available land for 
future golden paintbrush population expansion or shifts in 
distribution. Of the 33 sites with less than 2 ha (5 ac) of occupied 
habitat, 10 have an estimated range of 0.8 to 2 ha (2 to 5 ac) of 
additional habitat for expansion, and at least 13 have an estimated 
range of 2 to 6 ha (5 to 15 ac) of additional habitat for future 
expansion (Service 2019, pp. 37-38). In addition, the species is much 
less reliant on expanding site-use and refugia than at the time of 
listing, when only 10 extant populations of the golden paintbrush 
remained. The reintroduction and seed production techniques developed 
for golden paintbrush recovery have provided the means to more easily 
establish or reestablish populations at prairie restoration sites than 
were previously possible. Many of these sites have been specifically 
acquired for their potential overall size, conservation value, and 
conservation status. The golden paintbrush has been reintroduced and 
established at prairie restoration sites that are well-distributed 
across the species' historical range, well beyond the 10 extant sites 
at the time of listing. As a result of these conditions, we do not 
anticipate development in or around these sites to become a threat to 
the golden paintbrush in the foreseeable future.

Recreational Picking and Trampling

    At the time of listing, we considered overutilization from 
recreational picking (flowers) to be a threat (62 FR 31740; June 11, 
1997). Our concern with recreational picking or collection of flowers 
was that it would reduce overall potential seed-set at a population. 
Concern has also been noted regarding the direct harvesting of seed 
capsules (Dunwiddie 2018, in litt.). Although there is evidence of 
occasional recreational or possible commercial collection of capsules 
that reduced the amount of seed available on a site, collection is no 
longer considered a significant stressor to the species across its 
range (Service 2019, p. 47). In addition, the current number of 
established and protected golden paintbrush populations, many with 
limited or restricted access, largely ameliorates this previously 
identified threat. We acknowledge that the golden paintbrush is likely 
a desirable species for some gardeners or plant collectors. However, 
when delisted (see DATES, above), golden paintbrush seeds or plants are 
likely to become available through controlled sale to the public from 
regional prairie conservation partners and/or regional native plant 
nurseries, similar to what occurs with other non-listed prairie plant 
species. For these reasons, we do not expect the possible collection of 
golden paintbrush flowers or seeds to become a threat to the species in 
the foreseeable future.
    At the time of listing, we identified trampling of golden 
paintbrush plants by recreationalists as impacting the species at some 
sites with high levels of public use, especially where and when 
associated with recreational picking of golden paintbrush flowers. 
Although some risk of trampling to plants will always be present across 
public sites (e.g., State parks, national wildlife refuges), most sites 
often have some level of restricted access when golden paintbrush 
plants are in bloom (e.g., fenced from deer or inaccessible to the 
public) or there are defined walking or viewing areas. Therefore, when 
compared with the potential impact of trampling at the time of listing, 
the current impact is likely insignificant, due to the number of 
reestablished golden paintbrush populations, the large size of many of 
these sites, and considerable abundance of golden paintbrush plants at 
some of these sites. For the above reasons, we also do not anticipate 
that trampling will become a threat in the foreseeable future.

Herbivory

    At the time of listing, we considered predation (herbivory) on the 
golden paintbrush by native (voles and deer) and introduced (rabbits) 
species to be a threat to the plant (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997); 
however, the best available information does not indicate it is a 
current or future threat. Although deer and elk exhibit herbivory on 
the golden paintbrush at some sites, there is annual and site-specific 
variability in the overall level of herbivory (Service 2019, p. 48; 
Martin 2021, p. 9). Herbivory impacts from rabbits and voles on the 
golden paintbrush have not been broadly or consistently observed and 
also appear to be variable across sites and years. Where herbivory by 
deer or rabbits or both has been significant, control with fencing has 
been successfully implemented, but controlling herbivory through 
fencing over large areas is limited by cost (Service 2019, p. 48). In 
addition, encouraging localized reduction of deer populations through 
lethal removal near some sites (Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife 2019, in litt.; Pelant 2019, in litt.) and installing raptor 
perch poles to control rodents and rabbits at some sites are also being 
implemented to reduce impacts of herbivory on the golden paintbrush 
(Service 2019, p. 48). As a consequence of the significant increase in 
the number of golden paintbrush populations that have been successfully 
established across the species' range since it was listed, and because 
the impact of herbivory is being adequately managed in at least a 
portion of those sites where noted as significant (potential site- or 
population-level effect), we conclude predation (herbivory) no longer 
has a significant impact across the majority of the golden paintbrush's 
48 sites/populations, nor at the species level, and it is unlikely to 
become a threat to the species in the foreseeable future.

Hybridization

    As noted above, a potential threat to the golden paintbrush 
identified after the species was listed in 1997 was the impact of 
hybridization with the harsh paintbrush. The harsh paintbrush is one of 
the host plants introduced to prairie sites targeted for endangered 
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly recovery efforts. Our 2007 5-year status 
review recommended, ``the evaluation of the potential for genetic 
contamination of golden paintbrush populations by hybridization with 
other species of Castilleja'' (Service 2007, p. 15). After

[[Page 46098]]

initial evaluation, the potential risk of hybridization was considered 
relatively low and manageable (Kaye and Blakeley-Smith 2008, p. 13). 
However, after further evaluation and additional observations in the 
field, hybridization with the harsh paintbrush has now been identified 
as a significant potential threat to golden paintbrush populations 
where the two species occur together or in close proximity (Clark 2015, 
entire; Sandlin 2018, entire). Three former golden paintbrush recovery 
sites have now been discounted by the Service for the purposes of 
recovery due to the level of hybridization at these sites (Service 
2019, p. 15). At least one other site is currently vulnerable to the 
effects of hybridization, but management efforts to date (removal of 
plants that exhibit hybrid characteristics and creation of a zone of 
separation between harsh paintbrush and golden paintbrush areas at the 
site) have maintained this golden paintbrush population. Currently, 
hybridization appears to be confined to those areas located in the 
South Puget Sound prairie region where both species of Castilleja were 
used at some of the same habitat restoration sites. The only known 
incident of hybridization outside of this region was at Steigerwald 
Lake National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Washington, where we 
unknowingly used a seed mix that included the harsh paintbrush. This 
site has since been eradicated of both Castilleja species, but we 
anticipate reintroducing the golden paintbrush to the site in the 
future (Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complex 2019, in litt., 
entire).
    As a response to this emerging threat, efforts were implemented, 
and are ongoing, to reduce or eliminate the risk of hybridization to 
the golden paintbrush. These include efforts such as maintaining 
isolated growing areas for the golden paintbrush and harsh paintbrush 
at native seed production facilities used in prairie restoration 
efforts, maintaining buffers between golden paintbrush and harsh 
paintbrush patches at sites where both species are currently present, 
and delineating which of the two species will be used at current and 
future prairie conservation or restoration sites. We recently developed 
a strategy and guidance document for securing golden paintbrush sites 
to address containment of hybridization at existing contaminated sites 
and prevention of unintentional spread of hybridization to other 
regions within the golden paintbrush's range, specifically north Puget 
Sound and the Willamette Valley (Service et al. 2021, entire). We have 
also entered into an associated MOU with the Washington Department of 
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and WDNR to ensure the strategy is implemented 
as agreed to by all prairie conservation partners in the range of the 
golden paintbrush (Service et al. 2020, entire). The three agencies 
have authority over these species and will oversee most prairie 
restoration efforts in Washington, particularly in South Puget Sound. 
This MOU is expected to facilitate awareness and compliance with the 
hybridization strategy and guidance by our prairie conservation 
partners across the range of the golden paintbrush. The formal adoption 
and implementation of the hybridization strategy and guidance is 
expected to prevent hybridization from becoming a threat to the golden 
paintbrush in the foreseeable future. Please see our response to (12) 
Comment, below, for additional discussion regarding hybridization.

Climate Change

    At the time of listing, the potential impacts of climate change on 
the golden paintbrush were not discussed. The term ``climate'' refers 
to the mean and variability of relevant quantities (i.e., temperature, 
precipitation, wind) over time (IPCC 2014, pp. 119-120). The term 
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability 
of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) 
that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, 
whether the change is due to internal processes or anthropogenic 
changes (IPCC 2014, p. 120).
    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that 
changes in climate are occurring. In particular, warming of the climate 
system is unequivocal, and many of the observed changes in the last 60 
years are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2014, p. 2). 
The current rate of climate change may be as fast as any extended 
warming period over the past 65 million years and is projected to 
accelerate over the next 30 to 80 years (National Research Council 
2013, p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change is adding to other sources of 
extinction pressures, such as land use and invasive species, which will 
likely place extinction rates in this era among just a handful of the 
severe biodiversity crises observed in Earth's geological record 
(American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2014, p. 
7).
    Global climate projections are informative, and in some cases, the 
only or the best scientific information available for us to use. 
However, projected changes in climate at the global scale and related 
impacts can vary substantially across and within different regions of 
the world (e.g., IPCC 2013 and 2014, entire) and within the United 
States (Melillo et al. 2014, entire). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' 
projections when they are available and have been developed through 
appropriate scientific procedures, because such projections provide 
higher resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales 
used for analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, 
for a discussion of downscaling).
    Climate change trends predicted for the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho, and Montana) broadly consist of an increase in 
annual average temperature; an increase in extreme precipitation 
events; and, with less certainty, variability in annual precipitation 
(Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 413; Dalton et al. 2013, pp. 31-38, figure 
1.1; Snover et al. 2013, pp. 5-1-5-4).
    Based on a 2014 climate change vulnerability assessment, the golden 
paintbrush was considered ``presumed stable'' (Gamon 2014, entire). 
After the completion of the SBR (Service 2019, entire), a new 
assessment was conducted on sites in Washington, which evaluated only 
the populations extant at the time of listing (11 extant and 11 
populations that were extirpated; none of the 10 outplanted sites in 
Washington); this new assessment considered golden paintbrush as 
``highly vulnerable'' to climate change (Young et al. 2016, entire; 
Kleinknecht et al. 2019, entire). Please see our response to (10) 
Comment, below, for more discussion regarding this new information.
    Prolonged or more intense summer droughts are likely to increase in 
the Pacific Northwest due to climate change (Snover et al. 2013, p. 2-
1). Regional climate change literature suggests that prairie ecosystems 
were established under warmer and drier conditions and are unlikely to 
be disadvantaged from future increased summer drought (Bachelet et al. 
2011, p. 417). However, although the golden paintbrush senesces as the 
prairies dry out in the summer, increased intensity or length of 
drought conditions will likely stress plants and increase mortality, 
resulting in reduced numbers of individuals in populations at less-
than-optimal sites (Kaye 2018, in litt.).
    As is the case with all stressors we assess, even if we conclude 
that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a 
negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it does not 
necessarily follow that the species

[[Page 46099]]

meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened 
species'' under the Act.
    Predicted environmental changes resulting from climate change may 
have both positive and negative effects on the golden paintbrush, 
depending on the extent and type of impact and depending on site-
specific conditions within each habitat type. The primary predicted 
negative effect includes drought conditions resulting in inconsistent 
growing seasons. Likewise, future temperature changes may influence the 
timing of native prairie plant phenology, which could lead to 
asynchronies with pollinators (Reed et al. 2019, entire). This effect 
will likely be buffered by the ability of the golden paintbrush to 
survive in a range of soil conditions, as is evident by its 
establishment on a wide variety of sites across its 300-mile geographic 
range, with a number of different host plants, and under a range of 
precipitation levels. We have not identified any predicted 
environmental effects from climate change that may be positive for the 
golden paintbrush at this time. Climate change could result in a 
decline or change in bumble bee diversity within the range of the 
golden paintbrush (Soroye et al. 2020, entire); the bumble bee is an 
important pollinator for the golden paintbrush (Service 2019, pp. 6-7). 
However, there are limited data at this time to indicate the potential 
loss of bumble bee diversity is a specific and present threat to the 
golden paintbrush. Also, observations of reduced seed production at 
some Washington sites in recent years (2019-2021) could be the result 
of recent drought events, although it remains unclear how these 
observations translate to population abundance and trends over time. 
Golden paintbrush populations can experience high variability in 
abundance between years (Fertig 2021, pp. 24-27), and while climate 
change is a stressor, given the species' high abundance and 
distribution across the 300-mile range from British Columbia to Oregon, 
we expect the golden paintbrush has sufficient resiliency and 
redundancy to remain viable into the foreseeable future. Establishing 
plant populations such as the golden paintbrush across the full 
geographic and climatic range of Pacific Northwest prairies has been 
identified as a ``climate-smart'' strategy given the extensive north-
south range encompassing variable temperature and precipitation 
patterns (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 420). The species appears to have 
sufficient resiliency and redundancy across its range to maintain 
sufficient viability during drought years. As evidence, the last 4 
years of monitoring (2017-2020) represent the 4 years with greatest 
abundance rangewide despite extreme drought experienced between 2015 
and 2016 in Oregon and Washington (Fertig 2021, p. 30; National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration National Integrated Drought Information 
System (NOAA NIDIS) 2022, entire). In addition, the year 2020 also 
represents the second-highest abundance of golden paintbrush in the 
State of Washington at 202,208 flowering plants, which was a 47.8 
percent increase from 136,846 in 2019. Additionally, several 
outplantings have been initiated at new locations since 2018 in 
Washington, and we are continuing to work with our partners to plan new 
outplantings across the species' range that will further add to the 
species' resiliency and redundancy.
    In summary, climate change is affecting, and will continue to 
affect, temperature and precipitation events within the range of the 
golden paintbrush. The extent, duration, and impact of those changes 
are unknown, but could potentially increase or decrease precipitation 
in some areas and increase temperatures found within the range of the 
golden paintbrush. Golden paintbrush may experience climate change-
related effects in the future, most likely at the individual or local 
population scale; however, we anticipate the species will remain 
viable, because: (1) It is more resilient than at the time of listing 
as a result of increased abundance, number of sites, and geographic 
distribution in a variety of ecological settings, contributing to the 
species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation; (2) available 
information indicates the golden paintbrush is somewhat adaptable to 
some level of future variation in climate conditions (Service 2019, pp. 
22-25, 45); (3) there are ongoing efforts to expand the golden 
paintbrush to additional suitable sites across the species' range; and 
(4) we now have the technical ability to effectively and more readily 
establish populations, which could help to mitigate future population 
losses. Therefore, based upon the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we conclude that climate change does not 
currently pose a threat to the golden paintbrush, nor is it likely to 
become a threat to the golden paintbrush in the foreseeable future 
(next 30 years).

Voluntary and Regulatory Conservation Mechanisms

    For current federally listed species, we consider existing 
regulatory mechanisms relative to how they reduce or ameliorate threats 
to the species absent the protections of the Act. Therefore, we examine 
whether other regulatory mechanisms would remain in place if the 
species were delisted, and the extent to which those mechanisms will 
continue to help ensure that future threats will be reduced or 
eliminated. In the final listing rule (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997), we 
noted that habitat management for the golden paintbrush was not 
assured, despite the fact that most populations occurred in areas 
designated as reserves or parks that typically afforded the golden 
paintbrush and its habitat some level of protection through those 
designations. As discussed in our SBR (Service 2019, pp. 47-52), the 
threat of habitat loss from potential residential or commercial 
development has decreased since the time of listing due to the 
establishment of new golden paintbrush populations on protected sites. 
Although a few privately owned sites are still at some potential risk, 
development is no longer considered a significant threat to the 
viability of the golden paintbrush due to the number of sites largely 
provided protection from development (Service 2019, pp. 12-14).
Federal
    Sikes Act--The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) provides the 
authority and defines the responsibilities to facilitate effectual 
planning, development, maintenance, and coordination of wildlife, fish, 
and game conservation and rehabilitation on military installations. The 
Sikes Act requires that conservation goals are cooperatively developed 
and recorded in a planning document called an integrated natural 
resources management plant (INRMP). One golden paintbrush population 
currently occurs on a Federal military installation (Forbes Point, 
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Island County, Washington) and is 
managed under an INRMP (U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) 2013, pp. 3-
7) authorized by the Sikes Act. Special management and protection 
requirements for golden paintbrush habitat in the INRMP include 
maintenance of a 10-ac management area for the species, including: 
maintaining and improving a fence around the population to exclude both 
people and herbivores; posting signs that state the area is accessible 
to ``authorized personnel only''; mowing and hand-cutting competing 
shrubs in the area; outplanting nursery-grown plants from seeds 
previously collected onsite; and implementing additional habitat 
management actions, such as controlled burns or herbicide control of

[[Page 46100]]

competing vegetation, that are identified in the future to enhance the 
golden paintbrush population (USDOD 2013, pp. 3-7). These protections 
are effective in protecting the golden paintbrush on this site and are 
expected to continue in the absence of protections under the Act 
because the Sikes Act mandates the Department of Defense to conserve 
and rehabilitate wildlife, fish, and game on military installations.
    National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act--Ten golden 
paintbrush populations currently occur on National Wildlife Refuge 
(NWR) lands (Dungeness NWR in Washington; and Ankeny, William L. 
Finley, Tualatin River, and Baskett Slough NWRs in Oregon). As directed 
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 
105-57), refuge managers have the authority and responsibility to 
protect native ecosystems, fulfill the purposes for which an individual 
refuge was founded, and implement strategies to achieve the goals and 
objectives stated in management plans. For example, William L. Finley 
NWR (Benton County, Oregon) includes extensive habitat for the golden 
paintbrush, including four known populations, while a number of 
additional NWRs in Oregon (Ankeny NWR, Marion County; Tualatin River 
NWR, Washington County; and Baskett Slough NWR, Polk County) and 
Washington (Dungeness NWR, Clallam County) each also support at least 
one golden paintbrush population.
    The Willamette Valley comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for 
William L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett Slough NWRs is a land management 
plan finalized in 2011 with a 15-year term that directs maintenance, 
protection, and restoration of the species and its habitat and 
identifies specific objectives related to establishment of populations 
and monitoring, as well as related habitat maintenance/management 
(Service 2011, pp. 2-45-2-46, 2-66-2-70). Given the 15-year timeframe 
of CCPs, these protections would remain in place until at least 2026, 
regardless of the golden paintbrush's Federal listing status.
    Tualatin River NWR finalized a CCP in 2013 (Service 2013a, entire), 
and although it does not have conservation actions specific to the 
golden paintbrush identified in the plan, it does have maintenance and 
management activities for oak savanna habitat on the NWR, which 
supports the golden paintbrush (Service 2013a, pp. 4-9-4-10). These 
activities include various methods (e.g., mechanical and chemical) for 
reducing encroachment of woody species, controlling nonnative and 
invasive plant species, and reestablishing native grasses and forbs. 
Given the 15-year timeframe of CCPs, protections outlined in the 
Tualatin River NWR CCP are expected to remain in place until at least 
2028, regardless of the golden paintbrush's Federal listing status.
    Dungeness NWR also finalized a CCP in 2013 (Service 2013b, entire). 
The CCP does not have any conservation actions specific to the golden 
paintbrush identified; however, it does identify general actions taken 
to control nonnative and invasive plant species that invade habitats on 
the refuge, including those inhabited by the golden paintbrush (Service 
2013b, pp. 4-44-4-45). The golden paintbrush population at this NWR's 
headquarters continues to be maintained and protected.
    In addition to specific protections for the golden paintbrush 
provided under CCPs, the species is permanently protected by the 
mission of all NWRs to manage their lands and waters for the 
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats.
    National Park Service Organic Act--One golden paintbrush site 
currently occurs on National Park Service (NPS) lands (American Camp, 
San Juan Island National Historical Park, Washington). The NPS Organic 
Act of 1916 (54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq.), as amended, states the NPS will 
promote and regulate the use of the National Park system to conserve 
the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife therein, to 
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means 
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations 
(54 U.S.C. 100101(a)). Further, in title 36 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) at Sec.  2.1(a)(1)(ii), NPS regulations specifically 
prohibit possessing, destroying, injuring, defacing, removing, digging, 
or disturbing from their natural state plants, or the parts or products 
thereof, on lands under NPS jurisdiction. This prohibition extends to 
the golden paintbrush where it exists on NPS-managed lands. In 
addition, the General Management Plan for the San Juan Island National 
Historical Park includes the NPS's goal of restoring a prairie 
community that support functions and values of native habitat, 
including habitat for native wildlife and rare species, such as the 
golden paintbrush (NPS 2008, p. 249).
    Endangered Species Act--The golden paintbrush often co-occurs with 
other plant and animal species that are listed under the Act, such as 
the endangered Willamette daisy and endangered Taylor's checkerspot 
butterfly. Therefore, some of the general habitat protections (e.g., 
section 7 consultation and ongoing recovery implementation efforts, 
including prairie habitat restoration, maintenance, and protection) for 
these other prairie-dependent, listed species will indirectly extend to 
some golden paintbrush sites when we delist the golden paintbrush. We 
acknowledge that some sites that support Taylor's checkerspot butterfly 
will not be available for golden paintbrush due to the threat of 
hybridization between golden and harsh paintbrush; however, given that 
hybridization has only impacted populations in the South Puget Sound 
area of Washington, and the extensive range of golden paintbrush in 
other areas where hybridization is currently not a threat, we assume 
that management for prairie-dependent species across the range will 
benefit golden paintbrush beyond delisting. Likewise, the hybridization 
strategy and guidance document and our partnership with State agencies 
in Washington will ensure that hybridization is minimized or avoided 
into the future (Service et al. 2020, entire; Service et al. 2021, 
entire).
    Protections in Canada--The golden paintbrush in Canada is currently 
federally listed as ``endangered'' under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) 
(COSEWIC 2007, entire). SARA regulations protect species from harm, 
possession, collection, buying, selling, or trading (Statutes of Canada 
2002, c. 29). SARA also prohibits damage to or destroying the habitat 
of a species that is listed as an endangered species. The population at 
Trial Island is on Canadian federal lands protected under SARA (COSEWIC 
2011, in litt., p. 5). The golden paintbrush is not currently protected 
under any provincial legislation in British Columbia. However, the 
golden paintbrush occurs in the ecological reserves that include Trial 
Island and Alpha Islet, which are protected under the British Columbia 
Park Act (COSEWIC 2011, in litt., p. 5). The British Columbia Park Act 
allows lands identified under the Ecological Reserve Act to be 
regulated to restrict or prohibit any use, development, or occupation 
of the land or any use or development of the natural resources in an 
ecological reserve (Revised Statutes of British Columbia 1996, c. 103). 
This includes particular areas where rare or endangered native plants 
and animals in their natural habitat may be preserved.
State
    Washington Natural Heritage Plan--Washington State's Natural 
Heritage Plan identifies priorities for preserving natural diversity in 
Washington State (WDNR 2018, entire). The plan aids WDNR in conserving 
key habitats that

[[Page 46101]]

are currently imperiled, or are expected to be imperiled in the future. 
The prioritization of conservation efforts provided by this plan is 
expected to remain in place if we delist the golden paintbrush. The 
golden paintbrush is currently identified as a priority 2 species 
(species likely to become endangered across their range or in 
Washington within the foreseeable future) in the State's 2018 plan 
(WDNR 2018a, in litt., p. 4), which is a recent change from the 
species' priority 1 designation (species are in danger of extinction 
across their range, including Washington) in 2011 (WDNR 2018b, in 
litt., p. 2). The State's conservation status is not necessarily 
impacted by Federal delisting and is ultimately at the discretion of 
WDNR. We anticipate that WDNR will continue to monitor the species 
where it occurs on their own lands and more broadly as a partner in the 
post-delisting monitoring plan. We also anticipate that WDNR will 
continue to actively manage their golden paintbrush sites because these 
areas are not only important to the long-term conservation of golden 
paintbrush, but also to other at-risk prairie species.
    Washington State Park Regulations and Management--In Washington, 
State park regulations, in general, require an evaluation of any 
activity conducted on a park that has the potential to damage park 
resources, and require mitigation as appropriate (see title 352 of the 
Washington Administrative Code). Wildlife, plants, all park buildings, 
signs, tables, and other structures are protected; removal or damage of 
any kind is prohibited (Washington State Parks and Recreation 
Commission 2019, in litt., p. 2). One golden paintbrush site currently 
exists on Fort Casey Historical State Park. One of the objectives for 
natural resources on Fort Casey Historical State Park under the Central 
Whidbey State Parks Management Plan is to protect and participate in 
the recovery of the golden paintbrush, including protecting native 
plant communities, managing vegetative succession, and removing weeds 
through integrated pest management (Washington State Parks and 
Recreation Commission 2008, p. 15). The plan further states that areas 
where the golden paintbrush occurs will be classified as ``heritage 
affording a high degree of protection,'' and the Nass Natural Area 
Preserve (also known as Admiralty Inlet Natural Area Preserve) is 
included in the long-term park boundary to also assure continued 
preservation of the golden paintbrush in this area (Washington State 
Parks and Recreation Commission 2008, p. 26).
    Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Chapter 564--Oregon Revised 
Statutes, chapter 564, ``Wildflowers; Threatened or Endangered 
Plants,'' requires State agencies to protect State-listed plant species 
found on their lands. Any land action on Oregon land owned or leased by 
the State, for which the State holds a recorded easement, and which 
results, or might result, in the taking of an endangered or threatened 
plant species, requires consultation with Oregon Department of 
Agriculture staff (see ORS section 564.115). The golden paintbrush is 
currently State-listed as endangered in Oregon. At this time, no 
populations of the golden paintbrush are known to occur on State lands 
in Oregon. However, should populations of the golden paintbrush occur 
on Oregon State lands in the future, the removal of Federal protections 
for the golden paintbrush would not affect State protection of the 
species under this statute.
    In summary, conservation measures and existing regulatory 
mechanisms have minimized, and are continuing to address, the 
previously identified threats to the golden paintbrush, including 
habitat succession of prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and 
forest lands; development of property for commercial, residential, and 
agricultural use; recreational picking (including associated 
trampling); and herbivory (on plants and seeds). As indicated above, we 
anticipate the majority of these mechanisms will remain in place 
regardless of the species' Federal listing status.

Cumulative Impacts

    When multiple stressors co-occur, one may exacerbate the effects of 
the other, leading to effects not accounted for when each stressor is 
analyzed individually. The full impact of these synergistic effects may 
be observed within a short period of time, or may take many years 
before it is noticeable. For example, high levels of predation 
(herbivory) on the golden paintbrush by deer could cause large 
temporary losses in seed production in a population, but are not 
generally considered to be a significant threat to long-term viability, 
as populations that are relatively large and well-distributed should be 
able to withstand such naturally occurring events. However, the 
relative impact of predation (herbivory) by deer may be intensified 
when it occurs in conjunction with other factors that may lessen the 
resiliency of golden paintbrush populations, such as prolonged woody 
species encroachment (prairie succession); extensive nonnative, 
invasive plant infestations; or possible increased plant mortality 
resulting from the effects of climate change (i.e., prolonged drought).
    Although the types, magnitude, or extent of potential cumulative 
impacts are difficult to predict, we are not aware of any combination 
of factors that is likely to co-occur resulting in significant negative 
consequences for the species. We anticipate that any negative 
consequence of co-occurring threats will be successfully addressed 
through the same active management actions that have contributed to the 
ongoing recovery of the golden paintbrush and the conservation of 
regional prairie ecosystems that are expected to continue into the 
future.

Summary of Biological Status

    To assess golden paintbrush viability, we evaluated the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). We assessed the 
current resiliency of golden paintbrush sites (Service 2019, pp. 52-63) 
by scoring each site's management level, site condition, threats 
addressed, site abundance of plants, and site protection, resulting in 
a high, moderate, or low condition ranking. One-third of sites were 
determined to have a high condition ranking, one-third a moderate 
condition ranking, and one-third a low condition ranking (Service 2019, 
p. 63). This represents 32 sites in a moderate or higher condition 
based on those important factors directly informing resiliency of 
individual sites or populations within the SBR (Service 2019, p. 63). 
This number of sites exceeds the 15 to 20 populations in stable 
condition on protected lands that the recovery criteria identified as 
needed to achieve recovery; this therefore provides sufficient 
resiliency for the species.
    Golden paintbrush sites are well-distributed across the species' 
historical range and provide representation across the four geographic 
areas within that range (British Columbia, North Puget Sound, South 
Puget Sound, and the Willamette Valley). Multiple sites or populations 
exist within each of these geographic areas, providing a relatively 
secure level of redundancy across the historical range, with the lowest 
relative level of redundancy within British Columbia. The resiliency of 
the golden paintbrush is variable across the historical range given 
differences in site or population abundance, level of management at a 
site, and site condition. The best scientific and commercial data 
available indicate that the golden paintbrush is composed of multiple 
populations, primarily in

[[Page 46102]]

moderate to high condition (Service 2019, p. 63), which are 
sufficiently resilient, well-distributed (redundancy and 
representation), mostly in protected areas, and managed such that they 
will be relatively robust or resilient to any potential cumulative 
effects to which they may be exposed.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In our June 30, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 34695), we requested 
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by 
August 30, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State 
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested 
parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. Newspaper 
notices inviting general public comment were published in The Oregonian 
on July 11, 2021, and the Seattle Times on July 9 through July 13, 
2021. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All 
substantive information provided during the comment period either has 
been incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below.

Public Comments

    We received 10 public comments in response to the proposed rule. We 
reviewed all comments we received during the public comment period for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. 
Eight commenters provided substantive comments or new information 
concerning the proposed delisting for golden paintbrush. Below, we 
provide a summary of the substantive issues raised in the public 
comments we received; however, comments outside the scope of the 
proposed rule, and those without supporting information, do not warrant 
an explicit response and, thus, are not presented here. Identical or 
similar comments have been consolidated into responses based on comment 
theme.
    (1) Comment: We received multiple comments from WDNR and others 
stating that golden paintbrush has not met all the recovery criteria 
specified in the recovery plan.
    Response: Recovery plans provide roadmaps to species recovery but 
are not required in order to achieve recovery of a species, or to 
evaluate it for delisting. In addition, recovery plans are also 
nonbinding documents that rely on voluntary participation from 
landowners, land managers, and other recovery partners. A determination 
of whether a valid, extant species should be delisted is made solely on 
the question of whether it meets the Act's definitions of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' Recovery criteria 
and objectives are developed based on the information known at that 
time, and much is learned about a species between the time the recovery 
plan is developed and the time we reassess whether it meets the Act's 
definition of endangered or threatened. Based on the best available 
information, we have determined that golden paintbrush no longer meets 
either of these definitions.
    (2) Comment: We received several comments from WDNR and others 
questioning the metric in recovery criterion 1 to evaluate a stable 
population, suggesting it was no longer based on the best available 
science and providing examples of populations that have declined. A 
comment from WDNR also presented updated information on progress 
towards meeting this criterion from 2018-2020.
    Response: We updated this final rule to reflect the most up-to-date 
progress toward this criterion (see discussion under Criterion 1 for 
Delisting, above). As discussed earlier in this document, that 
criterion states that to be deemed stable, a population must maintain a 
5-year running average population size of at least 1,000 individuals, 
where the actual count never falls below 1,000 individuals in any year. 
The 2007 5-year review recommended counting only flowering individuals 
and incorporating a stable or increasing population trend as based on a 
zero or positive overall trend over 5 years (Service 2007, p. 3). While 
we did not officially amend or make an addendum to the recovery plan, 
we accepted that the most practical way to determine population 
abundance was to count flowering plants. The recommendation to evaluate 
populations based on stable or increasing trends in abundance was not 
formally incorporated into an amended recovery plan. However, in 
addition to evaluating progress toward the recovery criteria, we also 
evaluated in the SBR (Service 2019, entire) the resiliency, redundancy, 
and representation across the species' range in relation to the 
potential threats to the species. In the SBR, we evaluated the current 
condition of the species at sites using various parameters, including 
the level of management, site condition, threats addressed, abundance, 
and site protection status. We elicited the advice of experts to 
evaluate sites based on these parameters. Populations were also 
separately evaluated in the SBR with a site viability index that took 
into account population stability and trend. All of this information 
was considered when evaluating and making our determination as to 
whether delisting is warranted.
    Some populations that once maintained higher levels of abundance 
have declined, and that abundance can vary markedly across populations 
and annually within populations (Fertig 2021, p. 23). Despite this 
variability in abundance, the species has sufficient resiliency and 
redundancy across its range to maintain viability. In the current 
condition analysis of the SBR, 16 sites were ranked as high condition, 
with 9 of these sites in Oregon and 7 in Washington. This distribution 
of high condition sites across the range of the species contributes to 
the redundancy of golden paintbrush. We developed a post-delisting 
monitoring plan that will help verify that golden paintbrush remains 
secure into the future without the protections of the Act.
    (3) Comment: The WDNR stated opposition to the proposed delisting 
rule. Despite improvements in species condition from the time of 
listing, the WDNR stated that delisting was premature based on concerns 
regarding uncertainties related to golden paintbrush's long-term 
abundance and viability. The WDNR and other commenters expressed 
concern about the funding available for continued management and 
monitoring once delisted.
    Response: Our review of the best available scientific and 
commercial data indicates that the threats to the golden paintbrush 
have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer 
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act (see Determination of Golden Paintbrush's Status, below). 
Individual sites may experience variability in abundance, and while 
some have declined, others have increased in recent years (see Range, 
Distribution, Abundance, and Trends of Golden Paintbrush, above). 
Despite variability in abundance, the successful establishment of 
outplanted golden paintbrush populations, primarily in moderate to high 
condition, and mostly in protected areas with management help to 
increase the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species 
and contribute to its viability. For more discussion of golden 
paintbrush's population trends and viability, see Range, Distribution, 
Abundance, and Trends of Golden Paintbrush Summary of Biological Status 
and Threats, and Recovery Criteria, above.
    Golden paintbrush is a management-dependent species, and even with 
sufficient resources, populations can decline due to various factors. 
Although

[[Page 46103]]

the majority of populations are under conservation ownership that 
includes management practices to preserve essential characteristics of 
golden paintbrush habitat, declines can still occur. Conservation 
management will continue in these habitats, but not necessarily to the 
same degree at all locations due to variations in capacity, need, or 
constraints. As part of the current condition analysis in the SBR, the 
management level was assessed for each site based on expert elicitation 
and the best available information (see Service 2019, pp. 40-44). This 
analysis indicated that the majority of the sites will receive, at 
minimum, maintenance to preserve essential characteristics of golden 
paintbrush habitat, with several sites operating under long-term 
management plans with committed resources for management (see Service 
2019, pp. 40-44). The number of and distribution of populations 
established across the range contributes to the resiliency and 
redundancy of the species, and its ability to maintain sufficient 
viability despite some variability in management. Management will also 
continue to adapt over time to address future challenges in maintaining 
and restoring prairie ecosystems. Funding for some management 
activities will likely decline post-delisting as some funding sources 
are focused on the recovery of listed species; however, the commitments 
of our partners to golden paintbrush conservation, as well as the 
number of sites sharing similar habitat and conservation objectives for 
other prairie species of concern, will help ensure continued management 
of the species into the future. Additionally, our post-delisting 
monitoring plan will assess abundance as well as site management and 
protection over a minimum 5-year period after delisting.
    Regarding continued monitoring by WNHP, golden paintbrush is 
currently State-listed as priority 2 in the Washington State Natural 
Heritage Plan, and State listing and prioritization is ultimately at 
the discretion of the State. Like many State-listed plant species and 
other plant species of State concern, we anticipate that the WDNR 
through its WNHP and ODA will continue to monitor golden paintbrush in 
Washington and Oregon, respectively, although monitoring efforts may 
not occur as often as they have in the past.
    (4) Comment: Several commenters stated concern over the likelihood 
for post-delisting management to continue and be effective. Comments 
included site-specific examples such as Forbes Point, American Camp, 
Rocky Prairie, and Glacial Heritage where decline in golden paintbrush 
abundance due to invasion by exotic grasses or other unknown factors 
occurred despite support or management for the species.
    Response: As we describe above in our response to Comment (3) 
management will also continue to adapt over time to address future 
challenges in maintaining and restoring prairie ecosystems and the PDM 
plan will assess abundance as well as site management and protection 
over a minimum 5-year period after delisting. Please see our response 
to Comment (3), above, for a discussion of variation in abundance and 
management for the species and our response to Comment (5), below, 
about declines in abundance in some populations.
    Regarding the site-specific examples provided by commenters, the 
Forbes Points and American Camp sites are in low condition, the Rocky 
Prairie site is in moderate condition and the Glacial Heritage site is 
in high condition based on our current condition analysis in the SBR 
which considered management level among other factors that can impact 
site condition including habitat condition, threats, abundance, and 
site protection status (Service 2019, p. 54).
    (5) Comment: We received comments from WDNR and others providing 
updated survey data from 2019 and 2020 for outplanted populations, 
describing the variable survey effort and an overall decline in 
abundance from 2018.
    Response: WDNR and others provided updated abundance information 
for outplanted populations since 2018, which we considered and 
incorporated into this Final Rule (see Range, Distribution, Abundance, 
and Trends of Golden Paintbrush, above). As described in their 
comments, outplanted populations reached their highest peak to date in 
2018 at 562,726 flowering plants and declined to 325,320 plants in 
2019. In 2020, there was a reduction of survey effort, and 25 
populations in Oregon were not surveyed due to COVID restrictions. If 
2019 data were substituted for the 25 populations in Oregon that were 
not surveyed in 2020, it is assumed, based on extrapolation, that the 
estimated 2020 rangewide abundance would be greater than 370,000 plants 
(Fertig 2021, p. 22). Even without the 25 sites that were not monitored 
in 2020, the last 4 years of monitoring (2017-2020) represent the 4 
years with greatest abundance rangewide. The year 2020 also represents 
the second-highest abundance of golden paintbrush in Washington State 
at 202,208, which was a 47.8 percent increase from 136,846 in 2019. 
Several new outplantings have been initiated since 2018, and we are 
continuing to work with our partners to plan new outplantings in Oregon 
and Washington. Individual sites may experience variability, and while 
some have declined, others have increased in recent years (Service 
2019, pp. 27-29; Fertig 2021, pp. 11-29). The species appears to have 
sufficient resiliency and redundancy across its range to maintain 
sufficient viability, despite variability in abundance.
    (6) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and several other 
commenters highlighting concerns over population declines since 2012 in 
the populations extant at the time of listing.
    Response: At the time of listing in 1997, there were 10 known 
golden paintbrush populations in Washington and British Columbia, and 
the species was considered extirpated from Oregon. The SBR identified 
48 populations established across the range of the species in 2018, 
including 26 populations established in Oregon (Service 2019, p. 11). 
The ten populations extant at the time of listing make up a small 
proportion of the current total abundance of this species established 
across its range. While many of the historical populations across the 
range of the species were likely extirpated due to land-use changes, 
such as development and agriculture, along with encroachment of trees 
and other woody plants, the persistence of these ten extant populations 
may be due to their protected locations that are not available for 
conversion for agriculture or development. Studies suggest that like 
other rare species, golden paintbrush may have been eliminated from the 
most suitable sites with the remaining extant populations relegated to 
marginal sites that did not provide optimal habitat at the time of 
listing (Falk et al. 1996, p. 472; Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 12). 
Sites with deeper soils and more moisture availability, along with a 
more diverse native plant community are more likely to support the 
species (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, entire), and successful 
reintroduction to prairies in former agriculture lands with deeper 
soils have had great success (Delvin 2013, p. 7). Thirty-seven 
outplanted populations of golden paintbrush have been established and 
represent the majority of the abundance of the species across its 
historical range, including 26 populations in Oregon where the species 
was previously extirpated. These outplanted populations help to 
increase the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species 
and contribute to its viability. While the 10 sites extant at the time 
of listing remain

[[Page 46104]]

and continue to contribute to the species' recovery, these sites likely 
do not represent the ideal site characteristics for the species. 
Although the 10 populations at the time of listing have exhibited 
decline, the efforts at outplanted sites across the range represent the 
recovery of golden paintbrush. For more information, see the discussion 
above on populations extant at the time of listing under Range, 
Distribution, Abundance, and Trends of Golden Paintbrush.
    (7) Comment: We received several comments addressing the 
difficulties of establishing new populations, and highlighting the 
variability in seeding success, even on sites with established 
populations.
    Response: We identified the difficulties in establishing new 
populations and the variability in seeding success in the SBR for 
golden paintbrush (Service 2019, p. 51) and took this into account in 
our determination. It is not uncommon to have failed reintroduction or 
introduction attempts for any species. For golden paintbrush, despite 
some outplanting failures, outplanted populations have been largely 
successful and represent the majority of the abundance of golden 
paintbrush across the range. Furthermore, in Oregon, where the species 
was previously extirpated, 26 populations have been established due to 
outplanting. Golden paintbrush continues to be outplanted by our 
partners at other conservation sites with the expectation of 
establishing even more populations across the species' range in the 
future.
    (8) Comment: The WDNR and several other commenters disagreed that 
direct seeded populations may initially undergo a period of rapid 
growth followed by a period of decline to a more stabilized number. The 
commenters stated that it is unknown if population stabilization will 
occur.
    Response: While there may be an initial period of rapid growth 
following an establishment period, population trends following a peak 
appear to vary greatly by site (Fertig 2021 pp. 24-27). After some 
large declines, several sites rangewide increased from 2019 to 2020, 
although not to the level of the initial spike in abundance. While some 
populations show a boom-bust population trend as was documented at some 
outplanted sites in Oregon (Kaye 2019, pp. 26-27), not all populations 
across the range are experiencing consistent decline. Rangewide 
abundance from 2017-2020 represent the four greatest abundances across 
all of the years monitored, including 25 sites that were not monitored 
in Oregon in 2020 (Fertig 2021, p. 22). As some commenters mentioned, 
the addition of seed to some of these populations complicates the 
assessment of population trends over time. Furthermore, population 
variability seen following the initial peak could be attributed to 
other impacts to the species from other stressors such as drought, 
herbivory, or competition from invasive species at the site level. 
Taken together, we find that the available information supports that 
while golden paintbrush populations may peak in abundance following 
initial establishment and may decline to lower levels, the pattern does 
not suggest a species-level decline overall rangewide. We will continue 
to monitor populations over 5 years using the post-delisting monitoring 
plan, which will contribute data and increase our understanding of 
population dynamics and persistence over those years.
    (9) Comment: The WDNR commented that there was no mention of the 
viability index developed by Dr. Tom Kaye for golden paintbrush in the 
proposed rule. In addition to providing us with 2019 and 2020 golden 
paintbrush survey data and their updated viability index for the 
species, the WDNR stated that as of 2020, 9 of 52 populations had a 
viability index score of 3, indicative of populations with positive 
growth over time, relatively stable numbers, and greater than 1,000 
flowering individuals averaged over 5 years.
    Response: The Service considered the viability index developed by 
Dr. Tom Kaye and summarized this information in the SBR which provides 
the best available information to inform our listing decision under the 
Act. In addition, in response to the information submitted by the WDNR, 
we re-calculated the viability index with data that include the most-
recent survey year (either 2019 or 2020), since many sites were not 
surveyed in 2020. This resulted in 10 out of 46 populations having a 
score of three, an increase from the 6 out of 43 populations with a 
score of 3 identified in the SBR, indicating there are now more 
populations with high viability than what we identified in 2018. As we 
mentioned in the SBR, indices of this type are useful for synthesizing 
several pieces of information, but they can simplify or oversimplify 
available information. This index was intended to provide a broad 
evaluation of the species' population size and stability, and while 
these data were taken into consideration, they were considered along 
with the current condition analysis in the SBR. Additionally, we used 
updated survey data to evaluate the status relative to the recovery 
criteria (see Recovery Criteria, above).
    (10) Comment: We received several comments (from WDNR and others) 
expressing concern over potential impacts of climate change on the 
species. We also received several comments from WDNR and others 
highlighting WDNR's 2019 report updating an earlier climate change 
vulnerability assessment of golden paintbrush.
    Response: In this final rule, we have incorporated the new 
information from the climate change vulnerability assessment 
(Kleinknecht et al. 2019, entire) and have added to our discussion on 
climate change. The Service reviews the best scientific and commercial 
information available when conducting a threats analysis. In 
considering what factors might constitute a threat, we look beyond the 
mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the 
exposure causes actual impacts to the species. The mere identification 
of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing (or maintaining a currently listed 
species) on the Federal Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants is appropriate. In determining whether a species meets the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level, as well as the cumulative effect of the threats.
    Drought, particularly in the spring and summer, likely impacts 
golden paintbrush populations, with potentially larger impacts on 
populations with low viability. Research conducted on microsite needs 
for the species suggested that deeper soils with high richness of 
native perennial forbs were more likely to support the species 
(Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, entire). Establishing populations can be 
difficult, particularly with annual variability in climate and drought 
seen in recent years, and as a result, multiple outplantings have 
failed. Despite this, seven new outplantings have been initiated since 
2018 in Washington, including one on Protection Island. While it is 
difficult to assess the success of these outplantings due to variable 
monitoring efforts in recent years, two have been noted as likely 
unsuccessful due to presence of nonnative weedy

[[Page 46105]]

annuals, but the others show promise (Martin 2021, pp. 10, 23-25).
    On a rangewide scale, the species demonstrates sufficient 
resiliency and representation to adapt to projected changes in climate. 
We have established 17 populations with a 5-year average of greater 
than 1,000 individuals over the species' range from British Columbia to 
Oregon, on sites representing environmental diversity consisting of wet 
and dry prairie, and valley foothills (Kaye 2019, p. 10). Total 
abundance was greater than 325,320 flowering plants across the range in 
2019, and 288,699 in 2020 (excluding 25 populations that were not 
surveyed due to COVID restrictions); substituting 2019 data for 
populations not surveyed in 2020 yields an estimated abundance of 
greater than 370,000 flowering plants rangewide (Fertig 2021, p. 22). 
Despite drought seen in recent years, abundance of populations extant 
at the time of listing increased in 2020, and Washington populations 
reached their second-highest total abundance of 202,208 flowering 
plants, a 47.8 percent increase from 2019 (Fertig 2021, p. 11). Despite 
evidence of the potential effects of drought on golden paintbrush 
abundance in recent years (see Fertig 2021, p. 30; Martin 2021, p. 6), 
periods of drought have not been documented to consistently impact 
abundance across populations.
    Regional climate change literature suggests that prairie ecosystems 
were established under warmer and drier conditions and are unlikely to 
be disadvantaged from future increased summer drought (Bachelet et al. 
2011, p. 417). Golden paintbrush populations can experience high 
variability in abundance between years (Fertig 2021, pp. 24-27), and 
while climate change is a stressor, given the species' high abundance 
and distribution across the range from British Columbia to Oregon, 
golden paintbrush should have sufficient resiliency and redundancy to 
remain viable into the future. Establishing plant species such as the 
golden paintbrush to populate the full geographic and climatic range of 
Pacific Northwest prairies has been identified as a ``climate-smart'' 
strategy (Bachelet et al. 2011, p. 420). The post-delisting monitoring 
plan will facilitate the evaluation of the species beyond delisting and 
detect unanticipated levels and/or extent of declines in abundance.
    Since the publication of the proposed rule (86 FR 34695; June 30, 
2021), we received an updated climate change vulnerability index (CCVI) 
report from our State partners at the WDNR's Washington Natural 
Heritage Program (Kleinknecht et al. 2019, entire). This report was 
provided as a comment from WDNR. We evaluated the report and compared 
it to a similar assessment that was conducted in 2014 (Gamon 2014, 
entire). The CCVI was conducted using a NatureServe protocol, which 
relies on a species' natural history, distribution, and landscape to 
inform whether and to what degree it will be impacted by climate change 
(Young et al. 2016, entire). In the 2019 report, golden paintbrush was 
ranked as ``Highly Vulnerable'' to climate change, a change from the 
2014 report which ranked it as ``Presumed Stable'' (Kleinknecht et al. 
2019, entire; Gamon 2014, entire).
    While this 2019 CCVI report has helped inform our decision, it does 
not change our final determination. The 2019 assessment looked only at 
a small proportion of the species' range. It assessed only a subset of 
sites from Washington, based on 22 native occurrences (11 extant and 11 
extirpated or historical), not including the 10 outplanted sites in 
Washington or any of the populations in Oregon. The distribution of 
points used in the assessment were primarily in North Puget Sound, and 
given that half of these represent sites that have already undergone 
extirpation, this report is not necessarily representative of the 
potential impact on golden paintbrush across its currently occupied 
range.
    Additionally, the guidelines for the CCVI describe that it works 
best for the scale from the size of a National Park to a State, and at 
larger scales may mask the vulnerability of local populations to 
climate change (Young et al. 2016, p. 9). Based on the larger scale of 
golden paintbrush's range, from Oregon to British Columbia, the CCVI 
method is not likely to be appropriate to assess climate change 
vulnerability.
    (11) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and several others 
expressing concern about the impacts of herbivory on golden 
paintbrush's viability. Commenters provided examples of impacts at 
specific sites, the difficulties in managing herbivory, and the 
potential impacts to seed production.
    Response: Herbivory was noted as a threat at the time of listing in 
1997, especially due to the limited number (10) of extant populations. 
Despite having a potential impact on abundance, a total of 48 golden 
paintbrush populations are now represented across the species' range in 
a variety of habitats and constitute a large geographic distribution 
contributing to the species' resiliency and redundancy, and to the 
species' ability to withstand stochastic events, including herbivory. 
Active, targeted management may be important in curtailing significant 
impacts, but it is not likely to occur across all sites at the same 
level, and it is not intended to result in the complete elimination of 
herbivory impacts on this species. Despite the recent examples of 
herbivory provided in the comments and anecdotal observations for 
specific sites and years, there are no consistent data linking 
herbivory to population declines, especially at the rangewide scale. 
Herbivory can vary by site, year, frequency, and level of impacts. 
Populations of the species will likely retain moderate to high levels 
of viability given the species' established redundancy across its range 
and the suitable condition of the habitat despite variable herbivory 
impacts; however, the post-delisting monitoring plan is designed to 
help track site-specific management and potential impacts to species 
abundance for at least 5 years following delisting. For more 
information, please see the discussion of herbivory under Summary of 
Biological Status and Threats, above.
    (12) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and others expressing 
concern over potential impacts of hybridization to golden paintbrush, 
as well as expressing concern that the hybridization strategy and 
guidance document was not available for review during the June 30, 
2021, proposed rule's public comment period.
    Response: Hybridization is a potential threat to golden paintbrush 
that must continue to be managed, and we continue to work 
collaboratively with our partners to find solutions and management for 
sites that are already impacted by hybridization. Although a public 
commenter noted two sites on Whidbey Island as having potential 
hybridization impacts given a previous experimental study that seeded 
both paintbrush species, given low recruitment of harsh paintbrush at 
these sites, hybridization has never been identified by experts as a 
concern in those sites.
    While the details of the hybridization strategy and guidance were 
not available during the June 30, 2021, proposed rule's public comment 
period, when the document was finalized, we organized a public roll-out 
where we presented details of the hybridization strategy and guidance, 
answered questions, and highlighted to our conservation partners that 
comments would be accepted to inform the next iteration of the document 
to make further improvements to the strategy. The document was posted 
on our website, and no comments were received.

[[Page 46106]]

Solutions presented in the hybridization strategy and guidance document 
include, but are not limited to, preventing hybridization in other 
geographic areas, implementing a decision-making framework for new 
sites under consideration for paintbrush plantings, actively managing 
sites that are hybridized, and mapping the distribution of both golden 
and harsh paintbrush. Through the MOU and hybridization strategy and 
guidance document, we and our State agency partners are committed to 
managing hybridization and working collaboratively with our other 
prairie conservation partners to ensure this potential threat is 
adequately managed after the delisting of golden paintbrush.
    (13) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and several others 
noting the lack of seed production at some populations in recent years 
(2019-2021), emphasizing the potential for declines given the species' 
short-lived seed bank and the species' reliance on bumble bees for 
pollination.
    Response: Although we agree with the need to track and better 
understand the magnitude and extent of possible impacts of reduced seed 
production, based on the best available information, the observed 
reduced seed production at some sites does not appear to be resulting 
in notable demographic changes impacting the resiliency of golden 
paintbrush populations. Any decline in seed production could negatively 
impact a golden paintbrush population given its short-lived seedbank, 
and there are many unknowns associated with the potential effects of 
climate change on both golden paintbrush and pollinator communities. To 
date, however, there are uncertainties regarding the frequency, 
distribution, and scale of the lack of seed production, and uncertainty 
whether these represent short-term, isolated events or a large-scale 
change. Likewise, while golden paintbrush is reliant on bumble bees as 
its primary pollinator, it is unknown if pollinator decline is 
occurring across the range of golden paintbrush. Two bumble bees 
identified at the species level in the SBR, Bombus vosnesenskii and B. 
bifarius, were assessed as stable in the Pacific Northwest, and one 
bumble bee, B. californicus (sometimes recognized as B. fervidus), is 
less common in the Pacific Northwest than historically (Hatfield et al. 
2021, pp. 15, 32, 72-73). However, the status and trends of these and 
other pollinators have not been evaluated in golden paintbrush 
populations. These anecdotal observations present important 
information, yet it remains unclear how they translate to trends in 
population abundance over time and the scope of the impact across the 
species' range. We do not have information to conclude that these 
concerns are impacting the species to a degree that would result in the 
species meeting the Act's definition of either an endangered species or 
a threatened species. Post-delisting monitoring will enable us to 
monitor population abundance for at least 5 years after the species has 
been delisted.
    (14) Comment: We received a comment from WDNR and several others 
expressing concern over the number of small populations (fewer than 100 
individuals) and the small size of habitat occupied by golden 
paintbrush at some sites (less than 1 acre), suggesting that small 
populations and small patches of habitat should be eliminated from 
consideration regarding contribution towards recovery.
    Response: We describe in the SBR that larger sites are likely 
better for population viability, as they allow for the development of 
larger populations and greater genetic diversity (Service 2019, pp. 35-
36); however, there is no basis to remove populations existing on less 
than 1 acre or those with abundance of fewer than 100 individuals from 
our assessment of sites contributing to recovery. While small 
populations may inherently have a greater relative risk of extirpation 
than larger populations, that does not mean they cannot or do not 
contribute to species recovery. Site abundance is an important 
consideration with regard to the potential for the species to persist 
over time, and we used site abundance as part of our analysis of 
current condition in the SBR (Service 2019, p. 27). These data were 
incorporated into a population viability index as well as an assessment 
of current condition, which were both considered when evaluating 
whether the species needs protections under the Act. Habitat patch size 
was discussed in the SBR (Service 2019, pp. 35-38), and as noted, there 
are uncertainties regarding the importance of habitat patch size for 
populations of golden paintbrush. The number of sites with more than 
1,000 individuals and the wide distribution across the species' 
historical range will likely provide sufficient resiliency and 
redundancy to protect the species from stochastic events.
    (15) Comment: We received multiple comments disagreeing with our 
evaluation of progress toward recovery criterion 2 and our assessment 
of the level of protection based on land ownership.
    Response: In this final rule, we note that this criterion was not 
precisely met as stated in the recovery plan (see Criterion 2 for 
Delisting, above). However, a significantly greater number of 
populations under conservation-focused ownership provide protection to 
either the species or its habitat compared to the minimum number 
identified in the criterion; this will help the species retain 
sufficient viability into the future. Forty-five of the 48 golden 
paintbrush populations are in either public ownership; are owned by a 
conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization; or are under 
conservation easement (Service 2019, p. 62). This number is much higher 
than the number (15) required to provide protection in the recovery 
plan's criterion 2. Such ownership is expected to protect sites from 
development and land use that would have long-term, wide-ranging 
deleterious effects on this species. Prairies are management-dependent 
habitats, and while habitat management will likely continue to occur 
across the majority of the sites, it will not necessarily occur to the 
same degree due to variations in capacity, need, or constraints across 
sites. We have developed a post-delisting monitoring plan to monitor 
abundance, site management, and the protection status of populations 
over at least 5 years following delisting.
    (16) Comment: We received multiple comments expressing concern 
regarding the potential of recovery sites being shared between golden 
paintbrush and Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, given the threat of 
hybridization between golden paintbrush and harsh paintbrush, the 
latter a common host plant for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly.
    Response: Sites that support Taylor's checkerspot butterfly with 
harsh paintbrush will not be available to support golden paintbrush. 
However, there may be opportunities for Taylor's checkerspot butterfly 
and golden paintbrush to share sites, particularly if other hosts 
plants (in addition to golden paintbrush) are used, including English 
plantain (Plantago lanceolata). Likewise, sites in Oregon that have 
golden paintbrush and other host plants do support populations of 
Taylor's checkerspot butterfly. In this final rule, we address the fact 
that hybridization with harsh paintbrush has led to the abandonment of 
three recovery sites for golden paintbrush. Hybridization is a serious 
potential threat, and we have entered into an MOU concerning 
hybridization with our State partners (WDFW and WDNR) and created a 
hybridization strategy and guidance

[[Page 46107]]

document to ensure the threat of hybridization with harsh paintbrush is 
managed and coordinated between partners into the future.
    (17) Comment: We received several comments providing information on 
recent difficulties with seed availability at some sites, the potential 
impacts to nursery seed production, and challenges with seed 
production.
    Response: These observations are concerning given the short-lived 
seedbank of the species; however, it remains unclear if the local, 
episodic events (due to herbivory or drought) represent a new long-term 
scenario with consistent impacts across the range of the species. Our 
post-delisting monitoring plan will direct efforts to track populations 
to help determine if these observations continue and whether or not 
there are broader impacts to golden paintbrush.
    If populations of golden paintbrush decline below a certain 
threshold, seed collection from certain sites could prove difficult or 
inadvisable, and seed production for this species could be affected. 
Seed production efforts might need to be supplemented by some 
outplanted populations that originated from the populations extant at 
the time of listing and could incorporate increased genetic diversity 
into nursery production (St. Clair et al. 2020, pp. 587-590). While a 
comment highlighted past difficulties in seed production for the 
species at a seed farm in Washington, seed production efforts across 
the range have been sufficient to support numerous outplantings that 
have contributed to the recovery of the species across its range. 
Currently, there are seed production programs at the Center for Natural 
Lands Management, along with smaller scale operations in North Puget 
Sound representing seed collected from the populations extant at the 
time of listing on Whidbey Island, the San Juan Islands, and South 
Puget Sound. New mixed-source beds for golden paintbrush have been 
recently established at the Center for Natural Lands Management and the 
Pacific Rim Institute, and we will continue to work with our partners 
to ensure that seed sources for this species remain available as long 
as considered necessary. These combined seed production efforts will 
continue to support ongoing establishment of new populations and 
augmentation of existing populations throughout the range of the 
species.
    (18) Comment: We received a few comments describing historical 
habitat loss of Pacific Northwest prairies. We also received a comment 
discussing the importance of these rare habitats to Tribes from a 
public commenter unaffiliated with any Tribe.
    Response: The rarity of prairies on the landscape presents 
challenges to conservation of prairie-dependent species, including 
golden paintbrush. Pacific Northwest prairies have experienced 
significant declines from their historical distribution due to habitat 
loss from development and agriculture, as well as changes in 
disturbance regimes and the maintenance provided by indigenous Tribes 
for thousands of years. While these comments were not submitted by a 
Tribe, we know the success of prairie-dependent species conservation is 
tied directly to the habitats that support the species and to the 
extensive network of partners, including Tribes, working to restore and 
maintain prairies across the species' range;. These partnerships will 
continue to focus on restoration and maintenance of golden paintbrush 
and other species that rely on these rare prairie communities into the 
future. For more information, please see the discussion of habitat loss 
under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, above.
    (19) Comment: We received a comment that disagrees with the 
information presented on genetic diversity in the June 30, 2021, 
proposed rule, stating that golden paintbrush has reduced genetic 
diversity because seed used to establish populations was sourced from 
seed from the populations extant at the time of listing.
    Response: Genetic studies have indicated that despite its limited 
geographic range and isolation of its populations, golden paintbrush 
has high levels of diversity (Godt et al. 2005, p. 87; Lawrence and 
Kaye 2011, p. 173). Additionally, a recent study indicates that genetic 
diversity has increased in reintroduced populations relative to extant 
populations as a result of multiple source populations propagated 
together in a nursery production setting (St. Clair et al. 2020, pp. 
589-591). Establishing populations across the species' range and in a 
variety of ecological settings will further contribute to the genetic 
diversity and representation of the species.
    (20) Comment: We received a comment disagreeing with the 
established methodology of counting flowering plants to determine 
abundance estimates, The commenter stated that survey information could 
be unreliable due to the lack of non-flowering plant information.
    Response: We developed the abundance estimate methodology in 
coordination with the golden paintbrush technical team to provide a 
consistent and reliable measure of adult plant abundance within 
populations to track population status (Service 2007, p. 3). We and the 
technical team determined it was impractical to count non-flowering 
golden paintbrush plants, and recommended modifying Recovery Criterion 
1 to specify a flowering plant metric (Service 2007, p. 3). Although 
counting flowering plants could mean that populations might actually be 
undercounted, because vegetative plants are not counted, flowering 
plant abundance better informs the number of individuals most likely to 
reproductively contribute to the population, and may also be the best 
method to estimate a reasonable minimum population size.
    (21) Comment: We received multiple comments highlighting potential 
impacts on the golden paintbrush and its habitat from invasive plant 
species given projected warmer temperatures.
    Response: Habitat loss has been considered a threat to the species 
since the time of listing (1997), and part of that consideration is 
focused on invasive species. While invasive species will always be a 
potential threat that will need adequate management, given the ongoing 
invasive species management commitments across the species' range, 
golden paintbrush is expected to maintain moderate to high viability. 
Many of the exotic species in the Pacific Northwest have wide 
distributions and are likely adaptable to climate change (Bachelet et 
al. 2011, p. 417). As commenters mentioned, there are ongoing studies 
focused on how to manage Vulpia ssp. (a winter annual grass) in South 
Puget Sound prairie communities that will provide valuable information 
on how to control this nonnative species within golden paintbrush 
habitat across its range. Management techniques are constantly evolving 
as new challenges arise from invasive species, climate change, and 
unforeseen circumstances. This progression in management will likely 
continue into the future; however, the level of success is not always 
certain. We developed a post-delisting monitoring plan to track 
population status, site-specific management actions, and the presence 
of invasive species that will continue for at least 5 years following 
delisting.
    (22) Comment: We received multiple comments expressing concern over 
the adequacy of the post-delisting monitoring plan to track the 
species' condition over the 5-year timeframe. The commenters suggest 
that estimating population size into categories (more than 1,000 
flowering plants and more than 10,000 flowering plants) would be

[[Page 46108]]

inadequate to detect changes in size and population trend and reduces 
the ability to understand why changes are occurring.
    Response: The population size categories referenced in the post-
delisting monitoring plan are not meant to be a population target but 
rather a threshold at which to review significance, methods, and 
potential threats with States and other collaborators before numbers 
might fall below the recovery objective. These thresholds are also 
consistent with those used in the SBR current condition analysis. 
Following delisting, the Act requires us to monitor effectively for not 
less than 5 years the status of the species in cooperation with the 
States that are within the range of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(g)(1)). 
We developed a draft post-delisting monitoring plan for the golden 
paintbrush, coordinated review of the plan with State agencies in 
Washington and Oregon, and made the draft plan available for public 
review and comment. Sustaining post-delisting monitoring efforts can be 
challenging and subject to competing priorities for available 
resources. Nonetheless, we designed the post-delisting monitoring 
assuming limited resources. We are coordinating with State agencies in 
Washington and Oregon to find funding to support post-delisting 
monitoring efforts, but we fully anticipate some of the conservation 
landowners will continue to monitor populations on their own because of 
their ongoing interest in and commitment to conserving this species and 
others. We will continue to work with our conservation partners to 
ensure implementation of an effective and feasible post-delisting 
monitoring plan for the golden paintbrush.

Determination of Golden Paintbrush's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires 
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the 
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find, based on the best available information, and as 
described in our analysis above, stressors identified at the time of 
listing and several additional potential stressors analyzed for this 
assessment do not affect golden paintbrush to a degree that causes it 
to be in danger of extinction either now or in the foreseeable future. 
Development of property for commercial, residential, and agricultural 
use (Factor A) has not occurred to the extent anticipated at the time 
of listing and is adequately managed; existing information indicates 
this condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. 
Potential constriction of habitat for expansion and refugia (Factor A) 
also has not occurred to the extent anticipated at the time of listing, 
and existing information indicates this condition is unlikely to change 
in the foreseeable future. Habitat modification through succession of 
prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and forest lands (Factor A) is 
adequately managed, and existing information indicates this condition 
is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Recreational picking 
and associated trampling (Factor B) has not occurred to the extent 
anticipated at the time of listing; the species appears to tolerate 
current levels of this activity, and existing information indicates 
that this condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. 
Herbivory on plants and seeds (Factor C) has not occurred to the extent 
anticipated at the time of listing; the species appears to tolerate 
current levels of herbivory, and existing information indicates that 
this condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. 
Hybridization with the harsh paintbrush (Factor E) is adequately 
managed, and existing information indicates this condition is unlikely 
to change in the foreseeable future. Finally, golden paintbrush appears 
to adequately tolerate the effects of climate change (Factor E), and 
existing information indicates that this tolerance is unlikely to 
substantially change in the foreseeable future. In addition, there are 
means to help further mitigate for those effects of climate change 
(e.g., continued outplanting across varied site conditions). The 
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are sufficient to ensure 
protection of the species at the reduced levels of threat that remain.
    Thus, after assessing the best available information, we determine 
that golden paintbrush is not in danger of extinction, nor likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Having determined that the golden paintbrush is not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any 
portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is 
significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. 
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the 
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can 
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question 
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the 
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range.
    In undertaking this analysis for the golden paintbrush, we choose 
to evaluate the status question first. We began by identifying portions 
of the range where the biological status of the species may be 
different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this 
purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic 
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that 
the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
    For the golden paintbrush, we considered whether the threats or 
their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful 
portion of the species' range such that the species is in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that 
portion. We examined the following threats: (1) Habitat succession of 
prairie and grassland habitats to shrub and forest due to fire 
suppression, interspecific competition, and invasive species; (2) 
development of property for

[[Page 46109]]

commercial, residential, and agricultural use; (3) low potential for 
expansion and refugia due to constriction of habitat by surrounding 
development or land use; (4) recreational picking (including associated 
trampling); (5) herbivory (on plants and seeds); (6) hybridization with 
harsh paintbrush; and (7) the effects of climate change, including 
cumulative effects. Although the impact of hybridization with the harsh 
paintbrush is most evident in the South Puget Sound region of the 
species' range, this impact was due to the unintended consequences of 
seeding harsh paintbrush in aid of another species, so as a potential 
stressor, it is being addressed throughout the species' range with the 
hybridization strategy and guidance. We found no biologically 
meaningful portion of the golden paintbrush' range where threats are 
impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the 
species elsewhere in its range, or where the condition of the species 
differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status 
of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other 
portion of the species' range.
    Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction 
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant 
portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings 
in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1131 
(N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 
Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this 
conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy on 
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), including the 
definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be 
invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the golden paintbrush does not meet the 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in 
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we 
remove the golden paintbrush from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants.

Effects of the Rule

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) by removing the golden 
paintbrush from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. On the 
effective date of this rule (see DATES, above), the prohibitions and 
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to the golden paintbrush. Federal 
agencies will not be required to consult with the Service under section 
7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out may affect the golden paintbrush. There is no critical 
habitat designated for this species, so there is no effect to 50 CFR 
17.96.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a system to monitor effectively, for not less than 
5 years, all species that have been recovered and delisted. Post-
delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify 
that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of 
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The 
primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status 
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to 
halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened again 
is not needed. The monitoring is designed to detect the failure of any 
delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures 
provided by the Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data 
indicate that the protective status under the Act should be reinstated, 
we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, 
emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of the 
Act explicitly requires us to cooperate with the States in development 
and implementation of post-delisting monitoring programs, but we remain 
responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must 
remain actively engaged in all phases of post-delisting monitoring. We 
also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to 
assume responsibilities for the species' conservation post-delisting.
    We prepared a PDM plan that describes the methods for monitoring 
the species after its delisting. Monitoring of flowering plants at each 
golden paintbrush site extant in 2018 will take place every other year, 
over a minimum of 5 years, beginning the first spring after the 
effective date of this final delisting rule (see DATES, above). 
Monitoring efforts will be slightly modified from prior protocols, by 
only requiring a visual estimation of population size when the 
population clearly exceeds 1,000 flowering individuals but is fewer 
than 10,000, or when a population clearly exceeds 10,000 flowering 
individuals as opposed to an actual count or calculated estimate of 
flowering plants. This modification should streamline monitoring 
efforts. It is our intent to work with our partners to maintain the 
recovered status of golden paintbrush. The final PDM plan can be found 
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, environmental analyses pursuant to 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) need not be prepared in connection with determining a species' 
listing status under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we acknowledge our responsibility to 
communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a 
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 
3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we acknowledge 
our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing 
programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are 
not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain 
sensitive to Native American culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes.
    We do not believe that any Tribes will be affected by this rule, 
and we did not receive any comments on our June 30, 2021, proposed rule 
from a Tribe. There are currently no golden paintbrush sites on Tribal 
lands, although some sites may lie within the usual and accustomed 
places for Tribal collection and gathering of resources.

[[Page 46110]]

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2020-0060, or upon request from the State Supervisor, Washington Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff of the 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in coordination with the Pacific 
Regional Office in Portland, Oregon.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants by removing the entry for ``Castilleja levisecta'' 
under FLOWERING PLANTS.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14971 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P