Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76679 

Title State effective 

date 

EPA effective 

date Final rule citation/date Comments 

*******

2008 Ozone Serious Area Attainment 

Plan.

2/14/2020 12/7/2023 [insert Federal Register citation], 

11/7/2023.

Disapproval of contingency 

measures. RACM and attainment demonstration withdrawn. 

*******

[FR Doc. 2023–24230 Filed 11–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2022–0066; 

FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BF51 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing Island Bedstraw 

and Santa Cruz Island Dudleya From 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; final post-delisting 

monitoring plans. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 

the plants island bedstraw (Galium 

buxifolium) and Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya (Dudleya nesiotica) from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants on the basis of 

recovery. Both of these native plant 

species occur in the Channel Islands 

National Park off the coast of California. 

This final rule is based on our review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data, which indicates that 

the threats to island bedstraw and Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya have been 

eliminated or reduced to the point that 

these species have recovered and no 

longer meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective December 7, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2022–0066. 

Availability of supporting materials: 

This final rule and supporting 

documents, including the 5-year 

reviews, the Recovery Plan, postdelisting monitoring plans, and the 

species status assessment (SSA) reports 

for island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya, are available at https:// 

ecos.fws.gov, and at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2022–0066 (also see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In 

addition, the supporting files for this 

final rule will be available for public 

inspection by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road #B, 

Ventura, CA, 93003; telephone 805– 

644–1766. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola 

Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; 

telephone 805–644–1766. Direct all 

questions or requests for additional 

information to: Island bedstraw and/or 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya Questions, to 

the address above. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants delisting if 

it no longer meets the definition of an 

endangered (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or threatened species (likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range). Island 

bedstraw is listed as endangered, and 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya is listed as 

threatened, and we are delisting both 

species. We have determined that island 

bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

do not meet the Act’s definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. 

Delisting a species can be completed 

only by issuing a rule through the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. This rule 

removes island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (at 50 CFR 17.12(h)) based 

on their recovery. The prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, will no longer apply to island 

bedstraw or Santa Cruz Island dudleya. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered species or threatened 

species because of any of 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. 

Under the Act, we must review the 

status of all listed species at least once 

every 5 years. We must delist a species 

if we determine, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, that the species is neither a 

threatened species nor an endangered 

species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.11 identify three reasons why we 

might determine a listed species shall be 

delisted: (1) The species is extinct; (2) 

the species does not meet the definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species, or (3) the listed entity does not 

meet the definition of a species. Here, 

we have determined that the island 

bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

do not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species; therefore, we are delisting 

them. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the proposed delisting 

rule (87 FR 73722) for island bedstraw 

and Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

published on December 1, 2022, for a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76680 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

detailed description of previous Federal 

actions concerning these species. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared SSA reports for both 

island bedstraw (Service 2021a, entire) 

and Santa Cruz Island dudleya (Service 

2021b, entire). The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

These SSA reports represent a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of these species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting both of the species. 

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 in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the SSA reports for island 

bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. As discussed in the proposed 

rule, we sent the island bedstraw SSA 

report to three independent peer 

reviewers and received three responses. 

We sent the Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

SSA report to three independent peer 

reviewers and received one response. 

The island bedstraw SSA report was 

also submitted to our Federal, State, 

Tribal, and other partners for scientific 

review. We received one partner review 

from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); 

Channel Islands Field Station in 

Ventura, California. The dudleya SSA 

report was also submitted to our 

Federal, State, Tribal and other partners 

for scientific review. We received two 

partner reviews from The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) and USGS (Channel 

Islands Field Station in Ventura, 

California). The peer reviews can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2022– 

0066 and https://ecos.fws.gov. In 

preparing this final rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the final 

SSA reports for both species, which are 

the foundation for the proposed rule 

and this final rule. A summary of the 

peer review comments and our 

responses can be found in the Summary 

of Comments and Recommendations 

below. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In preparing this final rule, we 

reviewed and fully considered the 

comments received on the proposed 

rule. We did not receive substantive 

additional information regarding the 

proposed actions, and, therefore, we did 

not make any changes from the 

proposed rule in this final rule. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

December 1, 2022, we requested that all 

interested parties submit written 

comments on the proposal by January 

30, 2023. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, scientific 

experts and organizations, and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposal. We did not 

receive any requests for a public 

hearing, or substantive information 

during the comment period. We 

received two public comments that were 

not substantive. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from three peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA reports. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the contents of the SSA reports. Peer 

reviewer comments are addressed in the 

following summary. As discussed 

above, because we conducted this peer 

review prior to publication of our 

proposed rule, we had already 

incorporated all applicable peer review 

comments into the final version of the 

SSA report, which was the foundation 

for the proposed rule and this final rule. 

The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

conclusions and provided additional 

scientific and editorial suggestions. 

These suggestions included discussions 

of climate change effects, competition, 

genetic variation, possible clonal spread 

and effects of erosion for island 

bedstraw, and possible competitive and 

fire effects for Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. The peer reviewer comments 

were addressed as necessary within the 

final versions of the SSA reports. 

Delisting Determination 

Background 

The following discussion contains 

information that was presented in the 

proposed rule to delist island bedstraw 

and Santa Cruz Island dudleya (87 FR 

73722, December 1, 2022). A thorough 

discussion of both species’ description, 

habitat, and life history is also found in 

that proposed rule. 

Island Bedstraw 

Island bedstraw occurs on Santa Cruz 

and San Miguel Islands of the Channel 

Islands in Santa Barbara County, 

California (figure 1). It is a long-lived, 

flowering woody shrub that can be more 

than 1 m (3 ft) tall and may sprawl 

laterally wider than it is tall. The basal 

stem diameter can exceed 13 

millimeters (mm) (0.5 inch (in)) 

(McEachern et al. 2019a, p. 20). Stems 

can be glabrous, scabrous, or sparsely 

hairy. Its leaves are large for the genus 

and tend to turn red and be lost under 

summer drought stress conditions. 

Flowers are small (3–4 mm or 0.10–0.15 

in diameter) and are greenish white, 

often with darker petal tips or centers. 

The fruit is a schizocarp (a dry fruit that 

splits into parts when ripe) comprising 

two single-seeded mericarps, typically 

referred to as nutlets. While it is not 

known how long adult plants can live, 

they can likely live more than 20 years, 

if not longer (McEachern 2020, pers. 

comm.). 

Historically, island bedstraw has been 

characterized as restricted to coastal 

bluffs, steep rocky slopes, and sea cliffs 

in the coastal-bluff scrub vegetation 

(Junak et al. 1995, p. 254; Dempster 

1993, p. 982; Soza 2012, p. 1211). 

However, the plant has also been found 

in other places, like in pine forest and 

at interior locations. For Santa Cruz 

Island, the number of known island 

bedstraw sites has increased with each 

successive survey effort, from 13 to 27 

to 36 over the course of 20 years and 3 

survey efforts. The number of sites on 

San Miguel Island has remained at six. 

Each site represents a separate 

population of island bedstraw for the 

purposes of this analysis. Where data 

are available, the estimated number of 

plants within sites has increased over 

time, sometimes dramatically. Plant 

totals have gone from about 100 to about 

10,000 for Santa Cruz Island, and the 

most recent total does not include most 

of the terraces or cliffs on the coastal 

sites. The total number of known plants 

on San Miguel Island has increased 

from about 500 to about 5,000, again not 

including most cliff-face plants. Most of 

the 42 total sites are either extant or 

presumed to be extant. Island bedstraw 

seems to be expanding on terraces and 

other non-cliff habitats; this expansion 

is demonstrated at several sites. Further 

information on the basic biology and 

ecology of island bedstraw is 

summarized in the SSA report (Service 

2021a, entire). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76681 

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya is a 

succulent perennial, known from only 

one population (represented by five 

subpopulations) on the westernmost tip 

of Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara 

County, California (figure 1). In general, 

little is known specifically about the life 

history of Santa Cruz Island dudleya. 

The species is a perennial succulent that 

is known to reproduce only by seed. 

The seed is extremely small and may be 

transported only a short distance by 

wind or water where it may germinate 

quickly if conditions allow or remain 

viably dormant for years. Many Dudleya 

species recruit most successfully into a 

cryptogamic substrate, but it is 

unknown if this substrate is a 

requirement for Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. Seedlings require open spaces 

for germination and are not 

reproductive in their first year. Plants 

are self-compatible but require 

pollinators, some of which may be 

native bees. Seed production is not 

pollinator limited, and a reproductive 

plant can produce more than 1,000 

seeds per year. Plants can live for at 

least several years. Older plants that 

have previously flowered may have 

years when they do not flower. Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya is found mostly on 

the lowest marine terraces from about 

20–30 m (66–98 ft) elevation. The soils 

are sandy and marine sediment derived 

or have a greater clay fraction derived 

from basaltic rock (Klinger et al. 

unpublished, p. 6). The more coastal 

soils are considered to be more saline 

(Vivrette 2002, entire). Further 

information on the basic biology and 

ecology of Santa Cruz Island dudleya is 

summarized in the SSA report (Service 

2021b, entire). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Recovery Plan and Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii) of 

the Act, recovery plans must, to the 

maximum extent practicable, include 

objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination, in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of the Act, that 

the species be removed from the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species 

or to delist a species is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER07NO23.000</GPH>

Figure 1. Locations of island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya in the 

Channel Islands National Park off the coast of California. 
76682 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may or may not follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

The recovery plan (Service 2000, p. 

62) for island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya describes the recovery 

goals, objectives, and criteria that need 

to be achieved to consider removing 

these species from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. We 

summarize the goals and then discuss 

progress toward meeting the recovery 

criteria in the following sections. 

Recovery Goals and Objectives 

In a recovery plan, the overall 

recovery goal is to improve the status of 

the species such that the protections of 

the Act are no longer needed. 

Preliminary goals and objectives include 

(1) stabilizing and protecting 

populations, (2) conducting research 

necessary to refine recovery criteria, and 

(3) reclassifying to threatened 

(downlisting) those species currently 

listed as endangered (reclassification 

being appropriate when a taxon is no 

longer in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range). Because data upon which to 

base decisions about reclassification and 

recovery were mostly lacking when the 

recovery plan was developed, 

downlisting and recovery criteria in the 

recovery plan are necessarily 

preliminary (Service 2000, p. 62). 

The following recovery criteria that 

generally apply to both of these species 

have been met: (1) provide protection 

and adaptive management of currently 

known (and in some cases historical) 

sites; (2) provide evidence that the 

populations at these sites are stable or 

increasing over a number of years, 

which is determined by the life history 

of the individual species; (3) preserve 

the genetic diversity of the species by 

storing seeds in cooperating facilities; 

and (4) develop reliable seed 

germination and propagation 

techniques. 

Determining whether a species’ 

current status meets the overall recovery 

goal and associated objectives requires a 

broad evaluation of the trends in the 

observed numbers of occurrences 

indicated by surveys and monitoring, 

the abundance and distribution of 

suitable habitat, evaluation of the seed 

bank, and the effectiveness of protective 

measures that have been implemented 

to reduce threats from human activities 

such as soil loss and herbivory by feral 

pigs and ungulates, disturbance by pig 

rooting, collecting for botanical and 

horticultural use, and trampling by 

humans. In addition, we also examine 

the effectiveness of protective measures 

that have been implemented to reduce 

threats from nonnative plants, the risk 

associated with small population size, 

climate change, and fire. In order to 

evaluate threats to the species, we must 

consider potential impacts within the 

foreseeable future. The recovery plan 

(Service 2000, entire) used 10–15 years 

as the period of time to evaluate 

population stability because that time 

period reflects a typical multiyear 

precipitation cycle (Service 2000, p. 63). 

Unique recovery criteria for island 

bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

are covered in the recovery plan 

(Service 2000, pp. 64–68) and are 

discussed below. 

Recovery Criteria 

Island Bedstraw Downlisting Criteria 

The recovery plan identified seven 

criteria for reclassifying island bedstraw 

to a threatened species (Service 2000, 

pp. 64–68): 

• Downlisting Criterion 1: Stabilize or 

increase populations on Santa Cruz and 

San Miguel Islands with evidence of 

natural recruitment for a period of 20 

years that includes the normal 

precipitation cycle. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

Since the time of listing, researchers 

have found 23 new sites on Santa Cruz 

Island, and no new sites on San Miguel 

Island, and the total number of sites has 

increased from 19 to 42 (three sites on 

Santa Cruz Island did not have plants 

observed in the 2004–2006 surveys and 

were not relocated or remapped by the 

2015 helicopter survey so are 

considered possibly extirpated). On San 

Miguel Island, for three of the six 

historical sites that were surveyed, 

significant increases in numbers 

occurred between the time of listing and 

the most recent survey. Combined 

numbers for both islands have increased 

from 512–603 at the time of listing to at 

least 15,730 individuals at the time of 

2015 and 2017 helicopter surveys. We 

conclude that this criterion has been 

met. 

• Downlisting Criterion 2: 

Reintroduce plants to historical 

locations. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

No introduction of island bedstraw to 

any of the historical locations where it 

is possibly extirpated and no 

outplantings to augment extant 

historical sites have occurred. However, 

at the historical sites, plant numbers are 

generally increasing without plants 

being added artificially. Although this 

criterion has not been met, we conclude 

it is no longer needed. 

• Downlisting Criterion 3: Seed stored 

in Center for Plant Conservation (CPC) 

cooperating facilities. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

Currently, only a small amount of seed 

from a few sites on Santa Cruz Island is 

stored at the Santa Barbara Botanic 

Garden (SBBG), a CPC facility. 

Thorough conservation seed banking 

requires seed in storage from a good 

representation of sites over the range of 

the species. A few sites with currently 

only a small amount of seed is not 

sufficient to cover that standard. We 

conclude that this criterion has not been 

met. While there are plans to bolster the 

conservation seed bank, with the 

substantial natural recovery of island 

bedstraw this criterion no longer has the 

urgency it did at the time of listing. 

Because so many new populations have 

been documented, and the abundance is 

so great, conservation seed banking is 

not as important as it was thought to be 

at the time of the recovery plan. 

• Downlisting Criterion 4: Seed 

germination and propagation 

techniques understood. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

While seeds have been germinated and 

the resulting plants have grown for 

several years, the conditions in which 

the seeds were germinated were fairly 

general, and optimal protocols have not 

been developed. We conclude that this 

criterion has not been met. However, we 

do not think Downlisting Criterion 4 is 

needed anymore because the numbers of 

island bedstraw are increasing naturally. 

• Downlisting Criterion 5: Life-history 

research conducted. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

Research over a 10-year period on the 

life history of the species, particularly 

flower biology and demography, has 

shown recruitment episodes and 

documented transitions through lifehistory stages. We conclude that this 

criterion has been met. 

• Downlisting Criterion 6: Surveys of 

historical locations conducted. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76683 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

Most of the 13 historical sites on Santa 

Cruz Island have been resurveyed at 

least once since the time of listing, and 

plants were found at most of those sites. 

In addition, most of the 14 new 

locations found between 2004 and 2006 

were either remapped or had plant 

numbers estimated in 2015 surveys. 

Most of the six historical sites on San 

Miguel Island have also been 

resurveyed, and plants were also found 

at all of those resurveyed sites. We 

conclude that this criterion has been 

met. 

• Downlisting Criterion 7: If 

declining, determine cause and reverse 

trend. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

The species has not been declining on 

either Santa Cruz or San Miguel Islands. 

Rather, it has been dramatically 

increasing, and many new sites have 

been found since the time of listing. We 

conclude that this criterion has been 

met. 

Island Bedstraw Delisting Criteria 

In addition to the seven downlisting 

criteria above, the recovery plan 

identified three criteria for removing 

island bedstraw from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants 

(Service 2000, pp. 64–68): 

• Delisting Criterion 1: Discover or 

establish five additional populations per 

island (San Miguel and Santa Cruz). 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

Researchers have discovered 23 

previously unknown sites on Santa Cruz 

Island. No new sites have been 

discovered or established on San Miguel 

Island. San Miguel Island lacks the 

extensive suitable habitat of Santa Cruz 

Island, and there may not be additional 

undiscovered populations; however, 

surveyed populations have increased in 

numbers of individuals. Based on the 

lack of extensive suitable habitat on San 

Miguel Island, this criterion may not be 

possible for San Miguel Island. We 

conclude that this criterion has been 

met for Santa Cruz Island but not for 

San Miguel Island. 

• Delisting Criterion 2: No decline 

after downlisting for 10 years. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

We conclude that this criterion is not 

relevant since we have not downlisted 

the species. 

• Delisting Criterion 3: All potential 

habitat surveyed. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

Currently, not every part of the north 

coast of Santa Cruz Island has been 

surveyed, nor have detailed surveys 

occurred everywhere on San Miguel 

Island or in potential habitat on the 

north coast of Santa Rosa Island. 

Additionally, historical interior sites 

have not been resurveyed sufficiently. 

We conclude that this criterion has not 

been met. However, this criterion may 

no longer be relevant because the 

numbers of island bedstraw plants have 

increased substantially on the islands 

from which it is known. 

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Delisting 

Criteria 

The recovery plan identified six 

criteria for removing Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants 

(Service 2000, pp. 64–68): 

• Delisting Criterion 1: Maintain the 

existing population as stable with 

evidence of natural recruitment for a 

period of 20 years that includes the 

normal precipitation cycle. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

Data indicate that the population size is 

stable at between 40,000 and 200,000 

plants estimated per survey over the last 

25 years, with the last estimate of 

120,000 in 2019. In 2019 a robust 

repeatable survey protocol was 

established and baseline data have been 

collected to assess future trends. This 

criterion has been met. 

• Delisting Criterion 2: Seed stored in 

CPC cooperating facilities. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

An abundance of recently collected seed 

(19,568 seeds from 78 maternal lines) is 

stored at the SBBG (California Plant 

Rescue, 2023). This criterion has been 

met. 

• Delisting Criterion 3: Seed 

germination and propagation 

techniques understood. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

While no specific work has been done 

with Santa Cruz Island dudleya, seed 

germination and plant propagation 

techniques are well understood for 

many other Dudleya species, including 

other closely related species in the same 

subgenus. We conclude that this 

criterion has been met. 

• Delisting Criterion 4: Weed 

competition understood and managed. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

The vegetation of Santa Cruz Island is 

still changing since the complete 

removal of feral ungulates. Some aspects 

of the interactions of nonnative annual 

grasses and Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

were investigated more than 20 years 

ago, but little research has been done 

recently. We conclude that this criterion 

has not been met. However, Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya has not been observed to 

have been competitively impacted by 

weeds and is at least stable in 

population size at 40,000–200,000 

individuals over the last 25 years, so 

while weeds may be a threat, they have 

not seemed to have had an impact on 

population stability. 

• Delisting Criterion 5: Pig damage 

controlled. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

Pigs were completely removed from 

Santa Cruz Island by 2006, and 

substantial passive vegetation recovery 

has occurred. This criterion has been 

met. 

• Delisting Criterion 6: Life-history 

research conducted. 

Status of achieving recovery criterion: 

While originally planned, no additional 

life-history research has been conducted 

specifically on Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya since the time of listing. 

However, many life-history 

characteristics are similar throughout 

Dudleya and applicable to this species. 

The criterion is considered met through 

knowledge of the biology of similar 

species. 

Summary of Recovery Criteria 

In the recovery plan, the overall 

recovery goal is to improve the status of 

the species such that the protections of 

the Act are no longer needed. 

Preliminary goals and objectives include 

stabilizing and protecting populations, 

conducting research, and reclassifying 

species to threatened (downlisting) 

when appropriate. The recovery plan 

criteria that generally apply to both of 

these species have been met. The 

recovery plan’s unique recovery criteria 

for island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya (Service 2000, pp. 64– 

68) are discussed above and 

summarized below. 

Research and survey efforts have 

clarified the distribution, abundance, 

and habitat characteristics of island 

bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. This information has resulted 

in a better understanding of the species’ 

ecology and has shown an increase in 

the species’ range and numbers of sites 

and individuals for island bedstraw, and 

has shown population stability and an 

increase in distribution for Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya. 

Overall, the intent of the recovery 

criteria has been met in collaboration 

with our partners. TNC and the National 

Park Service (NPS) have provided 

protection and adaptive management of 

historical and recent sites. USGS, TNC, 

and others have provided survey 

evidence that the populations at these 

sites are stable or increasing over a 

number of years. TNC and NPS have 

coordinated to preserve the genetic 

diversity of both species by 

conservation banking of seeds in an 

approved facility. Both species are 

considered recovered without reliable 

seed germination and propagation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76684 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

techniques being developed. Therefore, 

we conclude that, based on the best 

available information, the intent of the 

recovery criteria in the recovery plan 

has been achieved and the recovery goal 

identified in the plan has been met for 

both island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations in title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

set forth the procedures for determining 

whether a species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species, issuing 

protective regulations for threatened 

species, and designating critical habitat 

for endangered and threatened species. 

In 2019, jointly with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, the Service 

issued a final rule that revised the 

regulations in 50 CFR part 424 regarding 

how we add, remove, and reclassify 

endangered and threatened species and 

the criteria for designating species’ 

critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 

2019). On the same day the Service also 

issued final regulations that, for species 

listed as threatened species after 

September 26, 2019, eliminated the 

Service’s general protective regulations 

automatically applying to threatened 

species the prohibitions that section 9 of 

the Act applies to endangered species 

(84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019). 

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. The determination to delist a 

species must be based on an analysis of 

the same five factors. 

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 it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define the 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 speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya SSA reports document 

the results of our comprehensive 

biological review of the best scientific 

and commercial data regarding the 

status of these species, including an 

assessment of the potential threats to 

both species. The SSA reports do not 

represent our decision on whether these 

species should be removed from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 

However, they provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. 

To assess island bedstraw and Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya viability, we used 

the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochastic events (for 

example, wet or dry, warm or cold 

years), redundancy is the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation is the ability 

of the species to adapt to both near-term 

and long-term changes in its physical 

and biological environment (for 

example, climate conditions, pathogen). 

In general, species viability will 

increase with increases in resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Smith 

et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 

principles, we identified the species’ 

ecological requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76685 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of each species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time which we then used to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the island 

bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

SSA reports; the full SSA reports for 

both species can be found at Docket 

FWS–R8–ES–2022–0066 on https://

www.regulations.gov and at https://

ecos.fws.gov. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we briefly review 

the biological condition of each species 

and their resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. The island bedstraw SSA 

(Service 2021a, entire) and Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya SSA (Service 2021b, 

entire) document our comprehensive 

biological status review for both species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to both species. 

The following is a summary of those 

status reviews and the best available 

information gathered that has informed 

this decision. 

Island Bedstraw Biological Condition 

Plants like the island bedstraw, with 

functionally unisexual flowers, need 

flowers of opposite gender for 

successful seed set, requiring one or 

more pollinators. Seeds need to be able 

to survive until germination conditions 

are appropriate, and they need a stable 

location to germinate and grow. Larger 

plants also need stable locations for 

long-term survival. A sufficient amount 

of moisture is needed for all island 

bedstraw life stages, and some of this 

moisture may be provided by fog. Island 

bedstraw populations need suitable 

habitat that supports survival and 

reproduction of an adequate number of 

individuals with vital rates that 

maintain self-sustaining populations 

despite stochastic events. Overall, the 

species needs sufficiently resilient 

populations distributed across its range 

to withstand catastrophic events. 

Population sizes should be large enough 

so that the species has the ability to 

adapt to changing conditions. 

At the time of listing, there were 19 

known sites of island bedstraw, 13 on 

Santa Cruz Island and 6 on San Miguel 

Island. There may have been 44–133 or 

more plants on Santa Cruz Island and 

more than 470 on San Miguel Island, 

with an estimated 515–603 plants on the 

2 islands combined. 

After listing in 1997, from 2004 

through 2006, significant efforts were 

made to survey Santa Cruz Island for 

island bedstraw. Of the 13 historical 

sites, 10 were surveyed, and no plants 

were found at 3 of those sites. An 

additional 14 new sites were 

discovered, expanding the distribution 

of sites to the west and east of the 

historical sites. At least 692–792 plants 

were counted at the historical sites, and 

at least 459 plants were counted at the 

new sites, for a total of at least 1,151– 

1,251 plants. No comparable surveys 

occurred on San Miguel Island; the only 

observations were counts at two sites in 

1998 (McEachern et al. 2019a, pp. 14– 

16). 

In 2015 on Santa Cruz Island and in 

2017 on San Miguel Island, Wildlands 

Conservation Science (Lompoc, CA) 

conducted rare plant surveys by 

helicopter (Ball and Olthof 2017, entire; 

Ball et al. 2018, entire). Additional 

observations, not associated with 

helicopter surveys, were made on both 

islands. For the helicopter surveys 

conducted in 2015 on Santa Cruz Island, 

28 sites were visited consisting of 9 new 

sites, the 17 sites surveyed between 

2004 and 2006, and 2 previously 

unsurveyed historical sites. Additional 

sites discovered during the survey 

brought the total number of known sites 

to 36 (13 historical prelisting sites, 14 

additional sites discovered from 2004 to 

2006, and 9 sites in 2015 helicopter 

surveys), and expanded the known 

geographical distribution of island 

bedstraw on the island eastward. Most 

sites were only photographed, but 

percent cover and area was estimated 

for level terraces at seven sites. And 

with an average plant canopy area 

derived from monitoring data, 

researchers estimated that those 7 sites 

had 8,421 plants. An additional 

observation in 2019 estimated another 

1,000 or more plants at another terrace 

site. 

The 2017 helicopter surveys 

conducted on San Miguel Island did not 

reveal new sites. Three of the six 

historical sites were visited, and percent 

cover and area of island bedstraw were 

estimated for level terraces at those 

sites. Using the average plant canopy 

area, researchers estimated that there 

were 5,339 plants at the 3 sites. A fourth 

site was previously confirmed to be 

extant in 2014; the other two historical 

sites have not been surveyed but are 

also presumed to have extant plants. 

On Santa Cruz Island, the total 

number of known island bedstraw sites 

has increased from 13 at the time of 

listing, to 27 at the time of the 2004– 

2006 surveys, to 36 after the 2015 

helicopter surveys (Service 2021a, table 

14, p. 37). On San Miguel Island, the 

number of known sites is six, which is 

the same as at the time of listing. Of the 

36 total number of known sites on Santa 

Cruz Island, 28 are known to be extant 

based on recent helicopter surveys and 

observations (Service 2021a, table 13, 

figure 9, pp. 35–36); 5 sites are 

presumed extant (4 of these sites had 

plants in the 2004–2006 surveys but 

were not surveyed thereafter, and 1 site 

has not been surveyed since before 

listing); and 3 sites are possibly 

extirpated (targeted surveys took place 

in 2004–2006, but sites were not 

relocated or mapped by the 2015 

helicopter surveys). Similarly, of the six 

known sites on San Miguel Island, four 

are known to be extant based on the 

2017 helicopter survey and 2014 

observational data (Service 2021a, table 

13, figure 10, pp. 35–36), and the 

remaining two sites are presumed extant 

(but have not been surveyed since 

before listing). There are no known 

possibly extirpated sites on San Miguel 

Island. 

The current totals, therefore, are 33 

known or presumed extant on Santa 

Cruz Island and 6 on San Miguel Island. 

The total estimated number of known 

individuals within those sites on both 

islands combined has increased from 

512–603 before listing to at least 15,730 

after recent helicopter surveys. 

Currently, island bedstraw appears to 

have increasing abundance and 

distribution. At one site studied over a 

10-year span, island bedstraw has 

shown demographic capacity for 

population growth and adaptive 

capacity by expansion beyond 

historically occupied areas into more 

diverse habitats (e.g., from cliff faces to 

terraces above the cliffs, and movement 

into nonnative-dominated vegetation). 

The species also shows the ability to 

withstand catastrophic events because it 

is distributed on two islands, has more 

sites now than at the time of listing, and 

has gaps between groups of sites within 

islands. 

Island Bedstraw Threats 

In 1997, island bedstraw was listed as 

an endangered species due to effects 

(habitat alteration and herbivory) 

resulting from feral livestock grazing 

and trampling and subsequent soil 

erosion (62 FR 40954, July 31, 1997). By 

the time the recovery plan was signed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76686 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

in 2000, sheep had been removed from 

both Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands, 

but their residual effects remained. No 

feral pigs occurred on San Miguel Island 

after 1900, and TNC and NPS initiated 

an 18-month program that removed all 

pigs from Santa Cruz Island by the end 

of 2006. In the 2009 5-year review, we 

determined that island bedstraw still 

met the definition of an endangered 

species based on the following threats: 

(1) soil loss and erosion resulting from 

years of feral pig rooting and sheep 

grazing, (2) loss of habitat to nonnative, 

invasive plants, (3) random naturally 

occurring events due to its limited 

distribution and small population size, 

and (4) effects from climate change 

(Service 2009b, pp. 13–14). 

The major threats to island bedstraw 

at the time of listing, feral livestock 

grazing, trampling, and resulting 

erosion, have largely been eliminated, 

which consequently also reduced the 

threats of small population size and 

nonnative vegetation identified in the 

2009 5-year review. Effects from climate 

change remain but are not to the level 

where we conclude that the species is 

in danger of extinction. We determined 

that overutilization, disease, predation 

(herbivory), and the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms are not 

threats to island bedstraw, so we do not 

discuss them in detail in this final rule. 

For more information, see the island 

bedstraw SSA report (Service 2021a). 

Soil Loss and Erosion 

Currently, vegetation cover has 

increased significantly on Santa Cruz 

Island since the eradication of 

herbivores (Beltran et al. 2014, p. 7), 

leading to reduced erosion. This trend 

appears similar on San Miguel Island. 

Competition From Nonnative Plants 

Nonnative invasive plants were not 

specifically identified as a threat for this 

species at the time of listing but were 

discussed in the 2009 5-year review. 

While the competitive ability of island 

bedstraw against nonnative plants is 

unknown, the species seems to be able 

to colonize areas dominated by 

relatively short nonnative annuals, such 

as the terrace at the ‘‘Bluffs East of 

Prisoners’’ site. Island bedstraw may 

also have an advantage because native 

perennials in general tend to be at an 

advantage over nonnatives at sites that 

are relatively more mesic (Corry 2006, p. 

97), such as the north-facing cliffs, 

terraces, and slopes on the north coasts 

of Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands 

where island bedstraw is found. 

Additionally, the loss of leaves by 

island bedstraw during dry summer 

conditions may give it another edge over 

nonnatives (Corry 2006, p. 185) by 

allowing it to survive drier soil 

conditions through dormancy. 

Random Extinctions of Small 

Populations 

On Santa Cruz Island, historical 

populations with known numbers of 

plants had 50 or fewer individuals, and 

2004–2006 surveyed populations may 

have had hundreds of plants. While 

only a few of the 2015 surveyed sites 

have population estimates, these 

estimates are in the thousands of 

individuals, and it is likely that more of 

the unsurveyed sites also have large 

numbers of plants. These sites with 

hundreds or thousands of plants have a 

greater likelihood of future persistence 

than sites with fewer than 50 plants. 

The three possibly extirpated historical 

sites on Santa Cruz Island that could not 

be located during the most recent 

surveys (Service 2021a, table 6, p. 26) 

probably had small numbers of 

individuals (Service 2021a, table 4, p. 

22). Two of those sites were in relatively 

interior locations and could have gone 

undetected because of poor location 

descriptions. Similarly, the third site, 

while coastal, is in an area of extremely 

dense vegetation and could also have 

been equally difficult to find. Assuming 

extirpation, we estimate that these sites 

are exceptions to the general trend of 

increasing plant numbers at sites and 

represent only 3 of the 36 Santa Cruz 

Island sites. San Miguel Island has 

demonstrated similar trends of 

increasing numbers of plants within 

sites, from historical numbers of 250 or 

less, to estimates of 1,000 or more plants 

observed during the 2016 surveys 

(Service 2021a, table 12, p. 34). The 

general trend of increasing plant 

numbers at sites suggests that the threat 

of random extinction of small 

populations has been reduced. 

Climate Change 

The northern Channel Islands lie off 

mainland Santa Barbara and Ventura 

Counties. Of the two counties, Santa 

Barbara County is the better model for 

assessing climate impacts on the species 

since the flora of the northern Channel 

Islands, in general, is considered to have 

more northern affinities (Raven and 

Axelrod, 1995, pp. 63–64). Annual 

average (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

National Centers for Environmental 

Information (NCEI) 2019a) and 

maximum (NOAA NCEI 2019b) 

temperatures for Santa Barbara County 

for the period 2014 through 2018 were 

the highest recorded since 1895. 

Rainfall does not show such distinct 

trends. However, except for 2017, 

annual rainfall for 2011 through 2018 

was below the 1885–2018 mean (NOAA 

NCEI 2109c), with 2013 and 2015 being 

two of the five driest years since 1885. 

These recent increases in annual 

average and maximum temperatures and 

lower annual rainfall do not seem to 

have adversely affected recent island 

bedstraw survivorship and expansion. 

The monitoring data at Pelican Bay 

(McEachern et al. 2019a, figure 13, p. 

26) show an increase in the number of 

reproductive plants in 2014 compared 

to 2011. No sites are known to have 

been extirpated between 2004 and 2019. 

Spread from cliff locations to adjacent 

terraces has also been confirmed during 

that time period. It is unknown how 

further increases in temperature and 

decreases in rainfall may affect the 

species. 

The threat of fire rises with increases 

in annual average and maximum 

temperatures and lower annual rainfall. 

Neither natural nor anthropogenic fires 

are as common on the northern Channel 

Islands as on the adjacent mainland 

(Carroll et al. 1993, pp. 75–78). Just four 

natural fires are known to have occurred 

on the northern Channel Islands in the 

last 165 years, none of which have 

affected island bedstraw sites. Changes 

in future climate may increase this risk; 

however, we have no evidence that 

natural wildfires will be such a serious 

threat in the future that listing continues 

to be warranted. 

Resiliency, Representation, and 

Redundancy 

Resiliency 

Resiliency describes the ability of 

populations to withstand stochastic 

disturbance. Resiliency is positively 

related to population size and growth 

rate and may be influenced by 

connectivity among populations. 

Currently, island bedstraw has 

populations that are increasing in 

numbers of individuals and spatial 

extent. Island bedstraw abundances 

have increased from 512–603 

individuals before listing to at least 

15,730 currently, the largest recorded 

abundance. Individual sites are larger 

than they were at the time of previous 

surveys, and larger than at the time of 

listing. Observations show that 

populations have spread from cliffs to 

adjacent level terraces. The rate of 

growth appears to be positive, from both 

demographic research and observations 

of increasing areal extent at individual 

sites. At least 1,000 plants have been 

documented in a 0.5-hectare area where 

no known plants occurred 15 years 

earlier. Recent observations show this 

pattern repeating at other sites. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76687 

Representation 

Representation describes the ability of 

a species to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions over time. It 

is characterized by the breadth of 

genetic and environmental diversity 

within and among populations. Island 

bedstraw has historically occupied 

different parts of the islands, from sea 

cliff faces to the interior of the islands. 

It is now colonizing terraces above the 

cliffs. Given how readily island 

bedstraw moves off the bluffs, onto flats, 

and into native and nonnative 

vegetation, the genetic breadth can be 

interpreted as sufficiently wide to 

occupy diverse niches. Finally, although 

the genetics of island bedstraw have not 

been similarly analyzed, the close 

relative San Clemente island bedstraw 

(Gallium catalinense ssp. acrispum) has 

been shown to retain high genetic 

diversity after a ranching period with a 

similar grazing history (Riley et al. 2010, 

pp. 2020–2024) and occupies a similar 

range of habitats. 

Redundancy 

Redundancy describes the ability of a 

species to withstand catastrophic 

events. Redundancy is characterized by 

having sufficiently resilient populations 

distributed within the ecological 

settings of the species and across its 

range. Island bedstraw exhibits 

redundancy at two scales: across the 

northern islands and within each island 

where it occurs. First, it is distributed 

on two islands separated by a third, so 

the entire species is unlikely to be 

affected by any one catastrophic event. 

Second, more sites are known than at 

the time of listing on Santa Cruz Island, 

and population sizes are larger on both 

islands. Sites are distributed across the 

breadth of the northern shores of each 

island with gaps between groups of sites 

such that a single island catastrophe 

(like fire) would be unlikely to affect all 

sites at once. 

Summary—Current Condition, Threats 

Influencing Viability 

The major threats to island bedstraw 

at the time of listing were feral livestock 

grazing, trampling, and the resulting 

erosion. These major threats are either 

no longer relevant or have been 

minimized. The threats of small 

population size and loss of habitat to 

nonnative, invasive plants identified at 

the time of the 2009 5-year review have 

also been reduced. Additionally, there 

have been no apparent negative effects 

since the 2009 5-year review that are 

attributable to temperature and 

precipitation patterns associated with 

projected climate change trends. 

Currently, island bedstraw is 

increasing in abundance and 

distribution and expanding beyond 

historically occupied areas and into 

more diverse habitats (e.g., from cliff 

faces to terraces above the cliffs and 

movement into nonnative-dominated 

vegetation), indicating increasing 

resiliency, representation, and general 

overall adaptive capacity. Additionally, 

with a distribution on two islands 

(separated by a third) and more sites 

now than at the time of listing with gaps 

between groups of sites within islands, 

a single island catastrophe would be 

unlikely to affect all sites at once. The 

catastrophic loss on one island would 

not affect the other islands, and the 

populations are spread out enough that 

there is some redundancy within 

islands. 

The major remaining potential factor 

influencing island bedstraw population 

viability is climate change. Our current 

data do not show that the species is 

experiencing any significant effects from 

changing climate conditions. 

Future Condition 

Of the threats that have been 

discussed above, climate change 

remains the most reasonably foreseeable 

threat to persist and potentially affect 

island bedstraw. It is a potential catalyst 

of change for other threats and is 

expected to have multiple effects in the 

California Central Coast region, 

including an increase in temperatures, 

changes in precipitation, sea level rise, 

and an increase in fire frequency 

(Langridge 2018, pp. 12–23). Fifty years 

is the evaluation timeframe for climate 

change because the best available 

information presented in the current 

integrated climate assessment for the 

Central California Coast forecast uses 

2069 as its climate change analysis 

interval (Langridge 2018, pp. 12–23). 

The 50-year period integrates a wide 

amount of interannual variability in 

temperature and rainfall and contains 

typical drought cycles (NOAA NCEI 

2019a, 2019b, 2019c). Sea level rise 

projections are from Griggs et al. 2017 

(pp. 24–27), which is cited by Langridge 

2018 (p. 24) as the latest Californiafocused sea level rise projections; Griggs 

et al. 2017 uses an 80-year timeframe. 

We developed two future scenarios 

that capture the range of plausible 

effects to the species from a projected 

change in the factors influencing its 

viability over a 50-year period. 

Future scenario 1 summarizes effects 

of representative concentration pathway 

(RCP) 4.5, and future scenario 2 

summarizes effects of RCP 8.5. The 

RCPs are based on alternate projections 

for climate change in the California 

Central Coast region based on Langridge 

(2018, pp. 12–22, 29–31) and Griggs et 

al. (2017, p. 27). RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 

are described more fully in the SSA 

report (Service 2021a, entire). 

Under future scenario 1, the 

combination of increased temperature 

and increased rainfall support 

continued recruitment and expansion of 

island bedstraw over the next 50 years. 

Most vegetation is recovering island 

wide, and as it recovers, leaf litter depth 

and area of cover increase, as do 

subsurface roots. These factors protect 

the soil from direct impact and allow 

increased percolation of water into the 

soil. Surface flows are moderated and 

erosion is reduced. Therefore, 

increasing rainfall does not substantially 

increase erosion, largely because most 

vegetation would benefit from the 

moderate additional rainfall and 

vegetation reduces the intensity of 

runoff. Moderate sea level rise could 

cause minor impacts from landslides on 

some Santa Cruz Island sites but not at 

the population level. If sea level rise is 

only a few feet, it will not directly 

impact many plants or sites because 

they are substantially higher in 

elevation. Because most sites are on 

relatively tough igneous rock, enough 

erosion will not occur to undermine and 

cause collapse of these coastal sites. 

Moreover, the negative effects of fire 

frequency on the species are not 

expected to increase, as vegetation 

flammability and ignition sources are 

not projected to increase. Few minor 

negative and some potential positive 

effects of climate change would occur 

under this future scenario, and sites are 

likely to persist while the species’ 

abundance and range will continue to 

expand. Overall, future scenario 1 

projects increases in abundance and 

expansion, which suggests resiliency 

would increase and representation and 

redundancy would remain stable for 

island bedstraw. 

Under future scenario 2, during the 

next 50 years, temperatures are 

projected to increase over the current 

baseline even more than under scenario 

1, with rainfall also increasing over 

baseline but less than under scenario 1. 

In addition, there is a projected increase 

in year-to-year variability with an 

increase in extreme dry events, drought 

conditions, and extreme rain events. 

The increase in extreme rain events 

would lead to flashier, more intense 

runoff. 

Increased drying and drought events 

could lead to decreased soil moisture 

that will affect recruitment and adult 

survival, leading to less population 

expansion and possibly smaller 

increases in abundance, relative to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76688 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

scenario 1. Rainfall events may increase 

the severity of runoff, which may 

dislodge or cover plants and lead to 

decreases in abundance. If conditions 

are severe enough, sites could be 

extirpated. The effects of sea level rise 

could be greater than in scenario 1 for 

sites on sedimentary cliffs on the 

eastern end of the species’ distribution 

on Santa Cruz Island. Undercutting from 

surf could increase landslides, 

eliminating some if not all plants in cliff 

sites. Fire frequency and size could 

increase on Santa Cruz Island because of 

warmer temperatures, drier vegetation, 

windier conditions, increased lightning 

strikes, and increased visitor use over 

time that may lead to increased wildfire 

starts by the public. Fires could reduce 

abundance and eliminate sites. Overall, 

future scenario 2 projects decreases in 

abundance and expansion and 

potentially extirpation of sites, which 

suggests resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy could decrease for island 

bedstraw; however, given the improved 

habitat conditions for the species and 

increasing baseline distribution and 

abundance, we do not expect these 

threats to affect the species at the 

population level. 

Summary of Species Potential Future 

Condition 

Under future scenario 1, changes in 

abundance and distribution of island 

bedstraw continue on their current 

positive trajectory, with increasing 

numbers and site expansion. Under 

scenario 2, some sites may decline and 

possibly become extirpated. Decreased 

soil moisture and drought are likely to 

negatively affect the species because 

recruitment, survivorship, and the rate 

of expansion would be slower than 

under future scenario 1, reducing 

resiliency. Increased soil and shoreline 

erosion and fire would also negatively 

affect island bedstraw by killing 

individuals and degrading habitat, 

reducing representation and 

redundancy. Given the improved habitat 

conditions for the species and 

increasing baseline distribution and 

abundance, we do not expect threat 

levels under either future scenario to 

affect the island bedstraw at the species 

level. 

Island Bedstraw Overall Synthesis 

Island bedstraw occurs on Santa Cruz 

and San Miguel Islands. At the time of 

listing, there were 19 known sites of 

island bedstraw, 13 on Santa Cruz 

Island and 6 on San Miguel Island. 

Currently, the number of sites known or 

presumed to be extant is 33 on Santa 

Cruz Island and 6 on San Miguel Island. 

The total estimated number of known 

individuals within those sites on both 

islands combined has increased from 

512–603, at the time of listing, to at least 

15,730, after recent helicopter surveys. 

This number (15,730) is likely an 

underestimate because helicopter 

surveys were conducted at a subset of 

known sites. Given the increase in the 

number of individuals at sites where 

plant number estimates were conducted 

during the helicopter surveys, the sites 

that were last counted in the mid-2000s 

likely have more individuals. 

The major threats to island bedstraw 

at the time of listing, feral livestock 

grazing, trampling, and resulting 

erosion, are either no longer relevant or 

have been minimized. The threats of 

small population size and nonnative 

vegetation identified at the time of the 

2009 5-year review have also been 

minimized. Currently, island bedstraw 

is increasing in abundance and 

distribution. It has shown demographic 

capacity for population growth at one 

site studied over a 10-year span and 

adaptive capacity by expansion beyond 

historically occupied areas and into 

more diverse habitats (e.g., from cliff 

faces to terraces above the cliffs and 

movement into nonnative-dominated 

vegetation). The species also shows the 

ability to withstand some catastrophic 

events with its distribution on two 

islands (separated by a third), having 

more sites now than at the time of 

listing, and gaps between groups of sites 

within islands. 

Potentially negative effects of future 

climate change remain, and we 

developed two future scenarios that 

capture the range of plausible effects to 

the species from projected changes in 

the factors influencing viability over a 

50-year period. Climate change is 

expected to have multiple effects in the 

California Central Coast region, 

including an increase in temperatures, 

change in precipitation, sea level rise, 

and increase in fire frequency. Future 

scenarios 1 and 2 summarize effects of 

RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, respectively, 

based on projections for climate change 

in the California Central Coast region 

derived from Langridge (2018, entire). 

Under future scenario 1, changes in 

abundance and distribution of island 

bedstraw continue on their current 

positive trajectory, with increasing 

numbers and site expansion. Under 

future scenario 2, some sites may 

decline and possibly become extirpated. 

Decreased soil moisture and drought are 

likely to negatively affect the species 

because recruitment, survivorship, and 

the rate of expansion would be slower 

than under future scenario 1. Increased 

erosion and fire would also negatively 

affect island bedstraw by killing 

individuals and reducing habitat. Given 

the improved habitat conditions for the 

species and increasing baseline 

distribution and abundance, we do not 

expect threat levels under either future 

scenario to affect the species at the 

population level. 

Cumulative and synergistic 

interactions are possible between the 

effects of climate change and the effects 

of other potential threats, such as small 

population size, fire, and nonnative 

plant invasion. Increases in temperature 

and changes in precipitation are likely 

to cause increases in nonnative grasses, 

which are abundant in island bedstraw 

habitat. Increased grass abundance has 

the potential to carry fire more readily, 

which could affect the geographically 

limited population of island bedstraw. 

Uncertainty about how different plant 

species will respond under climate 

change, combined with uncertainty 

about how changes in plant species 

composition would affect suitability of 

island bedstraw habitat, make projecting 

possible cumulative and synergistic 

effects of climate change on island 

bedstraw challenging. 

Our post-delisting monitoring plans 

will provide guidelines for evaluating 

both species following delisting to 

detect substantial declines that may lead 

to consideration of re-listing to 

threatened or endangered. Changes in 

land use will still be subject to State and 

Federal environmental review. 

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Biological 

Condition 

The genus Dudleya is typically 

considered to be made up of three 

subgenera: Dudleya, Stylophyllum, and 

Hasseanthus, each of which at some 

time has been considered a distinct 

genus; Santa Cruz Island dudleya is in 

subgenus Hasseanthus. 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya needs the 

right combination of position in soil, 

litter depth, and light to emerge from 

seed and survive to and past the 

seedling stage. Seedlings and larger 

plants need seasonal soil moisture, light 

availability, and space to survive the dry 

season, in order to reach a reproductive 

size and successfully reproduce. The 

species, comprising a single population, 

needs a sufficiently broad distribution 

to adapt to changing environmental 

conditions and withstand catastrophic 

events. Finally, Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya needs a sufficient community 

of generalist pollinators to ensure 

effective pollination and seed set. 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya is 

composed of one population and five 

subpopulations that occur in a general 

area of about 200 hectares (ha) 

(approximately 494 acres), although the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76689 

total occupied area within that general 

area is about 13.7 ha (approximately 34 

acres) (Schneider and Carson 2019, p. 

10). The best information available 

suggests that, over the last 25 years, the 

population has fluctuated between at 

least 40,000 and 200,000 individuals 

and the current abundance is in the 

middle of that range (approximately 

120,000 individuals). Past survey 

methods were not standardized, which 

limits our ability to confirm a definitive 

trend in abundance over time. However, 

the population at 120,000 is stable, and 

the most recent survey (Schneider and 

Carson 2019, entire) established robust 

survey methods that can be used in the 

future to detect changes in distribution 

and abundance. 

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Threats 

At the time of listing, soil loss, 

herbivory by feral pigs, disturbance by 

pig rooting, and collecting for botanical 

or horticultural use were identified as 

threats to the species. The recovery plan 

identified the additional threats of 

competition from nonnative grasses, 

trampling by humans, and an increased 

risk of extinction from naturally 

occurring random events due to the 

species’ limited distribution (Service 

2000, p. 35). The 2009 5-year review 

also considered the effects of low 

genetic variability, climate change, and 

fire (Service 2009a, p. 12). 

Soil Loss, Herbivory by Feral Pigs, 

Disturbance by Pig Rooting 

In the original listing, the source of 

soil loss is specified as the result of feral 

ungulate activities (62 FR 40954 at 

40966, July 31, 1997). All feral 

ungulates were removed from Santa 

Cruz Island by 2006 (McEachern et al. 

2016, pp. 759–760), eliminating that 

source of soil loss. Vegetation cover has 

increased significantly on Santa Cruz 

Island since 2006 (Beltran et al. 2014, p. 

7), leading to reduced erosion and 

mitigating this threat. 

Collecting for Botanical and 

Horticultural Use, Trampling by 

Humans 

While Santa Cruz Island dudleya has 

a limited geographical range, it is very 

abundant where it is found. While 

Moran (1979, entire) considered 

collecting to be a threat, McCabe (2004, 

p. 269) did not. The species is in 

cultivation (e.g., Trager 2004, entire) but 

is not often available for sale. It may be 

that the seasonal ephemerality of plants 

in the subgenus Hasseanthus makes 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya a plant not 

sought out for personal collections. 

Trampling by humans is still a 

possible threat to the species, but it is 

unlikely to be a primary threat. TNC 

maintains a permit system for boaters 

that plan to land on TNC property (TNC 

2020, p. 2), and offroad travel in the 

Fraser Point/Forney Cove area is 

prohibited to protect resources. TNC has 

erected signage in the area to reinforce 

the closure (Knapp 2021, pers. comm.). 

Trespass occurs infrequently, and its 

effects on Santa Cruz Island dudleya are 

likely to be light, especially in grassland 

locations away from the immediate 

coast because trespassers are more likely 

to stay close to the ocean. 

Competition From Nonnative Annual 

Plants 

Klinger et al. (unpublished, entire) 

investigated the effects of nonnative 

grasses on Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

density. While the study offered no data 

about trends in overall abundance, 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya density 

declined in study plots in which annual 

grass density and litter increased. The 

study occurred before a major increase 

in the nonnative annual grass Aegilops 

cylindrica and does not explain a 

seemingly steady abundance of Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya over the years 

despite that increase. These differing 

findings suggest that the interactions 

among nonnative annual grasses and 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya are complex. 

Moran (1979, p. 1) lists the nonnative 

annual succulent Mesembryanthemum 

crystallinum (crystalline ice plant) as 

found with Santa Cruz Island dudleya at 

Fraser Point. McCabe (2004, p. 269) lists 

M. crystallinum as a threat to Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya but does not define how 

it is a threat. M. crystallinum can 

dominate coastal vegetation by 

increasing soil salinity to levels higher 

than that tolerated by some native 

plants (Vivrette and Muller 1977, pp. 

315–317), but it is unknown if this 

situation is a threat to Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. M. crystallinum has been 

reported to be periodically abundant in 

the coastal bluff scrub vegetation, 

cycling with Lasthenia gracilis 

(common goldfields), depending on 

rainfall and temperature combinations 

(Vivrette 2002, entire). Schneider and 

Carson (2019, entire) do not report M. 

crystallinum as common in their 

surveys. The data do not indicate if M. 

crystallinum is at a low abundance in a 

cycle or if there has been a major change 

in vegetation that may have disrupted 

the cycle. 

Random Extinctions of Small 

Populations 

The recovery plan identified 

randomly occurring natural events as 

threats to Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

(Service 2000, p. 35) because the species 

has a single population with a limited 

distribution over a small range. The 

2009 5-year review (Service 2009a, p. 

12) specified low genetic variability 

(inferred by small population size), 

climate change, and fire and 

emphasized their importance as threats 

to the continued existence of Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya, given its single 

population and limited distribution. 

Low Genetic Variability 

Because Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

has a single population with a small 

range, the genetic variability and the 

resiliency of the species to humancaused or natural disasters may be low 

(Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 232–237). 

No studies have been done on genetic 

variability in Santa Cruz Island dudleya, 

but the 2009 5-year review speculated 

that the species might have inherently 

low genetic diversity. If so, this 

situation has likely been the case 

throughout the existence of this species, 

and there is no indication that this level 

of genetic variability is a threat to the 

species or contributes to low population 

resiliency or viability. 

Climate Change 

Santa Cruz Island lies off mainland 

Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Of 

the two counties, Santa Barbara County 

is the better model for assessing climate 

impacts on the species since the flora of 

the northern Channel Islands is 

generally considered to have similar 

affinities (Raven and Axelrod 1995, pp. 

63–64). Annual average (NOAA NCEI 

2019a) and maximum (NOAA NCEI 

2019b) temperatures for Santa Barbara 

County for 2014 to 2018 have been the 

highest recorded since 1895. Rainfall 

does not show such distinct trends. 

However, except for 2017, annual 

rainfall for 2011 to 2018 has been below 

the 1885 to 2018 mean (NOAA NCEI 

2109c), with 2013 and 2015 being two 

of the five driest years since 1885. 

In general, increased temperature and 

decreased rainfall could negatively 

affect survival and reproduction of the 

species. However, these recent increases 

in annual average and maximum 

temperatures and lower annual rainfall 

(combined with the removal of 

nonnative herbivores) do not seem to 

have adversely affected Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya abundance or 

distribution. The most recent survey 

(Schneider and Carson 2019, p. 11) 

shows an increased overall abundance 

and an additional subpopulation since 

the last surveys of 2006 (McEachern et 

al. 2010, p. 12), although one 

subpopulation did decrease in 

abundance. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76690 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

A new threat to the species may be 

sea level rise. Sea level rise has been 

slow over the 20th century but has 

accelerated and is expected to keep 

accelerating (Sievanen et al. 2018, pp. 

16–18). Sea level is expected to rise 0.4 

to 1.1 m (16–43 in) by 2100 (Griggs et 

al. 2017, pp. 24–27). Sea level rise could 

affect Santa Cruz Island dudleya in two 

ways. First, some plants are close 

enough to the ocean that they can be 

directly impacted and dislodged by surf 

action. However, most plants are high 

enough up on the marine terrace that 

direct impacts of the surf would not 

affect them. Second, rising sea level and 

larger waves could undercut the sea 

cliffs and bluffs, causing slumps and 

landslides, and disturbing or destroying 

whole groups of plants. Most plants, 

however, are sufficiently inland that 

they would not be affected. 

Fire 

Neither natural nor anthropogenic 

fires are as common on the northern 

Channel Islands as on the adjacent 

mainland (Carroll et al. 1993, pp. 82– 

85). Just four natural fires have been 

known to occur on the northern 

Channel Islands in the last 165 years. 

More human-caused fires, mostly from 

machinery operation or uncontrolled 

campfires, have occurred. Campfires are 

prohibited in Channel Islands National 

Park, but they occasionally happen on 

isolated beaches on TNC property on 

Santa Cruz Island (Knapp 2020, pers. 

comm.), and clandestine prohibited 

smoking is frequent. Three humancaused brush fires have occurred on 

Santa Cruz in the last 15 years: a 

vehicle-caused fire in 2007 (Knapp 

2020, pers. comm.), a biomass reduction 

burn escape in 2018 (Knapp 2020, pers. 

comm.), and a construction-related fire 

in 2020 (KEYT 2020). 

While no fires are known to have 

impacted the species, fire has been and 

remains a concern for land managers 

(Knapp 2020, pers. comm.). Passive 

restoration after removal of feral 

ungulates (Beltran et al. 2014, entire) 

has increased fuel loads, and the results 

of a fire could be severe. With five 

distinct subpopulations across different 

vegetation types, the chance of a fire 

causing the extinction of the entire 

population of the species is reduced. 

However, each subpopulation is still 

within 400 m of another subpopulation, 

which is relatively close in the event of 

a wind-driven wildfire. 

Resiliency, Representation, Redundancy 

Resiliency 

Resiliency describes the ability of 

populations to withstand stochastic 

events. Resiliency is positively related 

to population size and growth rate and 

may be influenced by connectivity 

among populations. Recent research and 

survey efforts have shown Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya is at least stable in 

population size at 40,000–200,000 

individuals over the last 25 years with 

an increase in distribution (Schneider 

and Carson 2019, entire). Currently, the 

single Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

population appears to have no trend of 

increasing or decreasing abundance, but 

the lack of standardized surveys makes 

it difficult to draw conclusions about 

changes in species abundance and 

distribution. Additional surveys over an 

appropriate time span and area are 

needed to document changes in 

abundance and further changes in 

distribution. 

Threats to the species identified at 

listing have been removed, including 

soil loss, herbivory by feral pigs, 

disturbance by pig rooting, and 

collecting for botanical or horticultural 

use (62 FR 40954 at 40959, July 31, 

1997). We have found no evidence to 

show that trampling by humans or low 

genetic variability are currently affecting 

abundance, and resiliency is not 

increasing or decreasing. Remaining 

potential threats include competition 

from nonnative grasses, climate change, 

and fire. These threats may affect 

sparsely vegetated areas, suitable 

temperatures, and adequate soil 

moisture/rainfall needed for survival 

and reproduction, thereby decreasing 

the abundance and distribution of Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya. Except for negative 

effects of nonnative grasses (Klinger 

unpublished, entire), the effects of these 

factors on resiliency have not been 

studied, but they do not appear to be 

currently adversely affecting the 

species. 

Representation 

Representation describes the ability of 

a species to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions over time. It 

is characterized by the breadth of 

genetic, phenotypic, and ecological 

diversity within and among 

populations. No genetic analysis has 

been conducted to reveal the genetic 

diversity within Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya compared to other Dudleya, 

especially other members of subgenus 

Hasseanthus. Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

is limited to a small area, but within 

that area, plants are growing in a variety 

of combinations of distance from the 

ocean, substrate type, and vegetation 

type, which may reflect some amount of 

adaptive capacity within the 

population. It is unknown whether 

representation has changed for this 

species since it was first described. 

Redundancy 

Redundancy describes the ability of a 

species to withstand catastrophic 

events. Redundancy is characterized by 

having multiple, sufficiently resilient 

populations distributed within the 

ecological settings of the species and 

across its range. Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya has inherently low redundancy 

as a narrow endemic with only a single 

population in a relatively small 

geographic range. However, there are 

physical gaps between subpopulations, 

and the subpopulations occur in 

different vegetation types that could 

carry fire differently. Subpopulations 

also occur at different elevations, and 

some are protected from extreme wave 

events. Although germinable seeds are 

found in natural soil samples, the 

amount of seed in the natural soil seed 

bank is unknown (Wilken 1996, p. 25). 

Redundancy is somewhat bolstered by a 

high number of seeds that have recently 

been seed-banked at the SBBG 

(California Plant Rescue 2023). 

Additionally, an active grant issued 

under section 6 of the Act (Schneider 

2017, pp. 4–6, 13) calls for bulking that 

banked seed (in progress) and 

establishing two new ‘‘populations’’ on 

Santa Cruz Island (planned but delayed 

because of the Covid–19 pandemic). 

These activities will continue with 

additional NPS funding (McEachern et 

al. 2019b, pp. 9, 11). 

Summary—Current Condition, Threats 

Influencing Viability 

Several major threats to Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya identified at the time of 

listing, including soil loss, herbivory by 

feral pigs, and disturbance by pig 

rooting, have been removed or are no 

longer occurring. Collecting for 

botanical and horticultural use and 

trampling by humans also no longer 

pose threats to the species due to 

controls on access to the island. 

Nonnative plants continue to occur with 

the species and do not seem to have 

affected population size, although no 

recent study on the specific effects of 

particular nonnatives or how changes in 

the nonnative assemblage might alter 

those effects has been undertaken. The 

threat of small population size still 

exists, as does concern about climate 

change and fire, but since the 2009 5- 

year review, there is no evidence that 

these potential threats have affected the 

species. 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya abundance 

is apparently not increasing or 

decreasing in an obvious way, but data 

over time are lacking. Recent research 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76691 

and survey efforts have shown Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya is at least stable in 

population size over the last 25 years 

with an increase in distribution 

(Schneider and Carson 2019, entire). 

Some amount of adaptive capacity is 

demonstrated in the variation in 

vegetation types and elevation where 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya is found. 

While the elevational range seems small 

and vegetation differences may seem 

negligible if gauged simply by absolute 

plant height, the locations where 

individuals of the species grow are 

remarkably varied. At the lowest 

elevations, the plants are in open native 

forb scrub that are likely subjected to 

relatively high amounts of salt spray. 

Soils here are influenced by the wind 

and are somewhat rocky. We suspect 

that here the primary stressors on the 

plants are from the physical 

environment. By contrast, higher up on 

the terraces, plants are in dense 

nonnative grassland with deeper soil 

that is less affected by salt spray. Given 

how dense the grasses are, we suspect 

that the primary stressor to the species 

must be competition. The two habitats 

grade into each other at some sites. In 

both situations, the species seems to be 

doing fine, and robust plants are 

showing good reproductive effort. The 

adaptability of this plant through 

disparate habitat zones is similar to a 

large species of tree capable of growing 

in open deserts or savanna to dense 

forests with similar-sized trees. We 

suspect there must be sufficient 

phenotypic plasticity or genetic 

variability (adaptive capacity) to enable 

the species to do well in such different 

conditions. 

With only one population, 

redundancy is inherently low, but that 

issue may be mitigated somewhat by the 

diversity of the locations in which the 

species occurs, the presence of a seed 

bank, and the limited potential and 

extent of the most likely catastrophic 

threat—fire. Fire has affected some 

mainland Dudleya species dramatically, 

while others seem to endure little 

mortality from being burned. We do not 

have specific fire data for Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya. While fire could be 

carried in areas where it occurs in dense 

grass, lower elevation areas are so open 

that fire is unlikely to spread, so there 

is redundancy for the species, even over 

its small geographic range. 

Future Condition 

Of the threats that have been 

discussed above, climate change 

remains the most reasonably foreseeable 

threat to persist and potentially affect 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya. It is a 

potential catalyst of change for other 

threats and is expected to have multiple 

effects in the California Central Coast 

region, including an increase in 

temperature, change in precipitation, 

sea level rise, and increase in fire 

frequency (Langridge 2018, pp. 12–23). 

Fifty years is the evaluation timeframe 

for climate change because the best 

available information presented in the 

current integrated climate assessment 

for the California Central Coast forecast 

uses 2069 as its climate change analysis 

interval (Langridge 2018, pp. 12–23). 

The 50-year period integrates a wide 

amount of interannual variability in 

temperature and rainfall and contains 

typical drought cycles (NOAA NCEI 

2019a, 2019b, 2019c). Sea level rise 

projections are from Griggs et al. 2017 

(pp. 24–27), which is cited by Langridge 

2018 (p. 24) as the latest Californiafocused sea level rise projections; Griggs 

et al. 2017 uses an 80-year timeframe. 

We developed two future scenarios 

that capture the range of plausible 

effects to the species from projected 

changes in the factors influencing its 

viability over a 50-year period. Future 

scenario 1 summarizes effects of RCP 

4.5, and Future Scenario 2 summarizes 

effects of RCP 8.5. The RCPs are 

alternate projections for climate change 

in the California Central Coast region 

based on Langridge (2018, pp. 12–22, 

29–31) and Griggs et al. (2017, p. 27). 

Under future scenario 1 (RCP scenario 

4.5 for climate change), the combination 

of increased temperature and rainfall 

continue over the next 50 years but not 

at levels anticipated to affect current 

levels of recruitment and survivorship. 

Moderate sea level rise could cause 

minor impacts from coastal bluff 

undercutting at the lowest elevation 

sites. Under RCP 4.5, anticipated sea 

level rise is less than 1 m, which is less 

likely to cause damage than the sea level 

rise under RCP 8.5. Negative effects of 

fire frequency on the species are not 

expected to increase, as vegetation 

flammability and ignition sources are 

not projected to increase. Because there 

are few negative effects of climate 

change under RCP 4.5, the population is 

likely to maintain viability, if not 

expand. Overall, under scenario 1, we 

project stability or increases in 

abundance and distribution, which 

suggests resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy would remain similar to the 

current condition for Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. 

Under future scenario 2 (RCP scenario 

8.5 for climate change), temperature and 

rainfall increase, with fewer, more 

intense rain events, with a net result 

that soil moisture decreases over the 

next 50 years. The decreased soil 

moisture affects recruitment and adult 

survival, leading to decreases in 

expansion, and possibly abundance. If 

conditions are severe enough, 

subpopulations could be extirpated. The 

effects of competition with nonnative 

annual grasses will increase with rising 

temperatures and likely affect 

recruitment and expansion of the 

species. The effects of sea level rise 

could be substantial for plants on 

coastal bluffs. Undercutting from surf 

and erosion from episodic rainfall could 

increase the occurrence of landslides, 

eliminating some if not all plants on 

coastal bluffs. Fire frequency and size 

could increase because of warmer 

temperatures, drier vegetation, windier 

conditions, increased lightning strikes, 

and increased visitor use over time due 

to increases in human population. Fires 

could reduce abundance and 

distribution of the species. Overall, 

under scenario 2, we project a decrease 

in abundance and a reduced rate of 

expansion, and potentially the 

extirpation of subpopulations, which 

suggests resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy could decrease for Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya. Given the 

improved habitat conditions for the 

species and apparently stable baseline 

distribution and abundance, we do not 

expect threat levels under either future 

scenario to affect the species at the 

population level. 

Summary of Species Potential Future 

Condition 

Under future scenario 1, maintenance 

of recruitment and survivorship 

continue over the next 50 years. Because 

few negative effects of climate change 

are expected under scenario 1, the 

population is likely to maintain 

viability, if not expand. Overall, 

scenario 1 predicts little or no change in 

abundance and distribution, which 

suggests resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy would remain comparable 

to current levels for Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. Under scenario 2, decreases in 

abundance and reduced geographic 

expansion and potentially extirpation of 

subpopulations could occur, which 

suggests resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy could decrease for Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya. Given the 

improved habitat conditions for the 

species and apparently stable baseline 

distribution and abundance, we do not 

expect threat levels under either future 

scenario to affect the species at the 

population level. 

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya Overall 

Synthesis 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya is 

composed of one population containing 

five subpopulations that occur in a total 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76692 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

occupied area of 13.7 ha (34 acres) in a 

general area of about 200 ha (494 acres) 

(Schneider and Carson 2019, p. 10) on 

the westernmost tip of Santa Cruz 

Island. Over the last 25 years, the 

population has fluctuated between at 

least 40,000 and 200,000 individuals, 

and abundance is currently 

approximately 120,000 individuals. 

Several major threats to Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya identified at the time of 

listing have been removed or are no 

longer occurring. Collecting for 

botanical and horticultural use and 

trampling by humans also no longer 

pose threats to the species due to 

controls on access to the island. 

Nonnative plants continue to occur with 

the species. The risk associated with 

small population size still exists, as 

does concern about climate change and 

fire, but since the 2009 5-year review, 

there is no evidence that these risk 

factors have affected the species. Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya abundance is 

apparently not increasing or decreasing 

in an obvious way, nor is resiliency 

increasing or decreasing. Some amount 

of representation is demonstrated in 

variation in vegetation types and 

elevation where Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya is found. Redundancy is 

inherently low with only one 

population, but that issue may be 

mitigated somewhat by the diversity of 

the locations in which the species 

occurs and the presence of a seed bank, 

and the limited potential and extent of 

wildfire. We do not have specific fire 

data for Santa Cruz Island dudleya. 

While fire could be carried in areas 

where it occurs in dense grass, lower 

elevation areas are so open that fire is 

unlikely to spread there, so there is 

redundancy for the species, even over 

its small geographic range. 

Under future scenario 1 (RCP scenario 

4.5 for climate change), the combination 

of increased temperature and rainfall 

continue over the next 50 years but not 

at levels anticipated to affect current 

levels of recruitment and survivorship. 

Moderate sea level rise could cause 

minor impacts from coastal bluff 

undercutting at the lowest elevation 

sites. The effects of fire on the species 

are not expected to increase. Because 

few negative effects of climate change 

are expected under RCP 4.5, the 

population is likely to maintain 

viability, if not expand. Overall, under 

scenario 1, we project stability or 

increases in abundance and 

distribution, which suggests resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy would 

remain similar to the current condition 

for Santa Cruz Island dudleya. 

Under future scenario 2 (RCP scenario 

8.5 for climate change), temperature and 

rainfall increase, with fewer, more 

intense rain events, with a net result 

that soil moisture decreases (due to 

drought) over the next 50 years. The 

decreased soil moisture affects 

recruitment and adult survival, leading 

to decreases in expansion, and possibly 

abundance. If conditions are severe 

enough, subpopulations could be 

extirpated. The effects of competition 

with nonnative annual grasses will 

increase and likely affect recruitment 

and expansion of the species. The 

effects of sea level rise could be 

substantial for plants on coastal bluffs. 

Undercutting from surf and erosion 

from episodic rainfall could increase the 

occurrence of landslides, eliminating 

some if not all plants on coastal bluffs. 

Fire frequency and size could increase 

because of warmer temperatures, drier 

vegetation, windier conditions, 

increased lightning strikes, and 

increased visitor use over time with 

increases in the human population. 

Fires could reduce abundance and 

distribution of the species. Overall, 

under scenario 2, we project a decrease 

in abundance and a reduced rate of 

expansion, and potentially the 

extirpation of subpopulations, which 

suggests resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy could decrease for Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya. Given the 

improved habitat conditions for the 

species and apparently stable baseline 

distribution and abundance, we do not 

expect threat levels under either future 

scenario to affect the species at the 

population level. 

Cumulative and synergistic 

interactions are possible between the 

effects of climate change and the effects 

of other potential threats, such as small 

population size, fire, and nonnative 

plant invasion. Increases in temperature 

and changes in precipitation are likely 

to cause increases in nonnative grasses, 

which are abundant in Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya habitat. Increased grass 

abundance can possibly more readily 

carry fire, which could affect the 

geographically limited population of 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya. Uncertainty 

about how different plant species will 

respond under climate change, 

combined with uncertainty about how 

changes in plant species composition 

would affect suitability of Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya habitat, make projecting 

possible cumulative and synergistic 

effects of climate change on Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya challenging. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the species. 

To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we evaluate the 

effects of all the relevant factors that 

may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative-effects 

analysis. 

Our post-delisting monitoring plans 

will provide guidelines for evaluating 

both species following delisting to 

detect substantial declines that may lead 

to consideration of re-listing to 

threatened or endangered. Changes in 

land use will still be subject to State and 

Federal environmental review. 

Island Bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

Dudleya Conservation Efforts and 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

State Protections 

Island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya are both listed as State Rare by 

the State of California under the Native 

Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Fish and 

Game Code chapter 10, sections 1900– 

1913) and the California Endangered 

Species Act of 1984 (California Code of 

Regulations, title 14, chapter 6, sections 

783.0–787.9; Fish and Game Code 

chapter 1.5, sections 2050–2115.5) and 

so they receive special considerations 

for their protection by the State of 

California under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for 

California permitted projects on private 

TNC land. The official California listing 

of endangered and threatened species is 

contained in the California Code of 

Regulations, title 14, section 670.5. 

Island bedstraw is listed as 1B.2 by 

the California Native Plant Society 

(CNPS), meaning it is considered rare, 

threatened, or endangered in California 

or elsewhere and moderately threatened 

in California. Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

is listed as 1B.1 by the CNPS, meaning 

it is considered rare, threatened, or 

endangered in California or elsewhere 

and seriously threatened in California. 

A cooperative relationship exists 

between the California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (CFDW)—California 

Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 

(the State) and CNPS. The ‘‘threatened’’ 

category means two different things in 

the CNPS rankings. The first 

‘‘threatened category’’ (‘‘considered rare, 

threatened, or endangered in California 

or elsewhere’’) refers to a government 

agency (e.g., Service, CDFW) or 

nongovernmental organization (e.g., 

CNPS, NatureServe) having formally 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76693 

declared a plant in some sense to be 

rare, threatened, or endangered. The 

second threatened category 

(‘‘moderately threatened in California’’ 

for island bedstraw and ‘‘seriously 

threatened in California’’ for Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya) are estimates at the time 

of listing (by CNPS or CDFW) about the 

degree to which the species is under 

threat (in the sense that something 

might harm the species). CNPS and 

CDFW have different ranking systems 

for rare plants but work together on 

them. Because of the efforts of the 

CNDDB program and CNPS to bring 

attention to rare plants through these 

parallel ranking systems, these plants 

receive some attention via the CEQA 

and the National Environmental Policy 

Act (CNDDB and CNPS, 2020, entire). 

Federal and Federal Partner Protections 

We evaluated whether any existing 

regulatory mechanisms or other 

voluntary conservation efforts may have 

ameliorated any of the threats acting on 

island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. All of the land on which both 

species occur is managed by TNC or 

NPS for conservation of unique island 

species and habitats. The most 

significant single action has been the 

elimination of feral ungulates and feral 

pigs by TNC and NPS, as discussed 

above. The elimination of feral 

ungulates and feral pigs has eliminated 

the major sources of soil loss, habitat 

alteration, and herbivory affecting the 

species. This effort has resulted in 

passive restoration of the vegetation. It 

is likely that the positive effects of the 

feral ungulate and feral pig removal will 

continue into the future. 

Determination of Status for Island 

Bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

Dudleya 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

a species that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The Act 

requires that we determine whether a 

species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

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 

Island Bedstraw 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we have found that the 

major threats to island bedstraw at the 

time of listing, feral livestock grazing 

(Factor A), trampling (Factor A), and the 

resulting erosion (Factor A), have either 

been removed or have been minimized. 

The threats of risk from small 

population size (Factor E) and loss of 

habitat to nonnative invasive plants 

(Factor A) identified in the 2009 5-year 

review have also been minimized. 

At the time of listing, there were 19 

known sites of island bedstraw, 13 on 

Santa Cruz Island and 6 on San Miguel 

Island. Currently, the number of sites 

known or presumed to be extant has 

grown to 33 on Santa Cruz Island and 

continues at 6 on San Miguel Island. 

The total estimated number of known 

individuals within those sites on both 

islands combined has increased from 

512–603 before listing to at least 15,730. 

Currently, island bedstraw is increasing 

in abundance and distribution. It has 

shown demographic capacity for 

population growth and adaptive 

capacity by expansion beyond 

historically occupied areas into more 

diverse habitats (e.g., from cliff faces to 

terraces above the cliffs and movement 

into nonnative-dominated vegetation), 

indicating increasing resiliency, 

representation, and generally overall 

adaptive capacity. The species also 

shows the ability to withstand 

catastrophic events because it is 

distributed on two islands, has more 

sites now than at the time of listing, and 

has gaps between groups of sites within 

islands. A single island catastrophe 

would be unlikely to affect all sites at 

once. 

Although climate change (Factor E) 

has had no apparent effects since the 

2009 5-year review, the potentially 

negative effects of climate change 

remain and may still impact the species, 

but such impacts are not currently 

causing the species to be in danger of 

extinction. The best available 

information indicates that 

overutilization (Factor B), disease 

(Factor C), predation (herbivory) (Factor 

C), and the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are 

not currently affecting the species 

throughout its range. The existing 

regulatory mechanisms will remain in 

place to ensure the continued 

persistence of island bedstraw 

occurrences and suitable potential 

habitat even when the species is 

delisted and protections under the Act 

are removed. 

All of the occurrences of island 

bedstraw are on Federal and private 

lands that are protected and managed 

for conservation by the NPS and TNC. 

Both NPS and TNC have natural 

resource conservation as part of their 

mission. For example, the mission of 

TNC is to conserve the lands and waters 

on which all life depends. The TNC 

vision is a world where the diversity of 

life thrives and people act to conserve 

nature for its own sake and its ability to 

fulfill our needs and enrich lives. The 

NPS preserves unimpaired the natural 

and cultural resources and values of the 

NPS System for the enjoyment, 

education, and inspiration of this and 

future generations. The NPS cooperates 

with partners to extend the benefits of 

natural and cultural resource 

conservation and outdoor recreation 

throughout this country and the world. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that island 

bedstraw is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

and, therefore, does not meet the 

definition of an endangered species. 

In order to assess whether the species 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future, 

we evaluated any remaining future 

threats. The major remaining potential 

threat influencing island bedstraw 

viability in the future is climate change. 

Future climate change is expected to 

have multiple effects in the California 

Central Coast region, including 

increases in temperatures, changes in 

precipitation, sea level rise, and 

increases in fire frequency (Langridge 

2018, pp. 12–23). Fifty years is the 

evaluation timeframe for climate change 

because the best available information 

presented in the current integrated 

climate assessment for the California 

Central Coast forecast uses 2069 as its 

climate change analysis interval 

(Langridge 2018, pp. 12–23). The 50- 

year period integrates a wide amount of 

interannual variability in temperature 

and rainfall and contains typical 

drought cycles (NOAA NCEI 2019a, 

2019b, 2019c). Sea level rise projections 

are from Griggs et al. 2017 (pp. 24–27), 

which is cited by Langridge 2018 (p. 24) 

as the latest California-focused sea level 

rise projections; Griggs et al. 2017 uses 

an 80-year timeframe. 

We developed two future scenarios 

that capture the range of plausible 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76694 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

effects to the species from projected 

changes in factors influencing viability 

over a 50-year period. Future scenario 1 

summarizes effects of RCP 4.5, and 

future scenario 2 summarizes effects of 

RCP 8.5 projections for climate change 

in the California Central Coast Region 

based on Langridge (2018, entire). 

Under future scenario 1, changes in 

abundance and distribution of island 

bedstraw continue on their current 

positive trajectory, with increasing 

numbers and site expansion. Under 

future scenario 2, some sites may 

decline and possibly become extirpated. 

Decreased soil moisture and drought are 

likely to negatively affect the species 

because recruitment, survivorship, and 

the rate of expansion would be lower. 

Increased erosion and fire would also 

negatively affect island bedstraw by 

killing individuals and reducing habitat. 

Negative impacts to individuals may 

occur under RCP 8.5 but given the 

current improvement in habitat and 

increases in distribution and 

abundance, we do not think that the 

impacts will rise to a population level 

such that the species is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

throughout its range. Therefore, the 

currently predicted changes in climate 

do not indicate that the species may 

become endangered due to those 

changes in the foreseeable future 

throughout its range. Thus, after 

assessing the best available information, 

we conclude that island bedstraw is not 

currently in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

Santa Cruz Island Dudleya 

Through this final rule, we have 

assessed the section 4(a)(1) factors by 

evaluating the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. We have found that the major 

threats to Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

identified at the time of listing have 

either been removed or have been 

minimized, due to the removal of feral 

pigs from Santa Cruz Island by NPS and 

TNC. Those prior threats included soil 

loss (Factor A), herbivory by feral pigs 

(Factor A), and disturbance by pig 

rooting (Factor A). The threats of 

collecting for botanical and horticultural 

use (Factor B) and trampling by humans 

(Factor A) also have been reduced by 

conservation and protection measures 

implemented by TNC and no longer 

appear to pose threats to the species. At 

the time of listing, nonnative plants 

(Factor A) as a whole were considered 

a threat to island native plant species in 

general, though there have been no 

recent studies of the effects of 

individual nonnative species or of the 

shifting composition of nonnatives on 

the persistence of Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. However, nonnative plants are 

not considered to be a concern as they 

were at the time of listing because the 

species is stable. 

The threats presented by the risk of 

small population size (Factor E), climate 

change (Factor E), and fire (Factor E) 

still exist, but since the 2009 5-year 

review there is no evidence that these 

threats have affected Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya. We determined that disease 

(Factor C), predation (herbivory) (Factor 

C), and the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are 

not currently affecting Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya throughout its range. The 

existing regulatory mechanisms in place 

ensure the continued persistence of 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya occurrences 

and suitable potential habitat even 

when the species is delisted and 

protections under the Act are removed; 

the single population is on private land 

and is protected and managed for 

conservation by TNC. Thus, after 

assessing the best available information, 

we conclude that Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

and, therefore, does not meet the 

definition of an endangered species. 

In order to assess whether the species 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future, 

we evaluated any remaining future 

threats. Similar to island bedstraw, as 

discussed above, the major remaining 

potential factor influencing Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya viability in the future is 

climate change. Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya occurs with nonnative plants 

(Factor A), which are still considered a 

threat, though there have been no 

comprehensive studies that project the 

future effects of individual nonnative 

species or of the shifting composition of 

nonnatives on the persistence of Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya. However, 

nonnative plants are not considered to 

be a concern as they were at the time of 

listing because the species is projected 

to be either increasing or stable in the 

future. 

The threats presented by the risk of 

small population size (Factor E), climate 

change (Factor E), and fire (Factor E) 

may continue into the future, but since 

the 2009 5-year review, there is no 

evidence that these threats have 

significantly affected Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya, and we do not think this 

situation will change in the foreseeable 

future. Negative impacts to individuals 

may occur under climate change RCP 

8.5, but given the improvement in 

habitat conditions and apparent 

baseline population stability, we find 

that the impacts will not likely rise to 

a population level such that the species 

would be likely to become endangered 

in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the 

currently predicted changes in climate 

do not indicate that the species may 

become endangered due to those 

changes in the foreseeable future. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya is not currently in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Their Ranges 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Having determined 

that island bedstraw and Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya are not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range, we now consider whether these 

species may be in danger of extinction 

(i.e., endangered) or likely to become so 

in the foreseeable future (i.e., 

threatened) in a significant portion of 

their ranges—that is, whether there is 

any portion of these species’ ranges for 

which both (1) the portion is significant; 

and, (2) the species is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

In undertaking this analysis for island 

bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya, we choose to address the status 

question first. We began by identifying 

portions of their range where the 

biological status of these species may be 

different from their biological status 

elsewhere in their ranges. For this 

purpose, we consider information 

pertaining to the geographic distribution 

of (a) individuals of these species, (b) 

the threats that these species face, and 

(c) the resiliency condition of 

populations. 

We evaluated the range of the island 

bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya 

to determine if either species is in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76695 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

any portion of their ranges. The range of 

a species can theoretically be divided 

into portions in an infinite number of 

ways. We focused our analysis on the 

portions of these species’ ranges that 

may meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. 

For island bedstraw, we considered 

whether the threats or their effects on 

the species are greater in any 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

species’ range than in other portions 

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 threats to determine if 

they are geographically concentrated in 

any portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. Island 

bedstraw consists of 33 sites on Santa 

Cruz Island and 6 sites on San Miguel 

Island where each site is treated as a 

separate population. The total estimated 

number of known individuals is at least 

15,730 after recent helicopter surveys 

occurred in a general area of about 6,000 

ha (15,000 acres), although the total 

occupied area within that general area is 

much less (has not been estimated). We 

examined the following threats to island 

bedstraw: feral livestock grazing, 

trampling, erosion, small population 

size, and climate change including 

cumulative effects. 

We found that the major threats to 

island bedstraw at the time of listing, 

feral livestock grazing, trampling, and 

resulting erosion, have largely been 

eliminated on both Santa Cruz and San 

Miguel Islands. The elimination of these 

threats also minimized the threats of 

small population size and nonnative 

vegetation on both islands. The major 

remaining potential factor influencing 

island bedstraw population viability is 

climate change. Our current analysis 

does not show that the species is 

experiencing any significant effects from 

changing climate conditions in any of 

the populations on either island, or that 

the species will do so in the foreseeable 

future. 

We found no biologically meaningful 

portion of island bedstraw’s range 

where the condition of the species 

differs from its condition elsewhere in 

its range such that the status of the 

species in that portion differs from any 

other portion of the species’ range. 

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. U.S. 

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 3758, July 1, 2014), 

including the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

that those court decisions held to be 

invalid. 

For Santa Cruz Island dudleya, we 

considered whether the threats or their 

effects on the species are greater in any 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

species’ range than in other portions 

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 threats to determine if 

they are geographically concentrated in 

any portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya occurs in a general 

area of about 200 ha (494 acres), 

although the total occupied area within 

that general area is about 13.7 ha (34 

acres) (Schneider and Carson 2019 p. 

10). The area can be divided into five 

subpopulations, each within 400 m of 

another, that function as a single, 

contiguous population. Therefore, 

according to the definition of the 

California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB 2018 p. 3), these sites comprise 

a single occurrence. Previous work on 

gene flow in a population of another 

member of the subgenus Hasseanthus, 

Dudleya multicaulis (Marchant et al. 

1998, pp. 217–219), that is similarly 

dispersed, suggests that all Santa Cruz 

Island dudleya subpopulations probably 

comprise a single mixing population. 

Thus, due to being a narrow endemic 

that functions as a single, contiguous 

population and occurs within a very 

small area, there is no biologically 

meaningful way to break the limited 

range of Santa Cruz Island dudleya into 

notable portions, and the threats that the 

species faces affect the species 

throughout its entire range. As a result, 

we found no biologically meaningful 

portion of the Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya’s range where the condition of 

the species differs from its condition 

elsewhere in its range such that the 

status of the species in that portion 

differs from 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 the species’ 

range. This does not conflict with the 

courts’ holdings in Desert Survivors v. 

U.S. 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 scientific and 

commercial data available indicates that 

island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya do not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with 

our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2) 

currently in effect, island bedstraw and 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya do not meet 

the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species. Therefore, we are 

removing island bedstraw and Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. 

Effects of This Rule 

This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) 

by removing island bedstraw and Santa 

Cruz Island dudleya from the Federal 

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, will no longer apply to these species. 

Federal agencies will no longer be 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out may affect island bedstraw and 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya. There is no 

critical habitat designated for these 

species, so there will be 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 monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been delisted due to recovery. Postdelisting 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 is not again 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76696 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

needed. If at any time during the 

monitoring period data indicate that 

protective status under the Act should 

be reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. 

We are delisting island bedstraw and 

Santa Cruz Island dudleya based on our 

analysis in the SSA report, expert 

opinions, and conservation and 

recovery actions taken. Since delisting 

would be, in part, due to conservation 

actions taken by stakeholders, we have 

prepared PDM plans for island bedstraw 

and Santa Cruz Island dudleya. The 

PDM plans: (1) Summarize the status of 

island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island 

dudleya at the time of proposed 

delisting; (2) describe frequency and 

duration of monitoring; (3) discuss 

monitoring methods and potential 

sampling regimes; (4) define what 

potential triggers will be evaluated to 

address the need for additional 

monitoring; (5) outline reporting 

requirements and procedures; (6) 

establish a schedule for implementing 

the PDM plans; and (7) define 

responsibilities. It is our intent to work 

with our partners towards maintaining 

the recovered status of island bedstraw 

and Santa Cruz Island dudleya. With the 

publication of the proposed rule, we 

sought public and peer reviewer 

comments on the draft PDM plans, 

including their objectives and 

procedures, and have incorporated these 

comments as appropriate into the final 

PDM plans, which will be posted to 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2022–0066 and 

are available as indicated above in 

ADDRESSES. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

determining a species’ listing status 

under the Endangered Species Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal–Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

No Tribal lands are associated with this 

final rule, and we did not receive any 

comments from any Tribes or Tribal 

members on the proposed rule (87 FR 

73722, December 1, 2022). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Ventura Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby 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 

■ 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. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 17.12, amend paragraph (h) in 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants by removing the entries for 

‘‘Dudleya nesiotica’’ and ‘‘Galium 

buxifolium’’ under Flowering Plants. 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23937 Filed 11–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 231101–0256] 

RIN 0648–BM12 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 

Amendment 52 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to 

implement Amendment 52 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic (FMP), as submitted by the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (the Council). For golden 

tilefish, this final rule revises the annual 

catch limits (ACLs), commercial 

longline component fishing season, and 

recreational accountability measures 

(AMs). For blueline tilefish, this final 

rule reduces the recreational bag limit, 

modifies the possession limits, and 

revises the recreational AMs. In 

addition, Amendment 52 updates the 

acceptable biological catch (ABC), 

overfishing limit (OFL), and annual 

optimum yield (OY). The purpose of 

this final rule and Amendment 52 is to 

respond to the most recent stock 

assessment for golden tilefish, and to 

prevent recreational landings from 

exceeding the recreational ACLs for 

golden tilefish and blueline tilefish. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 7, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of 

Amendment 52, which includes a 

fishery impact statement and a 

regulatory impact review, may be 

obtained from the Southeast Regional 

Office website at https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/action/amendment-52- 

changes-catch-levels-allocationsaccountability-measures-andmanagement. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES