[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76679-76696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23937]


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

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, 
post-delisting monitoring plans, and the species status assessment 
(SSA) reports for island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya, are 
available at https://ecos.fws.gov, 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-of-contact 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

[[Page 76680]]

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).

[[Page 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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07NO23.000

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

[[Page 76682]]

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):
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Downlisting Criterion 5: Life-history research conducted.
    Status of achieving recovery criterion: Research over a 10-year 
period on the life history of the species, particularly flower biology 
and demography, has shown recruitment episodes and documented 
transitions through life-history stages. We conclude that this 
criterion has been met.
    <bullet> Downlisting Criterion 6: Surveys of historical locations 
conducted.

[[Page 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.
    <bullet> 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):
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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):
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 76684]]

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 species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The island bedstraw and Santa Cruz Island dudleya SSA reports 
document the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best 
scientific and commercial data regarding the status of 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 76686]]

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.

[[Page 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 California-
focused sea level rise projections; Griggs et al. 2017 uses an 80-year 
timeframe.
    We developed two future scenarios that capture the range of 
plausible effects to the species from a projected change in the factors 
influencing its viability over a 50-year period.
    Future scenario 1 summarizes effects of representative 
concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5, and future scenario 2 summarizes 
effects of 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

[[Page 76688]]

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

[[Page 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 human-caused 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.

[[Page 76690]]

    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 human-caused 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

[[Page 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 California-
focused sea level rise projections; Griggs et al. 2017 uses an 80-year 
timeframe.
    We developed two future scenarios that capture the range of 
plausible effects to the species from projected changes in the factors 
influencing its viability over a 50-year period. Future scenario 1 
summarizes effects of 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

[[Page 76692]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 76694]]

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

[[Page 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. Post-delisting 
monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a 
species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of 
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The 
primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status 
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to 
halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is 
not again

[[Page 76696]]

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

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

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


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  17.12, 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