Rule2021-16818
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Trifolium Stoloniferum (Running Buffalo Clover) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 6, 2021
Effective
September 7, 2021
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing Trifolium stoloniferum (running buffalo clover) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants on the basis of recovery. This determination is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data, including comments received, which indicate that the threats to running buffalo clover have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 149 (Friday, August 6, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 149 (Friday, August 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43102-43117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16818]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212]
RIN 1018-BC80
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Trifolium
Stoloniferum (Running Buffalo Clover) From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
Trifolium stoloniferum (running buffalo clover) from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants on the basis of recovery. This
determination is based on a thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial data, including comments received, which
indicate that the threats to running buffalo clover have been
eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
DATES: This rule is effective September 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, the post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan,
supporting documents, and the public comments received on the proposed
rule are available on the internet at
[[Page 43103]]
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrice Ashfield, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio Ecological Services Field Office,
4625 Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230; telephone 614-416-8993.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may be
removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
(List) if it is determined that the species has recovered and no longer
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species. Removing a
species from the List can be completed only by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This rule removes the running buffalo
clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) from the List in title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.12(h)) based on its recovery.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we determine that a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species based on 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. We must consider the same factors
when removing a species from the List (i.e., ``delisting'' a species).
We may delist a species if we find, after conducting a status review
based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that: (1)
The species is extinct; (2) the species does not meet the definition of
an endangered species or a threatened species (e.g., because it has
recovered); or (3) the listed entity does not meet the statutory
definition of a species (50 CFR 424.11(e)). We have determined that the
running buffalo clover is not in danger of extinction now nor likely to
become so in the foreseeable future based on a comprehensive review of
its status and listing factors. Accordingly, we have determined that
the species may be delisted based on recovery as a result of: (1) An
increase in the number of known populations; (2) resiliency to existing
and potential threats; (3) the implementation of management agreements
to maintain suitable habitat for the species; and (4) protection on
public lands.
Peer review and public comment. We evaluated the species' needs,
current conditions, and future conditions to prepare our August 27,
2019, proposed rule (84 FR 44832). We sought and evaluated comments
from independent specialists to ensure that our determination is based
on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We also
invited these peer reviewers to comment on the draft PDM plan. We
considered all comments and information we received during the public
comment period on the proposed delisting rule and the draft PDM plan
when developing this final rule.
Previous Federal Actions
We published a final rule listing running buffalo clover as an
endangered species under the Act on June 5, 1987 (52 FR 21478). The
Running Buffalo Clover Recovery Plan (Service 1989) was approved on
June 8, 1989, and revised in 2007 (72 FR 35253, June 27, 2007).
Running buffalo clover was included in a cursory 5-year review of
all species listed before January 1, 1991 (56 FR 56882, November 6,
1991). The 5-year review did not result in a recommendation to change
the species' listing status. We completed comprehensive 5-year reviews
of the status of running buffalo clover in 2008, 2011, and 2017
(Service 2008, 2011, 2017). These reviews recommended reclassification
from endangered to threatened status, based on achievement of the
recovery criteria at that time.
On August 27, 2019, we proposed to delist the running buffalo
clover due to recovery (84 FR 44832). In that document, we requested
information and comments from the public and peer reviewers regarding
the proposed rule and the draft PDM plan for running buffalo clover.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered all
comments we received during the comment period from the peer reviewers,
States, and public on the proposed rule to delist running buffalo
clover (84 FR 44832, August 27, 2019). As a result, we incorporated new
information into Distribution, Habitat, and Biology under Background in
this final rule. We also updated the number of populations with
management agreements that meet delisting criterion 3 and reassessed
the species' status in light of that modification.
Background
The following discussion contains updates to the information that
was presented in the proposed rule to remove running buffalo clover
from the List. A thorough discussion of the species' description,
habitat, and life history is also found in the proposed rule.
Taxonomy and Species Description
Running buffalo clover is a member of the Fabaceae (pea) family.
This short-lived perennial forms long runners (stolons) from its base
and produces erect flowering stems, 10-30 centimeters (cm) (4-12 inches
(in)) tall. The flower heads are round and large, 9-12 millimeters (mm)
(0.3-0.5 in). Flowers are white, tinged with purple.
Distribution
The known historical distribution of running buffalo clover
includes Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio,
and West Virginia (Brooks 1983, pp. 346, 349). There were very few
reports rangewide between 1910 and 1983. Prior to 1983, the most recent
collection had been made in 1940, in Webster County, West Virginia
(Brooks 1983, p. 349). The species was thought extinct until it was
rediscovered in 1983, in West Virginia (Bartgis 1985, p. 426). At the
time of listing in 1987, only one population was known to exist, but
soon afterward, several additional populations were found in Indiana,
Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Populations were rediscovered in the
wild in Missouri in 1994 (Hickey 1994, p. 1). A single population was
discovered in Pennsylvania in 2017 (Grund 2017) with additional
populations discovered since then.
One hundred seventy-five extant populations of running buffalo
clover are known from three ecoregions, as described by Bailey (1998):
Hot Continental, Hot Continental Mountainous, and Prairie. These
include 15 occurrences in Ohio and Pennsylvania that have either been
discovered or of which we have been notified since publication of the
proposed delisting rule. For recovery purposes, the populations are
divided into three regions based on proximity to each other and overall
habitat similarities. These regions are Appalachian (West Virginia,
southeastern Ohio, and Pennsylvania), Bluegrass (southwestern Ohio,
central Kentucky, and Indiana), and Ozark (Missouri). The majority of
populations occur within the Appalachian and Bluegrass regions.
[[Page 43104]]
Habitat
Running buffalo clover typically occurs in mesic (moist) habitats
with partial to filtered sunlight and a prolonged pattern of moderate,
periodic disturbance, such as grazing, mowing, trampling, selective
logging, or flood-scouring. Populations have been reported from a
variety of habitats, including mesic woodlands, savannahs, floodplains,
stream banks, sandbars (especially where old trails cross or parallel
intermittent streams), grazed woodlots, mowed paths (e.g., in
cemeteries, parks, and lawns), old logging roads, jeep trails, all-
terrain vehicle trails, skid trails, mowed wildlife openings within
mature forest, and steep ravines. Running buffalo clover occurs in a
wide range of soil types, with calcium often the dominant base in the
soil (Hattenbach 1996, p. 53). Running buffalo clover is often found in
regions with limestone or other calcareous bedrock underlying the site,
although limestone soil is not a requisite determining factor for the
locations of populations of this species. For example, new populations
of running buffalo clover have been discovered in West Virginia in
areas with soil derived from new geological units (WVDNR 2019, in
litt.).
Sites that have not been disturbed within the last 20 years are
unlikely to support running buffalo clover (Burkhart 2013, p. 158)
because the species relies on periodic disturbances to set back
succession and open the tree canopy to create and maintain the partial
to filtered sunlight it requires. These disturbances can be natural
(for example, tree falls and flood scouring) or anthropogenic (such as
grazing, mowing, trampling, low-intensity disturbance from counting and
monitoring, or selective logging) in origin. Although tree harvest
disturbances that reduce canopy cover may cause a temporary decline in
running buffalo clover, populations usually increase 2 years later
(Madarish and Schuler 2002, p. 127) and reach their highest density 14
years after disturbance (Burkhart 2013, p. 159). However, a complete
loss of forest canopy can be detrimental to running buffalo clover by
allowing in too much sunlight and altering the microclimate.
Biology
Substantial variability in the growth and development of running
buffalo clover has been documented, but the plant structure usually
includes rooted crowns (rosettes that are rooted into the ground) and
stolons (above-ground creeping stems) that connect several rooted or
unrooted crowns, which eventually separate to leave ``daughter''
plants. Because of this stoloniferous growth form, individual plants
can be difficult to distinguish. The Running Buffalo Clover Recovery
Plan defines an individual plant as a rooted crown (Service 2007, p.
1). Rooted crowns may occur alone or be connected to other rooted
crowns by runners.
Flowering typically occurs between mid-May and June. However,
plants at higher elevations in the mountains of West Virginia may bloom
as late as mid-July (WVDNR 2019, in litt.). Flowers are visited by a
variety of bee species (Apis spp. and Bombus spp.) and are cross-
pollinated under field conditions (Taylor et al. 1994, p. 1,099).
Running buffalo clover is also self-compatible (capable of pollinating
itself); however, it requires a pollinator to transfer the pollen from
the anthers to the stigma (Franklin 1998, p. 29). Although it may set
fewer seeds by self-pollination than by outcrossing, the selfed seed
set may be adequate to maintain the species in the wild (Taylor et al.
1994, p. 1,097). Selfed seeds have been shown to germinate well and
develop into vigorous plants (Franklin 1998, p. 39).
Seeds typically germinate during early spring (mid-March to early
April) when temperatures are between 15 and 20 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)
(59-68 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) during the day and 5 to 10 [deg]C
(41-50 [deg]F) at night. Spring temperature fluctuations appear to be a
major dormancy breaker in natural populations of running buffalo clover
(Baskin 2004).
Scarification may aid in seed germination and seed dispersal.
Scarification of seeds by the digestive system of herbivores,
historically believed to be bison, deer, elk, or small herbivores such
as rabbits or groundhogs, was likely an important process in natural
populations (Thurman 1988, p. 4; Cusick 1989, pp. 475-476). Although
deer are viable vectors for running buffalo clover seeds, the survival
and germination rates of ingested seeds are low (Ford et al. 2003, pp.
426-427). Dispersal and establishment of new populations of running
buffalo clover by white-tailed deer herbivory may not be significant
(Ford et al. 2003, pp. 426-427). It appears that scarification
accelerates the germination process, whereas natural germination may
occur over time if the right temperature fluctuations occur (Service
2007, p. 9).
Genetics
Running buffalo clover has relatively low levels of diversity and
low levels of gene flow between populations, even between those
separated by short distances (Hickey and Vincent 1992, p. 15). Much of
the genetic diversity observed in running buffalo clover occurs across
different populations, and small populations of running buffalo clover
contribute as much to the total species' genetic diversity as large
populations (Crawford et al. 1998, p. 88).
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. 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 this section [section 4 of the Act], that the species
be removed from the list.''
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and the
species is robust enough to delist. In other cases, recovery
opportunities may be discovered that were not known when the recovery
plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods
identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species
may be learned that was not known at the time the recovery plan was
finalized. The new information may change the extent to which existing
criteria are appropriate for recognizing
[[Page 43105]]
recovery of the species. 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 revised recovery plan for running buffalo clover (Service 2007,
p. 24) states that the ultimate goal of the recovery program is to
delist running buffalo clover. The plan provides three criteria for
reclassifying running buffalo clover from endangered to threatened
status (i.e., to ``downlist'' the species) and three criteria for
delisting running buffalo clover. All of the downlisting criteria have
been met since 2008 (Service 2008, pp. 3-4; Service 2011, pp. 3-4;
Service 2017, pp. 3-5). The following discussion provides an assessment
of the delisting criteria as they relate to evaluating the status of
this species.
Criterion 1 for Delisting
Criterion 1 states that 34 populations, in total, are distributed
as follows: 2 A-ranked, 6 B-ranked, 6 C-ranked, and 20 D-ranked
populations across at least 2 of the 3 regions in which running buffalo
clover occurs (Appalachian, Bluegrass, and Ozark). The number of
populations in each rank is based on what would be required to achieve
a 95 percent probability of persistence within the next 20 years; this
number was doubled to ensure biological redundancy across the range of
the species. Rankings refer to the element occurrence (E.O.) ranking
categories.
E.O. rankings, which integrate population size and habitat
integrity, are explained in detail in the recovery plan (Service 2007,
pp. 2-3). In summary, A-ranked populations are those with 1,000 or more
naturally occurring rooted crowns; B-ranked populations have between
100 and 999 naturally occurring rooted crowns; C-ranked populations
have between 30 and 99 naturally occurring rooted crowns; and D-ranked
populations have between 1 and 29 naturally occurring rooted crowns.
Populations are currently distributed as follows: 18 A-ranked, 47
B-ranked, 40 C-ranked, and 70 D-ranked, and they occur in all three
regions across the range of the species. Thus, we conclude that this
criterion has been substantially exceeded.
Criterion 2 for Delisting
Criterion 2 states that for each A-ranked and B-ranked population
described in criterion 1, population viability analysis (PVA) indicates
95 percent probability of persistence within the next 20 years, or for
any population that does not meet the 95 percent persistence standard,
the population meets the definition of viable. For delisting purposes,
viability is defined as: Seed production is occurring; the population
is stable or increasing, based on at least 10 years of censusing; and
appropriate management techniques are in place.
Seven A-ranked and 14 B-ranked populations are considered viable,
based on a PVA or 10 years of data. Thus, we conclude that this
criterion has been exceeded.
Criterion 3 for Delisting
Delisting criterion 3 states that the land on which each of the 34
populations described in delisting criterion 1 occurs is owned by a
government agency or private conservation organization that identifies
maintenance of the species as one of the primary conservation
objectives for the site, or the population is protected by a
conservation agreement that commits the private landowner to habitat
management for the species.
This criterion was intended to ensure that habitat-based threats
for the species are addressed. At the time of listing, the Service
determined that without regular management, suitable habitat for this
species would be quickly lost through the process of forest succession.
The revised recovery plan identified the most critical biological
constraint and need for the recovery of running buffalo clover as its
dependence on disturbance to maintain filtered sunlight (Service 2007,
p. 22). This requirement informed the recovery strategy of active
management to remove competing vegetation and selectively remove trees
to prevent overshading. Key to this recovery strategy was the
protection and ecological management of various-sized populations
throughout the species' geographic range. Small populations (C- and D-
ranked populations) were included because they contribute as much as
large populations to the overall level of the species' genetic
diversity, which is important for survival of the species as a whole.
Currently, 22 populations meet this criterion, as follows: 2 A-
ranked, 10 B-ranked, 6 C-ranked, and 4 D-ranked. There are 4 more B-
ranked populations than required. Although these additional higher
ranked populations can count for lower ranked populations, this
criterion has still not been fully met. However, 66 additional
populations occur on publicly owned lands, such as national forests,
State lands, and local parks, thereby minimizing threats from habitat
loss and degradation.
The forest management plans for both the Monongahela and Wayne
national forests include direction and guidelines to avoid and minimize
impacts of forestry practices on running buffalo clover. These forestry
management practices, as conditioned through running buffalo clover
measures included in their respective forest plans, are compatible with
running buffalo clover conservation. The forest plans include forest-
wide standards and guidelines; compliance with standards is mandatory.
The Wayne National Forest plan's standards for running buffalo
clover require measures to protect populations during prescribed fire
activities, avoid mechanical construction of firelines in known
occupied habitat, and protect populations during road and trail
construction, and a forest-wide guideline restricts application of
herbicides within 25 feet of known running buffalo clover populations
(U.S. Forest Service 2006, p. 2-22). In addition, the Wayne National
Forest signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Service and the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources in 2021 to ensure the protection
and management of running buffalo clover by maintaining the appropriate
level of disturbance, controlling invasive species, and ensuring the
appropriate level of sunlight where running buffalo clover is found on
the national forest.
The Monongahela National Forest plan includes standards to avoid
conducting prescribed burns, constructing fuel breaks, and implementing
activities, such as construction of new roads or ditching for
pipelines, in running buffalo clover areas. Guidelines include
implementing habitat management measures to maintain and restore
running buffalo clover populations, timing maintenance mowing to
benefit running buffalo clover, avoiding use of potentially invasive
species for seeding/mulching, and monitoring the effects of grazing on
running buffalo clover (U.S. Forest Service 2011, pp. II-27-II-28).
Thus, although this criterion is not met in the manner specifically
identified in the recovery plan, we conclude that the intent of the
criterion to ensure that sufficient populations were protected from
threats into the future has been met.
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an
[[Page 43106]]
endangered species as a species that is ``in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and a
threatened species as a species that is ``likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species.
According to 50 CFR 424.11(e), we shall delist a species if the best
scientific and commercial data available indicate that: (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 statutory definition of a species.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
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 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.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this section, we review the biological condition of the species
and its resources, and the influences to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Habitat Destruction and Succession
The revised recovery plan for running buffalo clover (Service 2007,
p. 14) identified the major threats to this species throughout its
range as habitat destruction, habitat succession, and invasive plant
competition (Factor A). Land development and the consequential loss of
habitat can also be a threat to running buffalo clover. Natural
succession from open to dense canopy in forests within the range of
running buffalo clover occurs over a 30- to 40-year time span,
depending on the dominant species and aspect of the site. Because the
species relies on periodic disturbances to set back succession and/or
open the tree canopy to create and maintain the partial to filtered
sunlight it requires, activities that interfere with natural
disturbance processes can negatively affect populations of running
buffalo clover. Conversely, activities that periodically set back
natural succession can benefit the species.
Current logging practices may benefit running buffalo clover. At
the Fernow Experimental Forest in north-central West Virginia, running
buffalo clover is most often associated with skid roads in uneven-aged
silvicultural areas (Madarish and Schuler 2002, p. 121). Populations
may initially decrease after logging, but then rebound to higher than
pre-disturbance levels (Madarish and Schuler 2002, p. 127).
Depending on the circumstances, it appears that both overgrazing
and no grazing at all can be threats to running buffalo clover. In
Kentucky, overgrazing poses threats to running buffalo clover, but
removal of cattle from clover populations has resulted in overshading
and competition from other vegetation (White et al. 1999, p. 10).
Periodic grazing at the Bluegrass Army Depot has provided the moderate
disturbance needed to maintain running buffalo clover (Fields and White
1996, p. 14).
Nonnative species, such as bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and white
clover (Trifolium repens), compete with running buffalo clover for
available resources (Jacobs and Bartgis 1987, p. 441). Other nonnative
species that affect running buffalo clover include Japanese stiltgrass,
garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), and multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora). Threats by invasive competition can be mediated by
treating the invasive plants by hand removal, herbicide application,
and/or mowing. Although nonnative species are widespread across the
range of running buffalo clover, not all running buffalo clover sites
are affected by invasive species. For example, 14 of the 31 sites (45
percent) in Ohio have one or more nonnative species present at varying
densities, and 8 of those sites are managed for invasive species
control.
[[Page 43107]]
The habitat needs of running buffalo clover on Federal, State, and
locally owned lands are often included in plans or agreements for those
lands (Factor D). The Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (U.S. Forest Service 2011, pp. II-27-II-28) and Wayne
National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (U.S. Forest
Service 2006, pp. 2-22, D-16) both include habitat management and
protection measures for running buffalo clover, as does the Wayne
National Forest's recently signed memorandum of understanding. The
Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky protects and manages running buffalo
clover under an Endangered Species Management Plan (Floyd 2006, pp. 30-
37), included as part of their Integrated Natural Resource Management
Plan, and all running buffalo clover populations at the Army Depot are
covered by these management actions (Littlefield 2017). A memorandum of
understanding between the Ohio Historical Society, Ohio Division of
Natural Areas and Preserves, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
provides for running buffalo clover habitat protection and management.
These plans and agreements also provide for education and outreach
efforts and surveying and monitoring for running buffalo clover. Some
of these agreements automatically renew at the end of their 5-year
period while others have the option to renew. The agreement with the
Ohio Historical Society does not have an expiration date. We expect
that these plans and agreements will remain in place and habitat
management will continue after delisting running buffalo clover.
In total, 22 populations are under some form of management that
incorporates specific needs of running buffalo clover, and 66
additional populations occur on publicly owned lands where regulatory
mechanisms now exist that prevent loss from development (Factor D).
Although the species benefits from active management, it does not
appear to rely on management actions as demonstrated by the 59
populations that have been found over the last 10 years at sites where
natural processes and/or various human activities are maintaining some
suitable habitat for running buffalo clover. For these reasons, threats
from habitat destruction, habitat succession, and invasive species have
been reduced or are being adequately managed such that they are not
affecting the species' viability.
Collection
When the species was listed in 1987, overutilization for scientific
or educational purposes (Factor B) was identified as a threat, given
that only one population consisting of four individuals was known at
the time (52 FR 21478, June 5, 1987). Today, with 175 populations
known, collection for scientific or educational purposes is very
limited and distributed among many populations and is no longer
considered a threat (Service 2017, p. 17).
Running buffalo clover is listed as endangered or threatened under
State laws in Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky (Factor D). The
laws in Ohio and Missouri prohibit commercial taking of listed plants.
We are aware of only one unpermitted collection in 2015 when a
population in West Virginia appeared to have been dug up and the main
plant group removed (Douglas 2015). The purpose of the collection is
unknown. Despite this one event, running buffalo clover is not known to
be used for any commercial or recreational purposes, and we have no
information that commercial or recreational collection will occur in
the future.
Disease
At the time of listing in 1987, disease (Factor C) was also
predicted to threaten running buffalo clover (52 FR 21478, June 5,
1987). Jacobs and Bartgis (1987, p. 441) suggested that the decline of
this species may have partially centered on a pathogen introduced from
the exotic white clover; however, no specific disease has been
identified over the intervening years (Service 2008, p. 10). A number
of viral and fungal diseases, including cucumber mosaic virus and the
comovirus, are reported to have attacked the species in greenhouses at
the Missouri Botanical Garden (Sehgal and Payne 1995, p. 320), but no
evidence has been gathered showing these viruses' impact on the decline
of running buffalo clover in the wild (Service 2008, p. 10).
Parasitism
Parasitism by root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) is common in
clovers and often limits productivity in cultivated clovers used as
forage crops (Quesenberry et al. 1997, p. 270) (Factor C).
Investigations have been conducted on the effects of root-knot
nematodes on native North American clovers, including running buffalo
clover. After inoculation of the parasite, running buffalo clover
displayed high resistance to three of the four nematode species
analyzed, and only an intermediate response to the fourth species of
nematode (Quesenberry et al. 1997, p. 270). Thus, the threat from this
parasite is not considered significant.
Herbivory
Herbivory by a variety of species has been reported for running
buffalo clover (Factor C). In Missouri, running buffalo clover plants
are repeatedly grazed by rabbits, rodents, and slugs (Pickering 1989,
p. 3). Similar observations have been made in Kentucky (Davis 1987, p.
11). The Fayette County, West Virginia, population was eaten to the
ground by a groundhog, but more than a dozen rooted crowns were
observed at the population the following year. White-tailed deer can
also consume large amounts of running buffalo clover (Miller et al.
1992, pp. 68-69). Although a population may be entirely consumed during
a growing season, plants may return again the next year. The best
available information indicates that herbivory is not a threat to the
species.
Small Population Size
Running buffalo clover populations often display widely fluctuating
population size (USFWS 2020, unpublished data). The cause for changes
in population size may be due to disturbance, weather patterns,
management strategy, natural succession, or other unknown factors.
Small populations are at an increased risk of extirpation due to these
stochastic events, which could impact all individuals in a small
population (Factor E). The cyclic nature of running buffalo clover and
the high probability of small populations disappearing one year and
returning a subsequent year, may lead to difficulty in protecting small
populations. However, the number (110) and distribution of C- and D-
ranked populations now known across the species' range indicate that
small population size is not a threat to the running buffalo clover.
Inadequate Seed Dispersal
The loss of large herbivores, such as bison and white-tailed deer,
after European settlement may have resulted in no effective means of
dispersal remaining for running buffalo clover (Cusick 1989, p. 477)
(Factor E). Deer have now returned to pre-settlement numbers, but
dispersal and establishment of new populations of running buffalo
clover by white-tailed deer may not be significant (Ford et al. 2003,
p. 427). With 175 occurrences of running buffalo clover now known,
inadequate seed dispersal does not appear to be having population-level
effects.
[[Page 43108]]
Poor Seed Quality
Although researchers have speculated that inbreeding depression may
have contributed to the decline of running buffalo clover (Hickey et
al. 1991, p. 315; Taylor et al. 1994, p. 1,099) (Factor E), selfed
seeds have been shown to germinate well and develop into vigorous
plants (Franklin 1998, p. 39). However, temporal variations in seed
quality have been reported. Seed quality may be correlated with
rainfall; quality decreases in years with unusually high rainfall
(Franklin 1998, p. 38). With 175 occurrences of running buffalo clover
now known, the impacts of poor seed quality do not appear to affect
entire populations, nor do these impacts persist for any extended
period of time.
Effects of Climate Change
Under future emission scenarios, including Representative
Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5, the effects of climate
change in the foreseeable future are expected to result in rising
average temperatures throughout the range of running buffalo clover,
along with more frequent heat waves and increased periods of drought
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) 2014, p. 10), which
may affect growth of running buffalo clover. For example, a prolonged
drought in Missouri in 2012 may have impacted a running buffalo clover
population for the next 2 years as plants were not observed again until
2015 (McKenzie and Newbold 2015, p. 20).
High-precipitation events are also expected to increase in number,
volume, and frequency in mid-latitude areas (IPCC 2014, p. 11). Several
running buffalo clover populations are located within areas prone to
flooding. Infrequent high-flow events create moderate disturbance,
which may be beneficial for this species. But increasing the magnitude
or frequency of high-flow events may increase storm flows and intensify
disturbance from flood events, which may create excessive disturbance
and alter the habitat suitability for running buffalo clover. In
addition, increased annual precipitation may lead to decreased seed
quality.
According to IPCC, ``most plant species cannot naturally shift
their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and
high projected rates of climate change on most landscapes'' (IPCC 2014,
p. 13). Shifts in the range of running buffalo clover as an adaptation
to climate changes are unlikely, due to the limited dispersal of seeds,
restriction to specific habitat types, and the lack of connection
between most populations.
The effects of climate change may also result in a longer growing
season and shorter dormant season, which may change flowering periods.
For example, blossoms of running buffalo clover have been turning brown
at the beginning of June (Becus 2016); and in 2016 and 2017, running
buffalo clover plants in Ohio began blooming in April, which is the
earliest this species had been observed blooming (Becus 2017). For some
plant species, a change in flowering period may create an asynchrony
between prime bloom time and when specific pollinators are available,
resulting in a reduction in pollination and subsequent seed set.
However, because running buffalo clover can be pollinated by a
diversity of bee species, significant asynchrony with pollinators is
not expected to occur.
Climate change presents a largely unknown influence on the species,
with potential for negative and beneficial impacts. Populations of
running buffalo clover occur within various ecoregions within the
species' range and are capable of recovering from stochastic events,
such as droughts and heavy precipitation and high stream flows. Running
buffalo clover is not dependent on particular species of pollinators
and appears adaptable to potential changes to pollinator communities.
This indicates that populations will continue to be viable in the
foreseeable future in the face of climate change.
Synergistic Effects
Many of the stressors discussed in this analysis could work in
concert with each other and result in a cumulative adverse effect to
running buffalo clover (e.g., one stressor may make the species more
vulnerable to the effects of other threats). However, most of the
potential stressors we identified either have not occurred to the
extent originally anticipated at the time of listing (collection,
disease), are no longer a threat in light of the many populations
discovered since the time of listing, or are adequately managed as
described in this proposal to delist the species (habitat destruction
and succession, invasive species). In addition, for the reasons
discussed in this final rule, we do not anticipate stressors to
increase on publicly owned lands or lands that are managed for the
species.
Synergistic interactions are possible between the effects of
climate change and effects of other threats, such as nonnative plant
invasion. However, it is difficult to project how the effects of
climate change will affect interaction or competition between species.
Uncertainty about how different plant species will respond under a
changing climate makes projecting possible synergistic effects of
climate change on running buffalo clover too speculative. However, the
increases documented in the number of populations since the species was
listed do not indicate that cumulative effects of various activities
and stressors are affecting the viability of the species at this time
or into the future. Post-delisting monitoring will monitor the status
of running buffalo clover and its habitat to detect any changes in
status that may result from removing the species from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our proposed rule published on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44832), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by October 28, 2019. We also requested public comments on the
draft PDM plan. We contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies and
other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016, Director's Memorandum ``Peer Review
Process,'' we solicited expert opinion from five knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the running buffalo clover and its habitat, biological needs, and
threats.
During the comment period, we received 24 comments on the proposal
to delist running buffalo clover and the draft PDM plan: 2 from peer
reviewers, 4 from States, 2 from Federal agencies, and 16 from the
public. All comments are posted at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036. Some public commenters support the
delisting of running buffalo clover; some did not state whether or not
they support the delisting; and others do not support delisting,
although a subset of these, including one State and one peer reviewer,
would support downlisting to threatened status. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing.
We reviewed all comments we received from peer reviewers, States,
Federal agencies, and the public for substantive issues and new
information regarding running buffalo clover. Substantive information
provided during the comment period is addressed below and, where
appropriate, is incorporated directly into this final rule and the PDM
plan.
[[Page 43109]]
State Comments
Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the Secretary must
give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4(a) to the
State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur,
and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4(i) of the Act directs
that the Secretary will submit to the State agency a written
justification for his or her failure to adopt regulations consistent
with the agency's comments or petition. We solicited comments from all
States within the species' range and received comments from four
States.
(1) Comment: The Office of Kentucky Nature Preserves commented that
running buffalo clover is trending towards recovery and meets almost
all the criteria specified in the recovery plan. They stated that only
one cooperative agreement currently protects running buffalo clover in
Kentucky and expressed concern that additional cooperative management
agreements are needed in Kentucky in order to fully meet delisting
criterion 3. The Office of Kentucky Nature Preserves indicated that
Kentucky plans to continue to implement additional management
agreements and enroll more private lands with the registered natural
area program.
Response: Although there is currently only one cooperative
agreement protecting running buffalo clover in Kentucky, this agreement
protects multiple running buffalo clover populations that occur at the
site. We acknowledge that delisting criterion 3 has not been fully met
in the manner specifically identified in the recovery plan. However, we
conclude that the intent of the criterion to ensure that sufficient
populations were protected from threats into the future has been met.
Also, the discovery of new populations at unmanaged sites indicates
that the species does not wholly rely on management to maintain
populations, as we believed when the recovery criterion was drafted.
Additional management agreements will contribute to the ongoing success
of this species, and we appreciate Kentucky's commitment to continuing
to work on and increase conservation of running buffalo clover.
(2) Comment: Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) concurred
with the proposal to delist running buffalo clover, but expressed
concern that removing the protections of the Act may result in further
decline of this species in Missouri. MDC stated that running buffalo
clover will continue to be a State endangered species in Missouri until
the State's populations are recovered.
Response: We appreciate Missouri's commitment to continuing
conservation efforts for the running buffalo clover. State protections
will continue to enhance populations of the species. In addition,
management agreements will continue to maintain suitable habitat and
address stressors at 22 running buffalo clover sites after the species
is delisted. Therefore, we do not expect an overall decline in the
status of running buffalo clover in the future.
(3) Comment: MDC indicated that populations in Missouri are not
considered secure and that management is necessary to maintain
populations and remove invasive species. MDC indicated that Missouri
would continue management for running buffalo clover and would assess
the prioritization of ongoing management efforts and protected status
of Missouri's populations.
Response: We agree that a lack of management or natural disturbance
regime can lead to continued natural succession, a loss of suitable
habitat, and a decline in running buffalo clover populations and that
management efforts are necessary at some sites to address stressors and
maintain suitable habitat. We appreciate the MDC's commitment to
managing the populations of running buffalo clover in Missouri.
(4) Comment: Ohio Division of Natural Areas and Preserves stated
that more management agreements are needed before criterion 3 for
delisting is met and that downlisting to threatened is more appropriate
at this time.
Response: Information obtained since the proposed listing rule was
published on August 27, 2019, indicates there are currently 175 extant
populations as follows: 18 A-ranked, 47 B-ranked, 40 C-ranked, and 70
D-ranked populations. Seven of the A-ranked and 14 of the B-ranked
populations are considered viable, based on a PVA or 10 years of data.
Based on this information, we conclude that sufficient number and
distribution of viable populations occur across the species' range and
delisting criteria 1 and 2 have been exceeded. We acknowledge that
delisting criterion 3 has not been fully met in the manner specifically
identified in the recovery plan. However, recovery of a species is a
dynamic process, and we are not required to follow all of the guidance
or meet all of the criteria provided in a recovery plan in order to
conclude that a species no longer meets the definition of endangered or
threatened.
The 22 populations currently under management agreements in
conjunction with the 66 other populations on publicly owned lands are
sufficient to eliminate or adequately reduce threats to the species now
and into the foreseeable future. Additionally, the discovery of new
populations at unmanaged sites indicates that the species does not
wholly rely on management to maintain populations as we believed when
the recovery criterion was developed. We conclude that threats to
running buffalo clover have been reduced or are being adequately
managed now and into the foreseeable future and that the intent of the
criterion to ensure that sufficient populations were protected from
threats into the future has been met. Therefore, running buffalo clover
does not meet the definition of a threatened species.
(5) Comment: The Ohio Division of Natural Areas and Preserves
stated the long-term viability of running buffalo clover in Ohio is
uncertain, based on threats from invasive species, management needs,
and number of populations in the poor category. They indicated that
there are draft agreements with partners to protect an additional 11
running buffalo clover populations and that these agreements are
helping to make progress in long-term viability of running buffalo
clover in Ohio.
Response: We agree that a lack of management or natural disturbance
regime can lead to a decline in running buffalo clover populations and
that site-specific management plans are necessary to address stressors
and maintain suitable habitat at some sites. However, the discovery of
new populations at unmanaged sites indicates that the species does not
wholly rely on management to maintain populations. Twenty-two running
buffalo clover sites are currently under management agreements.
Additional management agreements will contribute to the ongoing success
of this species, and we appreciate Ohio's commitment to continuing to
work on and increase protections for the running buffalo clover
populations within the State.
(6) Comment: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR)
agreed that running buffalo clover populations are sufficiently
distributed to provide for resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
WVDNR stated that they provisionally agree with running buffalo clover
delisting, provided that written management plans specific to the
species are developed for public lands, and agencies managing for
running buffalo clover commit to these plans through at least the
delisting monitoring period. They noted that there is a draft running
buffalo clover site-specific management plan for the Monongahela
National Forest, which will substantively reduce threats to
[[Page 43110]]
populations on this national forest once finalized.
Response: We acknowledge that some populations that occur on public
land are not protected by running buffalo clover-specific management
plans. However, some, including those on Monongahela National Forest,
are provided protection from the standards and guidelines in the
resource management plans. Twenty-two additional running buffalo clover
sites, nearly all of which occur on publicly owned lands, are currently
protected by management agreements that provide specific measures to
maintain habitat for the species. We expect that these will remain in
place and habitat management will continue after delisting running
buffalo clover. We support finalizing a site-specific management plan
for running buffalo clover on the Monongahela National Forest to
further enhance conservation of the species. Management agreements as
currently written require frequent coordination with the Service. We
have revised the PDM plan to include a reporting element on management
actions during the PDM period for those sites with management plans or
agreements in place.
(7) Comment: WVDNR reported that eight new element occurrences with
a total of 13,000 to 15,000 rooted crowns were discovered after 2016,
all on private land, but that those new occurrences are not protected
because the State has no endangered species law and therefore should
not count towards the number of occurrences cited within delisting
criterion 1.
Response: Delisting criterion 1 is based solely on the condition of
the populations without regard to protected status. However, because we
have no information on the condition of each of those elemental
occurrences, we did not include them in our calculations in this final
rule regarding the number of populations that fulfill delisting
criterion 1. These additional elemental occurrences support the trend
of discovering new populations and recovery of this species.
(8) Comment: WVDNR did not agree with our conclusion that criterion
3 has been met for downlisting or delisting, stating that general
natural resource management plans are not suitable for meeting the
criterion.
Response: In the proposed listing rule, we had considered 9
populations that occur on the Monongahela National Forest as
contributing to meeting this criterion because running buffalo clover
is included in the forest management plan for the Monongahela. Although
the forest plan provides direction and guidelines to avoid and minimize
impacts of forestry practices on running buffalo clover, we now
understand that a draft agreement has been developed between the U.S.
Forest Service and WVDNR to provide additional conservation for the
species. While a management plan that provides for additional
conservation of running buffalo clover would benefit the species on the
Monongahela National Forest, the current forest management practices,
as conditioned through running buffalo clover measures included in the
forest plan, are adequate to conserve the running buffalo clover on the
Monongahela.
We now consider 22 populations as protected by management
agreements; therefore, the 17 management agreements under criterion 3
for downlisting have been exceeded. We acknowledge that the 34
management agreements specified by delisting criterion 3 have not been
met although additional agreements are in draft form. Recovery of a
species is a dynamic process, and we are not required to meet all of
the criteria provided in a recovery plan in order to conclude that a
species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened.
Delisting criterion 3 from the recovery plan was intended to ensure
that habitat-based threats for the species are addressed. However, the
discovery of new populations at unmanaged sites indicates that the
species does not wholly rely on management to maintain populations as
we believed when the recovery criterion was drafted. Although criterion
3 has not been met as specified in the recovery plan, we believe that
its intention has been met between the 22 sites managed for the
conservation of the species and the 66 additional locations on Federal
and State lands. Because nearly all of the 22 managed populations occur
on publicly owned lands, we expect management will continue in the
foreseeable future. While we agree that additional management
agreements would further enhance conservation for running buffalo
clover, the 22 populations currently under management in conjunction
with the 66 other populations on publicly owned lands are sufficient to
indicate the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future. We have revised the PDM plan to
include a measure to track new management agreements finalized during
the PDM period as well as to determine if all existing management
agreements are being followed.
(9) Comment: WVDNR stated that the number of running buffalo clover
occurrences in West Virginia is increasing but many extant occurrences
are at risk.
Response: We agree that some extant occurrences, in particular D-
ranked populations (containing fewer than 29 plants), are at risk; and
in some years, no plants may be present during monitoring periods.
However, 89 percent of running buffalo clover populations that were
extant in West Virginia in 2007 are still present today. Overall, 63
running buffalo clover populations occur in West Virginia, of which 46
(70.8 percent) are A-, B-, or C-ranked populations, which are at lower
risk of extirpation.
(10) Comment: WVDNR observed that project-driven surveys have
resulted in the discovery of new running buffalo clover occurrences and
noted that implementation of these projects may result in the expansion
of the distribution of running buffalo clover as well as the spread of
nonnative invasive species. The State expressed concern that the threat
of nonnative invasive species may exceed the benefit of discovery of
any new running buffalo clover occurrences.
Response: We acknowledge the ongoing presence of nonnative invasive
species at some running buffalo clover sites. However, at this time,
the best available data do not support a conclusion that the spread of
nonnative invasive species will exceed the benefit of new running
buffalo clover discoveries at these sites. Further, we have determined
that the 22 running buffalo clover populations with management
agreements, which do not include these newly discovered sites, in
conjunction with the 66 occurrences on publicly owned lands are
sufficient to eliminate or adequately reduce threats to the species now
and into the foreseeable future.
(11) Comment: WVDNR noted that management plans for running buffalo
clover should address (1) controlling succession so canopy closure does
not exceed 80 percent, (2) controlling nonnative invasive species, and
(3) preventing damage to populations from road management or usage and
other actions that could remove a population or its habitat.
Response: We agree with these recommendations for management
actions in general. Management plans are developed to address site-
specific threats and ensure that actions are taken to maintain suitable
habitat, including appropriate light levels. These management plans
often include measures to control nonnative invasive species and
prevent damage from multiple activities.
[[Page 43111]]
Federal Agency Comments
(12) Comment: The Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia
provided information about soils on which running buffalo clover may
occur. They suggested looking at running buffalo clover sites near road
systems to determine if these populations could have been brought in
from limestone quarries where a potential seed bed could have been
established but may not be ideal for sustainability of the population.
They also commented that temporary habitat for running buffalo clover
can be created by periodic liming of forest soils but would not be
sustainable.
Response: We agree with the comment that periodic liming of soils
is not a sustainable activity and believe that there is enough habitat
with suitable disturbance that liming is not needed. While seed is
known to have been brought into sites through delivery of topsoil, we
are unaware of any instances where seed has been transported from a
quarry. We have incorporated additional information about soils into
the Background section.
(13) Comment: The Wayne National Forest in Ohio commented that
running buffalo clover will continue to receive protection for a
minimum of 5 years after delisting as a species of conservation concern
for the forest.
Response: We appreciate the Wayne National Forest's commitment to
continuing to conserve running buffalo clover after the species is
delisted. Continuing to manage running buffalo clover as a species of
conservation concern on the Wayne National Forest will contribute to
the ongoing success of this species.
Peer Review and Public Comments
(14) Comment: Two peer reviewers and several public commenters
opined that the species should be downlisted to threatened rather than
delisted.
Response: Current information indicates there are currently 175
extant running buffalo clover populations as follows: 18 A-ranked, 47
B-ranked, 40 C-ranked, and 70 D-ranked populations. Seven of the A-
ranked and 14 of the B-ranked populations are considered viable, based
on a PVA or 10 years of data. Based on this information, we conclude
that sufficient number and distribution of viable populations occur
across the species' range and delisting criteria 1 and 2 have been
exceeded. We acknowledge that delisting criterion 3 has not been fully
met in the manner specifically identified in the recovery plan.
However, recovery of a species is a dynamic process, and we are not
required to follow all of the guidance or meet all of the criteria
provided in a recovery plan in order to conclude that a species no
longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened. The 22
populations currently under management agreements in conjunction with
the 66 other populations on publicly owned lands are sufficient to
indicate the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to be
in the foreseeable future. Additionally, the discovery of new
populations at unmanaged sites indicates that the species does not
wholly rely on management to maintain populations as we believed when
the recovery criterion was drafted. We conclude that threats to running
buffalo clover have been reduced or are being adequately managed now
and into the foreseeable future and that the intent of the criterion to
ensure that sufficient populations were protected from threats into the
future has been met. Therefore, running buffalo clover does not meet
the definition of a threatened species.
(15) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that running buffalo
clover is not fully understood, nor are the historic habitat conditions
in which it lived. Therefore, additional research is needed before
delisting the species.
Response: Recent discoveries of new running buffalo clover sites
have expanded our understanding of habitat preferences for the species.
In making listing decisions under the Act, we rely on the best
available scientific and commercial data, including these recent
discoveries, which have led us to conclude that running buffalo clover
does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species.
(16) Comment: One peer viewer noted that from 2001 to 2005 the
number of running buffalo clover patches and rooted crowns at Blue
Grass Army Depot (Depot) increased, mostly due to finding new patches.
From 2005 to 2018, the number of patches and rooted crowns declined,
likely due to the permanent loss of patches, indicating a long-term
decline. Three public commenters also noted that the overall trend of
running buffalo clover at the Depot has been declining since 2001, and
one commenter indicated the cause of the decline is unknown.
Response: Although the number of patches at the Depot has decreased
since 2005, the number of rooted crowns recorded in 2018 (3,939) is
greater than that recorded in 2001 (1,160) but lower than the maximum
observed in 2006 (9,574). Populations of this species fluctuate greatly
and can decline for multiple years before rebounding. The populations
that are now considered extirpated from the Depot were small, D-ranked
populations. While the loss of patches could indicate an overall
decline, the loss of small populations is not unexpected. Other
landowners do not monitor by patch; therefore, it is difficult to
compare this information to trends at other locations. However, we
acknowledge that some protected populations have declined with no
obvious cause. Notwithstanding these limited declines, we conclude that
a sufficient number of populations across the range of the species will
continue to be viable over the foreseeable future such that the species
no longer meets the Act's definitions of an endangered species or a
threatened species.
(17) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that running buffalo clover
populations can appear, seem to prosper, and then disappear, including
an A-ranked population, and many C- and D-ranked populations have
disappeared.
Response: Running buffalo clover populations fluctuate over the
years due to natural succession, variance in temperature and
precipitation, and lack of disturbance. Due to their small size, D-
ranked populations are most likely to disappear although larger
populations have declined for unknown reasons. The PVA, conducted when
the recovery plan was written, indicated that 17 populations were
needed to maintain this species. This number was doubled to 34
populations needed to delist running buffalo clover. Currently, 175
populations are extant throughout the range of this species. This
includes 18 populations that have at least 1,000 rooted crowns (A-
ranked). An additional 47 running buffalo clover populations have
between 100 and 999 rooted crowns (B-ranked). These higher ranked
populations have a greater probability of remaining stable or
increasing.
(18) Comment: One peer reviewer and two commenters opined that more
management agreements are needed before delisting running buffalo
clover, and four commenters expressed concern whether current
management is sufficient to maintain recovery.
Response: Comparing the ranking of extant populations in 2007 to
the ranking of those populations that continued to be extant in 2016,
17 percent of populations were increasing, and 59 percent were stable.
These populations represent 76 percent of the populations present in
2007. In addition, we are now aware of 175 extant populations compared
to 102 in 2007. Thus, we conclude that the trend for this species is
stable or increasing.
[[Page 43112]]
Twenty-two running buffalo clover populations are currently under
agreements that provide for ongoing management to maintain suitable
habitat for running buffalo clover and adequately address or eliminate
threats to those populations. While we acknowledge that delisting
criterion 3 has not been fully met in the manner specifically
identified in the recovery plan, we conclude that the intent of the
criterion to ensure that sufficient populations are protected from
threats into the foreseeable future has been met. Additionally, the
discovery of new populations at unmanaged sites indicates that the
species does not wholly rely on management to maintain populations as
we believed when the recovery criterion was drafted. Based on this
information, we conclude that running buffalo clover has recovered and
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species.
(19) Comment: Two peer reviewers and a commenter identified
nonnative invasive species as an ongoing threat to running buffalo
clover that requires management, and these commenters specifically
identified Japanese stiltgrass as causing declines of running buffalo
clover.
Response: As discussed in the proposed listing rule and this final
rule, nonnative invasive species, including Japanese stiltgrass, are
present at several running buffalo clover sites. The management
agreements in place for running buffalo clover include management
actions to address nonnative invasive species, including Japanese
stiltgrass. In addition, the PDM plan provides for monitoring for the
presence of nonnative invasive species at running buffalo clover sites.
Monitoring includes recording the level of severity of nonnative
invasive species to prioritize sites for future monitoring.
(20) Comment: One peer reviewer and three commenters expressed
concern that running buffalo clover would no longer receive management
or monitoring and that funding for efforts to maintain proper habitat
conditions would not be available after delisting.
Response: The populations that are under management agreements will
continue to receive management to address site-specific threats and
habitat needs, and we do not expect delisting will alter the ability of
partner agencies to continue funding and implementing management
agreements for running buffalo clover. Several States have indicated
that they will continue to protect and manage running buffalo clover
populations under existing State regulations. If unforeseen threats
arise that are determined to endanger or threaten the long-term
viability of running buffalo clover such that it meets the definition
of a threatened or endangered species, we can use our authorities under
section 4 the Act, including the emergency listing authorities at
section 4(b)(7), to relist the species as appropriate.
(21) Comment: One peer reviewer and several commenters expressed
concern that many populations of running buffalo clover are not stable
or secure and that the species' recovery is a result of more surveys.
Response: Many populations of running buffalo clover have been
discovered since 2007, with 175 extant populations known now compared
to 102 in 2007. Seventy-six percent of the populations extant in 2007
were increasing or stable in 2016, indicating those populations are not
in decline. With 22 populations now under management agreements and
another 66 populations occurring on publicly owned lands, threats to
the species have been reduced or are being adequately managed such that
they are not affecting the species' viability. Based on this
information, we conclude that running buffalo clover has recovered and
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species.
(22) Comment: One commenter stated that the methods for assessing
viability prescribed in the Recovery Plan do not address the stress
caused by invasion of exotic species or other emerging or impending
factors that might impair the viability of the species.
Response: The PVA is just one factor used to consider the current
trend of the species and whether it is declining, stable, or
increasing. The PVA provides a guide in determining the minimum number
of needed populations, as well as the size and physical distribution of
those populations, and is only one part of the recovery criteria. In
addition, recovery criterion 3 addresses habitat-based threats, such as
nonnative invasive species. The 22 populations that have management
agreements will be protected from the threat of succession by
implementation of various management or disturbance actions to reset
succession. The management agreements also include actions to address
the threats of nonnative invasive species.
(23) Comment: One commenter stated that populations in West
Virginia are extensive and cover a wide range of habitat conditions,
indicating that running buffalo clover may not be as limited in habitat
requirements.
Response: Running buffalo clover populations in West Virginia are
larger in quantity and area and occur in a wider range of habitat types
than populations in other States. We note that all habitats are subject
to succession, requiring periodic natural disturbance or targeted
management to continue to maintain viable running buffalo clover
populations.
(24) Comment: One commenter stated that running buffalo clover was
once widespread and abundant but most of the historically known sites
are now extirpated and the species survives in a fraction of its former
range.
Response: Running buffalo clover was not known historically as
widespread and abundant. Fewer than 30 sites were known in 8 States,
including 2 specimens from Arkansas and 1 from Kansas (Brooks 1983).
Although most of these historically known sites are extirpated, 175
extant running buffalo clover sites are now known across most of its
historical range in 6 States.
(25) Comment: One commenter stated that, although more than 150
occurrences are now known, the vast majority of those are very small
and not ranked as good occurrences.
Response: Delisting criterion 1 states that 34 populations, in
total, are distributed as follows: 2 A-ranked, 6 B-ranked, 6 C-ranked,
and 20 D-ranked populations across at least 2 of the 3 regions in which
running buffalo clover occurs (Appalachian, Bluegrass, and Ozark). The
number of populations in each rank is based on what would be required
to achieve a 95 percent probability of the persistence within the next
20 years.
Populations are currently distributed as follows: 18 A-ranked, 47
B-ranked, 40 C-ranked, and 70 D-ranked. Although approximately two-
thirds of running buffalo clover populations are ranked as C or D (99
or few rooted crowns or 33 or fewer crowns, respectively), delisting
criterion 1 has been substantially exceeded. We conclude that a
sufficient number of populations across the range of the species will
continue to be viable over the foreseeable future; thus, we determine
that the species no longer meets the Act's definitions of an endangered
species or a threatened species.
(26) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that small patches
have a high probability of becoming extirpated and will not naturally
recover without active restoration and management.
Response: Smaller populations may have a greater probability of
becoming extirpated, but that does not indicate that all small
populations will eventually become extirpated. Some small populations
have continued to persist for years.
[[Page 43113]]
As a disturbance-adapted species, running buffalo clover benefits
from both management as well as natural disturbance activities, such as
flooding, grazing by herbivores, trail use by animals, and small forest
openings due to disease or insect impacts. Ten C- and D-ranked
populations are under management agreements.
(27) Comment: One commenter stated that monitoring and collection
has shown an expansion of populations in multiple States.
Response: New populations have been found in multiple States since
the time of the original listing, as a result of multiple statewide and
many project-specific surveys. For example, an increase in project-
specific surveys in Pennsylvania in recent years resulted in most of
the new running buffalo clover populations identified there. The newly
discovered populations in Pennsylvania are south of a population in
West Virginia that we have been aware of since the 2007 Recovery Plan
Revision. In addition, running buffalo clover sites occur in West
Virginia southeast of these Pennsylvania populations. Therefore, these
populations most likely have been in existence, and their discovery is
not the result of an expansion in the range of this species but rather
an increase in the number of project-specific surveys. That said, this
new information about these additional sites changes our understanding
of the degree to which this species faces threats to its continued
existence. The species is not as rare or restricted as was thought at
the time of listing, and this is a contributing piece of our overall
determination that the species is no longer in danger of extinction,
now or in the foreseeable future.
(28) Comment: One commenter, citing Leugers (2016), stated that
running buffalo clover in Ohio still experiences declines in remaining
areas and is in need of more robust management plans.
Response: Leugers (2016) included no information from the 2008 or
2011 5-year reviews and did not use the most recent scientific
information available. Since the 2007 Recovery Plan, we have learned
much about running buffalo clover. Populations in Ohio include two that
are A-ranked and nine that are B-ranked. Seven sites in Ohio are
protected with management agreements for ten running buffalo clover
populations.
(29) Comment: One commenter stated that additional information is
still needed on the best management regimes to maintain flowering
populations.
Response: Although recent discoveries of new running buffalo clover
sites have expanded our understanding of the habitat types where the
species can occur, running buffalo clover still requires partial to
filtered sunlight and a prolonged pattern of moderate, periodic
disturbance to maintain those conditions. A variety of management
tools, such as grazing, mowing, trampling, or selective logging, have
proven effective at maintaining suitable habitat and sustaining running
buffalo clover populations. Natural succession results in increased
canopy closure and a decrease in flowering. Maintaining appropriate
habitat should result in continued flowering although the level of
flowering may also be impacted by rainfall and various local weather
conditions.
(30) Comment: One commenter indicated that running buffalo clover
will continue to be threatened by ATV (all-terrain vehicle) use and
fossil fuel development and infrastructure on the Wayne National
Forest.
Response: Although ATV use was a problem at one site on the Wayne
National Forest in the past, ATV use has not been documented as a
threat to this running buffalo clover population since 2009. Running
buffalo clover will continue to be managed on the Wayne National Forest
as a species of conservation concern.
(31) Comment: One commenter indicated that running buffalo clover
is damaged by grazing on Federal lands.
Response: We are not aware of any instances where grazing on
Federal lands is impacting the running buffalo clover at the population
level. Light to moderate grazing can provide the disturbance that
running buffalo clover requires. The Depot in Kentucky grazes
domesticated animals for management purposes, but no other federally
owned properties use grazing by domesticated animals as a management
tool. Running buffalo clover does not occur on any federally owned
property that permits large-scale grazing.
(32) Comment: One commenter stated that there has been no
measurable increase or spread of running buffalo clover (e.g., to
Pennsylvania).
Response: New populations of running buffalo clover are discovered
nearly every year. That said, these populations have most likely been
in existence for some time, and new populations found in Pennsylvania
are not likely to be the result of an expansion in the range of this
species. However, the increase overall in the number of populations
known to be in existence changes our understanding of the degree to
which the species is in danger of extinction, now or in the future. The
original listing of the species was based on the lack of extant
populations that had been identified at that time in spite of surveys
conducted throughout its known range. Since then, multiple statewide
and many project-specific surveys have been conducted and have
discovered additional populations of which we were not formerly aware.
Currently, 175 extant populations are known.
(33) Comment: One commenter indicated that several element
occurrence (E.O.) ranks are erroneous.
Response: We have used the best scientific and commercial data
available in the proposed rule and this final rule. The commenter did
not provide any supporting documentation or information for specific
EOs.
(34) Comment: One commenter indicated that seeds of running buffalo
clover maintained in appropriate storage for over 25 years can still be
viable after scarification. The commenter stated that recovery work
should include vouchering seed from each running buffalo clover
population to a seed bank with clear origin and sample size details.
Response: Running buffalo clover seed in the seedbank may be viable
for a long time as other rare legumes can be viable in cold storage for
decades (Albrecht 2017). An extremely small amount of running buffalo
clover seed can germinate after being in soil and exposed to outdoor
temperatures for over 10 years (Baskin 2021). In addition, populations
have been absent for up to 4 consecutive years before plants were
observed again (USFWS 2021, unpublished data). The long-term limit of
seed viability in the natural environment has not been determined as
Baskin's research ended after 11 years. Collection of seed for
vouchering purposes may be useful for its conservation and management
and should have limited impacts to source populations. Because the best
available scientific and commercial data indicate that running buffalo
clover has recovered and is no longer an endangered or threatened
species, we are finalizing the delisting of the species.
(35) Comment: One commenter noted that running buffalo clover grows
readily in controlled settings. Another public commenter stated that
the survival of transplanted plants in the wild is very low and not a
successful recovery option.
Response: Running buffalo clover grows well in a greenhouse
environment; however, planting from seed or transplanting in the wild
has had very limited success. Collection of seed or other vegetative
material should be used only as a last resort to maintain
[[Page 43114]]
genetic material before a population is permanently lost.
Peer Review and Public Comments on the Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan
(36) Comment: WVDNR stated that the 5-year monitoring period will
not detect changes in status of running buffalo clover in time to allow
for remedial actions if populations decline and suggested that
monitoring the occurrences in the Monongahela National Forest
management plan annually for 5 years would reflect running buffalo
clover population trend and response to management actions.
Response: We recognize that there can be significant year-to-year
variation in populations that may cause long-term population trends not
to become apparent for more than 5 years. However, by evaluating the
level of canopy coverage and the threat of nonnative invasive species
as prescribed in the PDM plan, these threats can be addressed before
impacts to running buffalo clover occur. Monitoring is conducted to
determine the rangewide status of running buffalo clover (declining,
stable, or increasing) and its threats. It is not intended to evaluate
individual management actions.
We have modified the PDM plan to target the running buffalo clover
populations with management plans or agreements and the viable A- and
B-ranked populations plus an additional 20 populations rangewide for
monitoring. Because approximately 50 percent of all running buffalo
clover populations are on private land, we recommend that half of the
populations identified for post-delisting monitoring rangewide also
occur on private land. Therefore, these 57 populations that are
monitored should be representative of the rangewide ownership (private
versus public) and as well as the rangewide diversity of population
size (A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked populations).
(37) Comment: WVDNR indicated that the PDM plan should include
visiting a select group of running buffalo clover occurrences, with the
majority on public land, which would provide data on those populations'
responses to management for control of succession and nonnative
invasive species and protection from habitat destruction.
Response: The goal of the monitoring plan is to observe the trends
of a representative sample of individual occurrences to determine
whether the species continues to be recovered and not to evaluate
management activities. Because most populations are not monitored, the
selection of a group of occurrences should reflect the proportion of
sites that are managed as well as a diversity of population sizes.
There should be a representative number of A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked
populations monitored. We have incorporated this concept into the PDM
plan, where appropriate.
(38) Comment: WVDNR commented that the monitoring protocol and
field monitoring form in the draft PDM plan are not adequate and are
inconsistent with the monitoring protocol in the 2007 Running Buffalo
Clover Recovery Plan. They recommended using the existing census
methodology to provide more consistency and better detect population
trends and declines.
Response: We acknowledge that the protocol in the PDM plan differs
from that in use since 2007. While the existing methodology would
provide more consistency in comparing individual populations pre- and
post-delisting, we note that there are substantially more running
buffalo clover populations now than in 2007. The protocol in the PDM
plan addresses the challenges of limited time and resources to monitor
a much larger number of populations. In addition, the proposed protocol
reflects the greater stability of large A-ranked populations and
prioritizes monitoring of smaller ranked populations as these would be
more likely not to survive a stochastic event without a significant
reduction in size.
Currently, the number of A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked populations are
counted and evaluated. If a population drops to a lower rank (e.g.,
from an A-rank to a B-rank), we consider that change to constitute a
decline. Because there is annual variability, we do not evaluate the
specific individuals of each occurrence. By calculating the change in
the number of A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked populations at the end of the 5-
year post-delisting monitoring period, we will be consistent with how
the species was evaluated in each of the last 5-year reviews.
Therefore, we conclude that the data to be collected will be adequate
to determine population rankings and rangewide population trends for
post-delisting monitoring purposes. However, we see benefit to the more
intensive monitoring suggested by WVDNR by those who are committed to
managing the species post-delisting and support any efforts to do so.
(39) Comment: WVDNR recommended an expansion of data gathering
about nonnative invasive species across running buffalo clover's range.
Response: The purpose of the nonnative invasive species query in
the PDM plan is to determine whether nonnative invasive species present
a threat at running buffalo clover occurrences and if that threat is
being addressed. We understand that additional information on nonnative
invasive species would be useful. However, due to limited time and
resources, this is beyond the scope of the PDM plan.
(40) Comment: WVDNR stated that use of 95 percent canopy closure is
insufficient as a trigger for selective harvest and suggests that the
trigger should not be greater than 80 percent canopy cover.
Response: Because running buffalo clover grows in the ground layer,
it can be affected by shading from the understory as well as the
canopy. The 95 percent canopy cover is used as a trigger for selective
harvest because we expect selective harvesting would significantly
reduce canopy cover. Other forms of management can be considered before
a site reaches 95 percent canopy cover as these other forms of
management are not expected to reduce the canopy cover as dramatically.
We have updated the PDM plan to clarify.
(41) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the monitoring plan
does not ensure an adequate level of management.
Response: The PDM plan is intended to determine whether a
significant number of running buffalo clover occurrences are in decline
or are stable or increasing and will focus primarily on those sites
that meet all aspects of recovery. Monitoring will help evaluate
whether management is needed, but the PDM plan does not require
management. The monitoring data form will ask if appropriate management
is occurring.
(42) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended changing the definition
of ``response triggers'' to require monitoring more sites for a longer
period of time.
Response: Due to the limitation of time and resources, additional
monitoring is not feasible for most sites. While we encourage more
frequent monitoring at sites that have that capability, the level of
monitoring prescribed in the PDM plan is sufficient to assess the
population trend of running buffalo clover for the purposes of post-
delisting monitoring, which is to determine the rangewide status of
running buffalo clover (declining, stable, or increasing) and its
threats to evaluate whether the species continues to be recovered.
Determination of Running Buffalo Clover Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50
[[Page 43115]]
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 ``endangered species'' as a species ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as a species ``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 ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
found that significant threats identified at the time of listing (52 FR
21478, June 5, 1987) have been eliminated or reduced. The main threat
at many sites is habitat destruction, habitat succession, and
competition with nonnative invasive species (Factor A). Management to
benefit running buffalo clover has been implemented since the time of
listing and has shown to be effective. Twenty-two populations are under
some form of management that addresses the needs of running buffalo
clover. Because all of the managed populations occur on publicly owned
lands, we expect management will continue in the foreseeable future.
Delisting criterion 3 from the recovery plan was intended to ensure
that habitat-based threats for the species are addressed. Although this
criterion has not been met as specified in the recovery plan, we
believe that its intention has been met between the 22 sites managed
specifically for the conservation of the species plus the 66 additional
locations on Federal and State lands.
Additionally, the discovery of new populations at unmanaged sites
indicates that the species does not wholly rely on management to
maintain populations as we believed when the recovery criterion was
drafted. The 22 populations currently under management agreements in
conjunction with the 66 other populations on publicly owned lands are
sufficient to eliminate or adequately reduce threats to the species now
and into the foreseeable future. During our analysis, we found that
other factors believed to be threats at the time of listing--including
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B), disease and predation (Factor C), and
inbreeding depression and poor seed quality and dispersal (Factor E)--
are no longer considered threats, and we do not expect any of these
conditions to substantially change into the foreseeable future. Since
listing, we have become aware of the potential for the effects of
climate change (Factor E) to affect all biota, including running
buffalo clover, but the magnitude and frequency of this potential
threat are generally unknown at this time. While available information
in the most recent 5-year review indicates that running buffalo clover
may be responding to a change in temperatures or precipitation
patterns, the lack of a declining trend in running buffalo clover
populations suggests the effects of ongoing climate change are not a
threat to the species within the foreseeable future. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we determine that running
buffalo clover is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that running buffalo clover is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any
portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other
question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for running buffalo clover, we chose
to address the status question first--we considered information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is endangered or threatened.
For running buffalo clover, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats:
Habitat destruction, habitat succession, and competition with nonnative
invasive species, including cumulative effects. Threats from habitat
destruction have been identified at running buffalo clover sites across
its range. Habitat succession is a natural process that occurs in
multiple habitat types across the species' range. Nonnative invasive
species are widespread across the range of running buffalo clover. We
found no concentration of threats in any portion of the running buffalo
clover's range at a biologically meaningful scale. Therefore, no
portion of the species' range can provide a basis for determining that
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range, and we
find the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range.
This is consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v.
Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248
F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that running buffalo clover does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we are
removing running buffalo clover from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
Effects of This Rule
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove the running buffalo
clover from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Because critical habitat has not been designated for this species, this
rule does not affect 50 CFR 17.96. On the effective date of this rule
(see DATES, above), the prohibitions and conservation measures provided
by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to
this species, and Federal agencies are no longer required
[[Page 43116]]
to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event
that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the
running buffalo clover.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a system to monitor effectively, for not less than
5 years, all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose
of this post-delisting monitoring is to verify that a species remains
secure from risk of extinction after it has been removed from the
protections of the Act. The monitoring is designed to detect the
failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without the
protective measures provided by the Act. If, at any time during the
monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act
should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate with the
States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring
programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) of
the Act and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of
post-delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other
entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species'
conservation post-delisting.
We prepared a PDM plan for running buffalo clover in cooperation
with the States. The PDM plan is designed to verify that running
buffalo clover remains secure from the risk of extinction after
delisting by detecting changes in its status and habitat throughout its
known range. The final PDM plan discusses the current status of the
taxon and describes the methods to be used for monitoring after the
taxon is removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants. The PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the roles of the PDM cooperators;
(2) summarizes the status of running buffalo clover at the time of
delisting; (3) discusses monitoring methods and sampling regimes; (4)
describes frequency and duration of monitoring; (5) defines triggers
for potential monitoring outcomes; (6) outlines reporting requirements
and procedures; and (7) proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM
plan and conclusions of the PDM effort.
The PDM plan guides monitoring of running buffalo clover following
similar methods to those used prior to delisting. Monitoring will
consist of: Counting (or estimating for A-ranked populations) the
number of rooted crowns and flowering stems, recording recruitment of
seedlings, photographing running buffalo clover occurrences, mapping
the location of individual patches within the occurrences, and
identifying potential threats, as may be appropriate. PDM will begin in
the first growing season following the effective date of this rule (see
DATES, above) and will extend, at a minimum, through the fifth growing
season following delisting. Monitoring through this time period will
allow us to address potential negative effects to running buffalo
clover, such as nonnative invasive species and canopy closure.
The PDM plan identifies measurable management thresholds and
responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in the
running buffalo clover's habitat, distribution, and persistence. If
monitoring detects declines equaling or exceeding these thresholds, the
Service, in combination with other PDM participants, will investigate
causes of these declines, including considerations of habitat changes,
nonnative invasive species, stochastic events, or any other significant
evidence. Such investigation will determine if running buffalo clover
warrants expanded monitoring, additional habitat management, or
relisting as an endangered or a threatened species under the Act. If
such monitoring data or an otherwise updated assessment of threats
indicate that relisting running buffalo clover is warranted, emergency
procedures to relist the species may be followed, if necessary, in
accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
The final PDM plan is available on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036 and on the Service's Great Lakes Region
website at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/rbcl/index.html">https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/rbcl/index.html</a>.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 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. We are not aware of running buffalo
clover occurring on any Tribal lands, and we did not receive any
comments from Tribes on the proposed delisting rule.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036, or
upon request from the Ohio Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the Service's
Ohio Ecological Services Field Office and Great Lakes Regional Office,
Bloomington, Minnesota.
Signing Authority
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha
Williams, Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority
of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document
on August 3, 2021, for publication.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
[[Page 43117]]
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
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. Amend Sec. 17.12 in paragraph (h) by removing the entry for
``Trifolium stoloniferum'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16818 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 6, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.