[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44832-44841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18413]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036; FXES111309BFLC0]
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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the Trifolium stoloniferum (running buffalo clover) from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, due to recovery. This
determination is based on a thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the threats
to the species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that it no
longer meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are
seeking information and comments from the public regarding this
proposed rule. We are also seeking comments on the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan for running buffalo clover.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 28, 2019. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 11, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Document availability: This proposed rule and draft post-delisting
monitoring (PDM) plan referenced throughout this document, as well as
supporting materials, are available on http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036 and on the Service's Midwest Region
website at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/rbcl/index.html. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed rule
will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal
business hours, at the Ohio Ecological Services Field Office, 4625
Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230; telephone 614-416-8993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hosler, Ecological Services,
Midwest Regional Office, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 900,
Bloomington, MN 55437-1458, telephone 517-351-6326. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not ``delist'' running buffalo
clover (that is, remove the species from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants (List));
(2) New information concerning any threat (or lack thereof),
including climate change, to running buffalo clover;
[[Page 44833]]
(3) New information on any efforts by the States or other entities
to protect or otherwise conserve running buffalo clover;
(4) New information concerning the historical and current status,
range, distribution, and population size of running buffalo clover,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
running buffalo clover that may adversely affect or benefit the
species; and
(6) Information pertaining to the requirements for post-delisting
monitoring of running buffalo clover.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please
note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ohio Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. We must receive your request, in
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the
date specified above in DATES. We will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this
proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our
determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We will invite comment from the peer reviewers during this
public comment period; these comments will be available along with
other public comments in the docket for this proposed rule on http://www.regulations.gov.
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). 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.
Species Information
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly related to
the proposed delisting of running buffalo clover. For more information
on the description, biology, ecology, and habitat of running buffalo
clover, please refer to the final listing rule (52 FR 21478, June 5,
1987), the Running Buffalo Clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) Recovery
Plan: First Revision (Service 2007, pp. 1-13), and the 5-year reviews
for running buffalo clover, completed on November 19, 2008 (Service
2008, entire), May 6, 2013 (Service 2013, entire), and April 21, 2017
(Service 2017, entire). These documents will be available as supporting
materials at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-
2018-0036.
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).
Extant populations of running buffalo clover are known from 154
populations in three ecoregions, as described by Bailey (1998): Hot
Continental, Hot Continental Mountainous, and Prairie. 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.
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
[[Page 44834]]
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 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.
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/or 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, or selective logging) in origin.
Although disturbances to the 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 also 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.
Flowers, which typically bloom between mid-May and June, 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. Baskin (2004) suggested that spring
temperature fluctuations appear to be a major dormancy breaker in
natural populations of running buffalo clover.
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 a major event 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
Genetic studies of running buffalo clover have shown 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). Crawford et al. (1998, entire) examined genetic variation
within and among populations of running buffalo clover throughout its
geographic range known at the time. They found slight geographic
variation between the four areas examined (Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio-
Indiana, and West Virginia) and concluded that much of the species'
genetic diversity resides among 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).
Conservation Measures
The running buffalo clover recovery plan includes management
recommendations for the species (Service 2007, p. 51). The
recommendations include considerations for mowing, invasive plant
control, and forest management. For sites that are actively managed,
the frequency of management intervention to create and maintain
suitable habitat depends on the nature of the management action. Sites
that are mowed may require mowing annually while selective logging
happens on an 8- to 14-year interval. Selection of appropriate
management techniques are dictated by the conditions at each running
buffalo clover population. Management actions specifically for running
buffalo clover are in place where the plant occurs on Federal lands in
Kentucky and West Virginia, State lands in Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio,
and West Virginia, and three privately-owned sites (Service 2017, pp.
21-24).
Recovery Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
``objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of this section
[section 4 of the Act], that the species be removed from the list.''
However, revisions to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened because of one or more of five
threat factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the determination
be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available.'' Therefore, recovery criteria should help indicate
when we would anticipate that an analysis of the five threat factors
under section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that a species is
no longer an endangered or threatened species because of any of the
five statutory factors. Thus, while recovery plans provide important
guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of
enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species and
measurable objectives against which to measure progress towards
recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot 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 on, or to remove a species from, the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)) is
[[Page 44835]]
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 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, that is, to remove the species from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). 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 two of the three 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; 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: 16 A-ranked, 35
B-ranked, 44 C-ranked, and 59 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 13 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. 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, 23 populations meet this criterion, as follows: 5 A-
ranked, 7 B-ranked, 5 C-ranked, and 6 D-ranked. These include
populations where land management prioritizes the needs of running
buffalo clover, although written management plans are not in place.
There are 6 more A- and 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, 60
additional populations occur on publicly-owned lands, such as national
forests, State lands, and local parks, thereby minimizing threats from
habitat loss and degradation. 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.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or
wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species
may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one
or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We
must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may
delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither
endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or
threatened; and/or (3) the original scientific data used at the time
the species was classified were in error.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of endangered or threatened. Determining whether a species
is recovered requires consideration of whether the species is still an
endangered species or threatened species because of any of the
[[Page 44836]]
five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For
species that are already listed as endangered or threatened species,
this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently
facing the species and those that are reasonably likely to affect the
species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or
downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat, and we attempt to determine how significant a
threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species
warrants listing as an endangered species or a threatened species as
those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require
empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some
corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could
suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is
appropriate; we require evidence that these factors individually or
cumulatively are operative threats that act on the species to the point
that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or
threatened species under the Act. The following analysis examines all
five factors currently affecting or that are likely to affect the
running buffalo clover in the foreseeable future.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
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. Land development and the consequential loss of habitat can
also be a threat to running buffalo clover. 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). A study
examining running buffalo clover abundance before and after logging
suggests that populations may initially decrease after disturbance, but
then rebound to higher than pre-disturbance levels (Madarish and
Schuler 2002, p. 127).
In some populations it appears that both overgrazing and no grazing
at all are 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
(Microstegium vimineum), 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, 13
of the 31 sites (42 percent) in Ohio have one or more nonnative species
present at varying densities, and 4 of those sites are managed for
invasive species control.
The habitat needs of running buffalo clover on Federal, State, and
locally-owned lands are included in plans or agreements for those
lands. 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. 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.
We expect that these plans would remain in place and habitat management
will continue after delisting running buffalo clover.
In total, twenty-three populations are under some form of
management that incorporates specific needs of running buffalo clover,
and 60 additional populations occur on publicly-owned lands that
prevent loss from development. Although the species benefits from
active management, it does not appear to rely on management actions as
demonstrated by the 46 populations that have been found over the last
10 years at unmanaged sites where natural processes are maintaining
suitable habitat for running buffalo clover. For these reasons, threats
from habitat destruction and modification have been reduced or are
being adequately managed such that they are not affecting the species'
viability.
Summary of Factor A
Habitat destruction, habitat succession, and invasive plant
competition are the primary threats to running buffalo clover. However,
these stressors have been reduced or are being adequately managed now
and into the foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
When the species was listed in 1987, overutilization for scientific
or educational purposes 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 more than 150 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. The laws in Ohio
and Missouri prohibit commercial taking of listed plants. We are aware
of only one unpermitted collection in 2015 when a
[[Page 44837]]
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.
Summary of Factor B
Running buffalo clover is not known to be used for any commercial
or recreational purpose, and collection for scientific or educational
purposes is limited. Based on available information, we do not consider
there to be threats now or in the foreseeable future related to
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
At the time of listing in 1987, disease was 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 running buffalo clover
decline in the wild (Service 2008, p. 10).
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). 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 by a variety of species has been reported for running
buffalo clover. 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 ground hog (Marmota monax), 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, p. 68-69).
Summary of Factor C
Although disease has been observed in running buffalo clover in
greenhouses, no diseases are known to affect entire populations of the
species in the wild. Populations appear to be capable of withstanding
herbivory during the growing season. In sum, while disease or predation
has had an occasional negative impact, most of these impacts do not
appear to affect entire populations, or the impacts do not persist for
any extended period of time. Based on available information, we do not
consider there to be threats now or in the foreseeable future related
to disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether the stressors identified
within the other factors may be ameliorated or exacerbated by an
existing regulatory mechanism. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires
the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, being made by
any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or
foreign nation, to protect such species.'' In relation to Factor D
under the Act, we interpret this language to require the Service to
consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and
other such binding legal mechanisms that may ameliorate or exacerbate
any of the threats we describe in threats analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. Our
consideration of these mechanisms is described in detail within our
analysis of each of the factors (see discussion under each of the other
factors).
For currently listed species, we consider the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the
protections of the Act. Therefore, we examine whether other regulatory
mechanisms would remain in place if the species were delisted, and the
extent to which those mechanisms will continue to help ensure that
future threats will be reduced or minimized. In our discussion under
Factors A, B, C, and E, we evaluate the significance of threats as
mitigated by any conservation efforts and existing regulatory
mechanisms. Where threats exist, we analyze the extent to which
conservation measures and existing regulatory mechanisms address the
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified
threats.
Twenty-three populations are specifically managed to provide for
the species' habitat needs, and an additional 60 populations occur on
publicly-owned lands where regulatory mechanisms now exist. These
regulatory mechanisms include the Monongahela National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan, the Wayne National Forest Revised Land and
Resource Management, the Bluegrass Army Depot's Endangered Species
Management Plan, and a memorandum of understanding with the Ohio
Historical Society, Ohio Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see discussion under Factor A).
These plans and agreements also provide for education and outreach
efforts and surveying and monitoring for running buffalo clover. We
expect that these plans and agreements would remain in place after
delisting running buffalo clover.
Of the 154 extant populations of running buffalo clover, 74 (49%)
are located on private land, with the remainder located on Federal,
State, or local park land. Most of the privately-owned populations are
on lands without specific regulatory mechanisms. Although running
buffalo clover benefits from habitat management efforts, it is not
dependent on active management and persists on sites without any
regulatory mechanism in place. Additionally, State protections in Ohio
and Missouri prohibit commercial taking of listed plants although
running buffalo clover is not known to be used for any commercial or
recreational purposes (see discussion under Factor B).
Summary of Factor D
Regulatory mechanisms to provide for management and/or
consideration of running buffalo clover are in place for 83
populations. Furthermore, the species has persisted on lands without
specific regulatory mechanisms. Consequently, we find that existing
regulatory mechanisms, as discussed above, will continue to address
stressors to running buffalo clover absent protections under the Act.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Factor E requires the Service to consider any other factors that
may be
[[Page 44838]]
affecting running buffalo clover. Under this factor, we discuss small
population size, inadequate seed dispersal, poor seed quality, and
climate change.
Small Population Size
Long-term monitoring data suggest that running buffalo clover
populations often display widely fluctuating population size. The cause
for changes in population size may be due to disturbance, weather
patterns, management strategy, natural succession, or other unknown
factors. 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. Regardless, small populations have displayed high levels
of genetic diversity (Crawford et al. 1998, p. 88) that is important
for survival of the species as a whole. Small population size is not a
threat in and of itself.
Inadequate Seed Dispersal
Cusick (1989, p. 477) suggested that the loss of large herbivores,
such as bison and white-tailed deer, after European settlement resulted
in no effective means of dispersal remaining for running buffalo
clover. 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 154 occurrences of running buffalo clover now known, inadequate
seed dispersal does not appear to be having population-level effects.
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), 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 154 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.
Climate Change
Our current analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing
and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also
may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers
to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of
climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due
to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects
on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and
they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change.
The effects of climate change 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
(IPCC 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 of precipitation, and frequency in mid-latitude areas (IPCC
2014, p. 11). Several running buffalo clover populations are located
within the vicinity of a stream. 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.
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 is 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.
Summary of Factor E
With their high levels of genetic diversity, small populations are
important for survival of the species as a whole. Although inadequate
seed dispersal and poor seed quality have been concerns in the past,
they do not appear to affect entire populations, nor do their impacts
persist for any extended period of time. 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 persist 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 other threats. However, most of the potential stressors
we identified either have not occurred to the extent originally
anticipated at the time of listing (Factors B, C, and D) or are
adequately managed as described in this proposal to delist the species
(Factors A and D). In addition, for the reasons discussed in this
proposed rule, we do not anticipate stressors to
[[Page 44839]]
increase on publicly-owned lands or lands that are managed for the
species.
Synergistic interactions are possible between 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.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for
determining whether a species is an endangered species or threatened
species and should be included on the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines an endangered species
as any species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a threatened species as any
species ``that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.''
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future.'' For this
proposed rule, our forecast of future impacts is based on a review of
the period of available data for each threat and, when possible, a
projection of the situation at least for a similar time period into the
future. 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. The
1989 running buffalo clover recovery plan (Service 1989, pp. 4-5)
indicates that invasive species were present at an Indiana population
and that garlic mustard was abundant in unmanaged areas at a Kentucky
population. In addition, garlic mustard was identified as being present
at multiple Ohio populations in 1989. Therefore, many of the
significant invasive species have been present within the range of
running buffalo clover for more than 25 years. Further, we can
extrapolate trends from the past 30 years that running buffalo clover
has been listed as endangered. Thus, a timeframe of 25-30 years is
reasonable as the foreseeable future for running buffalo clover.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to running buffalo clover. The number of known running buffalo clover
populations has increased from 1 at the time of listing to 154
currently. New populations continue to be found, and the known range
has expanded most recently to include Pennsylvania. Although we are not
relying on it for our analysis, we recognize that it is reasonable to
conclude that there may be additional populations of which we are not
yet aware.
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-three
populations are under some form of management that addresses the needs
of running buffalo clover. Because most 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
23 sites managed specifically for the conservation of the species plus
the 60 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 23 populations
currently under management in conjunction with the 60 other populations
on publicly-owned lands are sufficient to maintain the species'
viability 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. 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 scientific and commercial data
available and having considered the individual and cumulative impact of
threats on this species, we conclude that running buffalo clover is not
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor is it likely
to become so within the foreseeable future.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Having determined that running buffalo clover is not in danger of
extinction, or likely to become so, throughout all of its range, we
next consider whether there are any significant portions of its range
in which running buffalo clover is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so. Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species
may warrant listing if it is an endangered species or a threatened
species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is
``likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' On July 1,
2014, we published a final policy interpreting the phrase ``significant
portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578). The final policy states
that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is
listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, respectively,
and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species
wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is
``significant'' if the species is not currently endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution
to the viability of the species is so important that, without the
members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction,
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time
the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any
particular
[[Page 44840]]
status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or
threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant
portion is a valid distinct population segment (DPS), we will list the
DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including
analyses for the purposes of making the listing, delisting, and
reclassification determinations. However, we acknowledge the recent
adverse ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, which has vacated the ``significant portion''
part of the Services' SPR Policy (Desert Survivors, et al. v. U.S.
Department of the Interior, et al., No. 16-cv-01165-JCS (Northern
District of California, Aug. 24, 2018)). The procedure for analyzing
whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of
status determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of
the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of
its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction,
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species,
and no SPR analysis will be required.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either
endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2)
the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely
to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering
these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the
species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of
its range; rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed
analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this
analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only
to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically
based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion
clearly would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to
extinction of the entire species), then those portions will not warrant
further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis.
The identification of an SPR does not create a presumption,
prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species in that
identified SPR is in danger of extinction or likely to become so. We
must go through a separate analysis to determine whether the species is
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the SPR. To determine
whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, we
will use the same standards and methodology that we use to determine if
a species is endangered or threatened throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address either the significance
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.''
Running buffalo clover does not exhibit any substantial differences
in morphology or other factors in any portions of its range. The
identified threats have been reduced or are being adequately managed
across the species' range, and no portions of the range retain elevated
threat levels. There is no indication that any portion of the species'
range is so important that its loss would cause the entire species to
become endangered or threatened. For these reasons, we conclude that
running buffalo clover is not in danger of extinction, or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future, throughout a significant
portion of its range.
Effects of This Rule
The Act sets forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions
that apply to all endangered plants. It is illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export,
transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a
commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce, or remove and reduce running buffalo clover to possession
from areas under Federal jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Act requires
that Federal agencies consult with us to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize
the species' continued existence. If this proposed rule is made final,
it would revise 50 CFR 17.12 to remove running buffalo clover from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, and these
prohibitions would no longer apply. Because critical habitat has not
been designated for this taxon, this rule, if made final, would not
affect 50 CFR 17.96.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this
requirement 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. The States within the species' range are providing
information on proposed management guidelines as well as future
monitoring protocols. We also seek active participation of other
entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species'
conservation post-delisting.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview
We have prepared a draft PDM plan for running buffalo clover. The
draft plan discusses the current status of the taxon and describes the
methods proposed for monitoring if the taxon is removed from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. The draft plan: (1)
Summarizes the status of running buffalo clover at the time of proposed
delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration of monitoring; (3)
discusses monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes; (4)
defines what potential triggers will be evaluated for additional
monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and procedures;
[[Page 44841]]
and (6) proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan and defines
responsibilities. It is our intent to work with our partners towards
monitoring the recovered status of running buffalo clover. We seek
public and peer reviewer comments on the draft PDM plan, including its
objectives and procedures (see Information Requested, above), with
publication of this proposed rule. The draft PDM plan is available at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2018-0036. You
can submit your comments on the draft PDM plan by one of the methods
listed above under ADDRESSES.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We determined that we do not need to prepare environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted 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.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-
ES-2018-0036, or upon request from the Ohio Ecological Services Field
Office, 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230; telephone 614-
416-8993.
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Ohio Ecological Services Field Office and the Midwest Regional
Office in Bloomington, Minnesota.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Trifolium
stoloniferum'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
Dated: March 19, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-18413 Filed 8-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P