[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61387-61396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16417]



[[Page 61387]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 245]
RIN 1018-BD66


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of 
Northeastern Bulrush 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 northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. After a review of the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
delisting the species is warranted. Our review indicates that the 
threats to the northeastern bulrush have been eliminated or reduced to 
the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, we propose to delist the 
northeastern bulrush. If we finalize this rule as proposed, the 
prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, 
particularly through Sections 7 and 9 would no longer apply to the 
northeastern bulrush.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
September 30, 2024. 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 September 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014, 
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, check the Proposed 
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 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 https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and 
supporting documents, including the 5-year reviews, the Recovery Plan, 
and the species status assessment (SSA) report, are available at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Mayer, Field Supervisor, New 
England Ecological Services Field Office, 70 Commercial Street, Suite 
300, Concord, NH 03301; telephone 603-223-2541. Individuals in the 
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States. 
Please see Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested

    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 remove the northeastern bulrush 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
    (2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the 
northeastern bulrush, particularly any data on the possible effects of 
climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State 
protection and management that would be provided to this plant as a 
delisted species;
    (3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
the northeastern bulrush that may have either a negative or positive 
impact on the species; and
    (4) Considerations for post-delisting monitoring, including 
monitoring protocols and length of time monitoring is needed, as well 
as triggers for reevaluation.
    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, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered species or a 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 https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov.
    Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we 
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well 
as any information that may become available after this proposal. For 
example, based on the new information we receive (and if relevant, any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species 
should remain listed as endangered, or we may conclude that the species 
should be reclassified from endangered to threatened. We will clearly 
explain our rationale and the basis for our final

[[Page 61388]]

decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public 
hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the northeastern bulrush. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report 
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts 
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) 
affecting the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent 
scientific review of the information contained in the northeastern 
bulrush SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to 3 independent 
peer reviewers and received 2 responses. Results of this structured 
peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014. In preparing this proposed rule, we 
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the 
final SSA report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from 2 peer 
reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we received 
from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information 
regarding the information contained in the SSA report. Overall, the 
comments were supportive of the approach, analyses, and projections of 
the SSA. Information was presented that helped to improve the 
assessment and inform this proposed rule. Such information included new 
references, comments regarding using a spatial assessment of climate 
change projections, discussion of population responses to weather 
events, and new information to help inform our analysis of synergistic 
impacts to bulrush viability.

Previous Federal Actions

    On May 7, 1991, we published in the Federal Register (56 FR 21091) 
a final rule listing the northeastern bulrush as an endangered species 
under the Act. On August 25, 1993, we approved the northeastern bulrush 
recovery plan (Service 1993, entire). On September 24, 2009, we 
completed a 5-year review (Service 2009, entire) of the status of the 
northeastern bulrush, which recommended reclassification from 
endangered to threatened status based on the increased number and 
status of known extant populations. On August 28, 2019, we completed a 
second 5-year review (Service 2019b, entire), resulting in a 
recommendation to delist the species, because, based on the species' 
current representation, resiliency, and redundancy, and our analysis of 
threats that may influence its future condition, the species no longer 
met the statutory definition of an endangered or a threatened species.

Background

Species Information

    For more information on the description, biology, ecology, 
genetics, and habitat of the northeastern bulrush, please refer to the 
final listing rule (56 FR 21091; May 7, 1991), the northeastern bulrush 
(Scirpus ancistrochaetus) recovery plan (Service 1993, pp. 1-31), and 
the SSA report (Service 2019a, entire). These documents will be 
available as supporting materials at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014.

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The northeastern bulrush is a member of the Cyperaceae (sedge) 
family. It is a tall (80 to 120 centimeter), leafy, perennial herb that 
produces stems and leaves from short, thick, underground rhizomes. It 
is distinguished from other Scirpus species by its drooping, clustered, 
fruiting heads; dark, chocolate-brown florets; achene bristles that are 
barbed to the base; and broad bracts (Schuyler 1962, pp. 44-46).
    Population size may vary from year to year. In some cases, plants 
are absent above ground for several years before re-emerging (Service 
2019a, p. 10). This is likely due to changes in environmental 
conditions, although the exact causal mechanisms are not well 
understood. When water levels and/or light availability are not 
favorable, the population becomes stressed, dwindles in size, and 
sometimes becomes completely absent above ground. When favorable 
habitat conditions return, the population may re-emerge.
    The northeastern bulrush is a wetland obligate plant occurring in 
acidic to almost neutral wetlands including sinkhole ponds, wet 
depressions, and vernal pools (collectively, seasonal or ephemeral 
wetlands); American beaver (Castor canadensis) flowages; and other 
riparian areas found in hilly country (Schuyler 1962, p. 47). Optimal 
habitat includes abundant sunlight, higher organic matter (Lentz and 
Dunson 1999, p. 165), and seasonally and/or annually fluctuating water 
levels, although prolonged periods with too much or too little water 
may be detrimental.

Distribution

    At the time of listing in 1991, only 13 populations of the 
northeastern bulrush scattered across 6 U.S. States were known to exist 
(Service 1991, entire); however, the species is now known from 148 
extant populations in 8 States (Service 2019a, p. 2). The populations 
can be loosely organized into a northern region and a southern or 
Appalachian region, with a large gap in the distribution in 
southeastern New York. The northern region includes extreme eastern New 
York and the New England States of Vermont, New Hampshire, and 
Massachusetts; and the southern or Appalachian region includes 
southwestern New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West 
Virginia. The vast majority of populations are in Pennsylvania (59.5 
percent), Vermont (20.9 percent), and New Hampshire (9.5 percent).

Recovery Criteria

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be

[[Page 61389]]

removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to 
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may 
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery 
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    The objective identified in the northeastern bulrush recovery plan 
(Service 1993, p. 37), when there were 33 known extant populations, was 
to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened, and the plan 
provides three criteria for doing so: (1) 20 populations are 
permanently protected; (2) annual monitoring over a 10-year period 
shows that 20 representative populations are stable or increasing; and 
(3) life-history and ecological requirements are understood 
sufficiently to allow for effective protection, monitoring, and 
management. The recovery plan does not contain delisting criteria.
    In the 2009 5-year review (Service 2009, entire), the Service 
determined that the downlisting criteria were partially met and 
recommended a change in listing status to threatened, because (1) the 
number of extant populations was three times greater than when the 
species was listed; \1\ (2) approximately half of all known populations 
were on public lands; and (3) approximately half of the extant 
populations appeared to be stable or increasing. In the 2019 5-year 
review (Service 2019b, entire), the Service recommended delisting the 
northeastern bulrush, because it no longer meets the Act's definition 
of an endangered or a threatened species. While the recovery plan does 
not include delisting criteria, our analysis presented in the SSA 
report (Service 2019a, entire) shows that the intent of the recovery 
plan's downlisting criteria (Service 1993, p. 37) has been exceeded 
substantially, supporting our conclusion that the species is neither 
endangered nor threatened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There were 13 known extant populations at listing in 1991, 
33 at the time of the recovery plan in 1993, and 113 in 2009 when 
the 5-year review was completed. To clarify the 2009 5-year review, 
the number of extant populations in 2009 was 8.7 times the number of 
populations known in 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose and intent of the first downlisting criterion calling 
for permanent protection of 20 populations was to provide evidence that 
a reasonable number of populations were reliably protected from 
development, which was identified as a threat to the species' 
viability. Currently, 89 (approximately 60 percent) of the 148 known 
extant populations occur on public lands, which affords consistent and 
reliable protection through a management structure conducive to 
conservation. In addition, although development was identified as an 
important threat at the time of listing, that threat appears to have 
diminished. Currently, oil and gas development in Pennsylvania is 
perhaps the most likely development threat; however, no available 
information indicates any populations are under known threat from oil 
and gas development. Although other types of activities such as road 
construction, forestry, recreation, and plant competition are factors 
that may affect the species, data indicate they are not primary factors 
influencing the viability of the northeastern bulrush. Also, because 
the species occurs in wetland habitats, which are provided some 
protections under State laws, the species is protected from many 
sources of impacts from human activities. As a result, the need for 
further affirmative protection from these threats on both public and 
private lands is less than previously determined at the time the 
recovery plan was issued in 1993. Together these factors lead to our 
conclusion that the purpose and intent of the first downlisting 
criterion of permanent protection for 20 populations has been 
substantially exceeded.
    The intent of the second downlisting criterion calling for 20 
stable or increasing populations was to demonstrate and ensure the 
species was not in active decline. This element of the recovery plan 
has also been exceeded by a wide margin. There are 148 known extant 
populations of the northeastern bulrush in 8 States, an increase of 31 
percent from the 113 known extant populations in 7 States at the time 
of the 2009 5-year review. Our analysis of these populations in the SSA 
report (Service 2019a, p. 27) indicates that 132 (89 percent) of the 
148 known extant populations demonstrate excellent, good, and fair 
resiliency, and only 16 (11 percent) of the populations demonstrate 
poor resiliency or have been extirpated. We determined that the 
recovery plan's terms ``stable'' and ``increasing'' are not appropriate 
for describing a species whose populations may naturally fluctuate 
dramatically in response to environmental stochasticity; for this 
reason, the number of populations in excellent, good, or fair condition 
is a better measure of the intent of this criterion. Also, because the 
number of populations in fair or better condition is an order of 
magnitude higher than the number of stable or increasing populations 
called for in the second downlisting criterion, we conclude that the 
intent of this criterion has been substantially exceeded.
    The third downlisting criterion calling for increased understanding 
of the life-history and ecological requirements of the northeastern 
bulrush has been achieved in that we have sufficient information to 
support long-term management of populations. Research by State, 
Federal, and university partners on the effects of hydrology, shading, 
herbivory, genetics, propagation, transplantation, and nutrients on 
germination and plant growth has provided better understanding of how 
to more effectively protect, monitor, and manage the species. 
Therefore, lack of knowledge to support long-term management of 
populations no longer contributes a substantial risk to the species.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in

[[Page 61390]]

title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures 
for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a 
threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened 
species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened 
species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered 
and threatened species and what criteria we apply when designating 
listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). This final rule is now 
in effect and is incorporated into the current regulations. The Act 
defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a 
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M- Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, 
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for delisting. However, it 
does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory 
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within 
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess northeastern bulrush viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogen). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history 
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and 
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found

[[Page 61391]]

at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA report 
(Service 2019a, entire) and most recent 5-year review (Service 2019b, 
entire) document our comprehensive biological status review for the 
species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the 
species.
    The following is a summary of this status review and the best 
available information gathered since that time that have informed this 
decision.
    The northeastern bulrush is a wetland obligate plant occurring in 
acidic to almost neutral wetlands including sinkhole ponds, wet 
depressions, vernal pools (collectively, seasonal or ephemeral 
wetlands), beaver flowages, and other riparian areas found in hilly 
country (Schuyler 1962, p. 47). Optimal habitat includes abundant 
sunlight, higher organic matter (Lentz and Dunson 1999, p. 165), and 
seasonally and/or annually fluctuating water levels, although prolonged 
periods with too much or too little water may be detrimental. The 
northeastern bulrush may be found in a wide range of water depths from 
just a few centimeters up to a meter in depth, depending on seasonal 
fluctuations in water levels (Thompson 1991, p. 5). Plants typically 
grow in open areas surrounded by forest. Light availability is known to 
influence plant growth, reproduction, and distribution (Boardman 1977, 
p. 372; Lentz and Cipollini 1998, p. 126). Shaded plants are often 
taller, but at the expense of the roots and other organs (Lentz and 
Cipollini 1998, pp. 127, 129), and the species usually is absent from 
the highly shaded perimeter of wetlands.

Current Condition

    As stated previously, when the northeastern bulrush was listed in 
1991, only 13 populations were known to exist; however, the species is 
now known from 148 extant populations in 8 States (Service 2019a, p. 
2). The populations can be loosely organized into a northern region and 
a southern or Appalachian region, with a large gap in the distribution 
in southeastern New York. As described in chapter 4 of the SSA report 
(Service 2019a, pp. 25-31), we used element occurrence (E.O.) rank to 
assess and describe the current resiliency of northeastern bulrush 
populations. E.O. rankings document the status and quality of plant 
population occurrences and assess the probability of an occurrence 
persisting. We consider the E.O. rank to be the most meaningful way to 
describe a population's status, as it requires an in-person observation 
and combines multiple components of a population's condition into a 
single metric. E.O. ranks are assigned by a surveyor based on 
observations beyond just population size, but also habitat conditions 
at the site at the time of the survey, conditions over time since its 
last observation, and probability of persistence. Our analysis of these 
populations (Service 2019a, p. 27) indicates that 132 (89 percent) of 
the 148 known extant populations demonstrate excellent, good, and fair 
resiliency, and only 16 (11 percent) of the populations demonstrate 
poor resiliency or have been extirpated.

Factors Influencing Viability

    At the time of listing (see 56 FR 21091; May 7, 1991), habitat 
disturbance and destruction from development and other anthropogenic 
impacts, especially on private land, was identified as an important 
threat to the northeastern bulrush, even though there were only a few 
examples of populations that were under imminent threat from these 
activities. Since listing, one population has been lost to development, 
but overall, the anticipated threat of habitat loss from development 
has not materialized and has a much lower overall impact risk because 
of the increased number of known populations.
    A search of the Service's Tracking and Integrated Logging System, 
which has information dating back approximately 15 years, revealed 
relatively few consultations under section 7 of the Act between the 
Service and Federal agencies on Federal actions that may affect the 
northeastern bulrush. Consultations often consider proposals for 
development, road construction and/or maintenance, or other habitat 
disturbance, and none of the consultations that included northeastern 
bulrush anticipated adverse effects to the species. While these search 
results do not capture non-Federal actions on private land, in the 
available survey and monitoring data, surveyors did not identify any 
northeastern bulrush populations as being under threat of extirpation 
as a result of development activities since regular surveys began. 
Moreover, there is no evidence that the lack of development impacts to 
the extant populations is attributable to the protections afforded by 
the Act.
    At this time, oil and gas development in Pennsylvania is perhaps 
the most likely development threat; however, we are not aware of any 
information, such as project proposals, that indicates any populations 
are under threat from oil and gas development. Accordingly, we conclude 
that the threat of the destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 
northeastern bulrush's habitat from development is less than previously 
thought, and not a significant factor impacting the continued viability 
of the species. Although other types of activities such as road 
construction, forestry, and recreation are factors that may affect the 
species, to date they have not proved to be significant factors 
contributing to the risk of extinction of the northeastern bulrush. The 
88 northeastern bulrush populations that occur on publicly owned land 
(approximately 60 percent of known populations) are provided long-term 
protection from risk of development. Publicly owned lands include State 
Game Lands, National Wildlife Refuges, National Park Service units, and 
lands protected by non-governmental organizations such as The Nature 
Conservancy. A description of these factors can be found in the SSA 
report (Service 2019a, pp. 21-24).
    Native species are known to modify habitat for the northeastern 
bulrush and can have meaningful, although mostly temporary, impacts on 
populations. Beavers can create flood conditions that negatively impact 
the species through increasing water depth by constructing or adding to 
a dam and raising the water level in a wetland occupied by the 
northeastern bulrush. However, beavers also have a long-term positive 
effect on habitat quality by harvesting trees and other woody 
vegetation for food and shelter, thereby creating open canopy and 
increasing light availability. Trampling by white-tailed deer 
(Odocoileus virginianus) and trampling and wallowing by American black 
bears (Ursus americanus) have been noted in some northeastern bulrush 
populations, and these activities can have mixed, sometimes 
substantial, impacts, especially where bulrush populations are very 
small. Trampling and soil compaction occur as deer and bears move 
through northeastern bulrush sites. Bears excavate wallows near the 
edge of wetlands, and some northeastern bulrush populations have been 
impacted by this activity. Wallows can be big enough to affect entire 
populations if the populations are very small; however, wallows also 
can be beneficial as they help create areas of open water, which are 
important during

[[Page 61392]]

dry periods. These factors affect a small number of populations, and it 
appears that the timing, location, and scale of the trampling and 
wallows that would need to align to extirpate a population occur with 
such infrequency as to be discountable. Therefore, while beaver 
activity, trampling, and wallowing can cause substantial localized 
impacts to individual northeastern bulrush populations, these are not 
significant factors contributing to the risk of extinction.
    There is no evidence the species is used for commercial or 
recreational purposes, or that the scientific and/or educational uses 
(e.g., seed collection, surveys, etc.) have significant impacts. 
Similarly, disease has not been documented as a factor affecting the 
species. Browsing by white-tailed deer has been noted in some 
northeastern bulrush populations in the Appalachian region; although it 
has not been reported in the northern region, it likely occurs 
rangewide at a similar scale as the Appalachian region. Deer browsing 
may affect plant fitness, particularly if other factors, such as 
decreased light availability, are affecting the population. Deer 
browsing impacts under these conditions likely affects a small number 
of populations, and it appears that the timing, location, and scale of 
the browsing that would need to align to extirpate a population occur 
with such infrequency as to be discountable. Therefore, 
overutilization, disease, and predation do not constitute a risk to the 
northeastern bulrush.
    The wetland habitats in which the northeastern bulrush occurs are 
protected by State statutes and regulations, although these mechanisms 
typically include a permitting process that allows direct impacts to 
wetlands. Some States have additional statutes or regulations or both 
that protect the northeastern bulrush or its habitat. For example, 
Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts require protection of upland 
buffers and permits to work within wetlands; however, State protection 
of upland areas around the wetlands is inconsistent, and disturbance 
such as roads or other development near wetlands can cause indirect 
effects such as sedimentation, altered hydrology, and introduction of 
invasive species.
    The species is designated as State endangered throughout its range, 
except in West Virginia, and these State designations are independent 
of the species' Federal status. West Virginia does not have a State law 
to protect endangered species, but only three northeastern bulrush 
populations occur in West Virginia. The States that currently protect 
the northeastern bulrush under State law require, at a minimum, project 
proponents to coordinate with State resource agencies to develop 
minimization measures for projects that may affect the northeastern 
bulrush or its habitat. The Regulatory Protection discussion in the SSA 
report (Service 2019a, pp. 17-21) includes a summary of our current 
understanding of the laws and regulations regarding wetlands and 
buffers in States where the northeastern bulrush occurs. The best 
available information indicates that the northeastern bulrush is not 
threatened by inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
    Climate change, especially in the southern portion of its range, is 
the primary factor influencing the viability of the northeastern 
bulrush. Although the species exists in wetlands that regularly 
experience fluctuating water levels, the northeastern bulrush and its 
habitat are susceptible to floods and droughts. Based on global, 
regional, and local climate models (Service 2019a, chapter 5), we 
expect that changes in climate will impact the northeastern bulrush's 
habitat by changing the amount, timing, and severity of precipitation 
and drought, and the number of extreme precipitation events. Higher 
temperatures, without increasing summer precipitation, may cause 
wetlands to dry up earlier, and an extended growing season may allow 
other vegetation to encroach upon, compete with, and increase shading 
of, northeastern bulrush plants. We expect these impacts to be more 
noticeable in populations that occur in seasonal wetlands. We expect 
beaver activity may at least partially mitigate effects of changing 
climate by regulating water levels through damming, maintaining larger 
wetlands and open area compared to seasonal wetlands, and removing 
trees and reducing shading at the wetland perimeter.
    The 13 populations (8.7 percent of known extant populations) in 
seasonal wetlands that are currently in poor condition are the most 
vulnerable to the effects of changing climate and have a high risk of 
extirpation. However, the populations in beaver wetlands are much less 
vulnerable to the effects of changing climate and have a low risk of 
extirpation. Rangewide, most populations (78 percent) occur in seasonal 
wetlands, but the distribution is geographically disparate. In the New 
England region, 60.4 percent of populations (29 of 48) occur in beaver 
wetlands, while in the Appalachian region, 97 percent of populations 
(97 of 100) occur in seasonal wetlands (Service 2019a, p. 29). 
Additional information on the effects of climate change on the 
northeastern bulrush can be found in the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 
33-34).

Future Condition Analysis

    We modeled a single scenario to assess the potential future 
viability of the northeastern bulrush in the context of the factors 
influencing species viability and resiliency, representation, and 
redundancy. Due to uncertainties with factors such as fluctuating water 
levels, climatic stochasticity, light availability, and regulatory 
protection, we used EO rank to assess future resiliency condition, 
consistent with our current condition analysis.
    We explored plausible changes in the factors considered in an EO 
ranking, such as population size, biotic factors, abiotic factors, and 
landscape context (Hammerson et al. 2008) to anticipate future changes 
in EO rank at each population. We were unable to explicitly predict 
changes in population size; however, we were able to use existing 
climate models to qualitatively anticipate effects of changing climate 
on biotic and abiotic factors (i.e., habitat type and quality). We used 
the same population resiliency scoring model for future condition that 
we used for current condition. Accordingly, to describe plausible 
future viability, we model future resiliency at the population level 
and reasonably reliable trends in redundancy and representation at the 
rangewide scale (see Service 2019a, pp. 32-39).
    We considered the potential consequences of climate change and 
carried the scenario approximately 30 years into the future (2050) to 
be considered our foreseeable future because we have information to 
reasonably reliably predict changes in climate within this timeframe. 
We first modeled the response of northeastern bulrush habitat to 
changes in climate consistent with representative concentration pathway 
(RCP) 8.5. The best available information, as summarized in the SSA 
report, generally presents this scenario as a plausible, high-emissions 
scenario anticipating greater changes in climate than moderate climate 
scenarios, such as RCP 4.5. Available information also suggests the 
probability of scenarios worse than RCP 8.5 is low. Therefore, RCP 8.5 
presents a worst case, but still plausible, scenario for northeastern 
bulrush habitat. As our analysis using RCP 8.5 resulted in the 
northeastern bulrush not meeting the Act's definition of an endangered 
or a threatened species, it follows that additional analyses using RCP 
4.5 or another

[[Page 61393]]

moderate-emissions climate model would result in lower magnitude 
effects on the species' habitat and, ultimately, the same listing 
determination. Therefore, we did not bracket our analysis with lower 
emissions climate models.
    We generally anticipate, and modeling reflects, that climate change 
is likely to impact the species' habitat through higher water levels 
early in the growing season followed by hotter summers and a faster 
drying cycle. For the northeastern bulrush, this will affect 
fluctuating water levels, climatic stochasticity, and light 
availability, resulting in neutral effects on beaver wetlands and 
negative effects on seasonal wetlands. We expect beavers to mitigate 
anticipated climate changes at beaver wetlands by thinning canopy cover 
and regulating water levels by damming. In addition, while we are not 
aware of climate studies examining specific effects on beavers, beavers 
occur within and outside the range of the northeastern bulrush in 
diverse landscapes, some of which are hotter and have different 
precipitation regimes. Accordingly, we anticipate beavers will remain 
within the range of the northeastern bulrush through 2050. Therefore, 
we expect no reduction in northeastern bulrush population 
representation in beaver wetlands before 2050 beyond that which could 
occur through normal beaver use and disuse of wetlands.
    Our future scenario anticipated moderate negative effects on 
resiliency, a slight decline in representation and redundancy, and 
extirpation of 13 populations (2 in the northern region and 11 in the 
Appalachian region) from seasonal wetlands. In 2050, approximately 135 
populations would remain distributed across a large geographical range 
in at least three physiographic provinces, two habitat types, and all 
currently occupied States. The number of future populations could be 
slightly higher if new populations are discovered. The species likely 
would retain low genetic diversity, especially in the northern region. 
The species' apparent limited dispersal capacity will reduce its 
ability to shift its range in response to changing climate. However, 
the species would retain its redundancy driven by a wide geographic 
distribution and retain representation via the use of a variety of 
environmental settings (habitat and physiographic provinces).
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    There are many conservation measures that benefit the northeastern 
bulrush's viability. These measures are consistent with those described 
in the recovery plan (Service 1993, entire) and include protection 
through State endangered species laws, protection through State wetland 
protection laws, protection of sites through perpetual conservation 
easements and public land ownership, surveys to monitor known 
populations and to locate additional populations, research efforts to 
better understand the species' life history, propagation and 
transplantation efforts, canopy thinning, invasive species control 
measures, and active management to address shrub encroachment.

Determination of Northeastern Bulrush Status

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

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we listed the northeastern bulrush in 1991 (see 56 FR 21091; 
May 7, 1991). At that time, there were only 13 known occurrences, and 
the species faced threats from habitat loss primarily due to land 
conversion for development. The northeastern bulrush has been the 
subject of recovery efforts since it was listed under the Act, and the 
discovery of previously unknown populations, research leading to the 
understanding of the species' needs, and identification of management 
actions that support those needs have led to a revised assessment of 
the status of the species since that time.
    As explained above, while the recovery plan does not include 
delisting criteria, our analysis presented in the SSA report (Service 
2019a, entire) shows that the intent of the recovery plan's downlisting 
criteria (Service 1993, p. 37) has been exceeded substantially, 
supporting our conclusion that the species is neither endangered nor 
threatened. The underlying purpose and intent of each of the three 
downlisting criteria has been exceeded by a wide margin. At the time of 
listing in 1991, there were 13 known extant populations in 6 States. By 
the time the recovery plan was approved 2 years later, in 1993, 33 
extant populations had been identified. Largely due to increased survey 
effort, there are presently 148 known extant populations in 8 States; 
this amounts to a 4-fold increase in known populations since the 
downlisting criteria were established. The first downlisting criterion 
in the recovery plan calls for permanent protection of 20 populations. 
Eighty-nine (approximately 60 percent) of the 148 known extant 
populations occur on public lands. This number greatly exceeds the 
protected populations called for in the first downlisting criterion, 
and we have also determined that the threat from development is less 
than projected at the time we completed the recovery plan (1993). 
Accordingly, we conclude that the intent of this criterion has been 
substantially exceeded. The second criterion calls for 20 stable or 
increasing populations. Of the 148 extant populations, 132 are in 
excellent, good, or fair condition, which is an order of magnitude 
higher than the number of stable or increasing populations called for 
in the second downlisting criterion. The third downlisting criterion 
calls for increased understanding of the species' life-

[[Page 61394]]

history and ecological requirements. Research on the effects of 
hydrology, shading, herbivory, genetics, propagation, transplantation, 
and nutrients on germination and plant growth has provided 
understanding that is sufficient to support long-term management of 
northeastern bulrush populations (e.g., Lentz and Cipollini 1998, 
entire; Lentz and Dunson 1998, entire).
    As discussed, under current conditions, there are 148 known 
populations of northeastern bulrush distributed throughout 4 
physiographic provinces in 8 States--New Hampshire, Vermont, 
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West 
Virginia. The increase in known populations since listing is due 
primarily to increased survey effort, and it is possible that more 
populations will be found in the future. Despite the dynamic nature of 
the species' life history, there have been only a few (9) documented 
extirpations of extant populations (Service 2019a, p. 27). Some 
populations have benefited from habitat management, but we are not 
aware of any populations that were newly established or re-established 
after extirpation as a result of outplanting or other restoration 
efforts. Our analysis of these populations in the SSA report (Service 
2019a, p. 27) indicates that 89 percent of the populations demonstrate 
excellent, good, and fair resiliency, and only 11 percent of the 
populations demonstrate poor resiliency.
    Development activities are no longer considered a significant 
threat. Deer browsing and trampling, as well as trampling and wallowing 
by black bears, have been noted in some populations, and these 
activities can have detrimental effects on a population, particularly 
if other factors, such as decreased light availability, are affecting 
the population. However, these factors affect only a small number of 
populations, and the likelihood is low that browsing, trampling, or 
wallowing would occur in a particular population with poor resiliency 
and with sufficient magnitude to affect the entire population. 
Accordingly, we conclude that browsing, trampling, and wallowing either 
individually or cumulatively are not likely to cause the extirpation of 
a population and, therefore, are not significant factors contributing 
to the risk of extinction of the northeastern bulrush.
    Regulatory protections afforded to the northeastern bulrush include 
State wetland protections and State endangered species regulations. 
These protections apply independently of the species' Federal status 
under the Act and, at a minimum, require project proponents to 
coordinate with State resource agencies to develop minimization 
measures for projects that may affect the northeastern bulrush or its 
habitat. A description of the States' regulatory protections can be 
found in the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 17-21).
    Since the listing of the northeastern bulrush in 1991, we have 
become aware of the potential for the effects of climate change to 
affect organisms and ecosystems, including the northeastern bulrush. To 
inform our understanding of the species' risk of extinction, we modeled 
a single future scenario detailed above in Summary of Biological Status 
and Threats. This future scenario, by itself, does not provide an 
estimate of the species' risk of extinction, but it does help us better 
understand the extent to which threats would have to further affect the 
species to cause extinction, considering the present population figures 
and resiliency status. Based on the best information regarding the 
species' current condition and threats, we projected how the threats 
would manifest under this ``worst case'' scenario and how the species 
would respond.
    To summarize, our greater knowledge regarding the prevalence of 
northeastern bulrush populations and the impacts of natural and 
artificial systems and disturbances on the species results in a 
conclusion that the overall extinction risk for the northeastern 
bulrush is much lower than we had previously determined it to be at the 
time the species was listed in 1991 (see 56 FR 21091; May 7, 1991). 
Considering our modeled ``worst case'' future scenario, it is apparent 
that the risk of threats manifesting in such a way as to cause 
extinction of the species is very low. Known impacts at the time of 
listing, such as habitat loss due to development and inadequate 
regulatory protections, that could have resulted in the extirpation of 
populations have either been reduced or have not materialized since 
listing. Through our assessment of future condition, including the 
status of known stressors and probable impacts of climate change, we 
anticipate that 88 percent of populations across the range of the 
species would maintain high, moderate, or fair resiliency over a 
timeframe of approximately 30 years into the future. We, therefore, 
conclude the previously recognized impacts to the northeastern bulrush 
from present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence do not rise to a 
level of significance, either individually or in combination, such that 
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available 
scientific information, we conclude that the northeastern bulrush is 
not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Having determined that the northeastern bulrush 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 (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of its 
range--that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for 
which both (1) the portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in 
danger of extinction 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 northeastern bulrush, we choose to 
address the status question first. We began by identifying portions of 
the range where the biological status of the species may be different 
from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, we 
considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of (a) 
individuals of the species, (b) the threats that the species faces, and 
(c) the resiliency condition of populations.
    We evaluated the range of the northeastern bulrush to determine if 
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. We focused our

[[Page 61395]]

analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the definition 
of an endangered species or a threatened species. For northeastern 
bulrush, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the 
species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the 
species' range than in other portions such that the species is in 
danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future in that portion.
    We examined the following threats and cumulative impacts of these 
threats: (1) habitat disturbance and destruction from development; (2) 
beaver activity; (3) deer and bear activities, such as trampling, 
browsing, and wallowing; and (4) climate change. As stated previously 
under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, when this species was 
listed, habitat disturbance and destruction from development and other 
anthropogenic impacts was identified as an important threat to the 
northeastern bulrush. However, since listing, the anticipated threat of 
habitat loss from development has not materialized in any portion of 
the range, and we conclude that the threat of habitat disturbance and 
destruction from development does not rise to a level that threatens 
the species now or into the future. Similarly, while we identified 
threats of beaver activity, trampling, and wallowing that can cause 
localized impacts to individual northeastern bulrush populations, these 
factors are not occurring at a significant level in any portion of the 
species' range.
    The effects of climate change differ between the northern and 
southern portions of the range of the northeastern bulrush, as most 
populations in the southern portion of the range occur in seasonal 
wetlands while populations in the northern portion are more evenly 
distributed between seasonal wetlands and beaver marshes. Changing 
climatic conditions will include more precipitation during winters, 
higher temperatures throughout the species' range, and an increased 
frequency of extreme precipitation events. We project these conditions 
will have more negative effects on seasonal wetlands and neutral 
effects on beaver marshes, equating to a slightly elevated risk from 
climate change in the southern portion of the range. As described in 
the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 32-39), climate change under a 
worst-case scenario could contribute to extirpation of 13 populations 
(2 populations in the northern portion and 11 in the southern portion) 
across the species' range. However, there are still projected to be 135 
populations remaining: 46 populations in the northern portion (96% of 
extant populations) and 89 in the southern portion (89%), providing 
representation and redundancy within each portion and across the 
species' range. Moreover, it is projected that the southern and 
northern portions of the range will each retain strong resiliency, with 
more than 85 percent of populations in the southern portion and 93 
percent in the northern portion projected to maintain high, moderate, 
or fair resiliency.
    Our conclusion regarding the current and future viability of the 
species is supported by multiple, sufficiently resilient populations 
distributed across representative ecological settings and physiographic 
provinces and encompassing most of the species' known genetic 
diversity. We found no biologically meaningful portion of the 
northeastern bulrush's range where the condition of the species differs 
from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the 
species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of 
the species' range.
    Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction 
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant 
portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings 
in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 
1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching 
this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy on 
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), including the 
definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be 
invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available 
indicates that the northeastern bulrush 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. In accordance with our regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2), currently in effect, the species has recovered 
to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to 
remove northeastern bulrush from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants.

Effects of This Rule

    This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by 
removing northeastern bulrush [species] from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation 
measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, 
would no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer 
be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in 
the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect 
northeastern bulrush.
    There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there 
would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) 
refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due 
to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the 
protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to 
monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and 
if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that 
proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any 
time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status 
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, 
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
    We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource 
agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as 
appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for 
northeastern bulrush. The PDM plan will build upon current research and 
effective management practices that have improved the status of the 
species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven 
management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species 
will be a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify 
measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and 
reacting to significant changes in northeastern bulrush numbers, 
distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or 
exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM 
participants, will investigate causes of these declines. The 
investigation will be to determine if the northeastern bulrush warrants 
expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat 
protection, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act.
    We appreciate any information on what should be included in post-

[[Page 61396]]

delisting monitoring strategies for these species (see Information 
Requested, above).

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.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the New England Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the New 
England Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

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. In Sec.  17.12, amend paragraph (h) by removing the entry for 
``Scirpus ancistrochaetus'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-16417 Filed 7-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P