43102 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

If the burial or memorialization of an eligible individual is in a: The applicant must: 

(1) Federally-administered cemetery or a State veterans cemetery that 

uses the NCA electronic ordering system.

(i) Submit a written request to the director of the cemetery where burial 

is requested indicating that a new emblem of belief is desired for inscription on a Government-furnished headstone or marker; and 

(ii) Provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this section to 

the NCA Director of Memorial Programs Service. 

(2) Private cemetery (deceased eligible veterans only), Federally-administered cemetery, or a State veterans cemetery that does not use 

the NCA electronic ordering system.

(i) Submit a completed VA Form 40–1330 to the NCA Director of Memorial Programs Service, indicating in the REMARKS section of the 

form that a new emblem of belief is desired; and 

(ii) Provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this section to 

the NCA Director of Memorial Programs Service. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) The applicant has submitted a 

certification concerning the emblem that 

meets the requirements of paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. 

(i) In the absence of evidence to the 

contrary, VA will accept as genuine an 

applicant’s statement regarding the 

sincerity of the religious or functionally 

equivalent belief system of a deceased 

eligible individual. If a factual dispute 

arises concerning whether the requested 

emblem represents the sincerely held 

religious or functionally equivalent 

belief of the decedent, the Director will 

evaluate whether the decedent gave 

specific instructions regarding the 

appropriate emblem during his or her 

life and the Under Secretary will resolve 

the dispute on that basis. 

(ii) In the absence of such 

instructions, the Under Secretary will 

resolve the dispute in accordance with 

the instructions of the decedent’s 

surviving spouse. If the decedent is not 

survived by a spouse, the Under 

Secretary will resolve the dispute in 

accordance with the agreement and 

written consent of the decedent’s living 

next-of-kin. For purposes of resolving 

such disputes under this section, nextof-kin means the living person(s) first 

listed as follows: 

(A) The decedent’s children 18 years 

of age or older, or if the decedent does 

not have children, then 

(B) The decedent’s parents, or if the 

decedent has no surviving parents, then 

(C) The decedent’s siblings. 

* * * * * 

(5) The emblem meets the technical 

requirements for inscription specified in 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

(g) Decision by the Under Secretary 

for Memorial Affairs. (1) A decision will 

be made on all complete applications. A 

request to inscribe a new emblem on a 

Government-furnished headstone or 

marker shall be granted if the Under 

Secretary for Memorial Affairs finds that 

the request meets each of the applicable 

criteria in paragraph (f) of this section. 

In making that determination, if there is 

an approximate balance between the 

positive and negative evidence 

concerning any fact material to making 

that determination, the Under Secretary 

shall give the benefit of the doubt to the 

applicant. The Under Secretary shall 

consider the Director of NCA’s Office of 

Field Programs’ recommendation and 

may consider information from any 

source. 

(2) If the Under Secretary for 

Memorial Affairs determines that 

allowing the inscription of a particular 

proposed emblem would adversely 

affect the dignity and solemnity of the 

cemetery environment or that the 

emblem does not meet the technical 

requirements for inscription, the Under 

Secretary shall notify the applicant in 

writing and offer to the applicant the 

option of either: 

(i) Omitting the part of the emblem 

that is problematic while retaining the 

remainder of the emblem, if this is 

feasible, or 

(ii) Choosing a different emblem to 

represent the religious or functionally 

equivalent belief that does not have 

such an adverse impact. 

(3) Applicants will have 60 days from 

the date of the notice to cure any 

adverse impact or technical defect 

identified by the Under Secretary. Only 

if neither option is acceptable to the 

applicant, the applicant’s requested 

alternative is also unacceptable, or the 

applicant does not respond within the 

60-day period, will the Under Secretary 

ultimately deny the application. 

* * * * * 

§ 38.633 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 38.633 by removing the 

last sentence in paragraph (a)(2). 

PART 39—AID FOR THE 

ESTABLISHMENT, EXPANSION, AND 

IMPROVEMENT, OR OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, OF VETERANS 

CEMETERIES 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C 101, 501, 2408, 2411, 

3765. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 39.10 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 39.10 by removing ‘‘38 

CFR 38.600(b)’’ wherever it appears in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and adding 

‘‘38 CFR 38.600(a)’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16660 Filed 8–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2018–0036; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BC80 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing Trifolium 

Stoloniferum (Running Buffalo Clover) 

From the Federal List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 

Trifolium stoloniferum (running buffalo 

clover) from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants on 

the basis of recovery. This 

determination is based on a thorough 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial data, including 

comments received, which indicate that 

the threats to running buffalo clover 

have been eliminated or reduced to the 

point that the species no longer meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

7, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, the postdelisting monitoring (PDM) plan, 

supporting documents, and the public 

comments received on the proposed 

rule are available on the internet at 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43103 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2018–0036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrice Ashfield, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio 

Ecological Services Field Office, 4625 

Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, OH 

43230; telephone 614–416–8993. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may be removed from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants (List) if it is 

determined that the species has 

recovered and no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species. Removing a species 

from the List can be completed only by 

issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

removes the running buffalo clover 

(Trifolium stoloniferum) from the List in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR 17.12(h)) based on 

its recovery. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we determine that a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species based on any of five factors: (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

must consider the same factors when 

removing a species from the List (i.e., 

‘‘delisting’’ a species). We may delist a 

species if we find, after conducting a 

status review based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, that: (1) The species is extinct; 

(2) the species does not meet the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species (e.g., because it has 

recovered); or (3) the listed entity does 

not meet the statutory definition of a 

species (50 CFR 424.11(e)). We have 

determined that the running buffalo 

clover is not in danger of extinction now 

nor likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future based on a 

comprehensive review of its status and 

listing factors. Accordingly, we have 

determined that the species may be 

delisted based on recovery as a result of: 

(1) An increase in the number of known 

populations; (2) resiliency to existing 

and potential threats; (3) the 

implementation of management 

agreements to maintain suitable habitat 

for the species; and (4) protection on 

public lands. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

evaluated the species’ needs, current 

conditions, and future conditions to 

prepare our August 27, 2019, proposed 

rule (84 FR 44832). We sought and 

evaluated comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our 

determination is based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

We also invited these peer reviewers to 

comment on the draft PDM plan. We 

considered all comments and 

information we received during the 

public comment period on the proposed 

delisting rule and the draft PDM plan 

when developing this final rule. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We published a final rule listing 

running buffalo clover as an endangered 

species under the Act on June 5, 1987 

(52 FR 21478). The Running Buffalo 

Clover Recovery Plan (Service 1989) 

was approved on June 8, 1989, and 

revised in 2007 (72 FR 35253, June 27, 

2007). 

Running buffalo clover was included 

in a cursory 5-year review of all species 

listed before January 1, 1991 (56 FR 

56882, November 6, 1991). The 5-year 

review did not result in a 

recommendation to change the species’ 

listing status. We completed 

comprehensive 5-year reviews of the 

status of running buffalo clover in 2008, 

2011, and 2017 (Service 2008, 2011, 

2017). These reviews recommended 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened status, based on achievement 

of the recovery criteria at that time. 

On August 27, 2019, we proposed to 

delist the running buffalo clover due to 

recovery (84 FR 44832). In that 

document, we requested information 

and comments from the public and peer 

reviewers regarding the proposed rule 

and the draft PDM plan for running 

buffalo clover. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In preparing this final rule, we 

reviewed and fully considered all 

comments we received during the 

comment period from the peer 

reviewers, States, and public on the 

proposed rule to delist running buffalo 

clover (84 FR 44832, August 27, 2019). 

As a result, we incorporated new 

information into Distribution, Habitat, 

and Biology under Background in this 

final rule. We also updated the number 

of populations with management 

agreements that meet delisting criterion 

3 and reassessed the species’ status in 

light of that modification. 

Background 

The following discussion contains 

updates to the information that was 

presented in the proposed rule to 

remove running buffalo clover from the 

List. A thorough discussion of the 

species’ description, habitat, and life 

history is also found in the proposed 

rule. 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Running buffalo clover is a member of 

the Fabaceae (pea) family. This shortlived perennial forms long runners 

(stolons) from its base and produces 

erect flowering stems, 10–30 

centimeters (cm) (4–12 inches (in)) tall. 

The flower heads are round and large, 

9–12 millimeters (mm) (0.3–0.5 in). 

Flowers are white, tinged with purple. 

Distribution 

The known historical distribution of 

running buffalo clover includes 

Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and West 

Virginia (Brooks 1983, pp. 346, 349). 

There were very few reports rangewide 

between 1910 and 1983. Prior to 1983, 

the most recent collection had been 

made in 1940, in Webster County, West 

Virginia (Brooks 1983, p. 349). The 

species was thought extinct until it was 

rediscovered in 1983, in West Virginia 

(Bartgis 1985, p. 426). At the time of 

listing in 1987, only one population was 

known to exist, but soon afterward, 

several additional populations were 

found in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and 

West Virginia. Populations were 

rediscovered in the wild in Missouri in 

1994 (Hickey 1994, p. 1). A single 

population was discovered in 

Pennsylvania in 2017 (Grund 2017) with 

additional populations discovered since 

then. 

One hundred seventy-five extant 

populations of running buffalo clover 

are known from three ecoregions, as 

described by Bailey (1998): Hot 

Continental, Hot Continental 

Mountainous, and Prairie. These 

include 15 occurrences in Ohio and 

Pennsylvania that have either been 

discovered or of which we have been 

notified since publication of the 

proposed delisting rule. For recovery 

purposes, the populations are divided 

into three regions based on proximity to 

each other and overall habitat 

similarities. These regions are 

Appalachian (West Virginia, 

southeastern Ohio, and Pennsylvania), 

Bluegrass (southwestern Ohio, central 

Kentucky, and Indiana), and Ozark 

(Missouri). The majority of populations 

occur within the Appalachian and 

Bluegrass regions. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43104 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 floodscouring. Populations have been 

reported from a variety of habitats, 

including mesic woodlands, savannahs, 

floodplains, stream banks, sandbars 

(especially where old trails cross or 

parallel intermittent streams), grazed 

woodlots, mowed paths (e.g., in 

cemeteries, parks, and lawns), old 

logging roads, jeep trails, all-terrain 

vehicle trails, skid trails, mowed 

wildlife openings within mature forest, 

and steep ravines. Running buffalo 

clover occurs in a wide range of soil 

types, with calcium often the dominant 

base in the soil (Hattenbach 1996, p. 53). 

Running buffalo clover is often found in 

regions with limestone or other 

calcareous bedrock underlying the site, 

although limestone soil is not a requisite 

determining factor for the locations of 

populations of this species. For 

example, new populations of running 

buffalo clover have been discovered in 

West Virginia in areas with soil derived 

from new geological units (WVDNR 

2019, in litt.). 

Sites that have not been disturbed 

within the last 20 years are unlikely to 

support running buffalo clover 

(Burkhart 2013, p. 158) because the 

species relies on periodic disturbances 

to set back succession and open the tree 

canopy to create and maintain the 

partial to filtered sunlight it requires. 

These disturbances can be natural (for 

example, tree falls and flood scouring) 

or anthropogenic (such as grazing, 

mowing, trampling, low-intensity 

disturbance from counting and 

monitoring, or selective logging) in 

origin. Although tree harvest 

disturbances that reduce canopy cover 

may cause a temporary decline in 

running buffalo clover, populations 

usually increase 2 years later (Madarish 

and Schuler 2002, p. 127) and reach 

their highest density 14 years after 

disturbance (Burkhart 2013, p. 159). 

However, a complete loss of forest 

canopy can be detrimental to running 

buffalo clover by allowing in too much 

sunlight and altering the microclimate. 

Biology 

Substantial variability in the growth 

and development of running buffalo 

clover has been documented, but the 

plant structure usually includes rooted 

crowns (rosettes that are rooted into the 

ground) and stolons (above-ground 

creeping stems) that connect several 

rooted or unrooted crowns, which 

eventually separate to leave ‘‘daughter’’ 

plants. Because of this stoloniferous 

growth form, individual plants can be 

difficult to distinguish. The Running 

Buffalo Clover Recovery Plan defines an 

individual plant as a rooted crown 

(Service 2007, p. 1). Rooted crowns may 

occur alone or be connected to other 

rooted crowns by runners. 

Flowering typically occurs between 

mid-May and June. However, plants at 

higher elevations in the mountains of 

West Virginia may bloom as late as midJuly (WVDNR 2019, in litt.). Flowers are 

visited by a variety of bee species (Apis 

spp. and Bombus spp.) and are crosspollinated 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 (°C) (59–68 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)) during the day and 5 to 

10 °C (41–50 °F) at night. Spring 

temperature fluctuations appear to be a 

major dormancy breaker in natural 

populations of running buffalo clover 

(Baskin 2004). 

Scarification may aid in seed 

germination and seed dispersal. 

Scarification of seeds by the digestive 

system of herbivores, historically 

believed to be bison, deer, elk, or small 

herbivores such as rabbits or 

groundhogs, was likely an important 

process in natural populations 

(Thurman 1988, p. 4; Cusick 1989, pp. 

475–476). Although deer are viable 

vectors for running buffalo clover seeds, 

the survival and germination rates of 

ingested seeds are low (Ford et al. 2003, 

pp. 426–427). Dispersal and 

establishment of new populations of 

running buffalo clover by white-tailed 

deer herbivory may not be significant 

(Ford et al. 2003, pp. 426–427). It 

appears that scarification accelerates the 

germination process, whereas natural 

germination may occur over time if the 

right temperature fluctuations occur 

(Service 2007, p. 9). 

Genetics 

Running buffalo clover has relatively 

low levels of diversity and low levels of 

gene flow between populations, even 

between those separated by short 

distances (Hickey and Vincent 1992, p. 

15). Much of the genetic diversity 

observed in running buffalo clover 

occurs across different populations, and 

small populations of running buffalo 

clover contribute as much to the total 

species’ genetic diversity as large 

populations (Crawford et al. 1998, p. 

88). 

Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Recovery plans must, to the 

maximum extent practicable, include 

‘‘objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination, in accordance with the 

provisions of this section [section 4 of 

the Act], that the species be removed 

from the list.’’ 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

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

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species, is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and the species 

is robust enough to delist. In other 

cases, recovery opportunities may be 

discovered that were not known when 

the recovery plan was finalized. These 

opportunities may be used instead of 

methods identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, information on the species 

may be learned that was not known at 

the time the recovery plan was 

finalized. The new information may 

change the extent to which existing 

criteria are appropriate for recognizing 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43105 

recovery of the species. Recovery of a 

species is a dynamic process requiring 

adaptive management that may, or may 

not, follow all of the guidance provided 

in a recovery plan. 

The revised recovery plan for running 

buffalo clover (Service 2007, p. 24) 

states that the ultimate goal of the 

recovery program is to delist running 

buffalo clover. The plan provides three 

criteria for reclassifying running buffalo 

clover from endangered to threatened 

status (i.e., to ‘‘downlist’’ the species) 

and three criteria for delisting running 

buffalo clover. All of the downlisting 

criteria have been met since 2008 

(Service 2008, pp. 3–4; Service 2011, 

pp. 3–4; Service 2017, pp. 3–5). The 

following discussion provides an 

assessment of the delisting criteria as 

they relate to evaluating the status of 

this species. 

Criterion 1 for Delisting 

Criterion 1 states that 34 populations, 

in total, are distributed as follows: 2 Aranked, 6 B-ranked, 6 C-ranked, and 20 

D-ranked populations across at least 2 of 

the 3 regions in which running buffalo 

clover occurs (Appalachian, Bluegrass, 

and Ozark). The number of populations 

in each rank is based on what would be 

required to achieve a 95 percent 

probability of persistence within the 

next 20 years; this number was doubled 

to ensure biological redundancy across 

the range of the species. Rankings refer 

to the element occurrence (E.O.) ranking 

categories. 

E.O. rankings, which integrate 

population size and habitat integrity, are 

explained in detail in the recovery plan 

(Service 2007, pp. 2–3). In summary, Aranked populations are those with 1,000 

or more naturally occurring rooted 

crowns; B-ranked populations have 

between 100 and 999 naturally 

occurring rooted crowns; C-ranked 

populations have between 30 and 99 

naturally occurring rooted crowns; and 

D-ranked populations have between 1 

and 29 naturally occurring rooted 

crowns. 

Populations are currently distributed 

as follows: 18 A-ranked, 47 B-ranked, 40 

C-ranked, and 70 D-ranked, and they 

occur in all three regions across the 

range of the species. Thus, we conclude 

that this criterion has been substantially 

exceeded. 

Criterion 2 for Delisting 

Criterion 2 states that for each Aranked and B-ranked population 

described in criterion 1, population 

viability analysis (PVA) indicates 95 

percent probability of persistence 

within the next 20 years, or for any 

population that does not meet the 95 

percent persistence standard, the 

population meets the definition of 

viable. For delisting purposes, viability 

is defined as: Seed production is 

occurring; the population is stable or 

increasing, based on at least 10 years of 

censusing; and appropriate management 

techniques are in place. 

Seven A-ranked and 14 B-ranked 

populations are considered viable, 

based on a PVA or 10 years of data. 

Thus, we conclude that this criterion 

has been exceeded. 

Criterion 3 for Delisting 

Delisting criterion 3 states that the 

land on which each of the 34 

populations described in delisting 

criterion 1 occurs is owned by a 

government agency or private 

conservation organization that identifies 

maintenance of the species as one of the 

primary conservation objectives for the 

site, or the population is protected by a 

conservation agreement that commits 

the private landowner to habitat 

management for the species. 

This criterion was intended to ensure 

that habitat-based threats for the species 

are addressed. At the time of listing, the 

Service determined that without regular 

management, suitable habitat for this 

species would be quickly lost through 

the process of forest succession. The 

revised recovery plan identified the 

most critical biological constraint and 

need for the recovery of running buffalo 

clover as its dependence on disturbance 

to maintain filtered sunlight (Service 

2007, p. 22). This requirement informed 

the recovery strategy of active 

management to remove competing 

vegetation and selectively remove trees 

to prevent overshading. Key to this 

recovery strategy was the protection and 

ecological management of various-sized 

populations throughout the species’ 

geographic range. Small populations (Cand D-ranked populations) were 

included because they contribute as 

much as large populations to the overall 

level of the species’ genetic diversity, 

which is important for survival of the 

species as a whole. 

Currently, 22 populations meet this 

criterion, as follows: 2 A-ranked, 10 Branked, 6 C-ranked, and 4 D-ranked. 

There are 4 more B-ranked populations 

than required. Although these 

additional higher ranked populations 

can count for lower ranked populations, 

this criterion has still not been fully 

met. However, 66 additional 

populations occur on publicly owned 

lands, such as national forests, State 

lands, and local parks, thereby 

minimizing threats from habitat loss and 

degradation. 

The forest management plans for both 

the Monongahela and Wayne national 

forests include direction and guidelines 

to avoid and minimize impacts of 

forestry practices on running buffalo 

clover. These forestry management 

practices, as conditioned through 

running buffalo clover measures 

included in their respective forest plans, 

are compatible with running buffalo 

clover conservation. The forest plans 

include forest-wide standards and 

guidelines; compliance with standards 

is mandatory. 

The Wayne National Forest plan’s 

standards for running buffalo clover 

require measures to protect populations 

during prescribed fire activities, avoid 

mechanical construction of firelines in 

known occupied habitat, and protect 

populations during road and trail 

construction, and a forest-wide 

guideline restricts application of 

herbicides within 25 feet of known 

running buffalo clover populations (U.S. 

Forest Service 2006, p. 2–22). In 

addition, the Wayne National Forest 

signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Service and the 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

in 2021 to ensure the protection and 

management of running buffalo clover 

by maintaining the appropriate level of 

disturbance, controlling invasive 

species, and ensuring the appropriate 

level of sunlight where running buffalo 

clover is found on the national forest. 

The Monongahela National Forest 

plan includes standards to avoid 

conducting prescribed burns, 

constructing fuel breaks, and 

implementing activities, such as 

construction of new roads or ditching 

for pipelines, in running buffalo clover 

areas. Guidelines include implementing 

habitat management measures to 

maintain and restore running buffalo 

clover populations, timing maintenance 

mowing to benefit running buffalo 

clover, avoiding use of potentially 

invasive species for seeding/mulching, 

and monitoring the effects of grazing on 

running buffalo clover (U.S. Forest 

Service 2011, pp. II–27–II–28). Thus, 

although this criterion is not met in the 

manner specifically identified in the 

recovery plan, we conclude that the 

intent of the criterion to ensure that 

sufficient populations were protected 

from threats into the future has been 

met. 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43106 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

endangered species as a species that is 

‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range,’’ and 

a threatened species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We must consider these same five 

factors in delisting a species. According 

to 50 CFR 424.11(e), we shall delist a 

species if the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that: 

(1) The species is extinct; (2) the species 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species; or (3) the listed entity does not 

meet the statutory definition of a 

species. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this section, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the influences to 

assess the species’ overall viability and 

the risks to that viability. 

Habitat Destruction and Succession 

The revised recovery plan for running 

buffalo clover (Service 2007, p. 14) 

identified the major threats to this 

species throughout its range as habitat 

destruction, habitat succession, and 

invasive plant competition (Factor A). 

Land development and the 

consequential loss of habitat can also be 

a threat to running buffalo clover. 

Natural succession from open to dense 

canopy in forests within the range of 

running buffalo clover occurs over a 30- 

to 40-year time span, depending on the 

dominant species and aspect of the site. 

Because the species relies on periodic 

disturbances to set back succession and/ 

or open the tree canopy to create and 

maintain the partial to filtered sunlight 

it requires, activities that interfere with 

natural disturbance processes can 

negatively affect populations of running 

buffalo clover. Conversely, activities 

that periodically set back natural 

succession can benefit the species. 

Current logging practices may benefit 

running buffalo clover. At the Fernow 

Experimental Forest in north-central 

West Virginia, running buffalo clover is 

most often associated with skid roads in 

uneven-aged silvicultural areas 

(Madarish and Schuler 2002, p. 121). 

Populations may initially decrease after 

logging, but then rebound to higher than 

pre-disturbance levels (Madarish and 

Schuler 2002, p. 127). 

Depending on the circumstances, it 

appears that both overgrazing and no 

grazing at all can be threats to running 

buffalo clover. In Kentucky, overgrazing 

poses threats to running buffalo clover, 

but removal of cattle from clover 

populations has resulted in overshading 

and competition from other vegetation 

(White et al. 1999, p. 10). Periodic 

grazing at the Bluegrass Army Depot has 

provided the moderate disturbance 

needed to maintain running buffalo 

clover (Fields and White 1996, p. 14). 

Nonnative species, such as bluegrass 

(Poa pratensis) and white clover 

(Trifolium repens), compete with 

running buffalo clover for available 

resources (Jacobs and Bartgis 1987, p. 

441). Other nonnative species that affect 

running buffalo clover include Japanese 

stiltgrass, garlic mustard (Alliaria 

petiolata), Japanese honeysuckle 

(Lonicera japonica), Amur honeysuckle 

(Lonicera maackii), and multiflora rose 

(Rosa multiflora). Threats by invasive 

competition can be mediated by treating 

the invasive plants by hand removal, 

herbicide application, and/or mowing. 

Although nonnative species are 

widespread across the range of running 

buffalo clover, not all running buffalo 

clover sites are affected by invasive 

species. For example, 14 of the 31 sites 

(45 percent) in Ohio have one or more 

nonnative species present at varying 

densities, and 8 of those sites are 

managed for invasive species control. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43107 

The habitat needs of running buffalo 

clover on Federal, State, and locally 

owned lands are often included in plans 

or agreements for those lands (Factor D). 

The Monongahela National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (U.S. 

Forest Service 2011, pp. II–27–II–28) 

and Wayne National Forest Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

(U.S. Forest Service 2006, pp. 2–22, D– 

16) both include habitat management 

and protection measures for running 

buffalo clover, as does the Wayne 

National Forest’s recently signed 

memorandum of understanding. The 

Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky 

protects and manages running buffalo 

clover under an Endangered Species 

Management Plan (Floyd 2006, pp. 30– 

37), included as part of their Integrated 

Natural Resource Management Plan, and 

all running buffalo clover populations at 

the Army Depot are covered by these 

management actions (Littlefield 2017). 

A memorandum of understanding 

between the Ohio Historical Society, 

Ohio Division of Natural Areas and 

Preserves, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service provides for running 

buffalo clover habitat protection and 

management. These plans and 

agreements also provide for education 

and outreach efforts and surveying and 

monitoring for running buffalo clover. 

Some of these agreements automatically 

renew at the end of their 5-year period 

while others have the option to renew. 

The agreement with the Ohio Historical 

Society does not have an expiration 

date. We expect that these plans and 

agreements will remain in place and 

habitat management will continue after 

delisting running buffalo clover. 

In total, 22 populations are under 

some form of management that 

incorporates specific needs of running 

buffalo clover, and 66 additional 

populations occur on publicly owned 

lands where regulatory mechanisms 

now exist that prevent loss from 

development (Factor D). Although the 

species benefits from active 

management, it does not appear to rely 

on management actions as demonstrated 

by the 59 populations that have been 

found over the last 10 years at sites 

where natural processes and/or various 

human activities are maintaining some 

suitable habitat for running buffalo 

clover. For these reasons, threats from 

habitat destruction, habitat succession, 

and invasive species have been reduced 

or are being adequately managed such 

that they are not affecting the species’ 

viability. 

Collection 

When the species was listed in 1987, 

overutilization for scientific or 

educational purposes (Factor B) was 

identified as a threat, given that only 

one population consisting of four 

individuals was known at the time (52 

FR 21478, June 5, 1987). Today, with 

175 populations known, collection for 

scientific or educational purposes is 

very limited and distributed among 

many populations and is no longer 

considered a threat (Service 2017, p. 

17). 

Running buffalo clover is listed as 

endangered or threatened under State 

laws in Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, and 

Kentucky (Factor D). The laws in Ohio 

and Missouri prohibit commercial 

taking of listed plants. We are aware of 

only one unpermitted collection in 2015 

when a population in West Virginia 

appeared to have been dug up and the 

main plant group removed (Douglas 

2015). The purpose of the collection is 

unknown. Despite this one event, 

running buffalo clover is not known to 

be used for any commercial or 

recreational purposes, and we have no 

information that commercial or 

recreational collection will occur in the 

future. 

Disease 

At the time of listing in 1987, disease 

(Factor C) was also predicted to threaten 

running buffalo clover (52 FR 21478, 

June 5, 1987). Jacobs and Bartgis (1987, 

p. 441) suggested that the decline of this 

species may have partially centered on 

a pathogen introduced from the exotic 

white clover; however, no specific 

disease has been identified over the 

intervening years (Service 2008, p. 10). 

A number of viral and fungal diseases, 

including cucumber mosaic virus and 

the comovirus, are reported to have 

attacked the species in greenhouses at 

the Missouri Botanical Garden (Sehgal 

and Payne 1995, p. 320), but no 

evidence has been gathered showing 

these viruses’ impact on the decline of 

running buffalo clover in the wild 

(Service 2008, p. 10). 

Parasitism 

Parasitism by root-knot nematodes 

(Meloidogyne spp.) is common in 

clovers and often limits productivity in 

cultivated clovers used as forage crops 

(Quesenberry et al. 1997, p. 270) (Factor 

C). Investigations have been conducted 

on the effects of root-knot nematodes on 

native North American clovers, 

including running buffalo clover. After 

inoculation of the parasite, running 

buffalo clover displayed high resistance 

to three of the four nematode species 

analyzed, and only an intermediate 

response to the fourth species of 

nematode (Quesenberry et al. 1997, p. 

270). Thus, the threat from this parasite 

is not considered significant. 

Herbivory 

Herbivory by a variety of species has 

been reported for running buffalo clover 

(Factor C). In Missouri, running buffalo 

clover plants are repeatedly grazed by 

rabbits, rodents, and slugs (Pickering 

1989, p. 3). Similar observations have 

been made in Kentucky (Davis 1987, p. 

11). The Fayette County, West Virginia, 

population was eaten to the ground by 

a groundhog, but more than a dozen 

rooted crowns were observed at the 

population the following year. Whitetailed deer can also consume large 

amounts of running buffalo clover 

(Miller et al. 1992, pp. 68–69). Although 

a population may be entirely consumed 

during a growing season, plants may 

return again the next year. The best 

available information indicates that 

herbivory is not a threat to the species. 

Small Population Size 

Running buffalo clover populations 

often display widely fluctuating 

population size (USFWS 2020, 

unpublished data). The cause for 

changes in population size may be due 

to disturbance, weather patterns, 

management strategy, natural 

succession, or other unknown factors. 

Small populations are at an increased 

risk of extirpation due to these 

stochastic events, which could impact 

all individuals in a small population 

(Factor E). The cyclic nature of running 

buffalo clover and the high probability 

of small populations disappearing one 

year and returning a subsequent year, 

may lead to difficulty in protecting 

small populations. However, the 

number (110) and distribution of C- and 

D-ranked populations now known 

across the species’ range indicate that 

small population size is not a threat to 

the running buffalo clover. 

Inadequate Seed Dispersal 

The loss of large herbivores, such as 

bison and white-tailed deer, after 

European settlement may have resulted 

in no effective means of dispersal 

remaining for running buffalo clover 

(Cusick 1989, p. 477) (Factor E). Deer 

have now returned to pre-settlement 

numbers, but dispersal and 

establishment of new populations of 

running buffalo clover by white-tailed 

deer may not be significant (Ford et al. 

2003, p. 427). With 175 occurrences of 

running buffalo clover now known, 

inadequate seed dispersal does not 

appear to be having population-level 

effects. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43108 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Poor Seed Quality 

Although researchers have speculated 

that inbreeding depression may have 

contributed to the decline of running 

buffalo clover (Hickey et al. 1991, p. 

315; Taylor et al. 1994, p. 1,099) (Factor 

E), selfed seeds have been shown to 

germinate well and develop into 

vigorous plants (Franklin 1998, p. 39). 

However, temporal variations in seed 

quality have been reported. Seed quality 

may be correlated with rainfall; quality 

decreases in years with unusually high 

rainfall (Franklin 1998, p. 38). With 175 

occurrences of running buffalo clover 

now known, the impacts of poor seed 

quality do not appear to affect entire 

populations, nor do these impacts 

persist for any extended period of time. 

Effects of Climate Change 

Under future emission scenarios, 

including Representative Concentration 

Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5, the 

effects of climate change in the 

foreseeable future are expected to result 

in rising average temperatures 

throughout the range of running buffalo 

clover, along with more frequent heat 

waves and increased periods of drought 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPPC) 2014, p. 10), which may 

affect growth of running buffalo clover. 

For example, a prolonged drought in 

Missouri in 2012 may have impacted a 

running buffalo clover population for 

the next 2 years as plants were not 

observed again until 2015 (McKenzie 

and Newbold 2015, p. 20). 

High-precipitation events are also 

expected to increase in number, volume, 

and frequency in mid-latitude areas 

(IPCC 2014, p. 11). Several running 

buffalo clover populations are located 

within areas prone to flooding. 

Infrequent high-flow events create 

moderate disturbance, which may be 

beneficial for this species. But 

increasing the magnitude or frequency 

of high-flow events may increase storm 

flows and intensify disturbance from 

flood events, which may create 

excessive disturbance and alter the 

habitat suitability for running buffalo 

clover. In addition, increased annual 

precipitation may lead to decreased 

seed quality. 

According to IPCC, ‘‘most plant 

species cannot naturally shift their 

geographical ranges sufficiently fast to 

keep up with current and high projected 

rates of climate change on most 

landscapes’’ (IPCC 2014, p. 13). Shifts in 

the range of running buffalo clover as an 

adaptation to climate changes are 

unlikely, due to the limited dispersal of 

seeds, restriction to specific habitat 

types, and the lack of connection 

between most populations. 

The effects of climate change may also 

result in a longer growing season and 

shorter dormant season, which may 

change flowering periods. For example, 

blossoms of running buffalo clover have 

been turning brown at the beginning of 

June (Becus 2016); and in 2016 and 

2017, running buffalo clover plants in 

Ohio began blooming in April, which is 

the earliest this species had been 

observed blooming (Becus 2017). For 

some plant species, a change in 

flowering period may create an 

asynchrony between prime bloom time 

and when specific pollinators are 

available, resulting in a reduction in 

pollination and subsequent seed set. 

However, because running buffalo 

clover can be pollinated by a diversity 

of bee species, significant asynchrony 

with pollinators is not expected to 

occur. 

Climate change presents a largely 

unknown influence on the species, with 

potential for negative and beneficial 

impacts. Populations of running buffalo 

clover occur within various ecoregions 

within the species’ range and are 

capable of recovering from stochastic 

events, such as droughts and heavy 

precipitation and high stream flows. 

Running buffalo clover is not dependent 

on particular species of pollinators and 

appears adaptable to potential changes 

to pollinator communities. This 

indicates that populations will continue 

to be viable in the foreseeable future in 

the face of climate change. 

Synergistic Effects 

Many of the stressors discussed in 

this analysis could work in concert with 

each other and result in a cumulative 

adverse effect to running buffalo clover 

(e.g., one stressor may make the species 

more vulnerable to the effects of other 

threats). However, most of the potential 

stressors we identified either have not 

occurred to the extent originally 

anticipated at the time of listing 

(collection, disease), are no longer a 

threat in light of the many populations 

discovered since the time of listing, or 

are adequately managed as described in 

this proposal to delist the species 

(habitat destruction and succession, 

invasive species). In addition, for the 

reasons discussed in this final rule, we 

do not anticipate stressors to increase on 

publicly owned lands or lands that are 

managed for the species. 

Synergistic interactions are possible 

between the effects of climate change 

and effects of other threats, such as 

nonnative plant invasion. However, it is 

difficult to project how the effects of 

climate change will affect interaction or 

competition between species. 

Uncertainty about how different plant 

species will respond under a changing 

climate makes projecting possible 

synergistic effects of climate change on 

running buffalo clover too speculative. 

However, the increases documented in 

the number of populations since the 

species was listed do not indicate that 

cumulative effects of various activities 

and stressors are affecting the viability 

of the species at this time or into the 

future. Post-delisting monitoring will 

monitor the status of running buffalo 

clover and its habitat to detect any 

changes in status that may result from 

removing the species from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 

CFR 17.12(h)). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In our proposed rule published on 

August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44832), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by October 28, 2019. We also 

requested public comments on the draft 

PDM plan. We contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposal. In accordance 

with our peer review policy published 

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our 

August 22, 2016, Director’s 

Memorandum ‘‘Peer Review Process,’’ 

we solicited expert opinion from five 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the running buffalo 

clover and its habitat, biological needs, 

and threats. 

During the comment period, we 

received 24 comments on the proposal 

to delist running buffalo clover and the 

draft PDM plan: 2 from peer reviewers, 

4 from States, 2 from Federal agencies, 

and 16 from the public. All comments 

are posted at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2018– 

0036. Some public commenters support 

the delisting of running buffalo clover; 

some did not state whether or not they 

support the delisting; and others do not 

support delisting, although a subset of 

these, including one State and one peer 

reviewer, would support downlisting to 

threatened status. We did not receive 

any requests for a public hearing. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from peer reviewers, States, 

Federal agencies, and the public for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding running buffalo clover. 

Substantive information provided 

during the comment period is addressed 

below and, where appropriate, is 

incorporated directly into this final rule 

and the PDM plan. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43109 

State Comments 

Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states 

that the Secretary must give actual 

notice of a proposed regulation under 

section 4(a) to the State agency in each 

State in which the species is believed to 

occur, and invite the comments of such 

agency. Section 4(i) of the Act directs 

that the Secretary will submit to the 

State agency a written justification for 

his or her failure to adopt regulations 

consistent with the agency’s comments 

or petition. We solicited comments from 

all States within the species’ range and 

received comments from four States. 

(1) Comment: The Office of Kentucky 

Nature Preserves commented that 

running buffalo clover is trending 

towards recovery and meets almost all 

the criteria specified in the recovery 

plan. They stated that only one 

cooperative agreement currently 

protects running buffalo clover in 

Kentucky and expressed concern that 

additional cooperative management 

agreements are needed in Kentucky in 

order to fully meet delisting criterion 3. 

The Office of Kentucky Nature Preserves 

indicated that Kentucky plans to 

continue to implement additional 

management agreements and enroll 

more private lands with the registered 

natural area program. 

Response: Although there is currently 

only one cooperative agreement 

protecting running buffalo clover in 

Kentucky, this agreement protects 

multiple running buffalo clover 

populations that occur at the site. We 

acknowledge that delisting criterion 3 

has not been fully met in the manner 

specifically identified in the recovery 

plan. However, we conclude that the 

intent of the criterion to ensure that 

sufficient populations were protected 

from threats into the future has been 

met. Also, the discovery of new 

populations at unmanaged sites 

indicates that the species does not 

wholly rely on management to maintain 

populations, as we believed when the 

recovery criterion was drafted. 

Additional management agreements will 

contribute to the ongoing success of this 

species, and we appreciate Kentucky’s 

commitment to continuing to work on 

and increase conservation of running 

buffalo clover. 

(2) Comment: Missouri Department of 

Conservation (MDC) concurred with the 

proposal to delist running buffalo 

clover, but expressed concern that 

removing the protections of the Act may 

result in further decline of this species 

in Missouri. MDC stated that running 

buffalo clover will continue to be a State 

endangered species in Missouri until 

the State’s populations are recovered. 

Response: We appreciate Missouri’s 

commitment to continuing conservation 

efforts for the running buffalo clover. 

State protections will continue to 

enhance populations of the species. In 

addition, management agreements will 

continue to maintain suitable habitat 

and address stressors at 22 running 

buffalo clover sites after the species is 

delisted. Therefore, we do not expect an 

overall decline in the status of running 

buffalo clover in the future. 

(3) Comment: MDC indicated that 

populations in Missouri are not 

considered secure and that management 

is necessary to maintain populations 

and remove invasive species. MDC 

indicated that Missouri would continue 

management for running buffalo clover 

and would assess the prioritization of 

ongoing management efforts and 

protected status of Missouri’s 

populations. 

Response: We agree that a lack of 

management or natural disturbance 

regime can lead to continued natural 

succession, a loss of suitable habitat, 

and a decline in running buffalo clover 

populations and that management 

efforts are necessary at some sites to 

address stressors and maintain suitable 

habitat. We appreciate the MDC’s 

commitment to managing the 

populations of running buffalo clover in 

Missouri. 

(4) Comment: Ohio Division of 

Natural Areas and Preserves stated that 

more management agreements are 

needed before criterion 3 for delisting is 

met and that downlisting to threatened 

is more appropriate at this time. 

Response: Information obtained since 

the proposed listing rule was published 

on August 27, 2019, indicates there are 

currently 175 extant populations as 

follows: 18 A-ranked, 47 B-ranked, 40 Cranked, and 70 D-ranked populations. 

Seven of the A-ranked and 14 of the Branked populations are considered 

viable, based on a PVA or 10 years of 

data. Based on this information, we 

conclude that sufficient number and 

distribution of viable populations occur 

across the species’ range and delisting 

criteria 1 and 2 have been exceeded. We 

acknowledge that delisting criterion 3 

has not been fully met in the manner 

specifically identified in the recovery 

plan. However, recovery of a species is 

a dynamic process, and we are not 

required to follow all of the guidance or 

meet all of the criteria provided in a 

recovery plan in order to conclude that 

a species no longer meets the definition 

of endangered or threatened. 

The 22 populations currently under 

management agreements in conjunction 

with the 66 other populations on 

publicly owned lands are sufficient to 

eliminate or adequately reduce threats 

to the species now and into the 

foreseeable future. Additionally, the 

discovery of new populations at 

unmanaged sites indicates that the 

species does not wholly rely on 

management to maintain populations as 

we believed when the recovery criterion 

was developed. We conclude that 

threats to running buffalo clover have 

been reduced or are being adequately 

managed now and into the foreseeable 

future and that the intent of the criterion 

to ensure that sufficient populations 

were protected from threats into the 

future has been met. Therefore, running 

buffalo clover does not meet the 

definition of a threatened species. 

(5) Comment: The Ohio Division of 

Natural Areas and Preserves stated the 

long-term viability of running buffalo 

clover in Ohio is uncertain, based on 

threats from invasive species, 

management needs, and number of 

populations in the poor category. They 

indicated that there are draft agreements 

with partners to protect an additional 11 

running buffalo clover populations and 

that these agreements are helping to 

make progress in long-term viability of 

running buffalo clover in Ohio. 

Response: We agree that a lack of 

management or natural disturbance 

regime can lead to a decline in running 

buffalo clover populations and that sitespecific management plans are 

necessary to address stressors and 

maintain suitable habitat at some sites. 

However, the discovery of new 

populations at unmanaged sites 

indicates that the species does not 

wholly rely on management to maintain 

populations. Twenty-two running 

buffalo clover sites are currently under 

management agreements. Additional 

management agreements will contribute 

to the ongoing success of this species, 

and we appreciate Ohio’s commitment 

to continuing to work on and increase 

protections for the running buffalo 

clover populations within the State. 

(6) Comment: West Virginia Division 

of Natural Resources (WVDNR) agreed 

that running buffalo clover populations 

are sufficiently distributed to provide 

for resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. WVDNR stated that they 

provisionally agree with running buffalo 

clover delisting, provided that written 

management plans specific to the 

species are developed for public lands, 

and agencies managing for running 

buffalo clover commit to these plans 

through at least the delisting monitoring 

period. They noted that there is a draft 

running buffalo clover site-specific 

management plan for the Monongahela 

National Forest, which will 

substantively reduce threats to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43110 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

populations on this national forest once 

finalized. 

Response: We acknowledge that some 

populations that occur on public land 

are not protected by running buffalo 

clover-specific management plans. 

However, some, including those on 

Monongahela National Forest, are 

provided protection from the standards 

and guidelines in the resource 

management plans. Twenty-two 

additional running buffalo clover sites, 

nearly all of which occur on publicly 

owned lands, are currently protected by 

management agreements that provide 

specific measures to maintain habitat for 

the species. We expect that these will 

remain in place and habitat 

management will continue after 

delisting running buffalo clover. We 

support finalizing a site-specific 

management plan for running buffalo 

clover on the Monongahela National 

Forest to further enhance conservation 

of the species. Management agreements 

as currently written require frequent 

coordination with the Service. We have 

revised the PDM plan to include a 

reporting element on management 

actions during the PDM period for those 

sites with management plans or 

agreements in place. 

(7) Comment: WVDNR reported that 

eight new element occurrences with a 

total of 13,000 to 15,000 rooted crowns 

were discovered after 2016, all on 

private land, but that those new 

occurrences are not protected because 

the State has no endangered species law 

and therefore should not count towards 

the number of occurrences cited within 

delisting criterion 1. 

Response: Delisting criterion 1 is 

based solely on the condition of the 

populations without regard to protected 

status. However, because we have no 

information on the condition of each of 

those elemental occurrences, we did not 

include them in our calculations in this 

final rule regarding the number of 

populations that fulfill delisting 

criterion 1. These additional elemental 

occurrences support the trend of 

discovering new populations and 

recovery of this species. 

(8) Comment: WVDNR did not agree 

with our conclusion that criterion 3 has 

been met for downlisting or delisting, 

stating that general natural resource 

management plans are not suitable for 

meeting the criterion. 

Response: In the proposed listing rule, 

we had considered 9 populations that 

occur on the Monongahela National 

Forest as contributing to meeting this 

criterion because running buffalo clover 

is included in the forest management 

plan for the Monongahela. Although the 

forest plan provides direction and 

guidelines to avoid and minimize 

impacts of forestry practices on running 

buffalo clover, we now understand that 

a draft agreement has been developed 

between the U.S. Forest Service and 

WVDNR to provide additional 

conservation for the species. While a 

management plan that provides for 

additional conservation of running 

buffalo clover would benefit the species 

on the Monongahela National Forest, 

the current forest management practices, 

as conditioned through running buffalo 

clover measures included in the forest 

plan, are adequate to conserve the 

running buffalo clover on the 

Monongahela. 

We now consider 22 populations as 

protected by management agreements; 

therefore, the 17 management 

agreements under criterion 3 for 

downlisting have been exceeded. We 

acknowledge that the 34 management 

agreements specified by delisting 

criterion 3 have not been met although 

additional agreements are in draft form. 

Recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process, and we are not required to meet 

all of the criteria provided in a recovery 

plan in order to conclude that a species 

no longer meets the definition of 

endangered or threatened. Delisting 

criterion 3 from the recovery plan was 

intended to ensure that habitat-based 

threats for the species are addressed. 

However, the discovery of new 

populations at unmanaged sites 

indicates that the species does not 

wholly rely on management to maintain 

populations as we believed when the 

recovery criterion was drafted. Although 

criterion 3 has not been met as specified 

in the recovery plan, we believe that its 

intention has been met between the 22 

sites managed for the conservation of 

the species and the 66 additional 

locations on Federal and State lands. 

Because nearly all of the 22 managed 

populations occur on publicly owned 

lands, we expect management will 

continue in the foreseeable future. 

While we agree that additional 

management agreements would further 

enhance conservation for running 

buffalo clover, the 22 populations 

currently under management in 

conjunction with the 66 other 

populations on publicly owned lands 

are sufficient to indicate the species is 

not in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future. 

We have revised the PDM plan to 

include a measure to track new 

management agreements finalized 

during the PDM period as well as to 

determine if all existing management 

agreements are being followed. 

(9) Comment: WVDNR stated that the 

number of running buffalo clover 

occurrences in West Virginia is 

increasing but many extant occurrences 

are at risk. 

Response: We agree that some extant 

occurrences, in particular D-ranked 

populations (containing fewer than 29 

plants), are at risk; and in some years, 

no plants may be present during 

monitoring periods. However, 89 

percent of running buffalo clover 

populations that were extant in West 

Virginia in 2007 are still present today. 

Overall, 63 running buffalo clover 

populations occur in West Virginia, of 

which 46 (70.8 percent) are A-, B-, or Cranked populations, which are at lower 

risk of extirpation. 

(10) Comment: WVDNR observed that 

project-driven surveys have resulted in 

the discovery of new running buffalo 

clover occurrences and noted that 

implementation of these projects may 

result in the expansion of the 

distribution of running buffalo clover as 

well as the spread of nonnative invasive 

species. The State expressed concern 

that the threat of nonnative invasive 

species may exceed the benefit of 

discovery of any new running buffalo 

clover occurrences. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

ongoing presence of nonnative invasive 

species at some running buffalo clover 

sites. However, at this time, the best 

available data do not support a 

conclusion that the spread of nonnative 

invasive species will exceed the benefit 

of new running buffalo clover 

discoveries at these sites. Further, we 

have determined that the 22 running 

buffalo clover populations with 

management agreements, which do not 

include these newly discovered sites, in 

conjunction with the 66 occurrences on 

publicly owned lands are sufficient to 

eliminate or adequately reduce threats 

to the species now and into the 

foreseeable future. 

(11) Comment: WVDNR noted that 

management plans for running buffalo 

clover should address (1) controlling 

succession so canopy closure does not 

exceed 80 percent, (2) controlling 

nonnative invasive species, and (3) 

preventing damage to populations from 

road management or usage and other 

actions that could remove a population 

or its habitat. 

Response: We agree with these 

recommendations for management 

actions in general. Management plans 

are developed to address site-specific 

threats and ensure that actions are taken 

to maintain suitable habitat, including 

appropriate light levels. These 

management plans often include 

measures to control nonnative invasive 

species and prevent damage from 

multiple activities. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43111 

Federal Agency Comments 

(12) Comment: The Monongahela 

National Forest in West Virginia 

provided information about soils on 

which running buffalo clover may 

occur. They suggested looking at 

running buffalo clover sites near road 

systems to determine if these 

populations could have been brought in 

from limestone quarries where a 

potential seed bed could have been 

established but may not be ideal for 

sustainability of the population. They 

also commented that temporary habitat 

for running buffalo clover can be created 

by periodic liming of forest soils but 

would not be sustainable. 

Response: We agree with the 

comment that periodic liming of soils is 

not a sustainable activity and believe 

that there is enough habitat with 

suitable disturbance that liming is not 

needed. While seed is known to have 

been brought into sites through delivery 

of topsoil, we are unaware of any 

instances where seed has been 

transported from a quarry. We have 

incorporated additional information 

about soils into the Background section. 

(13) Comment: The Wayne National 

Forest in Ohio commented that running 

buffalo clover will continue to receive 

protection for a minimum of 5 years 

after delisting as a species of 

conservation concern for the forest. 

Response: We appreciate the Wayne 

National Forest’s commitment to 

continuing to conserve running buffalo 

clover after the species is delisted. 

Continuing to manage running buffalo 

clover as a species of conservation 

concern on the Wayne National Forest 

will contribute to the ongoing success of 

this species. 

Peer Review and Public Comments 

(14) Comment: Two peer reviewers 

and several public commenters opined 

that the species should be downlisted to 

threatened rather than delisted. 

Response: Current information 

indicates there are currently 175 extant 

running buffalo clover populations as 

follows: 18 A-ranked, 47 B-ranked, 40 Cranked, and 70 D-ranked populations. 

Seven of the A-ranked and 14 of the Branked populations are considered 

viable, based on a PVA or 10 years of 

data. Based on this information, we 

conclude that sufficient number and 

distribution of viable populations occur 

across the species’ range and delisting 

criteria 1 and 2 have been exceeded. We 

acknowledge that delisting criterion 3 

has not been fully met in the manner 

specifically identified in the recovery 

plan. However, recovery of a species is 

a dynamic process, and we are not 

required to follow all of the guidance or 

meet all of the criteria provided in a 

recovery plan in order to conclude that 

a species no longer meets the definition 

of endangered or threatened. The 22 

populations currently under 

management agreements in conjunction 

with the 66 other populations on 

publicly owned lands are sufficient to 

indicate the species is not in danger of 

extinction now or likely to be in the 

foreseeable future. Additionally, the 

discovery of new populations at 

unmanaged sites indicates that the 

species does not wholly rely on 

management to maintain populations as 

we believed when the recovery criterion 

was drafted. We conclude that threats to 

running buffalo clover have been 

reduced or are being adequately 

managed now and into the foreseeable 

future and that the intent of the criterion 

to ensure that sufficient populations 

were protected from threats into the 

future has been met. Therefore, running 

buffalo clover does not meet the 

definition of a threatened species. 

(15) Comment: One peer reviewer 

indicated that running buffalo clover is 

not fully understood, nor are the 

historic habitat conditions in which it 

lived. Therefore, additional research is 

needed before delisting the species. 

Response: Recent discoveries of new 

running buffalo clover sites have 

expanded our understanding of habitat 

preferences for the species. In making 

listing decisions under the Act, we rely 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial data, including these recent 

discoveries, which have led us to 

conclude that running buffalo clover 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. 

(16) Comment: One peer viewer noted 

that from 2001 to 2005 the number of 

running buffalo clover patches and 

rooted crowns at Blue Grass Army 

Depot (Depot) increased, mostly due to 

finding new patches. From 2005 to 

2018, the number of patches and rooted 

crowns declined, likely due to the 

permanent loss of patches, indicating a 

long-term decline. Three public 

commenters also noted that the overall 

trend of running buffalo clover at the 

Depot has been declining since 2001, 

and one commenter indicated the cause 

of the decline is unknown. 

Response: Although the number of 

patches at the Depot has decreased since 

2005, the number of rooted crowns 

recorded in 2018 (3,939) is greater than 

that recorded in 2001 (1,160) but lower 

than the maximum observed in 2006 

(9,574). Populations of this species 

fluctuate greatly and can decline for 

multiple years before rebounding. The 

populations that are now considered 

extirpated from the Depot were small, 

D-ranked populations. While the loss of 

patches could indicate an overall 

decline, the loss of small populations is 

not unexpected. Other landowners do 

not monitor by patch; therefore, it is 

difficult to compare this information to 

trends at other locations. However, we 

acknowledge that some protected 

populations have declined with no 

obvious cause. Notwithstanding these 

limited declines, we conclude that a 

sufficient number of populations across 

the range of the species will continue to 

be viable over the foreseeable future 

such that the species no longer meets 

the Act’s definitions of an endangered 

species or a threatened species. 

(17) Comment: One peer reviewer 

noted that running buffalo clover 

populations can appear, seem to 

prosper, and then disappear, including 

an A-ranked population, and many Cand D-ranked populations have 

disappeared. 

Response: Running buffalo clover 

populations fluctuate over the years due 

to natural succession, variance in 

temperature and precipitation, and lack 

of disturbance. Due to their small size, 

D-ranked populations are most likely to 

disappear although larger populations 

have declined for unknown reasons. 

The PVA, conducted when the recovery 

plan was written, indicated that 17 

populations were needed to maintain 

this species. This number was doubled 

to 34 populations needed to delist 

running buffalo clover. Currently, 175 

populations are extant throughout the 

range of this species. This includes 18 

populations that have at least 1,000 

rooted crowns (A-ranked). An 

additional 47 running buffalo clover 

populations have between 100 and 999 

rooted crowns (B-ranked). These higher 

ranked populations have a greater 

probability of remaining stable or 

increasing. 

(18) Comment: One peer reviewer and 

two commenters opined that more 

management agreements are needed 

before delisting running buffalo clover, 

and four commenters expressed concern 

whether current management is 

sufficient to maintain recovery. 

Response: Comparing the ranking of 

extant populations in 2007 to the 

ranking of those populations that 

continued to be extant in 2016, 17 

percent of populations were increasing, 

and 59 percent were stable. These 

populations represent 76 percent of the 

populations present in 2007. In 

addition, we are now aware of 175 

extant populations compared to 102 in 

2007. Thus, we conclude that the trend 

for this species is stable or increasing. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43112 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Twenty-two running buffalo clover 

populations are currently under 

agreements that provide for ongoing 

management to maintain suitable 

habitat for running buffalo clover and 

adequately address or eliminate threats 

to those populations. While we 

acknowledge that delisting criterion 3 

has not been fully met in the manner 

specifically identified in the recovery 

plan, we conclude that the intent of the 

criterion to ensure that sufficient 

populations are protected from threats 

into the foreseeable future has been met. 

Additionally, the discovery of new 

populations at unmanaged sites 

indicates that the species does not 

wholly rely on management to maintain 

populations as we believed when the 

recovery criterion was drafted. Based on 

this information, we conclude that 

running buffalo clover has recovered 

and no longer meets the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. 

(19) Comment: Two peer reviewers 

and a commenter identified nonnative 

invasive species as an ongoing threat to 

running buffalo clover that requires 

management, and these commenters 

specifically identified Japanese stiltgrass 

as causing declines of running buffalo 

clover. 

Response: As discussed in the 

proposed listing rule and this final rule, 

nonnative invasive species, including 

Japanese stiltgrass, are present at several 

running buffalo clover sites. The 

management agreements in place for 

running buffalo clover include 

management actions to address 

nonnative invasive species, including 

Japanese stiltgrass. In addition, the PDM 

plan provides for monitoring for the 

presence of nonnative invasive species 

at running buffalo clover sites. 

Monitoring includes recording the level 

of severity of nonnative invasive species 

to prioritize sites for future monitoring. 

(20) Comment: One peer reviewer and 

three commenters expressed concern 

that running buffalo clover would no 

longer receive management or 

monitoring and that funding for efforts 

to maintain proper habitat conditions 

would not be available after delisting. 

Response: The populations that are 

under management agreements will 

continue to receive management to 

address site-specific threats and habitat 

needs, and we do not expect delisting 

will alter the ability of partner agencies 

to continue funding and implementing 

management agreements for running 

buffalo clover. Several States have 

indicated that they will continue to 

protect and manage running buffalo 

clover populations under existing State 

regulations. If unforeseen threats arise 

that are determined to endanger or 

threaten the long-term viability of 

running buffalo clover such that it meets 

the definition of a threatened or 

endangered species, we can use our 

authorities under section 4 the Act, 

including the emergency listing 

authorities at section 4(b)(7), to relist the 

species as appropriate. 

(21) Comment: One peer reviewer and 

several commenters expressed concern 

that many populations of running 

buffalo clover are not stable or secure 

and that the species’ recovery is a result 

of more surveys. 

Response: Many populations of 

running buffalo clover have been 

discovered since 2007, with 175 extant 

populations known now compared to 

102 in 2007. Seventy-six percent of the 

populations extant in 2007 were 

increasing or stable in 2016, indicating 

those populations are not in decline. 

With 22 populations now under 

management agreements and another 66 

populations occurring on publicly 

owned lands, threats to the species have 

been reduced or are being adequately 

managed such that they are not affecting 

the species’ viability. Based on this 

information, we conclude that running 

buffalo clover has recovered and no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. 

(22) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the methods for assessing viability 

prescribed in the Recovery Plan do not 

address the stress caused by invasion of 

exotic species or other emerging or 

impending factors that might impair the 

viability of the species. 

Response: The PVA is just one factor 

used to consider the current trend of the 

species and whether it is declining, 

stable, or increasing. The PVA provides 

a guide in determining the minimum 

number of needed populations, as well 

as the size and physical distribution of 

those populations, and is only one part 

of the recovery criteria. In addition, 

recovery criterion 3 addresses habitatbased threats, such as nonnative 

invasive species. The 22 populations 

that have management agreements will 

be protected from the threat of 

succession by implementation of 

various management or disturbance 

actions to reset succession. The 

management agreements also include 

actions to address the threats of 

nonnative invasive species. 

(23) Comment: One commenter stated 

that populations in West Virginia are 

extensive and cover a wide range of 

habitat conditions, indicating that 

running buffalo clover may not be as 

limited in habitat requirements. 

Response: Running buffalo clover 

populations in West Virginia are larger 

in quantity and area and occur in a 

wider range of habitat types than 

populations in other States. We note 

that all habitats are subject to 

succession, requiring periodic natural 

disturbance or targeted management to 

continue to maintain viable running 

buffalo clover populations. 

(24) Comment: One commenter stated 

that running buffalo clover was once 

widespread and abundant but most of 

the historically known sites are now 

extirpated and the species survives in a 

fraction of its former range. 

Response: Running buffalo clover was 

not known historically as widespread 

and abundant. Fewer than 30 sites were 

known in 8 States, including 2 

specimens from Arkansas and 1 from 

Kansas (Brooks 1983). Although most of 

these historically known sites are 

extirpated, 175 extant running buffalo 

clover sites are now known across most 

of its historical range in 6 States. 

(25) Comment: One commenter stated 

that, although more than 150 

occurrences are now known, the vast 

majority of those are very small and not 

ranked as good occurrences. 

Response: Delisting criterion 1 states 

that 34 populations, in total, are 

distributed as follows: 2 A-ranked, 6 Branked, 6 C-ranked, and 20 D-ranked 

populations across at least 2 of the 3 

regions in which running buffalo clover 

occurs (Appalachian, Bluegrass, and 

Ozark). The number of populations in 

each rank is based on what would be 

required to achieve a 95 percent 

probability of the persistence within the 

next 20 years. 

Populations are currently distributed 

as follows: 18 A-ranked, 47 B-ranked, 40 

C-ranked, and 70 D-ranked. Although 

approximately two-thirds of running 

buffalo clover populations are ranked as 

C or D (99 or few rooted crowns or 33 

or fewer crowns, respectively), delisting 

criterion 1 has been substantially 

exceeded. We conclude that a sufficient 

number of populations across the range 

of the species will continue to be viable 

over the foreseeable future; thus, we 

determine that the species no longer 

meets the Act’s definitions of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. 

(26) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern that small patches 

have a high probability of becoming 

extirpated and will not naturally recover 

without active restoration and 

management. 

Response: Smaller populations may 

have a greater probability of becoming 

extirpated, but that does not indicate 

that all small populations will 

eventually become extirpated. Some 

small populations have continued to 

persist for years. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43113 

As a disturbance-adapted species, 

running buffalo clover benefits from 

both management as well as natural 

disturbance activities, such as flooding, 

grazing by herbivores, trail use by 

animals, and small forest openings due 

to disease or insect impacts. Ten C- and 

D-ranked populations are under 

management agreements. 

(27) Comment: One commenter stated 

that monitoring and collection has 

shown an expansion of populations in 

multiple States. 

Response: New populations have been 

found in multiple States since the time 

of the original listing, as a result of 

multiple statewide and many projectspecific surveys. For example, an 

increase in project-specific surveys in 

Pennsylvania in recent years resulted in 

most of the new running buffalo clover 

populations identified there. The newly 

discovered populations in Pennsylvania 

are south of a population in West 

Virginia that we have been aware of 

since the 2007 Recovery Plan Revision. 

In addition, running buffalo clover sites 

occur in West Virginia southeast of 

these Pennsylvania populations. 

Therefore, these populations most likely 

have been in existence, and their 

discovery is not the result of an 

expansion in the range of this species 

but rather an increase in the number of 

project-specific surveys. That said, this 

new information about these additional 

sites changes our understanding of the 

degree to which this species faces 

threats to its continued existence. The 

species is not as rare or restricted as was 

thought at the time of listing, and this 

is a contributing piece of our overall 

determination that the species is no 

longer in danger of extinction, now or 

in the foreseeable future. 

(28) Comment: One commenter, citing 

Leugers (2016), stated that running 

buffalo clover in Ohio still experiences 

declines in remaining areas and is in 

need of more robust management plans. 

Response: Leugers (2016) included no 

information from the 2008 or 2011 5- 

year reviews and did not use the most 

recent scientific information available. 

Since the 2007 Recovery Plan, we have 

learned much about running buffalo 

clover. Populations in Ohio include two 

that are A-ranked and nine that are Branked. Seven sites in Ohio are 

protected with management agreements 

for ten running buffalo clover 

populations. 

(29) Comment: One commenter stated 

that additional information is still 

needed on the best management regimes 

to maintain flowering populations. 

Response: Although recent 

discoveries of new running buffalo 

clover sites have expanded our 

understanding of the habitat types 

where the species can occur, running 

buffalo clover still requires partial to 

filtered sunlight and a prolonged pattern 

of moderate, periodic disturbance to 

maintain those conditions. A variety of 

management tools, such as grazing, 

mowing, trampling, or selective logging, 

have proven effective at maintaining 

suitable habitat and sustaining running 

buffalo clover populations. Natural 

succession results in increased canopy 

closure and a decrease in flowering. 

Maintaining appropriate habitat should 

result in continued flowering although 

the level of flowering may also be 

impacted by rainfall and various local 

weather conditions. 

(30) Comment: One commenter 

indicated that running buffalo clover 

will continue to be threatened by ATV 

(all-terrain vehicle) use and fossil fuel 

development and infrastructure on the 

Wayne National Forest. 

Response: Although ATV use was a 

problem at one site on the Wayne 

National Forest in the past, ATV use has 

not been documented as a threat to this 

running buffalo clover population since 

2009. Running buffalo clover will 

continue to be managed on the Wayne 

National Forest as a species of 

conservation concern. 

(31) Comment: One commenter 

indicated that running buffalo clover is 

damaged by grazing on Federal lands. 

Response: We are not aware of any 

instances where grazing on Federal 

lands is impacting the running buffalo 

clover at the population level. Light to 

moderate grazing can provide the 

disturbance that running buffalo clover 

requires. The Depot in Kentucky grazes 

domesticated animals for management 

purposes, but no other federally owned 

properties use grazing by domesticated 

animals as a management tool. Running 

buffalo clover does not occur on any 

federally owned property that permits 

large-scale grazing. 

(32) Comment: One commenter stated 

that there has been no measurable 

increase or spread of running buffalo 

clover (e.g., to Pennsylvania). 

Response: New populations of 

running buffalo clover are discovered 

nearly every year. That said, these 

populations have most likely been in 

existence for some time, and new 

populations found in Pennsylvania are 

not likely to be the result of an 

expansion in the range of this species. 

However, the increase overall in the 

number of populations known to be in 

existence changes our understanding of 

the degree to which the species is in 

danger of extinction, now or in the 

future. The original listing of the species 

was based on the lack of extant 

populations that had been identified at 

that time in spite of surveys conducted 

throughout its known range. Since then, 

multiple statewide and many projectspecific surveys have been conducted 

and have discovered additional 

populations of which we were not 

formerly aware. Currently, 175 extant 

populations are known. 

(33) Comment: One commenter 

indicated that several element 

occurrence (E.O.) ranks are erroneous. 

Response: We have used the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

in the proposed rule and this final rule. 

The commenter did not provide any 

supporting documentation or 

information for specific EOs. 

(34) Comment: One commenter 

indicated that seeds of running buffalo 

clover maintained in appropriate storage 

for over 25 years can still be viable after 

scarification. The commenter stated that 

recovery work should include 

vouchering seed from each running 

buffalo clover population to a seed bank 

with clear origin and sample size 

details. 

Response: Running buffalo clover 

seed in the seedbank may be viable for 

a long time as other rare legumes can be 

viable in cold storage for decades 

(Albrecht 2017). An extremely small 

amount of running buffalo clover seed 

can germinate after being in soil and 

exposed to outdoor temperatures for 

over 10 years (Baskin 2021). In addition, 

populations have been absent for up to 

4 consecutive years before plants were 

observed again (USFWS 2021, 

unpublished data). The long-term limit 

of seed viability in the natural 

environment has not been determined 

as Baskin’s research ended after 11 

years. Collection of seed for vouchering 

purposes may be useful for its 

conservation and management and 

should have limited impacts to source 

populations. Because the best available 

scientific and commercial data indicate 

that running buffalo clover has 

recovered and is no longer an 

endangered or threatened species, we 

are finalizing the delisting of the 

species. 

(35) Comment: One commenter noted 

that running buffalo clover grows 

readily in controlled settings. Another 

public commenter stated that the 

survival of transplanted plants in the 

wild is very low and not a successful 

recovery option. 

Response: Running buffalo clover 

grows well in a greenhouse 

environment; however, planting from 

seed or transplanting in the wild has 

had very limited success. Collection of 

seed or other vegetative material should 

be used only as a last resort to maintain 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43114 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

genetic material before a population is 

permanently lost. 

Peer Review and Public Comments on 

the Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan 

(36) Comment: WVDNR stated that 

the 5-year monitoring period will not 

detect changes in status of running 

buffalo clover in time to allow for 

remedial actions if populations decline 

and suggested that monitoring the 

occurrences in the Monongahela 

National Forest management plan 

annually for 5 years would reflect 

running buffalo clover population trend 

and response to management actions. 

Response: We recognize that there can 

be significant year-to-year variation in 

populations that may cause long-term 

population trends not to become 

apparent for more than 5 years. 

However, by evaluating the level of 

canopy coverage and the threat of 

nonnative invasive species as prescribed 

in the PDM plan, these threats can be 

addressed before impacts to running 

buffalo clover occur. Monitoring is 

conducted to determine the rangewide 

status of running buffalo clover 

(declining, stable, or increasing) and its 

threats. It is not intended to evaluate 

individual management actions. 

We have modified the PDM plan to 

target the running buffalo clover 

populations with management plans or 

agreements and the viable A- and Branked populations plus an additional 

20 populations rangewide for 

monitoring. Because approximately 50 

percent of all running buffalo clover 

populations are on private land, we 

recommend that half of the populations 

identified for post-delisting monitoring 

rangewide also occur on private land. 

Therefore, these 57 populations that are 

monitored should be representative of 

the rangewide ownership (private 

versus public) and as well as the 

rangewide diversity of population size 

(A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked populations). 

(37) Comment: WVDNR indicated that 

the PDM plan should include visiting a 

select group of running buffalo clover 

occurrences, with the majority on public 

land, which would provide data on 

those populations’ responses to 

management for control of succession 

and nonnative invasive species and 

protection from habitat destruction. 

Response: The goal of the monitoring 

plan is to observe the trends of a 

representative sample of individual 

occurrences to determine whether the 

species continues to be recovered and 

not to evaluate management activities. 

Because most populations are not 

monitored, the selection of a group of 

occurrences should reflect the 

proportion of sites that are managed as 

well as a diversity of population sizes. 

There should be a representative 

number of A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked 

populations monitored. We have 

incorporated this concept into the PDM 

plan, where appropriate. 

(38) Comment: WVDNR commented 

that the monitoring protocol and field 

monitoring form in the draft PDM plan 

are not adequate and are inconsistent 

with the monitoring protocol in the 

2007 Running Buffalo Clover Recovery 

Plan. They recommended using the 

existing census methodology to provide 

more consistency and better detect 

population trends and declines. 

Response: We acknowledge that the 

protocol in the PDM plan differs from 

that in use since 2007. While the 

existing methodology would provide 

more consistency in comparing 

individual populations pre- and postdelisting, we note that there are 

substantially more running buffalo 

clover populations now than in 2007. 

The protocol in the PDM plan addresses 

the challenges of limited time and 

resources to monitor a much larger 

number of populations. In addition, the 

proposed protocol reflects the greater 

stability of large A-ranked populations 

and prioritizes monitoring of smaller 

ranked populations as these would be 

more likely not to survive a stochastic 

event without a significant reduction in 

size. 

Currently, the number of A-, B-, C-, 

and D-ranked populations are counted 

and evaluated. If a population drops to 

a lower rank (e.g., from an A-rank to a 

B-rank), we consider that change to 

constitute a decline. Because there is 

annual variability, we do not evaluate 

the specific individuals of each 

occurrence. By calculating the change in 

the number of A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked 

populations at the end of the 5-year 

post-delisting monitoring period, we 

will be consistent with how the species 

was evaluated in each of the last 5-year 

reviews. Therefore, we conclude that 

the data to be collected will be adequate 

to determine population rankings and 

rangewide population trends for postdelisting monitoring purposes. 

However, we see benefit to the more 

intensive monitoring suggested by 

WVDNR by those who are committed to 

managing the species post-delisting and 

support any efforts to do so. 

(39) Comment: WVDNR 

recommended an expansion of data 

gathering about nonnative invasive 

species across running buffalo clover’s 

range. 

Response: The purpose of the 

nonnative invasive species query in the 

PDM plan is to determine whether 

nonnative invasive species present a 

threat at running buffalo clover 

occurrences and if that threat is being 

addressed. We understand that 

additional information on nonnative 

invasive species would be useful. 

However, due to limited time and 

resources, this is beyond the scope of 

the PDM plan. 

(40) Comment: WVDNR stated that 

use of 95 percent canopy closure is 

insufficient as a trigger for selective 

harvest and suggests that the trigger 

should not be greater than 80 percent 

canopy cover. 

Response: Because running buffalo 

clover grows in the ground layer, it can 

be affected by shading from the 

understory as well as the canopy. The 

95 percent canopy cover is used as a 

trigger for selective harvest because we 

expect selective harvesting would 

significantly reduce canopy cover. Other 

forms of management can be considered 

before a site reaches 95 percent canopy 

cover as these other forms of 

management are not expected to reduce 

the canopy cover as dramatically. We 

have updated the PDM plan to clarify. 

(41) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that the monitoring plan does not 

ensure an adequate level of 

management. 

Response: The PDM plan is intended 

to determine whether a significant 

number of running buffalo clover 

occurrences are in decline or are stable 

or increasing and will focus primarily 

on those sites that meet all aspects of 

recovery. Monitoring will help evaluate 

whether management is needed, but the 

PDM plan does not require 

management. The monitoring data form 

will ask if appropriate management is 

occurring. 

(42) Comment: One peer reviewer 

recommended changing the definition 

of ‘‘response triggers’’ to require 

monitoring more sites for a longer 

period of time. 

Response: Due to the limitation of 

time and resources, additional 

monitoring is not feasible for most sites. 

While we encourage more frequent 

monitoring at sites that have that 

capability, the level of monitoring 

prescribed in the PDM plan is sufficient 

to assess the population trend of 

running buffalo clover for the purposes 

of post-delisting monitoring, which is to 

determine the rangewide status of 

running buffalo clover (declining, 

stable, or increasing) and its threats to 

evaluate whether the species continues 

to be recovered. 

Determination of Running Buffalo 

Clover Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43115 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species ‘‘in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range,’’ and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we found that significant threats 

identified at the time of listing (52 FR 

21478, June 5, 1987) have been 

eliminated or reduced. The main threat 

at many sites is habitat destruction, 

habitat succession, and competition 

with nonnative invasive species (Factor 

A). Management to benefit running 

buffalo clover has been implemented 

since the time of listing and has shown 

to be effective. Twenty-two populations 

are under some form of management 

that addresses the needs of running 

buffalo clover. Because all of the 

managed populations occur on publicly 

owned lands, we expect management 

will continue in the foreseeable future. 

Delisting criterion 3 from the recovery 

plan was intended to ensure that 

habitat-based threats for the species are 

addressed. Although this criterion has 

not been met as specified in the 

recovery plan, we believe that its 

intention has been met between the 22 

sites managed specifically for the 

conservation of the species plus the 66 

additional locations on Federal and 

State lands. 

Additionally, the discovery of new 

populations at unmanaged sites 

indicates that the species does not 

wholly rely on management to maintain 

populations as we believed when the 

recovery criterion was drafted. The 22 

populations currently under 

management agreements in conjunction 

with the 66 other populations on 

publicly owned lands are sufficient to 

eliminate or adequately reduce threats 

to the species now and into the 

foreseeable future. During our analysis, 

we found that other factors believed to 

be threats at the time of listing— 

including overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes (Factor B), disease 

and predation (Factor C), and 

inbreeding depression and poor seed 

quality and dispersal (Factor E)—are no 

longer considered threats, and we do 

not expect any of these conditions to 

substantially change into the foreseeable 

future. Since listing, we have become 

aware of the potential for the effects of 

climate change (Factor E) to affect all 

biota, including running buffalo clover, 

but the magnitude and frequency of this 

potential threat are generally unknown 

at this time. While available information 

in the most recent 5-year review 

indicates that running buffalo clover 

may be responding to a change in 

temperatures or precipitation patterns, 

the lack of a declining trend in running 

buffalo clover populations suggests the 

effects of ongoing climate change are not 

a threat to the species within the 

foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

determine that running buffalo clover is 

not in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Having determined 

that running buffalo clover is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range, we now consider 

whether it may be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which it is true that both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

that portion. Depending on the case, it 

might be more efficient for us to address 

the ‘‘significance’’ question or the 

‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to 

address either question first. Regardless 

of which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

In undertaking this analysis for 

running buffalo clover, we chose to 

address the status question first—we 

considered information pertaining to the 

geographic distribution of both the 

species and the threats that the species 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species is endangered 

or threatened. 

For running buffalo clover, we 

considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: Habitat 

destruction, habitat succession, and 

competition with nonnative invasive 

species, including cumulative effects. 

Threats from habitat destruction have 

been identified at running buffalo clover 

sites across its range. Habitat succession 

is a natural process that occurs in 

multiple habitat types across the 

species’ range. Nonnative invasive 

species are widespread across the range 

of running buffalo clover. We found no 

concentration of threats in any portion 

of the running buffalo clover’s range at 

a biologically meaningful scale. 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range can provide a basis for 

determining that the species is in danger 

of extinction now or likely to become so 

in the foreseeable future in a significant 

portion of its range, and we find the 

species is not in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range. This is consistent 

with the courts’ holdings in Desert 

Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 

No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 

4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 

248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 

2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that running buffalo clover 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we are 

removing running buffalo clover from 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. 

Effects of This Rule 

This rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) to 

remove the running buffalo clover from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. Because critical 

habitat has not been designated for this 

species, this rule does not affect 50 CFR 

17.96. On the effective date of this rule 

(see DATES, above), the prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, no longer apply to this species, and 

Federal agencies are no longer required 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43116 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

to consult with the Service under 

section 7 of the Act in the event that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out may affect the running buffalo 

clover. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, 

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a system to monitor 

effectively, for not less than 5 years, all 

species that have been recovered and 

delisted. The purpose of this postdelisting monitoring is to verify that a 

species remains secure from risk of 

extinction after it has been removed 

from the protections of the Act. The 

monitoring is designed to detect the 

failure of any delisted species to sustain 

itself without the protective measures 

provided by the Act. If, at any time 

during the monitoring period, data 

indicate that protective status under the 

Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 

listing procedures, including, if 

appropriate, emergency listing under 

section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of 

the Act explicitly requires us to 

cooperate with the States in 

development and implementation of 

post-delisting monitoring programs, but 

we remain responsible for compliance 

with section 4(g) of the Act and, 

therefore, must remain actively engaged 

in all phases of post-delisting 

monitoring. We also seek active 

participation of other entities that are 

expected to assume responsibilities for 

the species’ conservation post-delisting. 

We prepared a PDM plan for running 

buffalo clover in cooperation with the 

States. The PDM plan is designed to 

verify that running buffalo clover 

remains secure from the risk of 

extinction after delisting by detecting 

changes in its status and habitat 

throughout its known range. The final 

PDM plan discusses the current status of 

the taxon and describes the methods to 

be used for monitoring after the taxon is 

removed from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. The 

PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the roles of 

the PDM cooperators; (2) summarizes 

the status of running buffalo clover at 

the time of delisting; (3) discusses 

monitoring methods and sampling 

regimes; (4) describes frequency and 

duration of monitoring; (5) defines 

triggers for potential monitoring 

outcomes; (6) outlines reporting 

requirements and procedures; and (7) 

proposes a schedule for implementing 

the PDM plan and conclusions of the 

PDM effort. 

The PDM plan guides monitoring of 

running buffalo clover following similar 

methods to those used prior to delisting. 

Monitoring will consist of: Counting (or 

estimating for A-ranked populations) 

the number of rooted crowns and 

flowering stems, recording recruitment 

of seedlings, photographing running 

buffalo clover occurrences, mapping the 

location of individual patches within 

the occurrences, and identifying 

potential threats, as may be appropriate. 

PDM will begin in the first growing 

season following the effective date of 

this rule (see DATES, above) and will 

extend, at a minimum, through the fifth 

growing season following delisting. 

Monitoring through this time period 

will allow us to address potential 

negative effects to running buffalo 

clover, such as nonnative invasive 

species and canopy closure. 

The PDM plan identifies measurable 

management thresholds and responses 

for detecting and reacting to significant 

changes in the running buffalo clover’s 

habitat, distribution, and persistence. If 

monitoring detects declines equaling or 

exceeding these thresholds, the Service, 

in combination with other PDM 

participants, will investigate causes of 

these declines, including considerations 

of habitat changes, nonnative invasive 

species, stochastic events, or any other 

significant evidence. Such investigation 

will determine if running buffalo clover 

warrants expanded monitoring, 

additional habitat management, or 

relisting as an endangered or a 

threatened species under the Act. If 

such monitoring data or an otherwise 

updated assessment of threats indicate 

that relisting running buffalo clover is 

warranted, emergency procedures to 

relist the species may be followed, if 

necessary, in accordance with section 

4(b)(7) of the Act. 

The final PDM plan is available on 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2018–0036 and 

on the Service’s Great Lakes Region 

website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

midwest/endangered/plants/rbcl/ 

index.html. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of 

the Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We are not aware of running buffalo 

clover occurring on any Tribal lands, 

and we did not receive any comments 

from Tribes on the proposed delisting 

rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R3–ES–2018–0036, or upon 

request from the Ohio Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

staff members of the Service’s Ohio 

Ecological Services Field Office and 

Great Lakes Regional Office, 

Bloomington, Minnesota. 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on August 3, 2021, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43117 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12 in paragraph (h) by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Trifolium 

stoloniferum’’ under FLOWERING 

PLANTS from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants. 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16818 Filed 8–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 200124–0029; RTID 0648– 

XB279] 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2021 

Red Snapper Private Angling 

Component Closure in Federal Waters 

Off Texas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces a closure 

for the 2021 fishing season for the red 

snapper private angling component in 

the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off 

Texas in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) 

through this temporary rule. The red 

snapper recreational private angling 

component in the Gulf EEZ off Texas 

closes on August 5, 2021 until 12:01 

a.m., local time, on January 1, 2022. 

This closure is necessary to prevent the 

private angling component from 

exceeding the Texas regional 

management area annual catch limit 

(ACL) and to prevent overfishing of the 

Gulf red snapper resource. 

DATES: This closure is effective on 

August 5, 2021, until 12:01 a.m., local 

time, on January 1, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Luers, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email: 

daniel.luers@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

reef fish fishery, which includes red 

snapper, is managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). 

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

and is implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 40 to the FMP established 

two components within the recreational 

sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: the 

private angling component, and the 

Federal for-hire component (80 FR 

22422, April 22, 2015). Amendment 40 

also allocated the red snapper 

recreational ACL (recreational quota) 

between the components and 

established separate seasonal closures 

for the two components. On February 6, 

2020, NMFS implemented Amendments 

50 A–F to the FMP, which delegated 

authority to the Gulf states (Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and 

Texas) to establish specific management 

measures for the harvest of red snapper 

in Federal waters of the Gulf by the 

private angling component of the 

recreational sector (85 FR 6819, 

February 6, 2020). These amendments 

allocate a portion of the private angling 

ACL to each state, and each state is 

required to constrain landings to its 

allocation. 

As described at 50 CFR 622.23(c), a 

Gulf state with an active delegation may 

request that NMFS close all, or an area 

of, Federal waters off that state to the 

harvest and possession of red snapper 

by private anglers. The state is required 

to request the closure by letter to NMFS, 

providing dates and geographic 

coordinates for the closure. If the 

request is within the scope of the 

analysis in Amendment 50A, NMFS 

publishes a notice in the Federal 

Register implementing the closure for 

the fishing year. Based on the analysis 

in Amendment 50A, Texas may request 

a closure of all Federal waters off the 

state to allow a year-round fishing 

season in state waters. As described at 

50 CFR 622.2, ‘‘off Texas’’ is defined as 

the waters in the Gulf west of a rhumb 

line from 29°32.1′ N Lat., 93°47.7′ W 

long. to 26°11.4′ N Lat., 92°53′ W long., 

which line is an extension of the 

boundary between Louisiana and Texas. 

On December 7, 2020, NMFS received 

a request from the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department (TPWD) to close 

the EEZ off Texas to the red snapper 

private angling component for the first 

part of the 2021 fishing year. Texas 

requested that the closure be effective 

from January 1, 2021, until June 1, 2021. 

NMFS determined that the TPWD 

request was within the scope of analysis 

contained within Amendment 50A, and 

subsequently published a temporary 

rule in the Federal Register 

implementing that closure request (85 

FR 78792; December 7, 2020). In that 

rule, NMFS noted that TPWD would 

monitor private recreational landings, 

and if necessary, request that NMFS 

again close the EEZ in 2021 to ensure 

the Texas regional management area 

ACL is not exceeded. 

On July 28, 2021, NMFS received a 

new request from the TPWD to close the 

EEZ off Texas to the red snapper private 

angling component for the remainder of 

the 2021 fishing year. Texas requested 

that the closure be effective on August 

5, 2021, through the end of the fishing 

year. NMFS has determined that this 

request is within the scope of analysis 

contained within Amendment 50A, 

which analyzed the potential impacts of 

a closure of all Federal waters off Texas 

when a portion of the Texas quota has 

been landed. As explained in 

Amendment 50A, Texas intends to 

maintain a year-round fishing season in 

state waters during which the remaining 

part of Texas’ ACL could be caught. 

Therefore, the red snapper 

recreational private angling component 

in the Gulf EEZ off Texas will close on 

August 5, 2021, until 12:01 a.m., local 

time, on January 1, 2022. This closure 

applies to all private-anglers (those on 

board vessels that have not been issued 

a valid charter vessel/headboat permit 

for Gulf reef fish) regardless of which 

state they are from or where they intend 

to land. 

On and after the effective dates of the 

closure in the EEZ off Texas, the harvest 

and possession red snapper in the EEZ 

off Texas by the private angling 

component is prohibited and the bag 

and possession limits for the red 

snapper private angling component in 

the closed area is zero. 

Classification 

NMFS issues this action pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 

622.23(c), which was issued pursuant to 

section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES