[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61387-61396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16417]
[[Page 61387]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 245]
RIN 1018-BD66
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of
Northeastern Bulrush From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. After a review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that
delisting the species is warranted. Our review indicates that the
threats to the northeastern bulrush have been eliminated or reduced to
the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an
endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, we propose to delist the
northeastern bulrush. If we finalize this rule as proposed, the
prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act,
particularly through Sections 7 and 9 would no longer apply to the
northeastern bulrush.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
September 30, 2024. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by September 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and
supporting documents, including the 5-year reviews, the Recovery Plan,
and the species status assessment (SSA) report, are available at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Mayer, Field Supervisor, New
England Ecological Services Field Office, 70 Commercial Street, Suite
300, Concord, NH 03301; telephone 603-223-2541. Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Please see Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not remove the northeastern bulrush
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the
northeastern bulrush, particularly any data on the possible effects of
climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State
protection and management that would be provided to this plant as a
delisted species;
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the northeastern bulrush that may have either a negative or positive
impact on the species; and
(4) Considerations for post-delisting monitoring, including
monitoring protocols and length of time monitoring is needed, as well
as triggers for reevaluation.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species must be made solely on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. For
example, based on the new information we receive (and if relevant, any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species
should remain listed as endangered, or we may conclude that the species
should be reclassified from endangered to threatened. We will clearly
explain our rationale and the basis for our final
[[Page 61388]]
decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public
hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the northeastern bulrush. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial)
affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent
scientific review of the information contained in the northeastern
bulrush SSA report. The Service sent the SSA report to 3 independent
peer reviewers and received 2 responses. Results of this structured
peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014. In preparing this proposed rule, we
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the
final SSA report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from 2 peer
reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we received
from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information
regarding the information contained in the SSA report. Overall, the
comments were supportive of the approach, analyses, and projections of
the SSA. Information was presented that helped to improve the
assessment and inform this proposed rule. Such information included new
references, comments regarding using a spatial assessment of climate
change projections, discussion of population responses to weather
events, and new information to help inform our analysis of synergistic
impacts to bulrush viability.
Previous Federal Actions
On May 7, 1991, we published in the Federal Register (56 FR 21091)
a final rule listing the northeastern bulrush as an endangered species
under the Act. On August 25, 1993, we approved the northeastern bulrush
recovery plan (Service 1993, entire). On September 24, 2009, we
completed a 5-year review (Service 2009, entire) of the status of the
northeastern bulrush, which recommended reclassification from
endangered to threatened status based on the increased number and
status of known extant populations. On August 28, 2019, we completed a
second 5-year review (Service 2019b, entire), resulting in a
recommendation to delist the species, because, based on the species'
current representation, resiliency, and redundancy, and our analysis of
threats that may influence its future condition, the species no longer
met the statutory definition of an endangered or a threatened species.
Background
Species Information
For more information on the description, biology, ecology,
genetics, and habitat of the northeastern bulrush, please refer to the
final listing rule (56 FR 21091; May 7, 1991), the northeastern bulrush
(Scirpus ancistrochaetus) recovery plan (Service 1993, pp. 1-31), and
the SSA report (Service 2019a, entire). These documents will be
available as supporting materials at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014.
Taxonomy and Species Description
The northeastern bulrush is a member of the Cyperaceae (sedge)
family. It is a tall (80 to 120 centimeter), leafy, perennial herb that
produces stems and leaves from short, thick, underground rhizomes. It
is distinguished from other Scirpus species by its drooping, clustered,
fruiting heads; dark, chocolate-brown florets; achene bristles that are
barbed to the base; and broad bracts (Schuyler 1962, pp. 44-46).
Population size may vary from year to year. In some cases, plants
are absent above ground for several years before re-emerging (Service
2019a, p. 10). This is likely due to changes in environmental
conditions, although the exact causal mechanisms are not well
understood. When water levels and/or light availability are not
favorable, the population becomes stressed, dwindles in size, and
sometimes becomes completely absent above ground. When favorable
habitat conditions return, the population may re-emerge.
The northeastern bulrush is a wetland obligate plant occurring in
acidic to almost neutral wetlands including sinkhole ponds, wet
depressions, and vernal pools (collectively, seasonal or ephemeral
wetlands); American beaver (Castor canadensis) flowages; and other
riparian areas found in hilly country (Schuyler 1962, p. 47). Optimal
habitat includes abundant sunlight, higher organic matter (Lentz and
Dunson 1999, p. 165), and seasonally and/or annually fluctuating water
levels, although prolonged periods with too much or too little water
may be detrimental.
Distribution
At the time of listing in 1991, only 13 populations of the
northeastern bulrush scattered across 6 U.S. States were known to exist
(Service 1991, entire); however, the species is now known from 148
extant populations in 8 States (Service 2019a, p. 2). The populations
can be loosely organized into a northern region and a southern or
Appalachian region, with a large gap in the distribution in
southeastern New York. The northern region includes extreme eastern New
York and the New England States of Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts; and the southern or Appalachian region includes
southwestern New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West
Virginia. The vast majority of populations are in Pennsylvania (59.5
percent), Vermont (20.9 percent), and New Hampshire (9.5 percent).
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be
[[Page 61389]]
removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
The objective identified in the northeastern bulrush recovery plan
(Service 1993, p. 37), when there were 33 known extant populations, was
to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened, and the plan
provides three criteria for doing so: (1) 20 populations are
permanently protected; (2) annual monitoring over a 10-year period
shows that 20 representative populations are stable or increasing; and
(3) life-history and ecological requirements are understood
sufficiently to allow for effective protection, monitoring, and
management. The recovery plan does not contain delisting criteria.
In the 2009 5-year review (Service 2009, entire), the Service
determined that the downlisting criteria were partially met and
recommended a change in listing status to threatened, because (1) the
number of extant populations was three times greater than when the
species was listed; \1\ (2) approximately half of all known populations
were on public lands; and (3) approximately half of the extant
populations appeared to be stable or increasing. In the 2019 5-year
review (Service 2019b, entire), the Service recommended delisting the
northeastern bulrush, because it no longer meets the Act's definition
of an endangered or a threatened species. While the recovery plan does
not include delisting criteria, our analysis presented in the SSA
report (Service 2019a, entire) shows that the intent of the recovery
plan's downlisting criteria (Service 1993, p. 37) has been exceeded
substantially, supporting our conclusion that the species is neither
endangered nor threatened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There were 13 known extant populations at listing in 1991,
33 at the time of the recovery plan in 1993, and 113 in 2009 when
the 5-year review was completed. To clarify the 2009 5-year review,
the number of extant populations in 2009 was 8.7 times the number of
populations known in 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose and intent of the first downlisting criterion calling
for permanent protection of 20 populations was to provide evidence that
a reasonable number of populations were reliably protected from
development, which was identified as a threat to the species'
viability. Currently, 89 (approximately 60 percent) of the 148 known
extant populations occur on public lands, which affords consistent and
reliable protection through a management structure conducive to
conservation. In addition, although development was identified as an
important threat at the time of listing, that threat appears to have
diminished. Currently, oil and gas development in Pennsylvania is
perhaps the most likely development threat; however, no available
information indicates any populations are under known threat from oil
and gas development. Although other types of activities such as road
construction, forestry, recreation, and plant competition are factors
that may affect the species, data indicate they are not primary factors
influencing the viability of the northeastern bulrush. Also, because
the species occurs in wetland habitats, which are provided some
protections under State laws, the species is protected from many
sources of impacts from human activities. As a result, the need for
further affirmative protection from these threats on both public and
private lands is less than previously determined at the time the
recovery plan was issued in 1993. Together these factors lead to our
conclusion that the purpose and intent of the first downlisting
criterion of permanent protection for 20 populations has been
substantially exceeded.
The intent of the second downlisting criterion calling for 20
stable or increasing populations was to demonstrate and ensure the
species was not in active decline. This element of the recovery plan
has also been exceeded by a wide margin. There are 148 known extant
populations of the northeastern bulrush in 8 States, an increase of 31
percent from the 113 known extant populations in 7 States at the time
of the 2009 5-year review. Our analysis of these populations in the SSA
report (Service 2019a, p. 27) indicates that 132 (89 percent) of the
148 known extant populations demonstrate excellent, good, and fair
resiliency, and only 16 (11 percent) of the populations demonstrate
poor resiliency or have been extirpated. We determined that the
recovery plan's terms ``stable'' and ``increasing'' are not appropriate
for describing a species whose populations may naturally fluctuate
dramatically in response to environmental stochasticity; for this
reason, the number of populations in excellent, good, or fair condition
is a better measure of the intent of this criterion. Also, because the
number of populations in fair or better condition is an order of
magnitude higher than the number of stable or increasing populations
called for in the second downlisting criterion, we conclude that the
intent of this criterion has been substantially exceeded.
The third downlisting criterion calling for increased understanding
of the life-history and ecological requirements of the northeastern
bulrush has been achieved in that we have sufficient information to
support long-term management of populations. Research by State,
Federal, and university partners on the effects of hydrology, shading,
herbivory, genetics, propagation, transplantation, and nutrients on
germination and plant growth has provided better understanding of how
to more effectively protect, monitor, and manage the species.
Therefore, lack of knowledge to support long-term management of
populations no longer contributes a substantial risk to the species.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in
[[Page 61390]]
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a
threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened
species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened
species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations
in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered
and threatened species and what criteria we apply when designating
listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). This final rule is now
in effect and is incorporated into the current regulations. The Act
defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M- Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be proposed for delisting. However, it
does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess northeastern bulrush viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events),
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogen). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found
[[Page 61391]]
at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0014 on https://www.regulations.gov.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA report
(Service 2019a, entire) and most recent 5-year review (Service 2019b,
entire) document our comprehensive biological status review for the
species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the
species.
The following is a summary of this status review and the best
available information gathered since that time that have informed this
decision.
The northeastern bulrush is a wetland obligate plant occurring in
acidic to almost neutral wetlands including sinkhole ponds, wet
depressions, vernal pools (collectively, seasonal or ephemeral
wetlands), beaver flowages, and other riparian areas found in hilly
country (Schuyler 1962, p. 47). Optimal habitat includes abundant
sunlight, higher organic matter (Lentz and Dunson 1999, p. 165), and
seasonally and/or annually fluctuating water levels, although prolonged
periods with too much or too little water may be detrimental. The
northeastern bulrush may be found in a wide range of water depths from
just a few centimeters up to a meter in depth, depending on seasonal
fluctuations in water levels (Thompson 1991, p. 5). Plants typically
grow in open areas surrounded by forest. Light availability is known to
influence plant growth, reproduction, and distribution (Boardman 1977,
p. 372; Lentz and Cipollini 1998, p. 126). Shaded plants are often
taller, but at the expense of the roots and other organs (Lentz and
Cipollini 1998, pp. 127, 129), and the species usually is absent from
the highly shaded perimeter of wetlands.
Current Condition
As stated previously, when the northeastern bulrush was listed in
1991, only 13 populations were known to exist; however, the species is
now known from 148 extant populations in 8 States (Service 2019a, p.
2). The populations can be loosely organized into a northern region and
a southern or Appalachian region, with a large gap in the distribution
in southeastern New York. As described in chapter 4 of the SSA report
(Service 2019a, pp. 25-31), we used element occurrence (E.O.) rank to
assess and describe the current resiliency of northeastern bulrush
populations. E.O. rankings document the status and quality of plant
population occurrences and assess the probability of an occurrence
persisting. We consider the E.O. rank to be the most meaningful way to
describe a population's status, as it requires an in-person observation
and combines multiple components of a population's condition into a
single metric. E.O. ranks are assigned by a surveyor based on
observations beyond just population size, but also habitat conditions
at the site at the time of the survey, conditions over time since its
last observation, and probability of persistence. Our analysis of these
populations (Service 2019a, p. 27) indicates that 132 (89 percent) of
the 148 known extant populations demonstrate excellent, good, and fair
resiliency, and only 16 (11 percent) of the populations demonstrate
poor resiliency or have been extirpated.
Factors Influencing Viability
At the time of listing (see 56 FR 21091; May 7, 1991), habitat
disturbance and destruction from development and other anthropogenic
impacts, especially on private land, was identified as an important
threat to the northeastern bulrush, even though there were only a few
examples of populations that were under imminent threat from these
activities. Since listing, one population has been lost to development,
but overall, the anticipated threat of habitat loss from development
has not materialized and has a much lower overall impact risk because
of the increased number of known populations.
A search of the Service's Tracking and Integrated Logging System,
which has information dating back approximately 15 years, revealed
relatively few consultations under section 7 of the Act between the
Service and Federal agencies on Federal actions that may affect the
northeastern bulrush. Consultations often consider proposals for
development, road construction and/or maintenance, or other habitat
disturbance, and none of the consultations that included northeastern
bulrush anticipated adverse effects to the species. While these search
results do not capture non-Federal actions on private land, in the
available survey and monitoring data, surveyors did not identify any
northeastern bulrush populations as being under threat of extirpation
as a result of development activities since regular surveys began.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the lack of development impacts to
the extant populations is attributable to the protections afforded by
the Act.
At this time, oil and gas development in Pennsylvania is perhaps
the most likely development threat; however, we are not aware of any
information, such as project proposals, that indicates any populations
are under threat from oil and gas development. Accordingly, we conclude
that the threat of the destruction, modification, or curtailment of the
northeastern bulrush's habitat from development is less than previously
thought, and not a significant factor impacting the continued viability
of the species. Although other types of activities such as road
construction, forestry, and recreation are factors that may affect the
species, to date they have not proved to be significant factors
contributing to the risk of extinction of the northeastern bulrush. The
88 northeastern bulrush populations that occur on publicly owned land
(approximately 60 percent of known populations) are provided long-term
protection from risk of development. Publicly owned lands include State
Game Lands, National Wildlife Refuges, National Park Service units, and
lands protected by non-governmental organizations such as The Nature
Conservancy. A description of these factors can be found in the SSA
report (Service 2019a, pp. 21-24).
Native species are known to modify habitat for the northeastern
bulrush and can have meaningful, although mostly temporary, impacts on
populations. Beavers can create flood conditions that negatively impact
the species through increasing water depth by constructing or adding to
a dam and raising the water level in a wetland occupied by the
northeastern bulrush. However, beavers also have a long-term positive
effect on habitat quality by harvesting trees and other woody
vegetation for food and shelter, thereby creating open canopy and
increasing light availability. Trampling by white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and trampling and wallowing by American black
bears (Ursus americanus) have been noted in some northeastern bulrush
populations, and these activities can have mixed, sometimes
substantial, impacts, especially where bulrush populations are very
small. Trampling and soil compaction occur as deer and bears move
through northeastern bulrush sites. Bears excavate wallows near the
edge of wetlands, and some northeastern bulrush populations have been
impacted by this activity. Wallows can be big enough to affect entire
populations if the populations are very small; however, wallows also
can be beneficial as they help create areas of open water, which are
important during
[[Page 61392]]
dry periods. These factors affect a small number of populations, and it
appears that the timing, location, and scale of the trampling and
wallows that would need to align to extirpate a population occur with
such infrequency as to be discountable. Therefore, while beaver
activity, trampling, and wallowing can cause substantial localized
impacts to individual northeastern bulrush populations, these are not
significant factors contributing to the risk of extinction.
There is no evidence the species is used for commercial or
recreational purposes, or that the scientific and/or educational uses
(e.g., seed collection, surveys, etc.) have significant impacts.
Similarly, disease has not been documented as a factor affecting the
species. Browsing by white-tailed deer has been noted in some
northeastern bulrush populations in the Appalachian region; although it
has not been reported in the northern region, it likely occurs
rangewide at a similar scale as the Appalachian region. Deer browsing
may affect plant fitness, particularly if other factors, such as
decreased light availability, are affecting the population. Deer
browsing impacts under these conditions likely affects a small number
of populations, and it appears that the timing, location, and scale of
the browsing that would need to align to extirpate a population occur
with such infrequency as to be discountable. Therefore,
overutilization, disease, and predation do not constitute a risk to the
northeastern bulrush.
The wetland habitats in which the northeastern bulrush occurs are
protected by State statutes and regulations, although these mechanisms
typically include a permitting process that allows direct impacts to
wetlands. Some States have additional statutes or regulations or both
that protect the northeastern bulrush or its habitat. For example,
Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts require protection of upland
buffers and permits to work within wetlands; however, State protection
of upland areas around the wetlands is inconsistent, and disturbance
such as roads or other development near wetlands can cause indirect
effects such as sedimentation, altered hydrology, and introduction of
invasive species.
The species is designated as State endangered throughout its range,
except in West Virginia, and these State designations are independent
of the species' Federal status. West Virginia does not have a State law
to protect endangered species, but only three northeastern bulrush
populations occur in West Virginia. The States that currently protect
the northeastern bulrush under State law require, at a minimum, project
proponents to coordinate with State resource agencies to develop
minimization measures for projects that may affect the northeastern
bulrush or its habitat. The Regulatory Protection discussion in the SSA
report (Service 2019a, pp. 17-21) includes a summary of our current
understanding of the laws and regulations regarding wetlands and
buffers in States where the northeastern bulrush occurs. The best
available information indicates that the northeastern bulrush is not
threatened by inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Climate change, especially in the southern portion of its range, is
the primary factor influencing the viability of the northeastern
bulrush. Although the species exists in wetlands that regularly
experience fluctuating water levels, the northeastern bulrush and its
habitat are susceptible to floods and droughts. Based on global,
regional, and local climate models (Service 2019a, chapter 5), we
expect that changes in climate will impact the northeastern bulrush's
habitat by changing the amount, timing, and severity of precipitation
and drought, and the number of extreme precipitation events. Higher
temperatures, without increasing summer precipitation, may cause
wetlands to dry up earlier, and an extended growing season may allow
other vegetation to encroach upon, compete with, and increase shading
of, northeastern bulrush plants. We expect these impacts to be more
noticeable in populations that occur in seasonal wetlands. We expect
beaver activity may at least partially mitigate effects of changing
climate by regulating water levels through damming, maintaining larger
wetlands and open area compared to seasonal wetlands, and removing
trees and reducing shading at the wetland perimeter.
The 13 populations (8.7 percent of known extant populations) in
seasonal wetlands that are currently in poor condition are the most
vulnerable to the effects of changing climate and have a high risk of
extirpation. However, the populations in beaver wetlands are much less
vulnerable to the effects of changing climate and have a low risk of
extirpation. Rangewide, most populations (78 percent) occur in seasonal
wetlands, but the distribution is geographically disparate. In the New
England region, 60.4 percent of populations (29 of 48) occur in beaver
wetlands, while in the Appalachian region, 97 percent of populations
(97 of 100) occur in seasonal wetlands (Service 2019a, p. 29).
Additional information on the effects of climate change on the
northeastern bulrush can be found in the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp.
33-34).
Future Condition Analysis
We modeled a single scenario to assess the potential future
viability of the northeastern bulrush in the context of the factors
influencing species viability and resiliency, representation, and
redundancy. Due to uncertainties with factors such as fluctuating water
levels, climatic stochasticity, light availability, and regulatory
protection, we used EO rank to assess future resiliency condition,
consistent with our current condition analysis.
We explored plausible changes in the factors considered in an EO
ranking, such as population size, biotic factors, abiotic factors, and
landscape context (Hammerson et al. 2008) to anticipate future changes
in EO rank at each population. We were unable to explicitly predict
changes in population size; however, we were able to use existing
climate models to qualitatively anticipate effects of changing climate
on biotic and abiotic factors (i.e., habitat type and quality). We used
the same population resiliency scoring model for future condition that
we used for current condition. Accordingly, to describe plausible
future viability, we model future resiliency at the population level
and reasonably reliable trends in redundancy and representation at the
rangewide scale (see Service 2019a, pp. 32-39).
We considered the potential consequences of climate change and
carried the scenario approximately 30 years into the future (2050) to
be considered our foreseeable future because we have information to
reasonably reliably predict changes in climate within this timeframe.
We first modeled the response of northeastern bulrush habitat to
changes in climate consistent with representative concentration pathway
(RCP) 8.5. The best available information, as summarized in the SSA
report, generally presents this scenario as a plausible, high-emissions
scenario anticipating greater changes in climate than moderate climate
scenarios, such as RCP 4.5. Available information also suggests the
probability of scenarios worse than RCP 8.5 is low. Therefore, RCP 8.5
presents a worst case, but still plausible, scenario for northeastern
bulrush habitat. As our analysis using RCP 8.5 resulted in the
northeastern bulrush not meeting the Act's definition of an endangered
or a threatened species, it follows that additional analyses using RCP
4.5 or another
[[Page 61393]]
moderate-emissions climate model would result in lower magnitude
effects on the species' habitat and, ultimately, the same listing
determination. Therefore, we did not bracket our analysis with lower
emissions climate models.
We generally anticipate, and modeling reflects, that climate change
is likely to impact the species' habitat through higher water levels
early in the growing season followed by hotter summers and a faster
drying cycle. For the northeastern bulrush, this will affect
fluctuating water levels, climatic stochasticity, and light
availability, resulting in neutral effects on beaver wetlands and
negative effects on seasonal wetlands. We expect beavers to mitigate
anticipated climate changes at beaver wetlands by thinning canopy cover
and regulating water levels by damming. In addition, while we are not
aware of climate studies examining specific effects on beavers, beavers
occur within and outside the range of the northeastern bulrush in
diverse landscapes, some of which are hotter and have different
precipitation regimes. Accordingly, we anticipate beavers will remain
within the range of the northeastern bulrush through 2050. Therefore,
we expect no reduction in northeastern bulrush population
representation in beaver wetlands before 2050 beyond that which could
occur through normal beaver use and disuse of wetlands.
Our future scenario anticipated moderate negative effects on
resiliency, a slight decline in representation and redundancy, and
extirpation of 13 populations (2 in the northern region and 11 in the
Appalachian region) from seasonal wetlands. In 2050, approximately 135
populations would remain distributed across a large geographical range
in at least three physiographic provinces, two habitat types, and all
currently occupied States. The number of future populations could be
slightly higher if new populations are discovered. The species likely
would retain low genetic diversity, especially in the northern region.
The species' apparent limited dispersal capacity will reduce its
ability to shift its range in response to changing climate. However,
the species would retain its redundancy driven by a wide geographic
distribution and retain representation via the use of a variety of
environmental settings (habitat and physiographic provinces).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
There are many conservation measures that benefit the northeastern
bulrush's viability. These measures are consistent with those described
in the recovery plan (Service 1993, entire) and include protection
through State endangered species laws, protection through State wetland
protection laws, protection of sites through perpetual conservation
easements and public land ownership, surveys to monitor known
populations and to locate additional populations, research efforts to
better understand the species' life history, propagation and
transplantation efforts, canopy thinning, invasive species control
measures, and active management to address shrub encroachment.
Determination of Northeastern Bulrush Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we listed the northeastern bulrush in 1991 (see 56 FR 21091;
May 7, 1991). At that time, there were only 13 known occurrences, and
the species faced threats from habitat loss primarily due to land
conversion for development. The northeastern bulrush has been the
subject of recovery efforts since it was listed under the Act, and the
discovery of previously unknown populations, research leading to the
understanding of the species' needs, and identification of management
actions that support those needs have led to a revised assessment of
the status of the species since that time.
As explained above, while the recovery plan does not include
delisting criteria, our analysis presented in the SSA report (Service
2019a, entire) shows that the intent of the recovery plan's downlisting
criteria (Service 1993, p. 37) has been exceeded substantially,
supporting our conclusion that the species is neither endangered nor
threatened. The underlying purpose and intent of each of the three
downlisting criteria has been exceeded by a wide margin. At the time of
listing in 1991, there were 13 known extant populations in 6 States. By
the time the recovery plan was approved 2 years later, in 1993, 33
extant populations had been identified. Largely due to increased survey
effort, there are presently 148 known extant populations in 8 States;
this amounts to a 4-fold increase in known populations since the
downlisting criteria were established. The first downlisting criterion
in the recovery plan calls for permanent protection of 20 populations.
Eighty-nine (approximately 60 percent) of the 148 known extant
populations occur on public lands. This number greatly exceeds the
protected populations called for in the first downlisting criterion,
and we have also determined that the threat from development is less
than projected at the time we completed the recovery plan (1993).
Accordingly, we conclude that the intent of this criterion has been
substantially exceeded. The second criterion calls for 20 stable or
increasing populations. Of the 148 extant populations, 132 are in
excellent, good, or fair condition, which is an order of magnitude
higher than the number of stable or increasing populations called for
in the second downlisting criterion. The third downlisting criterion
calls for increased understanding of the species' life-
[[Page 61394]]
history and ecological requirements. Research on the effects of
hydrology, shading, herbivory, genetics, propagation, transplantation,
and nutrients on germination and plant growth has provided
understanding that is sufficient to support long-term management of
northeastern bulrush populations (e.g., Lentz and Cipollini 1998,
entire; Lentz and Dunson 1998, entire).
As discussed, under current conditions, there are 148 known
populations of northeastern bulrush distributed throughout 4
physiographic provinces in 8 States--New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West
Virginia. The increase in known populations since listing is due
primarily to increased survey effort, and it is possible that more
populations will be found in the future. Despite the dynamic nature of
the species' life history, there have been only a few (9) documented
extirpations of extant populations (Service 2019a, p. 27). Some
populations have benefited from habitat management, but we are not
aware of any populations that were newly established or re-established
after extirpation as a result of outplanting or other restoration
efforts. Our analysis of these populations in the SSA report (Service
2019a, p. 27) indicates that 89 percent of the populations demonstrate
excellent, good, and fair resiliency, and only 11 percent of the
populations demonstrate poor resiliency.
Development activities are no longer considered a significant
threat. Deer browsing and trampling, as well as trampling and wallowing
by black bears, have been noted in some populations, and these
activities can have detrimental effects on a population, particularly
if other factors, such as decreased light availability, are affecting
the population. However, these factors affect only a small number of
populations, and the likelihood is low that browsing, trampling, or
wallowing would occur in a particular population with poor resiliency
and with sufficient magnitude to affect the entire population.
Accordingly, we conclude that browsing, trampling, and wallowing either
individually or cumulatively are not likely to cause the extirpation of
a population and, therefore, are not significant factors contributing
to the risk of extinction of the northeastern bulrush.
Regulatory protections afforded to the northeastern bulrush include
State wetland protections and State endangered species regulations.
These protections apply independently of the species' Federal status
under the Act and, at a minimum, require project proponents to
coordinate with State resource agencies to develop minimization
measures for projects that may affect the northeastern bulrush or its
habitat. A description of the States' regulatory protections can be
found in the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 17-21).
Since the listing of the northeastern bulrush in 1991, we have
become aware of the potential for the effects of climate change to
affect organisms and ecosystems, including the northeastern bulrush. To
inform our understanding of the species' risk of extinction, we modeled
a single future scenario detailed above in Summary of Biological Status
and Threats. This future scenario, by itself, does not provide an
estimate of the species' risk of extinction, but it does help us better
understand the extent to which threats would have to further affect the
species to cause extinction, considering the present population figures
and resiliency status. Based on the best information regarding the
species' current condition and threats, we projected how the threats
would manifest under this ``worst case'' scenario and how the species
would respond.
To summarize, our greater knowledge regarding the prevalence of
northeastern bulrush populations and the impacts of natural and
artificial systems and disturbances on the species results in a
conclusion that the overall extinction risk for the northeastern
bulrush is much lower than we had previously determined it to be at the
time the species was listed in 1991 (see 56 FR 21091; May 7, 1991).
Considering our modeled ``worst case'' future scenario, it is apparent
that the risk of threats manifesting in such a way as to cause
extinction of the species is very low. Known impacts at the time of
listing, such as habitat loss due to development and inadequate
regulatory protections, that could have resulted in the extirpation of
populations have either been reduced or have not materialized since
listing. Through our assessment of future condition, including the
status of known stressors and probable impacts of climate change, we
anticipate that 88 percent of populations across the range of the
species would maintain high, moderate, or fair resiliency over a
timeframe of approximately 30 years into the future. We, therefore,
conclude the previously recognized impacts to the northeastern bulrush
from present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence do not rise to a
level of significance, either individually or in combination, such that
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available
scientific information, we conclude that the northeastern bulrush is
not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that the northeastern bulrush is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of its
range--that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for
which both (1) the portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for northeastern bulrush, we choose to
address the status question first. We began by identifying portions of
the range where the biological status of the species may be different
from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, we
considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of (a)
individuals of the species, (b) the threats that the species faces, and
(c) the resiliency condition of populations.
We evaluated the range of the northeastern bulrush to determine if
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. We focused our
[[Page 61395]]
analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species. For northeastern
bulrush, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the
species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the
species' range than in other portions such that the species is in
danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in that portion.
We examined the following threats and cumulative impacts of these
threats: (1) habitat disturbance and destruction from development; (2)
beaver activity; (3) deer and bear activities, such as trampling,
browsing, and wallowing; and (4) climate change. As stated previously
under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, when this species was
listed, habitat disturbance and destruction from development and other
anthropogenic impacts was identified as an important threat to the
northeastern bulrush. However, since listing, the anticipated threat of
habitat loss from development has not materialized in any portion of
the range, and we conclude that the threat of habitat disturbance and
destruction from development does not rise to a level that threatens
the species now or into the future. Similarly, while we identified
threats of beaver activity, trampling, and wallowing that can cause
localized impacts to individual northeastern bulrush populations, these
factors are not occurring at a significant level in any portion of the
species' range.
The effects of climate change differ between the northern and
southern portions of the range of the northeastern bulrush, as most
populations in the southern portion of the range occur in seasonal
wetlands while populations in the northern portion are more evenly
distributed between seasonal wetlands and beaver marshes. Changing
climatic conditions will include more precipitation during winters,
higher temperatures throughout the species' range, and an increased
frequency of extreme precipitation events. We project these conditions
will have more negative effects on seasonal wetlands and neutral
effects on beaver marshes, equating to a slightly elevated risk from
climate change in the southern portion of the range. As described in
the SSA report (Service 2019a, pp. 32-39), climate change under a
worst-case scenario could contribute to extirpation of 13 populations
(2 populations in the northern portion and 11 in the southern portion)
across the species' range. However, there are still projected to be 135
populations remaining: 46 populations in the northern portion (96% of
extant populations) and 89 in the southern portion (89%), providing
representation and redundancy within each portion and across the
species' range. Moreover, it is projected that the southern and
northern portions of the range will each retain strong resiliency, with
more than 85 percent of populations in the southern portion and 93
percent in the northern portion projected to maintain high, moderate,
or fair resiliency.
Our conclusion regarding the current and future viability of the
species is supported by multiple, sufficiently resilient populations
distributed across representative ecological settings and physiographic
provinces and encompassing most of the species' known genetic
diversity. We found no biologically meaningful portion of the
northeastern bulrush's range where the condition of the species differs
from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the
species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of
the species' range.
Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant
portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings
in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d
1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v.
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching
this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), including the
definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be
invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available
indicates that the northeastern bulrush does not meet the definition of
an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2), currently in effect, the species has recovered
to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to
remove northeastern bulrush from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
Effects of This Rule
This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by
removing northeastern bulrush [species] from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation
measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9,
would no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer
be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in
the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect
northeastern bulrush.
There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there
would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM)
refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due
to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the
protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to
monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and
if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that
proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any
time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures,
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource
agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as
appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for
northeastern bulrush. The PDM plan will build upon current research and
effective management practices that have improved the status of the
species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven
management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species
will be a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify
measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and
reacting to significant changes in northeastern bulrush numbers,
distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or
exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM
participants, will investigate causes of these declines. The
investigation will be to determine if the northeastern bulrush warrants
expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat
protection, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act.
We appreciate any information on what should be included in post-
[[Page 61396]]
delisting monitoring strategies for these species (see Information
Requested, above).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the New England Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the New
England Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, amend paragraph (h) by removing the entry for
``Scirpus ancistrochaetus'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-16417 Filed 7-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P