Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

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.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:05 Aug 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

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
PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 17.12h.
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, Directors 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. FWSR3ES2018
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.

E:FRFM06AUR1.SGM

06AUR1