Running Buffalo Clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbus, Ohio Field Office Columbus, Ohio 5-YEAR REVIEW Running buffalo clover/Trifolium stoloniferum 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Regional Office: Carlita Payne, Midwest Region, 612-713-5339 Lead Field Office: Julie Proell, Columbus, Ohio FO, 614-416-8993 Cooperating Field Offices: Lori Pruitt, Bloomington, Indiana FO 812-334-4261, ext. 211 Jody Millar, Moline, Illinois FO 309-757-5800, ext. 202 Paul McKenzie, Columbia, Missouri FO 573-234-2132, ext. 107 Barbara Douglas, West Virginia FO 304-636-6586, ext. 19 Michael Floyd, Kentucky FO 502-695-0468 Cooperating Regional Offices: Kelly Bibb, Southeast Region 404-679-7132 Mary Parkin, Northeast Region 616-417-3331 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review: This 5-year review was prepared by Julie Proell, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Columbus, Ohio Ecological Services Field Office, in consultation with other field office staff in the Southeast, Northeast, and Midwest regions. The Service requested new scientific or commercial data and information that may have a bearing on the species’ classification of endangered status through a Federal Register notice (75 FR 55820) initiating the 5-year review. We reviewed past and recent literature, state heritage data, public comments, the final listing rule (52 FR 21478), the Running Buffalo Clover Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007), and the 5-year review for the species (USFWS 2008) which we relied heavily on to prepare this 5-year review. Peer review will be conducted when the proposed rule to reclassify the species to threatened status is issued. 1.3 Background: 1.3.1 FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: 75 FR 55820 (September 14, 2010) 1.3.2 Listing history Original Listing FR notice: 52 FR 21478 Date listed: June 5, 1987 Entity listed: species Classification: endangered 1.3.3 Associated rulemakings: none 1.3.4 Review History: September 2008: 5-year review for Running Buffalo Clover (Trifolium stoloniferum). This 5-year review summarized all new information regarding the species status, distribution, and threats, leading to a recommendation to downlist the species to threatened status. June 27, 2007: Revised Recovery Plan for Running Buffalo Clover notice of availability (72 FR 35253). The notice of availability summarized the species status, distribution, and recovery objectives that were reviewed and developed in the revised recovery plan. June 14, 2007: Running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) Recovery Plan: First Revision. This first Revision of the Recovery Plan provides updated information on the status and biology of the species and guides the recovery of Running buffalo clover throughout its range. Running buffalo clover was included in a cursory 5-year review of all species listed before January 1, 1991 (56 FR 56882). The 5-year review resulted in no change to Running buffalo clover’s listing classification of endangered. 1.3.5 Species’ Recovery Priority Number at start of 5-year review: 8 1.3.6 Recovery Plan Name of plan: Running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) Recovery Plan: First Revision Date issued: June 14, 2007 2 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy 2.1.1 Is the species under review a vertebrate? No 2.2 Recovery Criteria 2.2.1 Does the species have a final, approved recovery plan containing objective, measurable criteria? Yes 2.2.2 Adequacy of recovery criteria. 2.2.2.1 Do the recovery criteria reflect the best available and most up-to date information on the biology of the species and its habitat? Yes 2.2.2.2 Are all of the 5 listing factors that are relevant to the species addressed in the recovery criteria (and is there no new information to consider regarding existing or new threats)? Yes. Listing Factors B (overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes) and C (disease or predation) are not relevant for this species. 2.2.3 List the recovery criteria as they appear in the recovery plan, and discuss how each criterion has or has not been met, citing information Downlisting Recovery Criteria Running buffalo clover may be reclassified from endangered to threatened when the following criteria are met. Numerical goals are based on most recently available scientific information and are subject to revision as new information becomes available. The results of the most recent 5-year review for this species state that the recovery criteria for reclassifying running buffalo clover from an endangered species to a threatened species have been achieved (USFWS 2008). 1. Seventeen populations, in total, are distributed as follows: 1 A-ranked, 3 B- ranked, 3 C-ranked, and 10 D-ranked populations across at least 2 of the 3 regions in which Running buffalo clover currently occurs (Appalachian, Bluegrass, and Ozark). The number of populations required in each rank is based on what would be necessary to achieve a 95% probability of persistence within the next 20 years based on population viability analysis (PVA; Appendix 5 of USFWS 2007). Rankings refer to the Element Occurrence (EO) ranking categories (Table 1 of USFWS 2007). Downlisting Criterion 1 has been met. Populations are distributed as follows: A = 10, B =29, C = 30, D = 47 and occur in all three regions across the range of the species (Table 1). This criterion addresses listing Factor A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 3 curtailment of its habitat or range), Factor D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms), and Factor E (other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence). 2. For each A-ranked and B-ranked population described in #1, PVA indicates a 95% probability of persistence within the next 20 years, OR for any population that does not meet the 95% persistence standard, the population meets the definition of viable. For downlisting purposes, viability is defined as follows: A) seed production is occurring; B) the population is stable or increasing, based on at least five years of censusing; and C) appropriate management techniques are in place. Downlisting Criterion 2 has been met. In 2008, four A-ranked and three B-ranked populations were considered viable based on PVA or 5 years of data (USFWS 2007 - Appendix 5, 2008). Of the populations ranked A in 2008, two have remained A-ranked while two have decreased to B- ranked as of 2010. Of the populations ranked B in 2008, one increased to A-ranked, one remained at B-ranked, and one decreased to C-ranked as of 2010. This leads to a total of three A-ranked, three B-ranked, and one C-ranked population in 2010 that were considered to be viable in 2008 through the PVA (USFWS 2007). Downlisting Criterion 2 requires that one A- ranked and three B-ranked populations be considered viable. This criterion addresses listing Factor A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range). 3. The land on which each of the populations described in #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. Natural Resource Management Plans on Federal lands may be suitable for the meeting of this criterion. This criterion will ensure that habitat-based threats for the species are addressed (Appendix 6 of USFWS 2007). Downlisting Criterion 3 has been met. The number of populations that meet this criterion are distributed as follows: A-ranked = 6 and 1 partially protected, B-ranked = 12 and 2 partially protected, C-ranked = 10, D-ranked = 13 and 1 partially protected. Most of the protected populations are located on Federal property (Forest Service or Department of Defense lands). Several are located on state property. Five populations meet this criterion as well as downlisting Criterion 2; three A-ranked (Fernow, Bowden, and Magee Run in West Virginia; Harmon 2010a) and two B-ranked (Crouch Knob Becky Creek in West Virginia [Harmon 2010a] and Congress Green in Ohio [Becus. et al 2010]). This criterion addresses listing Factor A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range) and Factor D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms). 4 Delisting Recovery Criteria Running buffalo clover may be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12) when the following have been met: 1. Thirty-four populations, in total, are distributed as follows: 2 A-ranked, 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% probability of the persistence within the next 20 years; this number was doubled to ensure biological redundancy across the range of the species. Rankings refer to the EO ranking categories (USFWS 2007). Delisting Criterion 1 has been met. It addresses listing Factor A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range), Factor D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms), and Factor E (other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence). Populations are distributed as follows: A-ranked = 10, B-ranked = 29, C-ranked = 30, D-ranked = 47, and occur in all three regions across the range of the species (Table 1). 2. For each A-ranked and B-ranked population described in #1, PVA indicates 95% probability of persistence within the next 20 years, OR for any population that does not meet the 95% persistence standard, the population meets the definition of viable.