Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations State Comments Section 4b5Aii of the Act states that the Secretary must give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4a to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4i 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 agencys 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 Kentuckys 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 States populations are recovered.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:05 Aug 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

Response: We appreciate Missouris 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 Missouris 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 MDCs 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
PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

43109

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 Ohios 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
E:FRFM06AUR1.SGM

06AUR1