Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

43114

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

genetic material before a population is permanently lost.
Peer Review and Public Comments on the Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan 36 Comment: WVDNR stated that the 5-year monitoring period will not detect changes in status of running buffalo clover in time to allow for remedial actions if populations decline and suggested that monitoring the occurrences in the Monongahela National Forest management plan annually for 5 years would reflect running buffalo clover population trend and response to management actions.
Response: We recognize that there can be significant year-to-year variation in populations that may cause long-term population trends not to become apparent for more than 5 years.
However, by evaluating the level of canopy coverage and the threat of nonnative invasive species as prescribed in the PDM plan, these threats can be addressed before impacts to running buffalo clover occur. Monitoring is conducted to determine the rangewide status of running buffalo clover declining, stable, or increasing and its threats. It is not intended to evaluate individual management actions.
We have modified the PDM plan to target the running buffalo clover populations with management plans or agreements and the viable Aand Branked populations plus an additional 20 populations rangewide for monitoring. Because approximately 50
percent of all running buffalo clover populations are on private land, we recommend that half of the populations identified for post-delisting monitoring rangewide also occur on private land.
Therefore, these 57 populations that are monitored should be representative of the rangewide ownership private versus public and as well as the rangewide diversity of population size A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked populations.
37 Comment: WVDNR indicated that the PDM plan should include visiting a select group of running buffalo clover occurrences, with the majority on public land, which would provide data on those populations responses to management for control of succession and nonnative invasive species and protection from habitat destruction.
Response: The goal of the monitoring plan is to observe the trends of a representative sample of individual occurrences to determine whether the species continues to be recovered and not to evaluate management activities.
Because most populations are not monitored, the selection of a group of occurrences should reflect the proportion of sites that are managed as
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:05 Aug 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

well as a diversity of population sizes.
There should be a representative number of A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked populations monitored. We have incorporated this concept into the PDM
plan, where appropriate.
38 Comment: WVDNR commented that the monitoring protocol and field monitoring form in the draft PDM plan are not adequate and are inconsistent with the monitoring protocol in the 2007 Running Buffalo Clover Recovery Plan. They recommended using the existing census methodology to provide more consistency and better detect population trends and declines.
Response: We acknowledge that the protocol in the PDM plan differs from that in use since 2007. While the existing methodology would provide more consistency in comparing individual populations preand postdelisting, we note that there are substantially more running buffalo clover populations now than in 2007.
The protocol in the PDM plan addresses the challenges of limited time and resources to monitor a much larger number of populations. In addition, the proposed protocol reflects the greater stability of large A-ranked populations and prioritizes monitoring of smaller ranked populations as these would be more likely not to survive a stochastic event without a significant reduction in size.
Currently, the number of A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked populations are counted and evaluated. If a population drops to a lower rank e.g., from an A-rank to a B-rank, we consider that change to constitute a decline. Because there is annual variability, we do not evaluate the specific individuals of each occurrence. By calculating the change in the number of A-, B-, C-, and D-ranked populations at the end of the 5-year post-delisting monitoring period, we will be consistent with how the species was evaluated in each of the last 5-year reviews. Therefore, we conclude that the data to be collected will be adequate to determine population rankings and rangewide population trends for postdelisting monitoring purposes.
However, we see benefit to the more intensive monitoring suggested by WVDNR by those who are committed to managing the species post-delisting and support any efforts to do so.
39 Comment: WVDNR
recommended an expansion of data gathering about nonnative invasive species across running buffalo clovers range.
Response: The purpose of the nonnative invasive species query in the PDM plan is to determine whether nonnative invasive species present a
PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

threat at running buffalo clover occurrences and if that threat is being addressed. We understand that additional information on nonnative invasive species would be useful.
However, due to limited time and resources, this is beyond the scope of the PDM plan.
40 Comment: WVDNR stated that use of 95 percent canopy closure is insufficient as a trigger for selective harvest and suggests that the trigger should not be greater than 80 percent canopy cover.
Response: Because running buffalo clover grows in the ground layer, it can be affected by shading from the understory as well as the canopy. The 95 percent canopy cover is used as a trigger for selective harvest because we expect selective harvesting would significantly reduce canopy cover. Other forms of management can be considered before a site reaches 95 percent canopy cover as these other forms of management are not expected to reduce the canopy cover as dramatically. We have updated the PDM plan to clarify.
41 Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the monitoring plan does not ensure an adequate level of management.
Response: The PDM plan is intended to determine whether a significant number of running buffalo clover occurrences are in decline or are stable or increasing and will focus primarily on those sites that meet all aspects of recovery. Monitoring will help evaluate whether management is needed, but the PDM plan does not require management. The monitoring data form will ask if appropriate management is occurring.
42 Comment: One peer reviewer recommended changing the definition of response triggers to require monitoring more sites for a longer period of time.
Response: Due to the limitation of time and resources, additional monitoring is not feasible for most sites.
While we encourage more frequent monitoring at sites that have that capability, the level of monitoring prescribed in the PDM plan is sufficient to assess the population trend of running buffalo clover for the purposes of post-delisting monitoring, which is to determine the rangewide status of running buffalo clover declining, stable, or increasing and its threats to evaluate whether the species continues to be recovered.
Determination of Running Buffalo Clover Status Section 4 of the Act 16 U.S.C. 1533
and its implementing regulations 50

E:FRFM06AUR1.SGM

06AUR1