Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33177

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA Please note that submissions merely 22041–3803. stating support for or opposition to the Fish and Wildlife Service We request that you send comments action under consideration without only by the methods described above. providing supporting information, 50 CFR Part 17 We will post all comments on http:// although noted, will not be considered www.regulations.gov. This generally [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071; in making a determination, as section FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] means that we will post any personal 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that information you provide us (see Public determinations as to whether any RIN 1018–BE00 Comments, below, for more species is an endangered or a threatened information). species must be made ‘‘solely on the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Document availability: The proposed basis of the best scientific and and Plants; Removal of Chrysopsis rule and supporting documents commercial data available.’’ floridana (Florida Golden Aster) From (including the Species Status You may submit your comments and the Federal List of Endangered and Assessment (SSA), post delisting materials concerning this proposed rule Threatened Plants monitoring plan, list of references cited, by one of the methods listed in AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and 5-year review) are available at ADDRESSES. We request that you send Interior. http://www.regulations.gov under comments only by the methods Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. described in ADDRESSES. ACTION: Proposed rule. We will notify the public on our If you submit information via http:// SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and website, https://www.fws.gov/ www.regulations.gov, your entire Wildlife Service (Service), propose to northflorida/, when these documents submission—including any personal remove the Florida golden aster are available. identifying information—will be posted (Chrysopsis floridana), a short-lived FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay on the website. If your submission is perennial, from the Federal List of Herrington, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish made via a hardcopy that includes Endangered and Threatened Plants and Wildlife Service, North Florida personal identifying information, you (List) due to recovery (delist). This Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 may request at the top of your document determination is based on our Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL that we withhold this information from evaluation of the best available 32256; telephone 722–469–4251. public review. However, we cannot scientific and commercial information, Persons who use a telecommunications guarantee that we will be able to do so. which indicates that the threats to the device for the deaf (TDD) may call the We will post all hardcopy submissions species have been eliminated or reduced Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. on http://www.regulations.gov. to the point that the species has SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we recovered and no longer meets the Information Requested definition of a threatened or endangered used in preparing this proposed rule, species under the Endangered Species We intend that any final action will be available for public inspection Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If this resulting from this proposed rule will be on http://www.regulations.gov. proposal is finalized, the Florida golden based on the best scientific and Public Hearing aster will be removed from the List. commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for DATES: We will accept comments a public hearing on this proposal, if received or postmarked on or before Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned requested. Requests must be received by August 23, 2021. Comments submitted the date specified in DATES. Such electronically using the Federal governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific requests must be sent to the address eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this CONTACT. We will schedule a public Eastern Time on the closing date. We hearing on this proposal, if requested, must receive requests for public proposed rule. We particularly seek comments on: and announce the date, time, and place hearings, in writing, at the address (1) Information concerning the of the hearing, as well as how to obtain FOR FURTHER INFORMATION shown in biology and ecology of the Florida reasonable accommodations, in the CONTACT by August 9, 2021. golden aster; Federal Register and local newspapers ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (2) Relevant data concerning any at least 15 days before the hearing. For on this proposed rule by one of the threats (or lack thereof) to the Florida the immediate future, we will provide following methods: golden aster, particularly any data on these public hearings using webinars (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal the possible effects of climate change as that will be announced on the Service’s eRulemaking Portal: http:// it relates to habitat, the extent of State website, in addition to the Federal www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, protection, and management that would Register. The use of these virtual public enter FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071, which is be provided to this plant as a delisted hearings is consistent with our the docket number for this rulemaking. species; regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). Then, click on the Search button. On the (3) Current or planned activities Supporting Documents resulting page, in the Search panel on within the geographic range of the the left side of the screen, under the Florida golden aster that may negatively A species status assessment (SSA) Document Type heading, check the impact or benefit the species; and team prepared an SSA report for the Proposed Rules box to locate this (4) Any new information about this Florida golden aster. The SSA team was document. You may submit a comment species and threats from invasive plants. composed of Service biologists, in by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ Please include sufficient information consultation with other species experts. (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail with your submission (such as scientific The SSA report represents a to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: journal articles or other publications) to compilation of the best scientific and FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071, U.S. Fish and allow us to verify any scientific or commercial data available concerning Wildlife Service, MS: JAO (PRB/3W), commercial information you include. the status of the species, including the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33178 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

impacts of past, present, and future southeast of the Tampa Bay area of 25 populations occur entirely or mostly factors (both negative and beneficial) central Florida. The historical range of on 22 protected sites, meaning a site affecting the species. the Florida golden aster is thought to that has been acquired in fee simple and span parts of Hillsborough, Manatee, placed into long-term conservation, or a Peer Review Pinellas, Highlands, and Hardee conservation easement or other binding In accordance with our July 1, 1994, Counties, but the true extent of the land agreement by the site owner that peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, historical range is uncertain because the shows a commitment to its conservation 1994), our August 22, 2016, Director’s ecosystems on which it occurs were in perpetuity. In addition, all sites have Memo on the Peer Review Process, and rapidly converted to residential, a management agreement or plan both the Office of Management and Budget’s commercial, and agricultural uses after developed and implemented. None of December 16, 2004, Final Information settlement of the region. Agriculture the lands occupied by the Florida Quality Bulletin for Peer Review began in 1880 with grazing and golden aster are federally owned or (revised June 2012), we solicited production of citrus and row crops. managed. The remaining five extant independent scientific reviews of the Residential and commercial activity populations occur on private lands or information contained in the Florida began around 1840, mainly in the along roadways or railroad lines. golden aster SSA report. We sent the Tampa Bay area and beach communities The most recent surveys showed that SSA report to six independent peer through the 1940s and 1950s, but just over half of the Florida golden aster reviewers and received two responses. suburban and rural areas started individuals occurred in nine introduced Results of this structured peer review expanding in the 1960s and 1970s and populations at eight sites. The earliest process can be found at https:// development has continued at a introductions took place in 1986; of www.fws.gov/northflorida/. The SSA consistent rate. The species was first those 10 introduced populations, 3 are report was also submitted to our collected and described from a still extant in Hardee and Manatee Federal, State, and Tribal partners for specimen in Manatee County in early Counties, while 7 others in Pinellas and scientific review. We received review 1901, with subsequent collections in Hillsborough Counties failed. from two partners (Sheryl Bowman, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties in Introductions were again initiated Environmental Lands Management the 1920s. The earliest known Manatee during 2008–2013, when Bok Tower Coordinator, Hillsborough County, Lake County and Pinellas County populations Gardens introduced 6 additional Frances Field Office and Jennifer occurred in coastal areas of Bradenton populations in Hardee, Manatee, and Possley, Conservation Team Leader/ Beach and St. Petersburg Beach. Pinellas Counties, containing 24,825 Field Biologist, Fairchild Tropical However, these populations have since plants (as of the most recent censuses, Botanic Garden). In preparing this been extirpated. The last remaining with about 12,000 in one population). proposed rule, we incorporated the natural population known to occur in All 6 populations had reached sizes results of these reviews, as appropriate, Pinellas County was discovered in 1983; >1,000 plants except for the populations into the final SSA report. however, a housing development at Duette Preserve (2 populations, North eliminated all available habitat by 1985. and South). However, given that the Previous Federal Actions When the species was listed as Duette populations were the most The Florida golden aster was listed as endangered in 1986, nine known extant recently introduced populations (2013), endangered on May 16, 1986 (51 FR populations of the species occurred in have been growing rapidly, and are 17974), under the Act. On August 29, five locations, all coastal, in 1988, we released a recovery plan for southeastern Hillsborough County surrounded by ample habitat and little the Florida golden aster. The recovery (Wunderlin et al. 1981, entire). Since to no development, they should also plan suggested that we consider the listing of the species, increased survey reach sizes comparable to the other species for reclassification to threatened efforts have resulted in the discovery of introduced populations. status when 10 geographically distinct additional populations, including According to the most recent surveys, self-sustaining populations of the plant occurrences further inland. Many of the approximately 50,000 individuals exist are protected in Hardee, Hillsborough, newly discovered locations have since with over 90 percent occurring in the Manatee, and Pinellas Counties, Florida. been acquired as protected sites with populations located on protected lands. The latest 5-year review, completed active conservation management Although this estimate is the best March 20, 2017, indicated that the activities implemented to improve available information, it gives only an species’ status was improving, assigned habitat conditions. As discussed below, approximation of the true current a Recovery Priority Number of 8 introductions have occurred on abundance of the Florida golden aster (indicating moderate degree of threat conservation lands in Hardee, because surveys are not conducted and high recovery potential), and Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas every year and are conducted differently recommended downlisting to Counties. It is not known whether these by various biologists for different threatened. The Service initiated the introduction sites were historically purposes. Moreover, population sizes Florida golden aster SSA (see above) to occupied by the Florida golden aster, or fluctuate annually. Twelve of the 30 aid in determining the appropriateness if so, how long ago they supported populations had more than 1,000 of reclassifying the species. natural populations. individual plants present when last Based on the most current surveys observed. We note that a 56-km gap Background across the species’ range (2006–2018), occurs between the easternmost A thorough review of the taxonomy, 30 known extant populations, natural naturally occurring population in life history, ecology, and overall and introduced, occur in 5 counties Manatee County and the nearest viability of the Florida golden aster is (Hardee—4, Highlands—1, naturally occurring population in presented in the SSA report (USFWS Hillsborough—16, Manatee—5, and Hardee County, and it is not presently 2018, available at https://www.fws.gov/ Pinellas—4). Populations were known whether this gap is due to the southeast/). A summary of that delineated using a 2-kilometers (km) lack of suitable habitat, lack of information is presented here. separation distance between observation, a long-distance dispersal Florida golden aster is endemic to occurrences (see Current Condition, event, or fragmentation of a formerly xeric (very dry) uplands east and below, for more information). Of these, continuous distribution.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33179

N

.. ·: . , ~.. ·.-:

Figure 1. The five Florida counties where the Florida golden aster occurs as of 2017 are highlighted in gray, with Hillsborough County shaded darker gray. At the time oflisting in 1986, populations of the Florida golden aster were known to occur only in Hillsborough County.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework have a negative effect on individuals of expected effects on the species, then the species, as well as other actions or analyze the cumulative effect of all of Regulatory Framework conditions that may ameliorate any the threats on the species as a whole. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) negative effects or may have positive We also consider the cumulative effect and its implementing regulations (50 effects. We consider these same five of the threats in light of those actions CFR part 424) set forth the procedures factors in reclassifying a species from and conditions that will have positive for determining whether a species is an endangered to threatened, and in effects on the species—such as any ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(c)– existing regulatory mechanisms or species.’’ The Act defines an (e)). conservation efforts. The Secretary of endangered species as a species that is We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in the Interior determines whether the ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all general to actions or conditions that are or a significant portion of its range,’’ and species meets the definition of an known to or are reasonably likely to ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened a threatened species as a species that is negatively affect individuals of a ‘‘likely to become an endangered species’’ only after the Service conducts species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes this cumulative analysis and describes species within the foreseeable future actions or conditions that have a direct throughout all or a significant portion of the expected effect on the species now impact on individuals (direct impacts), and in the foreseeable future. its range.’’ The Act requires that we as well as those that affect individuals determine whether any species is an through alteration of their habitat or The Act does not define the term ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened required resources (stressors). The term ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in species’’ because of any of the following ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened factors: together or separately—the source of the species.’’ Our implementing regulations (A) The present or threatened action or condition or the action or at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a destruction, modification, or condition itself. framework for evaluating the foreseeable curtailment of its habitat or range; future on a case-by-case basis. The term (B) Overutilization for commercial, However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean foreseeable future extends only so far recreational, scientific, or educational into the future as we can reasonably purposes; that the species meets the statutory determine that both the future threats (C) Disease or predation; definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or (D) The inadequacy of existing a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining and the species’ responses to those regulatory mechanisms; or whether a species meets either threats are likely. In other words, the (E) Other natural or manmade factors definition, we must evaluate all foreseeable future is the period of time affecting its continued existence. identified threats by considering the in which we can make reliable These factors represent broad species’ expected response and the predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean categories of natural or human-caused effects of the threats—in light of those ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide actions or conditions that could have an actions and conditions that will a reasonable degree of confidence in the effect on a species’ continued existence. ameliorate the threats—on an prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable In evaluating these actions and individual, population, and species if it is reasonable to depend on it when conditions, we look for those that may level. We evaluate each threat and its making decisions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP24JN21.002 33180 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

It is not always possible or necessary explanation of how the species arrived human-facilitated) allows connected to define foreseeable future as a at its current condition. In the final populations to ‘‘rescue’’ each other after particular number of years. Analysis of stage, we make predictions about the catastrophes. Representation improves the foreseeable future uses the best species’ responses to positive and with increased genetic diversity and/or scientific and commercial data available negative environmental and environmental conditions within and and should consider the timeframes anthropogenic influences. Throughout among populations. applicable to the relevant threats and to all of these stages, we use the best Viability of the Florida golden aster the species’ likely responses to those available information to characterize has been and will continue to be threats in view of its life-history viability as the ability of a species to impacted both negatively and positively characteristics. Data that are typically sustain populations in the wild over by anthropogenic and natural relevant to assessing the species’ time. We use this information to inform influences. Historically, the primary biological response include species- our regulatory decision. threats to the Florida golden aster were specific factors such as lifespan, Summary of Biological Status and habitat loss (resulting from human reproductive rates or productivity, Threats development) and habitat degradation certain behaviors, and other due to lack of adequate habitat demographic factors. The Act directs us to determine management. As threats to habitat have whether any species is an endangered or Analytical Framework been alleviated via habitat protection a threatened species because of any and management, recovery has been The SSA report documents the results factors affecting its continued existence. further bolstered by captive propagation of our comprehensive biological review The following is a summary of the key followed by introduction into of the best scientific and commercial results and conclusions from the SSA unoccupied sites. data regarding the status of the species, report; the full SSA report can be found including an assessment of the potential on the Southeast Region website at Summary of Factors Affecting the threats to the species. The SSA report https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at Species does not represent our decision on http://www.regulations.gov under Present or Threatened Destruction, whether the species should be Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. Modification, or Curtailment of Its reclassified or delisted under the Act. It Summary of SSA Analysis Habitat or Range does, however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory As described above, for a species to be The main threat to this species at the decisions, which involve the further viable there must be adequate time of listing was the destruction and application of standards within the Act redundancy (suitable number, modification of habitat. Habitat and its implementing regulations and distribution, and connectivity to allow destruction, modification, and policies. the species to withstand catastrophic degradation on private lands and habitat To assess Florida golden aster events), representation (genetic and degradation from lack of adequate viability, we used the three conservation environmental diversity to allow the habitat management on public lands biology principles of resiliency, species to adapt to changing remain the primary risk factor to the redundancy, and representation (Shaffer environmental conditions), and species. The five populations occurring and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency (ability of a species to on private lands remain subject to resiliency supports the ability of the withstand unpredictable disturbance). adverse human activity including species to withstand environmental and Resiliency for Florida golden aster mowing, dumping, off-road recreational demographic stochasticity (for example, improves with maintained open habitat. vehicles use, and land clearing. wet or dry, warm or cold years); Lambert and Menges (1996) recommend However, these activities are no longer redundancy supports the ability of the prescribed burning that mimics the threats to the 25 populations on public species to withstand catastrophic events historic burn pattern (frequent low- conservation lands because of (for example, droughts, large pollution intensity fires in sandhill, less frequent controlled access and restricted use. events), and representation supports the burns in scrub, with fires primarily in Lack of management, especially the ability of the species to adapt over time late spring and summer) and periodic absence of periodic fire, historically led to long-term changes in the environment mechanical disturbance of the ground to habitat degradation throughout the (for example, climate changes). In cover during late winter or early spring species’ range. The Florida golden aster general, the more resilient and when seeds are dispersed. In the occurs in open sandy patches that redundant a species is and the more absence of fire, habitat openness can be historically were maintained by fire representation it has, the more likely it maintained with mowing, hand removal under natural conditions. Without is to sustain populations over time, even of trees and shrubs near plants, or other naturally ignited fires or prescribed fire under changing environmental mechanical treatments; populations applications, the habitat becomes conditions. Using these principles, we have persisted along periodically overgrown, resulting in unfavorable identified the species’ ecological mowed right of ways (e.g., underneath conditions for the species’ persistence. requirements for survival and powerlines, along roads and railroads) Ideal habitat management is generally reproduction at the individual, for decades without a prescribed burn regarded as prescribed burning that population, and species levels, and program. Populations must be suitably mimics the historical burn patterns described the beneficial and risk factors large and connected to provide a (frequent low-intensity fires in sandhill, influencing the species’ viability. reservoir of individuals to cross- less frequent burns in scrub, with fires The SSA process can be categorized pollinate with, as plants will not self- primarily in late spring and summer) into three sequential stages. During the fertilize, and to maintain levels of and periodic mechanical disturbance of first stage, we evaluate an individual genetic diversity high enough to prevent the ground cover during late winter or species’ life-history needs. During the harmful consequences from inbreeding early spring when seeds are dispersed next stage, we assess the historical and depression and genetic drift (Ellstrand (Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121– current condition of the species’ and Elam 1993). Redundancy improves 137). Initial burning to restore the demographics and habitat with increasing numbers of populations, openness of degraded habitat involves characteristics, including an and connectivity (either natural or frequent intense fires, after which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33181

burning can be less intense and frequent results in the species being delisted, it 5B–40.003(1)(a)). A permit is also to simply maintain the habitat. Failing will remain listed as threatened under required to transport ‘‘for the purpose of to maintain open scrub habitat can State laws. The State will develop a sale, selling, or offering for sale any disrupt Florida golden aster management plan and regulatory plant contained on the endangered plant reproduction, survival, and dispersal guidelines to monitor the species. Based list which is harvested from such (Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121– on the best available information, we person’s own property’’ (FAC 5B– 137). conclude that resources for necessary 40.003(1)(c)). The delisting of the As with habitat destruction and management activities on conservation Florida golden aster under the Act will modification, this threat remains a lands will continue. not affect this State listing. concern mainly on private and non- A number of sites, consisting of conservation lands. Populations that Overutilization for Commercial, thousands of plants, are now under occur on public conservation lands are Recreational, Scientific, or Educational county and State protection. often being managed to maintain Purposes Specifically, Hillsborough County has optimal open scrub habitat. However, At the time of listing, this species was purchased considerable acreage through budget constraints, manageability, not known to be threatened by the Endangered Land Acquisition and conflicting priorities, and other factors commercial, recreational, scientific, or Protection Program (ELAPP), which (weather, lack of equipment, staff educational uses. This factor of the contains several large populations. In shortages, etc.) may preclude proper listing process continues not to be a 1987, Hillsborough County passed the management activities even on threat to the Florida golden aster at this Environmentally Sensitive Lands conservation lands. Additionally, time. Ordinance that established the proximity to urbanized areas can limit Disease or Predation foundation for ELAPP. This program the number of days available for applies to nine populations on six sites prescribed burns, and urbanization in Grazing by domestic livestock was in Hillsborough County. In 1990, this the Tampa Bay area is increasing initially identified as a stressor because ordinance was amended and approved rapidly (Xian et al. 2005, pp. 920–928). the populations were on private lands for another 20 years by increasing To be optimal, burn days must have and many of the properties were in county taxes to allow additional funds wind speeds and wind directions that cattle production. However, at present to acquire conservation lands. In do not unduly burden urbanized areas the 25 populations on conservation November 2008, voters approved the with smoke. For this reason, large rural lands are not subject to any agriculture issuance of up to $200 million in bonds tracts of habitat are easier to burn than practices. No cattle grazing occurs on for additional purchases. small tracts tucked into developed any of these properties. As to the ELAPP has worked with the areas. Increasing development could populations on private lands, Southwest Florida Water Management lead to further decreases in the ability acquisition of scrub habitat containing District and Florida Forever to jointly to conduct prescribed burning in the Florida golden aster in Hardee County fund the acquisition of lands. Some of future, which may or may not be would allow proper management of this money is also used for ELAPP to replaced with adequate habitat these tracts, as has been initiated on actively manage their properties to management by other means (e.g., public lands in Hillsborough County. benefit Florida golden aster. Therefore, mowing) that are more expensive than Because Hardee County has extensive we find that the existing regulatory using fire. The type of development also areas of improved pasture and mechanisms would provide sufficient factors into management ability and unimproved pasture, we will assess the protections to the species and habitat flexibility, with major roads, schools, effect of cattle grazing on Florida golden after delisting, especially on public hospitals, retirement homes (places with aster habitat. Based on the information lands with ordinance protection. vulnerable populations) weighing more obtained from this assessment, we will Currently, 27 sites where the species heavily on the decision of if/when to be able to provide management occurs are subject to Florida State law. burn than other types of development recommendations to cattle ranchers to These State and local protections have (Camposano 2018, pers. comm.). protect Florida golden aster on private proven effective. For example, Since the time of listing, conservation property (Bok Tower Gardens 2020, p. prescribed burning will continue efforts for Florida golden aster and other 879). Therefore, we no longer consider through the ELAPP. Although we scrub habitat species have reduced the grazing to be a threat. acknowledge that this could change in threat of habitat destruction, the future, we do not anticipate any Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory modification, and degradation. These future changes to the implementation of Mechanisms conservation efforts include acquiring these programs at this time. properties where the species naturally The Florida Administrative Code 5B– Other Natural or Manmade Factors occurs, introducing populations on 40 (Preservation of Native Flora of conservation lands, and conducting Florida) provides the Florida Affecting Its Continued Existence ongoing habitat management on Department of Agriculture and Our analyses under the Act include conservation lands (e.g., prescribed Consumer Services limited authority to consideration of ongoing and projected burning). While habitat destruction and protect plants on State and private lands changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ modification may still occur on private (primarily from the standpoint of illegal and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the lands, 83 percent of the sites are on harvest). Florida golden aster is listed as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate public conservation lands and, an Endangered Plant under this statute, Change (IPCC). A recent compilation of therefore, for the most part, are which requires anyone wishing to climate change and its effects is adequately managed and protected. ‘‘willfully harvest, collect, pick, remove, available from reports of the IPCC (IPCC Land acquisitions and introductions injure, or destroy any plant listed as 2014, entire). The term ‘‘climate have increased the number of endangered growing on the private land change’’ thus refers to a change in the established populations within the of another or on any public land or mean or variability of one or more historical range and have resulted in the water’’ to ‘‘obtain the written measures of climate (e.g., temperature or expansion of the species’ known range. permission of the owner of the land or precipitation) that persists for an Further, if this rulemaking process water or his legal representative’’ (FAC extended period, typically decades or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33182 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

longer, whether the change is due to soil storage, and evaporative deficit in 0.3 meters of sea level rise, a reasonable natural variability, human activity, or all counties where Florida golden aster estimate of sea level rise by 2050. Hotter both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, and drier conditions in the future could of changes in climate can have direct or entire). Based on these results, all 13 lead to fewer days with optimal indirect effects on species. These effects counties within the range of Florida conditions for prescribed burning, may be positive, neutral, or negative and golden aster will be subjected to higher which could lead to reduced habitat they may change over time, depending temperatures (annual mean increase of quality if land managers are unable to on the species and other relevant 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (RCP 4.5) or make up for the lack of burning with considerations, such as the effects of 2.9 °F (RCP 8.5)) and slightly higher adequate mechanical treatment. interactions of climate with other precipitation (annual mean increase of It is possible that there will be variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 0.1 inch per month (RCP 4.5) or 0.2 inch increases in the number of lightning (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our per month (RCP 8.5)) relative to the strikes and sizes and severities of analyses, we use our expert judgment to period of 1981–2010. resulting fires, which could have a weigh relevant information, including Additionally, climate change will positive or negative effect on specific uncertainty, in our consideration of likely influence Florida golden aster Florida golden aster populations. various aspects of climate change. into the future by affecting habitat Hurricanes similarly could have The IPCC concluded that the climate suitability and the ability to manage positive or negative effects on the system is warming (Pachauri et al. 2014, habitat with prescribed fire. Species that species. Prolonged flooding could harm entire). Effects associated with changes are dependent on specialized habitat populations, but the mechanical in climate have been observed, types, limited in distribution (e.g., disturbance of trees being uprooted from including changes in arctic Florida golden aster), or at the extreme flood events could improve habitat for temperatures and ice, widespread periphery of their range may be most colonizing species like the Florida changes in precipitation amounts, ocean susceptible to the impacts of climate golden aster (Menges and Johnson, pers. salinity, and wind patterns and aspects change (Byers and Norris 2011, entire; comm. 2017). of extreme weather including droughts, Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193–210). There Other potential climate change effects heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the is evidence that some terrestrial plant include changes in temperature and intensity of tropical cyclones (Pachauri populations have been able to adapt and precipitation. Projections for future et al. 2014, entire). Species that are respond to changing climatic conditions precipitation trends in the Southeast are dependent on specialized habitat types, (Franks et al. 2014, pp. 123–139). Both less certain than those for temperature, limited in distribution, or at the extreme plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf but suggest that overall annual periphery of their range may be most size or phenology) and evolutionary precipitation will decrease. Hotter and susceptible to the impacts of climate (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to drier conditions may complicate the change (Byers and Norris 2011, entire; changes in climate have been detected. ability to manage Florida golden aster Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193–210). Given enough time, plants can alter with prescribed fires. Some terrestrial However, while continued change is their ranges, resulting in range shifts, plant populations have been able to certain, the magnitude and rate of reductions, or increases (Kelly and adapt and respond to changing climatic change is unknown in many cases. The Goulden 2008, pp. 11823–11826; Loarie conditions (Franks et al. 2013, entire). magnitude and rate of change could be et al. 2008, p. 2502). Both plastic (phenotypic change such as affected by many factors (e.g., weather The climate in the Southeastern leaf size or phenology) and evolutionary circulation patterns). United States has warmed about 2 °F (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to According to the IPCC, ‘‘most plant from a cool period in the 1960s and changes in climate have been detected. species cannot naturally shift their 1970s and is expected to continue to Both can occur rapidly and often geographical ranges sufficiently fast to rise (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396–417). simultaneously (Franks et al. 2013, keep up with current and high projected Projections for future precipitation entire). However, relatively few studies rates of climate change on most trends in the Southeast are less certain are available that (1) directly examine landscapes’’ (IPCC 2014, p. 13). Plant than those for temperature are, but plant responses over time, (2) clearly species with restricted ranges may suggest that overall annual precipitation demonstrate adaptation or the causal experience population declines as a will decrease, and that tropical storms climatic driver of these responses, or (3) result of the effects of climate change. will occur less frequently, but with use quantitative methods to distinguish The concept of changing climate can be more force (more category 4 and 5 plastic versus evolutionary responses meaningfully assessed both by looking hurricanes) than historical averages (Franks et al. 2013, entire). into the future and reviewing past (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396–417). Sea As noted earlier, only one population changes. levels are expected to rise globally, (Fort De Soto County Park, Pinellas Using the National Climate Change potentially exceeding 1 m of sea level County) is directly vulnerable to Viewer and greenhouse gas emission rise by 2100 (Reynolds et al. 2012, inundation from 0.3 meters of sea level scenario Representative Concentration entire). Local sea level rise impacts rise, a reasonable estimate of sea level Pathway (RCP) 8.5, we calculated depend not only on how much the rise by 2050. We have no additional projected annual mean changes in the ocean level itself is increasing, but also information or data regarding effects of period 1981–2010 to those projected for on land subsidence and/or changes in climate change with respect to the 2025–2049 for maximum temperature, offshore currents (Carter et al. 2014, pp. Florida golden aster populations into precipitation, soil storage, and 396–417), and impacts on terrestrial the future; further research will be evaporative deficit in all counties where ecosystems can occur via submergence helpful to determine how this species Florida golden aster occurs (Adler and of habitat during storm surges or responds directly to changes in Hostetler 2017, entire). We also permanently, salt water intrusion into temperature and water availability. calculated projected annual mean the water table, and erosion. Of the However, from this information, we changes for a more conservative current populations of the Florida anticipate that effects to Florida golden greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP golden aster, only one (Fort De Soto aster from climate change will be 4.5) using the same timeframes for County Park, Pinellas County) is limited and will not rise to the level of maximum temperature, precipitation, directly vulnerable to inundation from a threat.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33183

Other influences not discussed in NatureServe’s default criteria for some uncertainty in the SSA in detail here, either because they are not defining plant populations (NatureServe precisely how these factors influenced thought to be a major threat or there is 2004, entire). The team of species the Florida golden aster population little information available, include experts providing input on the SSA resiliency. suspected that 1 km is likely an invasive plant species like cogongrass Population Size (Imperata cylindrica), and future genetic underestimate of the distances that gene consequences of small and/or flow can regularly occur via pollination. Population size is both a direct translocated populations. While the exact insect pollinators of the contributor to resiliency and an indirect Florida golden aster are not known, indicator of resiliency. Small Synergistic Effects studies on multiple bee species (major populations are more susceptible to Many of the stressors discussed in plant and Chrysopsis pollinators) demographic and environmental this analysis could work in concert with demonstrate foraging distances that stochastic events than larger each other and result in a cumulative regularly exceed 1 km (Greenleaf et al. populations. Small populations are also adverse effect to Florida golden aster, 2007, pp. 289–296; Hagler et al. 2011, p. more likely to suffer from decreased e.g., one stressor may make the species 144). fitness as a result of low genetic more vulnerable to other threats. diversity from inbreeding or genetic Current Resiliency Synergistic interactions are possible drift (Willi et al. 2005, pp. 2255–2265). between effects of climate change and Resiliency refers to the ability of For Florida golden aster, large effects of other threats, such as mowing, populations to withstand stochastic populations are more buffered from the dumping, off-road recreational vehicle events, whether demographic, effects of prescribed burning or other use, and land clearing. However, we environmental, or anthropogenic. disturbances, which are necessary to currently do not have information to Populations with low resiliency are maintain open habitat, but can determine the likely effects of climate highly vulnerable to stochastic events temporarily reduce population sizes by change on interaction/competition and face a high risk of extirpation killing plants. Indirectly, large between species, or on drought within the next few decades. population sizes are likely indicative of conditions. Uncertainty about how Populations with moderate resiliency other conditions that contribute to different plant species will respond are less likely to be extirpated within population resiliency. For example, in under a changing climate makes the next few decades, but require the SSA, we did not have adequate data projecting possible synergistic effects of additional growth (with help of regular to assess habitat quality and the quality climate change on Florida golden aster habitat management and/or restoration) of management at all the Florida golden speculative. However, the increases to become more self-sustaining and aster populations; therefore, we documented in the number of resilient to stochastic events. assumed large population sizes likely populations since the species was listed Populations with high resiliency are generally reflected good habitat quality do not indicate that cumulative effects unlikely to be extirpated within the next and management (among other factors) of various activities and stressors are 30 years in the absence of catastrophes compared to smaller populations, affecting the viability of the species at or significant declines in the quality of though this assumption may not hold in this time. Based on our analysis of habitat management. Populations with all cases. future stressors, we do not anticipate very high resiliency are the most robust We categorized populations into 4 size classes: <100 individuals, 100–500 that cumulative effects will affect the and resistant to stochastic fluctuations. In the SSA, we assessed resiliency for individuals, 501–1,000 individuals, and viability of the species in the foreseeable each population using three factors: >1,000 individuals. Each population future. Likewise, climate change, as Population size, habitat protection, and size class was associated with one of the discussed above, with hotter and drier area of available habitat. Other factors following baseline resiliency classes, conditions can add additional were considered that likely contribute to respectively: Low, moderate, high, and complexity to future prescribed burns. population resiliency, but data were not very high (explained further below). Available habitat in those tracts that are available to assess them over all or most We chose the population size easier to burn, and that can be managed of the populations including certain threshold between high and very high by other methods (e.g., mechanical explicit measures of habitat quality, fire resiliency of 1,000 individuals because manipulation) will be sufficient. management, existence of land it is the typical population size used to Similarly, most of the potential stressors management plans, and population rank element occurrences as having we identified either have not occurred trends. While some past survey data are ‘‘excellent viability’’ and likely to to the extent originally anticipated at available for many populations, species persist for the next 20–30 years the time of listing or are adequately experts did not feel comfortable (NatureServe 2008, entire). This is a managed as described in this proposal comparing population counts across generic population size limit that was to delist the species. In addition, we do time periods. In many cases, differences not specifically tailored to Florida not anticipate significant stressors to in population sizes were likely not a golden aster with empirical data. increase on publicly owned lands or result of increasing populations, but Further support for using 1,000 lands that are managed for the species. rather of differences in survey individuals as the threshold for the Current Condition methodology, number of surveyors, and/ highest resiliency category came from a or areas searched (e.g., surveyors who study of 10-year extirpation rates for Delineating Populations were more likely to visit known patches populations of varying sizes of 8 short- For the SSA, we delineated and not find new patches; alternately, a lived plant species in Germany populations using a 2-km separation bias toward larger counts over time as (Matthies et al. 2004, pp. 481–488). In distance rule based on species expert old patches are revisited and additional this study, for 7 of 8 species, the opinion, resulting in 30 populations patches are found). Nevertheless, we are probability of population persistence across 5 counties. This strategy differs confident that this population data increased with population size, and all from the 1-km separation distance rule demonstrates resiliency of the species. populations of more than 1,000 that was used in the most recent 5-year Regardless, this species has not been individuals (flowering plants) persisted review, which was based on extensively studied; therefore, there was for the duration of the 10-year study.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33184 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

We obtained the most recent size data into long-term conservation by a as populations grow, or shift across a for all 30 populations, with data nongovernmental, local, State, or landscape as different areas become collected as recently as 2018 for some Federal entity, or a binding land more or less suitable or both. For this populations, and no older than 2006 for agreement. Protected sites have reason, we used the amount of habitat any population. Population sizes have management plans developed and being available for populations to occupy undoubtedly changed since the last implemented. The effect of the degree of currently, grow into, or shift into as a surveys for those populations that have habitat protection on resiliency is factor contributing to population not been surveyed as recently, as discussed below. resiliency. We identified available populations fluctuate in response to Habitat Area Available habitat within a 2-km radius around management actions, time since known occurrences, consistent with the management, environmental events, The Florida golden aster population assumption we made about pollinator stochastic demographic processes, etc. sizes fluctuate, and can occur in high Thus, the reported numbers reflect best densities in small patches of habitat. movement when delineating available estimates for population sizes, However, as a general rule of thumb, for populations. We characterized the rather than precise counts meant to a given population size, a population available habitat for populations as represent actual current population covering a large area will be more small or large, with 14.2 hectares as the sizes. According to the SSA, population resilient than a population covering a threshold between the two groups. This sizes included all plants counted, small area. A perturbation of the same value was selected based on natural whether flowering or not. Survey data size will have a proportionally larger breaks in the data and expert input. effect on small-area populations than for some populations provided separate Classifying Resiliency Based on the counts for each life stage, but for many large-area populations. In assessing Selected Factors populations, survey data were simply population resiliency, we considered numbers with no information about the amount of habitat available rather Resiliency classes were based whether that number was only than the amount of habitat occupied for primarily on population size as two reasons. First, the amount of area flowering plants, or all plants (USFWS described above, with four resiliency occupied was very uncertain for most 2017, p. 22). Using total plant numbers, classes corresponding to four populations. Surveys are likely to return and assuming that ambiguous counts population size categories. Populations were minimum counts of total plants in to known patches of the Florida golden aster, but new patches can be easily with fewer than 100 individuals were each population, we were conservative determined to have low resiliency. in our population counts. The missed and it is likely that the data we Within the three higher population size alternative of assuming that ambiguous had underestimates the true amount of categories (100–500, 501–1,000, and counts were of only flowering adult area occupied by the Florida golden plants, when they may have included aster. Adding to the uncertainty, the >1,000 plants), populations were basal rosettes, would inflate population most current spatial data for some assigned a baseline resiliency score sizes in cases where the assumption was populations came from 2006, and may associated with their population size wrong. no longer reflect the current distribution (moderate, high, or very high, at those sites. Second, population respectively). This baseline score could Habitat Protection footprints are not always static across then be lowered by either of the two Habitat was considered ‘‘protected’’ if available habitat; the Florida golden other factors, habitat protection and it was acquired in fee simple and placed aster can spread into unoccupied areas habitat area available (Table 1).

TABLE 1—STRATEGY FOR ASSIGNING CURRENT RESILIENCY SCORES TO POPULATIONS OF FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER

Population size Habitat area (# plants) Habitat protected Habitat not protected available

<100 ...... Low Small. Large.

100–500 ...... Low ...... Low ...... Small. Moderate ...... Low ...... Large. 501–1,000 ...... Moderate ...... Moderate ...... Small. High ...... Moderate ...... Large. >1,000 ...... High ...... High ...... Small. Very High ...... High ...... Large.

Populations that occur on non- private landowners burn pasture to populations. For populations that protected lands were assigned to the improve forage for cattle, they may extend across property boundaries and resiliency class one step lower than they improve habitat for Florida golden aster. contain individuals occurring on both would if they were on protected lands. However, even large populations of fire- protected and non-protected lands, we By doing this, we did not mean to adapted scrub plants can rapidly used the protection status that applied discount the importance of populations decline due to poor management (e.g., to the majority of individuals to classify on non-protected lands to the viability Polygal lewtonii, Weekley and Menges the entire population. of the species or imply that owners of 2012, entire; Warea carteri, Quintana- Populations occupying or surrounded these parcels are managing the land Ascenscio et al. 2011, entire), and these by a small area of available habitat were poorly or are harming the Florida lands that are not protected for assigned to the resiliency class one step golden aster. Large populations of conservation are at higher risk of lower than they would if they existed Florida golden aster can be supported changes in management or land use that within a larger area of available habitat, on private lands. For example, when could harm Florida golden aster as they are less able to withstand and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33185

recover from perturbations or shift than being reduced twice, once for each increase from high to very high across a landscape as habitat quality factor. The Duette populations were the resiliency. changes. For any populations most recently introduced populations Summaries of the 30 delineated experiencing both of these resiliency- (2013). They have been growing rapidly populations and their resiliency scores reducing conditions (small habitat area and are surrounded by ample habitat can be found in the SSA and in Table on non-protected lands), their resiliency and little to no development; therefore, 2, below. In conclusion, resiliency score was only reduced one step rather these two populations were projected to scores remained stable.

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CURRENT RESILIENCY SCORES BY PROTECTED STATUS FOR FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER

Resiliency class All populations Protected Not protected

Very High ...... 7 7 0 High ...... 11 10 1 Moderate ...... 6 5 1 Low ...... 6 3 3

Current Redundancy and different spatial scale. No information is populations (3 highly resilient Representation known about seedbank resiliency in the populations, 4 populations total), and soil for this species; without knowing Redundancy for Florida golden aster the Hillsborough-Manatee cluster has this, it is difficult to predict long-term is naturally low because it is an the highest redundancy (13 resilient impacts of catastrophes. endemic species with a narrow range populations, 20 populations total). around the Tampa Bay region in Florida The 30 known populations are Another factor contributing to and Hardee County farther inland (with distributed in 3 main groupings. There redundancy is the wide range of one population just across the border in is about 20–30 km between each of the property ownership; with so many Highlands County). The entire species’ groupings, providing a buffer around managing entities, the species as a range spans five counties, with half of each that may protect them from whole is buffered against poor the populations occurring in catastrophic events affecting the others management of any one entity (e.g., due Hillsborough County (Figure 2). The (e.g., disease outbreak, depending on to budget issues or changing priorities). longest distance between two transmission type and vectors). Within Based on the spatial distribution of populations is 131 km. However, as this each geographic cluster, there are at resilient populations managed by a is a narrow-ranging endemic, the spatial least two highly or very highly resilient variety of entities across a narrow range, distribution of populations across its populations, which could serve as current redundancy is considered range does confer a moderate amount of sources to naturally recolonize qualitatively to be low to moderate. redundancy, defined as the ability of the populations lost to catastrophic events. Rather than solely relying on this rather species to withstand catastrophic The Hardee-Highlands cluster has the subjective classification in assessing the events. Catastrophic events could lowest redundancy (two moderately current viability of the species include, among others, too frequent resilient populations, six populations characterizing current redundancy is fires, droughts, disease outbreaks, or total) and is the most isolated from the most useful in comparison to hurricanes with prolonged flooding, other clusters. The Pinellas cluster has redundancy under the future scenarios. each of which have impacts at a the next lowest redundancy of resilient

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Hardee

Highlands

15 30 60· Kilometers

Figure 2. Spatial distribution of Florida golden aster populations in three main geographic clusters across five counties in Florida. The number of populations with high and very high resiliency is shown within each cluster.

Representative units for this species representative units, we refrain from In considering development as a could not be defined based on available doing so here. Future research on the threat, for our 20-year future projection data, with representation defined as the Florida golden aster genetics and life we used the SLEUTH (Slope, Land use, ability of the species to adapt to history and habitat differences can Excluded, Urban, Transportation and changing environmental conditions. provide a more definitive basis for Hillshade; Jantz et al., 2010, p. 34:1–16) Species experts contributing to the SSA defining representative units in future data sets from the years 2020 and 2040 suspect that there might be iterations of the SSA. and examined the area predicted, with representative units with different at least 80 percent probability, to be genetic adaptations associated with soil Future Condition—Analytical urbanized. The most important factors differences, elevation above the water Framework identified by species experts to consider into the future were habitat quantity and table, fire regime, or habitat structure. For the SSA, we developed three quality. However, there are no data currently to plausible future scenarios under which Therefore, our assessment was both confirm or refute these hypotheses. to capture the breadth of all likely future Genetic studies have found little to no quantitative, calculating the area within variability and assess the future viability genetic clustering among populations, the 5-km buffer surrounding each of Florida golden aster in terms of with 80 percent of observed genetic population that was urbanized at each resiliency, redundancy, and variation occurring within populations, time point, and qualitative, inspecting representation. Based on expert opinion, and only 20 percent of the variation the distribution of urbanization and the lifespan of the Florida golden aster, attributable to between-population major roads within that area (e.g., is the differences (Markham 1998). These ideal fire-return intervals (at least every urbanization concentrated to one side of results support the existence of a single 10 years), uncertainty about future the population or completely representative unit for the species. conditions, and lack of knowledge about surrounding it?). However, that study did not examine aspects of Florida golden aster ecology, With both the quantitative and genetic markers known to be associated we chose to project populations 20 years qualitative assessments, we categorized with adaptive traits. Vital rates and into the future under each scenario, populations as having either low risk or morphology were observed to differ although some of these projections high risk of development impacting between individuals from different could be reasonably expected to management for Florida golden aster. source populations that were grown at continue for some time after the 20 We defined high risk of impacting Bok Tower Gardens and introduced to years. With approximately 30 years of management as >50 percent chance of other sites (Campbell 2008). This real data and trends, we project that the negatively impacting management, and observation provides evidence that there same trends will continue into the <50 percent for low risk. Populations might be adaptive differences between future for about 20 to 30 years. The classified as having low risk from different ‘‘types’’ of the Florida golden three hypothetical future scenarios are development averaged 7.9 percent aster across the species’ range. However, Status Quo, Pessimistic, and Targeted developed area within the 5-km buffer without any firm evidence to define Conservation. by 2040, with a range of 0 to 39 percent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP24JN21.003 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33187

developed. Populations classified as surrounded by nearby development to decreases in management effort having high risk from development the north and west, it can only be (compared to management for stable averaged 45.5 percent developed area burned when the wind is blowing to the populations), population resiliency within the same buffer, ranging from 23 south and east. As more development decreased one level. With management to 85 percent. For three populations surrounds populations, there is less for stability, population resiliency with a percent of developed area in the flexibility for prescribed burns. stayed the same as the current condition overlapping range between the two However, the appropriate radius around resiliency when there was low risk of categories (23 to 39 percent developed), populations within which development development impacts; but where there the deciding factor between low risk might impact management ranges from was a high risk, resiliency decreased and high risk was the distribution of 0.8 km up to 8.0 km as the appropriate one level, reflecting that management development and roads around the radius depends on a variety of factors will be more challenging with higher population. for each burn, including the type of risk from development. With increases development, temperature, humidity, Habitat Quantity in management effort, population wind conditions, size of the planned resiliency increased when there was low Habitat quantity can be negatively burn, risk tolerance of those risk of development impacts, but stayed impacted by development or land use implementing the burn, and other the same when there was a high risk; the change (particularly on private lands) or factors. For the SSA, we chose an increased management effort canceled positively impacted by land acquisition, intermediate value, 5 km, in which to out the increased risk caused by restoration, and introductions into examine current and predicted future development. unoccupied sites that already have development. In choosing this concrete presumably suitable habitat. value, we acknowledged that this Future Condition—Future Scenarios Habitat Quality number is in reality quite variable, and Status Quo some burns will need to consider areas Habitat quality is closely tied to active greater or less than 5 km away, but this Under the Status Quo scenario, no habitat management to maintain value allowed us to gain a general new protected areas were acquired and openness either by prescribed burning understanding of the risks of no new populations were introduced. or by other types of management. In development on managing surrounding Management efforts for all populations constructing our scenarios, we populations. were maintained at current levels, considered two avenues by which future Within a 5-km radius around the assuming that the ability to manage habitat management can be influenced, Florida golden aster occurrences, we would not be hampered by funding or the level of habitat management effort used geographic information systems political issues, climate change, or other and the amount and type of (GIS) to examine current and projected factors. As discussed above, currently development near the Florida golden urbanization and roads. Urbanization there are 30 known extant populations, aster populations (to the extent the data came from the SLEUTH model, and natural and introduced, occurring in 5 development affects the ability to road data was available from the Florida counties (Hardee, Highlands, conduct management actions, such as Department of Transportation. The Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas). Of prescribed burns). First, the managing SLEUTH model has previously been these, 25 populations occur entirely or entities can choose their desired level of used to predict probabilities of mostly on 22 protected sites, management effort by implementing (or urbanization across the Southeastern ‘‘protected’’ referring to a site that was not) a management plan or by allocating United States in 10-year increments, acquired in fee simple and placed into funding or personnel to or away from and the resulting GIS data are freely long-term conservation by a habitat management among competing available (Belyea and Terrando 2013, nongovernmental, local, State, or priorities and limited resources. For our entire). For our 20-year future Federal entity, or a conservation scenarios, we allowed for three levels of projection, we used the SLEUTH data easement or other binding land habitat management effort by managing sets from the years 2020 and 2040 and agreement by the site owner that shows entities. The first was management for examined the area predicted, with at a commitment to its conservation in stability, a moderate level of least 80 percent probability, to be perpetuity, and this scenario assumes management that would be expected to urbanized. Our assessment was both that that commitment will be honored. maintain populations at their current quantitative, calculating the area within Of the introductions since 2008, all had size. The other two management levels the 5-km buffer surrounding each reached sizes >1,000 plants except for were an increase, or a decrease, population that was urbanized at each the populations at Duette Preserve (2 compared to management for stability. time point, and qualitative, inspecting populations, North and South). An increase in management effort the distribution of urbanization and Pessimistic would be expected to grow populations, major roads within that area (e.g., is the while a decrease in management would urbanization concentrated to one side of Under the Pessimistic scenario, be expected to result in population the population or completely management effort on all populations declines. surrounding it?). With this quantitative decreased, presumably as an effect of a The second avenue by which future and qualitative assessment, we wide-scale change in priorities or habitat management can be influenced categorized populations as having either resources, resulting in a drop in is development, particularly major roads a low risk or a high risk of development resiliency scores across the board. and types of development associated impacting the ability to manage the Additionally, based on uncertainty in with ‘‘vulnerable’’ human populations population. whether populations on non-protected (e.g., schools, hospitals). This kind of These two aspects of future lands would continue to be managed in development surrounding habitat limits management—(1) management a way that is compatible with continued management via prescribed burns by resources and willingness of the entity Florida golden aster persistence, in this limiting the days that burns can take to manage and (2) impacts of scenario all populations on non- place—weather conditions have to align surrounding development on protected lands were assumed to be lost to ensure proper smoke management. management—interacted in our future due to presumed land use or For example, if a population is scenarios in the following way: with management change. As with the Status

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Quo scenario, no new protected areas Likelihood of Scenarios conservation (e.g., captive propagation were acquired, and no new populations and introductions) are prioritized and Of these three scenarios, the Status were introduced. well-funded. Quo scenario is the most likely to occur, Targeted Conservation although the Targeted Conservation Future Resiliency Under the Targeted Conservation scenario represents a likely future if scenario, populations with high and both habitat-focused management Future (20 years) resiliency of Florida very high resiliency were managed to (prescribed burning and mechanical or golden aster populations under three maintain their rank; in cases where manual habitat management) by a scenarios was summarized in the SSA populations had a high risk of variety of partners/managing entities (Table 3). As implied by the scenario development limiting the ability to and species-specific conservation name, resiliency of populations under manage, this involved an increase in (captive propagation and introductions) the Pessimistic scenario was predicted management effort compared to what are prioritized and well-funded. The to be poor, with only 7 highly resilient would be needed to maintain the same Pessimistic scenario was unlikely; given populations, a decrease from 18 level of resiliency for a population with that Florida golden aster populations currently highly or very highly resilient a low risk of development impacts. span so many different ownerships, it is populations. Under the Status Quo Populations with currently moderate unlikely that all of the different scenario, we expected resiliency to drop resiliency on protected lands received managing entities will develop the land to 12 highly or very highly resilient management effort increases to either especially when there are other co- populations due solely to the effect of move them into the high-resiliency class occurring threatened, endangered, and development limiting the ability to (low risk from development) or candidate species occupying the same adequately manage habitat. Under the maintain moderate resiliency (high risk habitat (e.g., Florida scrub-jay, Targeted Conservation scenario, focused Aphelocoma coerulescens; eastern from development). Conservation management and conservation efforts to resources were steered towards indigo snake, Drymarchon couperi; counteract detrimental effects of maintaining and growing these larger gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus). urbanization, grow existing populations, populations, and not as much towards The Targeted Conservation scenario was rescuing populations that currently have not likely with current conservation and introduce new populations were low resiliency. Additionally, five new resources, but could reflect a likely expected to result in significant gains in sites were selected across the species’ future if both habitat-focused resilient populations, with an increase range in which to introduce new management (e.g., prescribed burning) from 18 to 27 highly or very highly populations, thus improving species by a variety of partners/managing resilient populations expected. redundancy. entities and species-specific

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF RESILIENCY SCORES TALLIED ACROSS ALL POPULATIONS OF FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION AND FUTURE CONDITION UNDER THREE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS: STATUS QUO, PESSI- MISTIC, AND TARGETED CONSERVATION

Targeted Resiliency class Current Status quo Pessimistic conservation

Very High ...... 7 4 0 9 High ...... 11 8 7 18 Moderate ...... 6 11 11 2 Low ...... 6 3 5 2 Likely Extirpated ...... NA 4 7 4

Future Redundancy and Representation resilient populations in the other two Recovery plans provide a roadmap for clusters did improve. us and our partners on methods of Redundancy 20 years in the future As in the Current Condition section of enhancing conservation and minimizing was expected to decrease compared to this preamble, we did not assess threats to listed species, as well as current condition under the Status Quo representation in the future due to a measurable criteria against which to and Pessimistic Scenarios. In all present lack of information needed to evaluate progress towards recovery and scenarios, the majority of highly and delineate representative units. assess the species’ likely future very highly resilient populations were Recovery Criteria condition. However, they are not found in Hillsborough and Manatee regulatory documents and do not Counties. All redundancy of highly Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to substitute for the determinations and resilient populations in Pinellas County develop and implement recovery plans promulgation of regulations required and the Hardee and Highlands Counties for the conservation and survival of under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A cluster is lost under the Pessimistic endangered and threatened species decision to revise the status of a species, scenario. In the Status Quo scenario, unless we determine that such a plan or to delist a species is ultimately based where drops in resiliency were due to will not promote the conservation of the on an analysis of the best scientific and development risks to management, no species. Recovery plans must, to the commercial data available to determine highly resilient populations remained in maximum extent practicable, include whether a species is no longer an the heavily urbanized Pinellas County. ‘‘objective, measurable criteria which, endangered species or a threatened Even in the Targeted Conservation when met, would result in a species, regardless of whether that Scenario, redundancy within Pinellas determination, in accordance with the information differs from the recovery County did not improve, but both the provisions [of section 4 of the Act], that plan. number and distribution of highly the species be removed from the list.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33189

There are many paths to when determining whether a species introduced), currently in low condition accomplishing recovery of a species, meets the definition of an endangered are projected to become extirpated. Even and recovery may be achieved without species or a threatened species and our under the Pessimistic scenario, which is all of the criteria in a recovery plan analysis on how we determine the least likely to occur, 7 populations are being fully met. For example, one or foreseeable future in making these projected to be in high condition and 11 more criteria may be exceeded while decisions, please see Analytical in moderate condition, all on protected other criteria may not yet be Framework, above. lands with conservation management accomplished. In that instance, we may expected to continue at some level. Status Throughout All of Its Range determine that the threats are Given that the majority of populations minimized sufficiently and that the After evaluating threats to the species projected to remain extant, and with at species is robust enough that it no and assessing the cumulative effect of least moderate resiliency, at the end of longer meets the definition of an the threats under section 4(a)(1) factors, the projection period are on protected endangered species or a threatened we find that the present or threatened lands managed for scrub habitat, it is species. In other cases, we may discover destruction, modification, or unlikely the species will become new recovery opportunities after having curtailment of its habitat (Factor A), endangered in the foreseeable future finalized the recovery plan. Parties which was the basis for listing the throughout all of its range. seeking to conserve the species may use species, is no longer a threat. At the Status Throughout a Significant Portion these opportunities instead of methods time of listing, Florida golden aster was of Its Range identified in the recovery plan. thought to persist only in Hillsborough Likewise, we may learn new County. Now, the species is known to Under the Act and our implementing information about the species after we occur in four additional counties: regulations, a species may warrant finalize the recovery plan. The new Hardee, Highlands, Mantee, and listing if it is in danger of extinction or information may change the extent to Pinellas Counties. While destruction likely to become so in the foreseeable which existing criteria are appropriate and modification of habitat is still the future throughout all or a significant for identifying recovery of the species. primary threat, its magnitude has been portion of its range. Because we have The recovery of a species is a dynamic greatly reduced since listing. Further, determined that the species is not in process requiring adaptive management under the recovery plan for the species, danger of extinction or likely to become that may, or may not, follow all of the delisting could be considered if 20 so in the foreseeable future throughout guidance provided in a recovery plan. populations were secured. The number all of its range, we will consider The recovery plan for the Florida of known extant populations whether there are any significant golden aster was issued by the Service (NatureServe 2004) has increased from 9 portions of its range in which the on August 29, 1988. The primary (1986) to 30 (2017) as a result of species is in danger of extinction or objective of the recovery plan was to additional surveys, habitat restoration, likely to become so in the foreseeable provide sufficient habitat for the Florida and outplanting within the historical future—that is, whether there is any golden aster, both through protection of range of the species. Of those 30 portion of the species’ range for which the sites and proper vegetation populations, 25 are located on protected both (1) the portion is significant; and, management. The plan called for conservation lands, 22 of which have (2) the species is in danger of extinction establishment of new populations of the been determined to have at least now or likely to become so in the species. Reclassification of this species moderate resiliency. We expect current foreseeable future in that portion. to threatened could be considered if 10 levels of management to continue on Depending on the case, it might be more geographically distinct populations these conservation lands at these efficient for us to address the were established in its 3 native counties. locations and anticipate the number of ‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ Delisting could be considered if 20 such individuals within the populations to question first. Regardless of which populations were secured (USFWS increase. Thus, after assessing the best question we address first, if we reach a 1988, p. 3). Currently, Florida golden available information, we conclude that negative answer with respect to the first aster occurs in 30 geographically the Florida golden aster no longer meets question for a certain portion of the distinct populations across 5 counties, the Act’s definition of an endangered species’ range, we do not need to and 18 of these populations are high or species. evaluate the other question for that very high resiliency, as consistent with For the determination of whether the portion of the species’ range. delisting criteria (see Table 2 in species is likely be become endangered For Florida golden aster, we chose to discussion above). within the foreseeable future throughout evaluate the status question (i.e., all of its range, and thus meet the identifying portions where Florida Determination of Florida Golden Aster definition of a threatened species, we golden aster may be in danger of Status considered the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ as extinction or likely to become so in the Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 20 years into the future under the three foreseeable future) first. We considered and its implementing regulations (50 hypothetical future scenarios. Under all whether the threats are geographically CFR part 424) set forth the procedures three scenarios evaluated, Florida concentrated in any portion of the for determining whether a species meets golden aster is expected to continue to species’ range at a biologically the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ persist across its currently known range. meaningful scale now or in the or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines Under the status quo scenario, which is foreseeable future. We examined the an endangered species as a species that also the most likely to occur, 12 following threats: Development and is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout populations are projected to be high/ climate change, including cumulative all or a significant portion of its range,’’ very high resiliency and 11 moderate— effects. Currently, there are 30 known and a threatened species as a species across all 3 geographic clusters, as extant Florida golden aster populations that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered habitat modification is no longer a occurring in 5 counties (Hillsborough, species within the foreseeable future threat for the populations on protected Manatee, Pinellas, Highlands, and throughout all or a significant portion of lands and current management of those Hardee Counties) with 25 of these its range.’’ For a more detailed lands is expected to continue. Four populations occurring on conservation discussion on the factors considered populations (3 natural and 1 lands (Federal, State, and conservation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 33190 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules

easements). Climate change, as likely to become so in the foreseeable Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly discussed above, is primarily acting future in a significant portion of its requires that we cooperate with the upon the species across its range, except range. This approach is consistent with States in development and for sea level rise, which would only the courts’ holdings in Desert Survivors implementation of PDM programs. potentially affect one population at Fort v. Department of the Interior, No. 16– However, we remain ultimately De Soto County Park in Pinellas County. cv–01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. responsible for compliance with section As this would potentially impact just a Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively single population out of 30 populations, Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. engaged in all phases of PDM. We also we do not consider this concentration of Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017). seek active participation of other threats to be at a biologically meaningful entities that are expected to assume Determination of Status scale. responsibilities for the species’ Although development is currently Our review of the best available conservation after delisting. concentrated in Pinellas County, that scientific and commercial data available Concurrent with this proposed activity would negatively impact in the indicates that Florida golden aster is not delisting rule, we announce the draft foreseeable future only five populations, in danger of extinction nor likely to PDM plan’s availability for public which occur on private lands or along become endangered within the review at http://www.regulations.gov roadways or railroad lines. However, foreseeable future throughout all or a under Docket Number FWS–R4–ES– two of these populations have high and significant portion of its range. 2019–0071. We seek information, data, moderate resiliency (the remaining three Therefore, we find that Florida golden and comments from the public populations have low resiliency), and aster does not meet the definition of an regarding Florida golden aster and the this pattern will continue in the future. endangered or threatened species, and PDM plan. We are also seeking peer The Pinellas County populations are we propose to remove Florida golden review of the draft PDM plan currently in low condition, and some aster from the List. concurrently with this comment period. may become extirpated in the We anticipate finalizing the PDM plan, foreseeable future due to development. Effects of This Proposed Rule considering all public and peer review Therefore, our examination leads us to This proposal, if made final, would comments, prior to making a final find that there is substantial information revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove determination on the proposed delisting that the Pinellas County populations Florida golden aster from the Federal rule. may become in danger of extinction List of Endangered and Threatened within the foreseeable future. Required Determinations Plants. The prohibitions and We then proceeded to consider Clarity of the Proposed Rule whether this portion of the range (i.e., conservation measures provided by the the Pinellas County populations) is Act, particularly through sections 7 and We are required by Executive Orders significant. For the purposes of this 9, would no longer apply to this species. 12866 and 12988 and by the analysis, the Service is considering Federal agencies would no longer be Presidential Memorandum of June 1, significant portions of the range by required to consult with the Service 1998, to write all proposed rules in applying any reasonable definition of under section 7 of the Act in the event plain language. This means that each ‘‘significant.’’ We assessed whether any that activities they authorize, fund, or proposed rule we publish must: portions of the range may be carry out may affect Florida golden (a) Be logically organized; biologically meaningful in terms of the aster. There is no critical habitat (b) Use the active voice to address resiliency, redundancy, or designated for this species. readers directly; representation of the entity being Post-Delisting Monitoring (c) Use clear language rather than evaluated. This approach is consistent jargon; with the Act, our implementing Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us (d) Be divided into short sections and regulations, our policies, and case law. to monitor for not less than 5 years the sentences; and Currently, the Pinellas County status of all species that are delisted (e) Use lists and tables wherever populations are introduced populations due. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) possible. and represent a small portion (less than refers to activities undertaken to verify If you feel that we have not met these 10 percent based on current extant that a species delisted due to recovery requirements, send us comments by one populations) of the species’ range. remains secure from the risk of of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To Further, these populations were all extinction after the protections of the better help revise the proposed rule, introduced after listing (i.e., are not Act no longer apply. The primary goal your comments should be as specific as naturally occurring populations) and are of PDM is to monitor the species to possible. For example, you should tell not contributing much to the viability of ensure that its status does not us the numbers of the sections or the species. If these populations become deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, paragraphs that are unclearly written, extirpated, the Florida golden aster to take measures to halt the decline so which sections or sentences are too would lose some redundancy, but the that proposing it as a threatened or long, the sections where you feel lists or loss of this portion of the species’ range endangered species is not again needed. tables would be useful, etc. would still leave sufficient resiliency If at any time during the monitoring National Environmental Policy Act (42 (populations with moderate to high period, data indicate that protective U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) resiliency), redundancy, and status under the Act should be representation in the remainder of the reinstated, we can initiate listing We have determined that species’ range such that it would not procedures, including, if appropriate, environmental assessments and notably reduce overall viability of the emergency listing. At the conclusion of environmental impact statements, as species. Therefore, these populations do the monitoring period, we will review defined under the authority of the not represent a significant portion of the all available information to determine if National Environmental Policy Act need species’ range. re-listing, the continuation of not be prepared in connection with We conclude that the Florida golden monitoring, or the termination of determining and implementing a aster is not in danger of extinction nor monitoring is appropriate. species’ listing status under the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules 33191

Endangered Species Act. We published ‘‘Flowering Plants’’ on the List of Instructions: Comments sent by any a notice outlining our reasons for this Endangered and Threatened Plants. other method, to any other address or determination in the Federal Register individual, or received after the end of Martha Williams, on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). the comment period, may not be Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the considered by us. All comments Government-to-Government Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish Relationship With Tribes and Wildlife Service. received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public [FR Doc. 2021–12741 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] In accordance with the President’s viewing on www.regulations.gov memorandum of April 29, 1994, BILLING CODE 4333–15–P without change. All personal identifying ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations information (e.g., name, address, etc.), with Native American Tribal confidential business information, or DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive otherwise sensitive information Order 13175, and the Department of the submitted voluntarily by the sender will Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration be publicly accessible. We will accept readily acknowledge our responsibility anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in to communicate meaningfully with 50 CFR Part 648 the required fields if you wish to remain recognized Federal Tribes on a anonymous). government-to-government basis. In [Docket No. 210617–0133] Copies of Framework Adjustment 61, accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 RIN 0648–BK24 including the draft Environmental of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Responsibilities, and the Endangered Conservation and Management Act Act Analysis prepared by the New Species Act), we readily acknowledge Provisions; Fisheries of the England Fishery Management Council our responsibilities to work directly Northeastern United States; Northeast in support of this action, are available with Tribes in developing programs for Multispecies Fishery; Framework from Thomas A. Nies, Executive healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Adjustment 61 Director, New England Fishery Tribal lands are not subject to the same Management Council, 50 Water Street, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries controls as Federal public lands, to Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and remain sensitive to Indian culture, and supporting documents are also Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to make information available to Tribes. accessible via the internet at: http:// Commerce. There are no Tribal interests affected by www.nefmc.org/management-plans/ this proposal. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for northeast-multispecies or http:// comments. References Cited www.regulations.gov. A complete list of references cited is SUMMARY: This action proposes to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz available on the internet at http:// approve and implement Framework Sullivan, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: www.regulations.gov under Docket Adjustment 61 to the Northeast 978–282–8493; email: Liz.Sullivan@ Number FWS–R4–ES–2019–0071. Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. noaa.gov. This rule would revise the status SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authors determination criteria for Georges Bank The primary authors of this proposed and Southern New England-Mid Table of Contents rule are staff members of the Service’s Atlantic winter flounder, implement a 1. Summary of Proposed Measures Southeastern Region Recovery Team revised rebuilding plan for white hake, 2. Status Determination Criteria and the North Florida Ecological set or adjust catch limits for 17 of the 3. Rebuilding Plan for White Hake Services Field Office. 20 multispecies (groundfish) stocks, and 4. Fishing Year 2021 Shared U.S./ implement a universal exemption for List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Canada Quotas sectors to target Acadian redfish. This 5. Catch Limits for Fishing Years 2021– Endangered and threatened species, action is necessary to respond to 2023 Exports, Imports, Reporting and updated scientific information and to 6. Universal Sector Exemption for recordkeeping requirements, achieve the goals and objectives of the Acadian Redfish (redfish) Transportation. fishery management plan. The proposed measures are intended to help prevent 1. Summary of Proposed Measures Proposed Regulation Promulgation overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, This action would implement the Accordingly, we propose to amend achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures in Framework part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title management measures are based on the Adjustment 61 to the Northeast 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, best scientific information available. Multispecies Fishery Management Plan as set forth below: DATES: Comments must be received by (FMP). The New England Fishery July 9, 2021. Management Council reviewed the PART 17—ENDANGERED AND ADDRESSES: proposed regulations and deemed them THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS You may submit comments, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2021–0061 consistent with, and necessary to ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 by the following method: implement, Framework 61 in a June 10, • continues to read as follows: Electronic Submission: Submit all 2021, letter from Council Chairman Dr. electronic public comments via the John Quinn to Regional Administrator Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to Michael Pentony. Under the Magnuson- noted. www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– Stevens Fishery Conservation and NMFS–2021–0061 in the Search box. Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens § 17.12 [Amended] Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete Act), we are required to publish ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the the required fields, and enter or attach proposed rules for comment after entry for ‘‘Chrysopsis floridana’’ under your comments. determining whether they are consistent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS