Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

2576

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
submit written comments on the proposal by December 23, 2019. We also requested public comments on the draft post-delisting monitoring PDM plan.
We contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A newspaper notice inviting general public comment across the range of the species was published in USA Today on October 28, 2019. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
During the comment period, we received 25 letters or statements addressing the proposed action. These included comments from 2 peer reviewers, 4 State agencies in three States, 1 Federal agency, 1
nongovernmental organization, and 17
individuals. All comments are posted at http www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWSR4ES20180082.
In accordance with our policy, Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities, which was published on July 1, 1994 59 FR 34270
and our August 22, 2016, Directors Memorandum Peer Review Process,, we solicited expert opinions from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with this species, the geographic region in which it occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from two peer reviewers.
The peer reviewers expressed support for the proposed delisting and generally agreed with our analysis in the proposed rule. Both expressed concerns with our PDM plan, particularly the 5year time period. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
We reviewed all comments for substantive issues and new information regarding the Interior least tern.
Substantive comments we received during the comment period are addressed below and, where appropriate, are incorporated directly into this final rule. The majority of comments were related to the draft PDM
plan and not the decision to delist the Interior least tern.
Peer Review Comments 1 Comment: Both peer reviewers and a nongovernmental organization commented that the Interior least tern population increase and the achievement of the recovery goal are partially attributable to improved and increased survey efforts. One of the peer reviewers suggested that the Interior
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:05 Jan 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

least tern abundance data used at the time of listing were in error, and that should be considered as a reason for delisting.
Our Response: The reported increase in rangewide numbers since the Interior least tern was listed is partially attributable to increased survey efforts over a wider geographical range and, in some areas, improved survey techniques. This conclusion was stated in our 2013 5-year review of the Interior least tern Service 2013 and in several places in our October 24, 2019, proposed delisting rule 84 FR 56977;
see Population Trends under Species Information p. 84 FR 56981 and Numerical Population Targets under Recovery p. 84 FR 56982. In addition, we also acknowledged the hypothesis that some proportion of the increase in rangewide least tern counts within the Interior Basin may be attributable to immigration of least terns from the Gulf Coast. We have retained these statements in those discussions in this final rule, and we have added an additional clarifying statement under Population Trends.
When the Interior least tern was listed as endangered 50 FR 21784; May 28, 1985, we acknowledged the difficulty in assessing population size of a species with a widely scattered distribution and poorly known historical trends. At that time, the best available information, including multiple surveys conducted over the previous decade, indicated a significant decline in the range of the Interior least tern, low population numbers, low reproductive success, and significant threats to remnant breeding habitats. This conclusion was endorsed, and listing was supported by 13 State wildlife or conservation agencies within the range of the species. While the Interior least tern may have been more abundant and widespread than recognized at the time the species was listed, the best available scientific and commercial information supported our decision to list this species as endangered under the Act, and there is no evidence that the original data used at that time were in error.
2 Comment: One peer reviewer and a nongovernmental organization commented that the Service used limited and flawed information Jorgensen 2009, entire; Farnsworth et al. 2017, entire to minimize the importance of the Missouri and Platte Rivers in the recovery of the Interior least tern. They stated that the Service overlooked that both studies were conceptually and analytically problematic, and that editorials identifying key shortcomings were subsequently peer-reviewed and
PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

published in the same journals Caitlan et al. 2010, entire; Alexander et al. 2018, entire. They expressed concern that the use of this information reverses the Services decades-long position that naturally flowing and dynamic river systems are critically important to the Interior least tern, other listed species, and the ecosystems as a whole.
Our Response: In our proposed delisting rule 84 FR 56977; October 24, 2019 and this final rule, we have cited Jorgensen 2009, entire and Farnsworth et al. 2017, entire, under Habitat Loss and Curtailment of Range, as examples that some anthropogenic activities are known to provide significant opportunities for Interior least tern nesting and recruitment, contributing to the population and range expansion of the species even within highly modified river systems. Neither of these commenters discounted the importance of anthropogenic habitats to tern recruitment in either the Platte or Missouri River.
Farnsworth et al. 2017, entire used historical hydrological and channel geometry data from a specific reach of the Platte River to suggest that the timing of seasonal flooding of low sandbars was not conducive to Interior least tern and piping plover recruitment success. This study also noted that anthropogenic habitats created by sand and gravel mines adjacent to the Platte River have been important in maintaining stable populations of these two birds within this system. Jorgensen 2009, entire conducted a similar analysis for a short reach of the Missouri River in Sioux City, Iowa, concluding that off-site recruitment was important to tern and plover presence within this reach of the river. Caitlan et al. 2010, entire and Alexander et al. 2018, entire stated that the Jorgensen and Farnsworth et al. studies, respectively, were flawed and diminished the importance of natural river habitats to the ecology of the birds.
When developing the proposed delisting rule, we were aware of the Caitlan et al. 2010, entire and Alexander et al. 2018, entire published editorials critiquing the Jorgensen and Farnsworth et al. studies. We were also aware that these critiques had been directly addressed by responses from the original authors clarifying semantic misinterpretations and including additional supporting information Jorgensen 2010, entire; Farnsworth et al. 2018, entire. Both responses were accepted as closure of the identified issues within the same journals that the original articles and editorials were published.

E:FRFM13JAR1.SGM

13JAR1