Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

2578

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
following removal from the List. While the draft PDM plan does not identify a specific mechanism to intervene following flood events, it identifies actions that may be taken should monitoring indicate a substantial decline in the Interior least terns population numbers or distribution.
These actions include meeting with conservation partners, extending the monitoring period, modifying monitoring practices, initiating a rangewide status assessment, or relisting the Interior least tern, if warranted. As stated above under Our Response to 5
Comment, we will continue to work with our conservation partners to develop and implement an effective, final PDM plan for the Interior least tern that includes an appropriate duration and purpose to detect trends.
7 Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that in parts of the species range some degree of human intervention will be needed for continued success and that an assessment of habitat management should be part of the PDM plan.
Our Response: The Interior least terns adaptation to, and exploitation of, anthropogenic habitats over the past several decades indicate that the species is no longer considered conservationreliant and is recovered. However, we assessed the adequacy of habitat management commitments relative to recovery of the tern in our proposed delisting rule 84 FR 56977; October 24, 2019 and this final rule, finding that conservation actions and management by multiple conservation partners, most principally the USACE e.g., USACE
2013, entire; 2016, entire; 2017, entire, will continue following delisting. Many conservation programs and commitments incorporate components of adaptive management, which provide for periodic assessment of habitat management actions relative to effects on the Interior least tern see Habitat Criteria, above, under Recovery Criteria. As noted in the draft PDM and the proposed delisting rule, management commitments by USACE
alone currently encompass about 80
percent of the Interior least tern breeding population, including large portions of the Mississippi, Red, Arkansas, and Missouri Rivers.
As stated above under Our Response to 5 Comment, we will continue to work with our conservation partners to develop and implement an effective, final PDM plan for the Interior least tern that includes an appropriate duration and purpose to detect trends.
8 Comment: One peer reviewer expressed concerns that the inclusion of the Arkansas River as part of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:05 Jan 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

Mississippi River subpopulation in the PDM plan dilutes the importance of the Arkansas River. This reviewer suggested subdividing the four major subpopulations to ensure that recovery is truly rangewide.
Our Response: This comment refers to a map under Methods in the draft PDM plan showing the wide distribution of the tern, as well as the multiple habitats used as nesting areas.
In the referenced map, Interior least tern subpopulations were defined by Lott et al. 2013, entire based upon observed least tern dispersal movements relative to distance between nesting colonies.
Based upon this analysis, the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas, Cimarron, and Canadian Rivers constitute one of four relatively continuous subpopulations.
The identification of subpopulations does not reduce the importance of any geographical portion of a species range, particularly as movement and population numbers relate to metapopulation dynamics.
Additionally, the USACE Southwestern Division SWD Districts, who monitors the Arkansas River along with portions of the Red and Canadian Rivers, has committed to continue this monitoring post-delisting as appropriations allow.
9 Comment: One peer reviewer expressed concern that the PDM plan does not assess productivity of Interior least terns.
Our Response: Within the Interior least tern metapopulation, measurements of productivity within individual colonies may be masked by movements between colonies or even drainages, depending upon habitat conditions. Attempts have been made to assess tern productivity at various locations e.g., some Missouri River colony clusters, Platte River, Mississippi River sites, Wabash industrial sites;
however, annual tern counts show little relation to previous year measurements of nest success, fledgling ratios, or annual recruitment. Therefore, we did not include assessment of Interior least tern productivity in the draft PDM plan.
As noted in the draft PDM plan, rangewide PDM of the Interior least tern relies upon continuation of existing monitoring programs throughout the birds extensive range. Monitoring methods have been, and will continue to be, at the discretion of each program, provided that they meet the minimum survey requirements in the PDM plan to record the location of breeding colonies two or more birds and make counts of adults present at the time the colonies are surveyed. Any additional efforts are at the discretion of the local program.
10 Comment: One peer reviewer characterized the PDM plan as
PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

providing a 10,000 bird population target and indicated such an approach appears to be arbitrary. The peer reviewer suggested that the Service might identify a percentage decline, as opposed to a specific number, to initiate further monitoring, or that the population model developed by the Service and the USACE TernPOP
might be used to generate a target number based on chance of long-term persistence.
Our Response: The 10,000 birds referenced in the draft PDM plan is not meant to be a population target, but rather, a threshold to review significance, methods, and potential threats with States and other collaborators before numbers might fall below the recovery objective 7,000
birds. Tern counts are not static or consistent, and there has always been high variability 15 percent or more between annual counts at local, regional, and rangewide population levels over the period of record 35
years. Even so, the rangewide counts, as well as some subpopulations and colonies, have shown a general increasing trend over this same period.
As we noted in the proposed delisting rule 84 FR 56977; October 24, 2019
under Future Conditions and Species Viability, we developed TernPOP as a habitat-driven, rangewide population model to consider scenarios of status and population dynamics at multiple scales, with and without management, and with different scenarios of habitat loss. TernPOP is not designed to generate any target number based on long-term persistence. Local and regional Interior least tern numbers and success are generally driven by habitat.
Nearly all scenarios of regional management or habitat loss had minimal effects on population growth rates calculated across a 30-year period at the spatial scales of subpopulation, population, and range.
11 Comment: One peer reviewer expressed that the PDM plan should identify an action plan to quickly respond to any decline in numbers or productivity of the Interior least tern.
The quick action plan should assess the causes of decline and direct resources for recovery.
Our Response: Because we have a 35year record of increase for the tern, the objective of the draft PDM plan is to ensure that populations of the species do not decline once the Acts protections have been removed. As noted under Our Response to 10
Comment, above, we identified a conservative rangewide count number to initiate inquiry with Federal, State, and other collaborators into whether
E:FRFM13JAR1.SGM

13JAR1