Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

2580

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
management practices; and changes in existing regulatory mechanisms that are protective of migratory bird habitats.
Known threats at the time of listing habitat loss and curtailment of range, and predationhave been reduced or adequately managed, and we have analyzed possible new threats related to climate change and determined that they are not significant threats to the Interior least tern now or within the foreseeable future. Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms are adequate to protect the tern. The net effect of current and predictable future stressors to the species, after considering applicable conservation measures and the existing regulatory mechanisms, are not sufficient to cause the Interior least tern to be in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout its range. We find that the Interior least tern has recovered so that it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act throughout its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined that the Interior least tern is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its rangethat is, whether there is any portion of the species range for which it is true that both 1 the portion is significant; and 2 the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the significance question or the status question first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species range.
In undertaking this analysis for the Interior least tern, we chose to address the status question firstwe considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the species is endangered or threatened. We considered whether any of the threats acting on the Interior least tern are
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:05 Jan 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

geographically concentrated in any portion of the species range at a biologically meaningful scale.
We examined the following threats:
Habitat loss, curtailment of range, predation, and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, including cumulative effects. We found that while some colonies may be locally affected by future threats, these threats are not geographically concentrated. This finding is supported by a habitat driven, rangewide population model TernPOP;
Lott and Sheppard 2017a, b, entire, which considered 55 discrete scenarios of potential future habitat change threats or changes in management at local, regional, and rangewide scales, and covered the topics of 1 sandbar nesting habitat loss, 2 habitat degradation, 3 changes in predator management programs, and 4
deliberate efforts to create mid-channel nesting sandbars for the tern see Future Conditions and Species Viability, above. We found no concentration of threats in any portion of the Interior least terns range at a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, there are no portions of the species range where the species has a different status from its rangewide status. Therefore, no portions of the species range provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. This approach is consistent with the courts holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165JCS, 2018 WL 4053447
N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018, and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F.
Supp. 3d, 946, 959 D. Ariz. 2017.
Conclusion and Determination of Status Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Interior least tern is not in danger of extinction nor likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that the Interior least tern does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act.
Effects of This Rule This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11h by removing the Interior least tern from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. On the effective date of this rule see DATES, above, the protections provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to the Interior least tern.
Federal agencies are no longer required to consult with the Service under
PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the Interior least tern.
There is no critical habitat designated for the Interior least tern; therefore, this rule does not affect 50 CFR 17.95.
Removal of the Interior least tern from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife does not affect the protection given to all migratory bird species under the MBTA.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Section 4g1 of the Act requires us to monitor for not less than 5 years, the status of all species that are delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting monitoring PDM refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing under section 4b7 of the Act. Section 4g of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate with the States in development and implementation of PDM programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4g of the Act and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species conservation post-delisting. At the conclusion of the monitoring period, we will review all available information to determine if relisting, the continuation of monitoring, or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.
Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview While section 4g1 of the Act requires us to implement a system in cooperation with the States to effectively monitor the status of any species that have been recovered and removed from the Lists, it does not require the development of a formal PDM plan prior to removing the species from the List, or at any point. The Service and States have wide latitude in implementation of this provision.
However, we generally desire to follow a written planning document to provide for the effective implementation of section 4g, and we intend to do so here. To fulfill the requirement to
E:FRFM13JAR1.SGM

13JAR1