Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

30690

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
and were incorporated into the SSA
reports as appropriate.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2

Carolina Madtom 1 Comment: One peer reviewer mentioned that predation by flathead catfish is likely a dominant threat to the Carolina madtom but appears minimally considered as a habitat factor in the SSA
report. The commenter suggested that in addition to physical habitat attributes, biotic factors may in many cases including this case be critically important. This important habitat influence could be emphasized more in the SSA report.
Our Response: Data on the distribution, abundance, or predation pressure on madtoms for flathead catfish in either the Neuse or Tar River basins are not available; therefore, we could not explicitly include flathead catfish as a metric. Section 4.4 of the SSA report describes the significant threat that flathead catfish pose to the Carolina madtom, as does the overall viability summary for the species.
2 Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we make a strong statement concerning the endemism of the Tar-Neuse ecosystem and what a unique crucible of evolution it has been, as manifested in several endemic species, including the Carolina madtom, Tar River spinymussel Parvaspina steinstansana, pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus, Neuse River waterdog, and others. The uniqueness of the overall ecosystem cannot be overemphasized, and the mutual benefits derived from the listing of any of the endemic organisms has appeal.
Our Response: We note the endemism of the Carolina madtom to the Tar and Neuse river systems in chapter 3 of the SSA report. While listing and critical habitat designation under the Act only apply to the species under consideration, we acknowledge that protections derived from implementing the Act are beneficial to the overall habitat and other organisms that cooccur with the Carolina madtom.
However, benefits that listing a species under the Act may have on the overall ecosystem is not a factor for consideration when determining whether a species warrants listing under the Act.
3 Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the SSA report suggests that instream habitat, water flow, and invasive fish are the main factors influencing madtom populations, and it is unclear how any of these factors are attributable to Confined Animal Feeding Operations CAFOs. There is no direct linkage provided in the SSA report.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jun 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

Our Response: Multiple sections in the SSA report state that the main habitat elements that influence Carolina madtom condition are water quality CAFOs are a part of this, as are National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES
discharges, as they contribute to identified impaired streams, water quantity, connectivity potentially affected by CAFOs located within floodplains, instream habitat also affected by CAFOs when runoff overwhelms instream flows, and predation by flathead catfish. Section 4.2 of the SSA report details the effects of CAFOs on the habitats within the madtoms range Service 2021a, pp. 35
36.
4 Comment: One peer reviewer expressed disappointment that the Service did not reference materials provided via email in July 2016, stating that the SSA report has a slanted viewpoint, has cherry-picked negative impacts associated with forest management, and only focuses on those in the analysis.
Our Response: The material provided to us in July 2016 has been cited directly in the revised forestry section section 4.3 of the SSA report Service 2021a, pp. 3640. We note that the very first sentence in this section of the SSA
report states that a forested landscape provides ideal conditions for aquatic ecosystems. In the SSA report and in this final rule, we also note that silvicultural activities, when performed according to strict forest practices guidelines FPGs or best management practices BMPs, can retain adequate conditions for aquatic ecosystems.
However, we also note that, when FPGs/
BMPs are not implemented or inadequate implementation occurs, these forestry activities can also cause measurable impacts NCASI 2015, p. 1
and contribute to the myriad of stressors facing aquatic systems in the Southeast Service 2021a, p. 37. In addition, we note that one major, albeit temporary, BMP failure, a harvest that is noncompliant with BMPs or FPGs, or failure to maintain a BMP, can cause enough sedimentation to smother nests and/or cause enough stress to have irreversible impacts to Carolina madtom populations.
5 Comment: One peer reviewer recommended that the Service solicit a representative of the agriculture community to participate in the peer review of the SSA report. The peer reviewer noted that both the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins have a substantial amount of agricultural operations and it may be beneficial for all parties to understand how that type
PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of land use may play a role in supporting future species conservation needs.
Our Response: We sought peer review from an agriculture expert in the North Carolina Department of Agriculture for the Neuse River waterdog SSA report which has very similar analysis of agricultural operations as the Carolina madtom SSA report. However, we did not receive a response to our request.
Neuse River Waterdog 6 Comment: One peer reviewer had questions about the occupancy metrics and whether detection probabilities were incorporated into the estimates of occupancy, as well as the time periods that the survey efforts represented in order to better understand the underlying analyses presented in the SSA report.
Our Response: We added detection probability information into the SSA
report Service 2021b, p. 19 and note that for the original analysis, site occupancy indicates a minimum, nave occupancy i.e., detection probabilities were not incorporated into the initial estimates. We are currently working with North Carolina State University to perform an in-depth occupancy analysis for Neuse River waterdog; however, this analysis has not been completed, and the resulting information is not available for incorporation. We also note that the time periods and replicated methodologies for the survey efforts are also described in section 3.3.1 of the SSA report Service 2021b, p. 19.
State Agency Comments We received comments from three State agencies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission NCWRC, the North Carolina Forest Service NCFS, and the Virginia Department of Forestry VDOF. Because we received several comments from both NCFS and VDOF and from the public regarding forestry considerations, we have integrated NCFS/VDOF
comments and responses under Public Comments, below.
Carolina Madtom 7 Comment: The NCWRC provided a thorough review of the SSA report and included many comments updating data and interpretations. The partner review suggested that we revise the document to include the Trent River Subbasin within the greater Neuse River basin, based on the hydrologic unit categorization, to avoid confusion.
Our Response: Nearly all data revisions and interpretations were incorporated into the revised SSA
report. In section 3.1 of the SSA report,
E:FRFM09JNR2.SGM

09JNR2