Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2

we describe why we separated the Trent River Subbasin: Because of salt water influence, the habitats in the Trent River system are isolated from the Neuse River and its tributaries; therefore, we consider the Trent River system as a separate basin i.e., population, even though it is technically part of the larger Neuse River Basin Service 2021a, p.
9.
8 Comment: The NCWRC provided a new record during the public comment period in 2019, of a Carolina madtom collected from Contentnea Creek near NC 42 in July 2018.
Our Response: While we included this reach in proposed critical habitat, the May 22, 2019, proposed rule 84 FR
23644 considered Contentnea Creek to be unoccupied, with the last known record from 2007. With this 2018
record, we consider the Contentnea Creek critical habitat unit to be occupied. Therefore, we have updated the designated critical habitat to reflect that Unit 6Contentnea Creek is occupied for the Carolina madtom. We revised the critical habitat designation to address this comment in our July 30, 2020, document reopening the May 22, 2019, proposed rules public comment period 85 FR 45839.
Neuse River Waterdog 9 Comment: The NCWRC provided a thorough review of the SSA report and included many comments updating data and interpretations. The partner review indicated concern about how current occupancy was summarized i.e., that the species currently occupies 73
percent of its historical range, indicating that the recent survey efforts suggest a 50 percent decline in occupied sites from the surveys done in the early 1980s.
Our Response: Data revisions and interpretations were incorporated into the revised SSA report. We note that current occupancy versus the occupancy of historical range at the species level is summarized by watershed or hydrologic unit occupancy within MUs rather than by individual site occupancy. This difference likely accounts for the apparent discrepancy noted by the commenter. The SSA report includes details about changes at the site level, as well as the overall watershed, to provide as complete a picture as possible of changes from historical times to the present day Service 2021b, p. v.
10 Comment: The NCWRC provided several new records for Neuse River waterdog during the public comment period in 2019, including records in Middle Creek Johnston County, Tuckahoe Swamp Jones County, Tar
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jun 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

River Granville County, and Fishing Creek Nash County.
Our Response: We included these new records and updated five critical habitat units Unit 1Upper Tar River, Unit 4Fishing Creek Subbasin, Unit 6Middle Tar River Subbasin, Unit 10Middle Creek, and Unit 17Trent River. We revised Unit 1 to add 3.7
miles 6 km of the Upper Tar River based on a 2018 observation provided by NCWRC of Neuse River waterdog.
We revised Unit 4 to add 20 miles 32.3
km of Fishing Creek based on a 2019
observation provided by NCWRC of Neuse River waterdog. We revised Unit 6 to add 11 miles 17.8 km of the upper reach of the Tar River based on a 2019
observation by a permitted private consultant of Neuse River waterdog. We revised Unit 10 to add 23.2 miles 37.4
km of Middle Creek based on two 2018
observations provided by NCWRC of Neuse River waterdog. These revisions were part of our July 30, 2020, document reopening the May 22, 2019, proposed rules public comment period 85 FR 45839.
Public Comments During the initial comment period, we received 83 public comments on the proposed rule, and during the reopened comment period, we received 16 public comments. A majority of the comments supported the listing determinations and critical habitat designations, none opposed the designations, and some included suggestions on how we could refine or improve the 4d rule for the Neuse River waterdog and the critical habitat designations for both species.
All substantive information provided to us during the comment periods has been incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below. For topics for which we received comments during both comment periods e.g., the forestry exception language in the 4d rule, we identify whether the comments were received during the initial comment period May 22July 22, 2019 or the reopened comment period July 30
August 31, 2020.
11 Comment: One commenter indicated that the Service should consider forestry BMPs as part of the overall conservation benefit for the species, and account for these beneficial actions in any threat analysis.
Our Response: Forested watersheds contribute to the current condition of each species and have been factored in as a positive factor i.e., benefit under the Connectivity habitat element as described in chapter 3 of each species SSA report. We also note that forestry activities were not carried forward as a primary threat for our future condition
PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

30691

analyses because the future condition analyses focused on the main threats urbanization and climate change that are predicted to affect the species future condition.
12 Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not present evidence that forest management is contributing elevated levels of sediment to streams occupied by the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom.
Our Response: Sediment is one of the most frequently cited water quality concerns associated with forestry operations and is one of the top causes of river and stream impairment in the United States EPA 2017, p. 3.
Sedimentation is one of the primary stressors to aquatic fauna, including the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom Service 2021ab, chapter 4.
Forestry practices can alter the natural sediment balance and lead to increased rates of sediment input, resulting in increased concentrations of sediment in the water body and increased deposition of sediment on the stream bottom. The forest industry recognizes that harvest and management practices cause sedimentation, which is why they have BMPs, or practices that are used to minimize water pollution from sedimentation. BMP implementation rates are generally high, and in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins, overall BMP implementation rates are approximately 88 to 90 percent Coats 2017, p. 38. While we do not know the exact location of all forestry operations in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins see maps from North Carolina Forest Service NCFS 2018, p. 43, lack of BMP implementation was approximately 10 to 12 percent for sites assessed in those watersheds from 20122016; identified risks to water quality were most often attributed to improper BMPs for Streamside Management Zones SMZs and stream crossings Coats 2017, pp. 89, which likely contributed sedimentation to habitats in the systems that the waterdog and madtom occupy.
13 Comment: To provide additional information about compliance, one commenter described the process for when a significant risk to water quality is observed during BMP
implementation inspections. They indicated that the presence of a significant risk triggers further investigation by State agency inspectors that leads to collaborative efforts among State agencies, the forest landowner, logger, and/or contractor to perform corrective measures to remedy the issue.
After a reasonable period of time, a follow-up site evaluation is made to assess compliance with the
E:FRFM09JNR2.SGM

09JNR2