Quiero saber acerca de...

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2

30692

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
recommended measures. Willful noncompliance with State agency recommendations typically results in a referral to the appropriate regulatory agency for enforcement action.
Our Response: We acknowledge the protocols in place to remedy water quality violations. We recommend that the Service be included in the agencies notified if water quality violations occur to habitats occupied by the Neuse River waterdog or Carolina madtom.
14 Comment: During the initial comment period, one commenter noted that within the range of the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom, North Carolina BMPs require a minimum SMZ
width of 50 feet on each side of the stream, and referenced chapter 4 SMZs and Riparian Buffers of the NCFSs BMP manual.
Our Response: Our review of the NCFSs BMP Manual indicates that 50foot buffers are part of the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse riparian buffer rules;
however, recent correspondence with the NCFS clarifies that forest harvesting is allowed in all zones of the 50-foot buffer see chapter 02 of title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code NCAC at section 02B .0612 15A
NCAC 02B .0612; NCFS 2020, p.1.
15 Comment: One commenter noted that the Federal Highway Administration FHWA has not consulted with the Service regarding the Carolina madtom or Neuse River waterdog, or analyzed impacts to the species before pursuing construction of the project in Wake/Johnston Counties.
Our Response: While this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking, the FHWA/North Carolina Department of Transportation NCDOT re-initiated section 7 consultation/conference with a revised biological assessment for the Complete 540 project dated July 2019.
The Service issued a revised biological opinion BO for the Complete 540
project on October 15, 2019. This BO
primarily concerned the dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon, yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata, Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni, and proposed critical habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe. However, we also concurred that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Neuse River waterdog. This conclusion was based primarily on the fact that repeated surveys never found the species anywhere near the action area, and the closest record was 5 to 6 miles downstream in Swift Creek. FHWA/
NCDOT determined the project would have no effect on the Carolina madtom since the species is not currently considered present in or near the action area. Therefore, there was no
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Jun 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

consultation/conference for the Carolina madtom.
16 Comment: When the Service proposes critical habitat for these species, it should take into consideration the economic benefits of protecting habitat for the species, including ecosystem services, the protection of clean water, the reduced cost of water treatment for drinking water supplies, and public health benefits.
Our Response: As noted in the draft economic analysis DEA, the primary intended benefit of critical habitat is to support the conservation of endangered and threatened species, such as the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog. In order to quantify and monetize direct benefits of the designation, information would be needed to determine both the incremental change in the probability of madtom or waterdog conservation expected to result from the critical habitat designation and the publics willingness to pay for such beneficial changes. The conclusion was that additional project modifications to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat for either the Carolina madtom or Neuse River waterdog are not anticipated. Analysis of ecosystem services, such as clean water, or broad benefits of ecosystem services to human populations that may result from critical habitat designations are generally outside the scope of economic considerations for the designation of Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog critical habitat, primarily because the uncertainties associated with monetary quantification of these benefits are large.
17 Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service consider the protection of these species to be an environmental justice issue. The commenter provided the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency EPA
definitions of environmental justice i.e., the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies, fair treatment i.e., no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies, and meaningful involvement i.e., people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; the publics contribution can influence the regulatory agencys decision; their
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. The commenter further stated that protecting these species and their habitats is an environmental justice imperative, and would have positive benefits for public health and well-being in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina and beyond.
Our Response: For listing actions, the Act requires that we make determinations solely on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data available 16 U.S.C.
1533b1A. Still, we recognize the indirect benefits, including the aesthetic, recreational, and overall health benefits of listing species and designating critical habitat, that this rule may provide for all human communities surrounding and including the habitats that both species occupy.
Neuse River Waterdog 18 Comment: One commenter stated that the Neuse River waterdog should be listed as endangered because of the threat of climate change.
Our Response: As described below in Neuse River Waterdog: Status Throughout All of Its Range and in Neuse River Waterdog: Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range, we considered whether the Neuse River waterdog is presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and determined that endangered status is not appropriate for the species entire range or for a portion of its range. The current conditions as assessed in the Neuse River waterdog SSA report show that the species exists in nine MUs over three different populations river systems over a majority 65 percent of the species historical range. The Neuse River waterdog still exhibits representation across both physiographic regions, and extant populations remain across the range. In short, while the primary threats are currently acting on the species and many of those threats are expected to continue into the future, we did not find that the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
19 Comment: Several commenters indicated that they support the listing of the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom, as well as the designation of critical habitat to protect and recover both species. However, while they supported the listing and designation of critical habitat, they opposed the 4d rule, stating that it would severely limit the effectiveness of other conservation
E:FRFM09JNR2.SGM

09JNR2