Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules pearl darter IEc 2020, entire. We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs i.e., absent critical habitat designation and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. If there are any unoccupied units in the proposed critical habitat designation, the screening analysis assesses whether any additional management or conservation efforts may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM are what we consider our draft economic analysis DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for the pearl darter; our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative to the extent feasible and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O.
regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the pearl darter, first we identified, in the IEM dated April 21, 2020, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: 1 Roadway and bridge construction and repair; 2 commercial
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:03 Jul 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

or residential development; 3
dredging; 4 groundwater pumping; 5
instream dams and diversions; 6
storage, distribution, or discharge of chemical pollutants; 7 oil and gas; 8
utilities; 9 water quantity and supply;
and 10 water quality. We considered each industry or category individually.
Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the pearl darter is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that will result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation i.e., difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards for the pearl darters critical habitat. The following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: 1 The essential physical or biological features identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the species, and 2 any actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to the pearl darter would also likely adversely affect the essential physical or biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the pearl darter totals approximately 517 mi 832 km of river and stream channels in two units.
Riparian lands bordering the proposed critical habitat are under private 78
percent, county 0.1 percent, State 15
percent, and Federal 9 percent ownership. A small portion 1.3
percent has shared State and Federal ownership. Unit 1 is occupied by the pearl darter and represents 94 percent of
PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

36689

the proposed critical habitat. Within this occupied unit, any actions that may affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the pearl darter. Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in actions affecting this unit. While this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs, because they are predominantly administrative in nature, would not be significant.
Unit 2 is currently unoccupied by the species but is essential for the conservation of the species. This unit totals 30 mi 49 km and comprises 6
percent of the total proposed critical habitat designation. In this unoccupied area, any conservation efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the critical habitat designation. However, two threatened species, Gulf sturgeon listed as Atlantic sturgeon Gulf subspecies, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi and ringed map turtle Graptemys oculifera, currently occupy this unit, and conservation efforts to protect these species would also protect pearl darter critical habitat.
The DEA finds that the total annual incremental costs of critical habitat designation for the pearl darter are not anticipated to reach $100 million in any given year based on the anticipated annual number of consultations and associated administrative costs, which are not expected to exceed $710,000 in any year.
In Unit 1, which constitutes 94
percent of the proposed critical habitat area, the activities that may affect the critical habitat are already subject to section 7 consultation due to the presence of pearl darter. We determined that the project modification recommendations made to avoid jeopardy to the pearl darter would also result in the avoidance of adverse modification. Thus, for projects and activities occurring in Unit 1, no additional project modification recommendations are likely to result from the proposed critical habitat rule and costs are limited to additional administrative effort.
A relatively small fraction 6 percent of the proposed critical habitat designation is in Unit 2, which is not currently occupied by the species. In these areas, activities that may affect the
E:FRFM13JYP1.SGM

13JYP1