Je veux savoir à propos de…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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.
Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat will 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 Suwannee moccasinshells critical habitat. The following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: 1 The physical or biological features identified for occupied 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 Suwannee moccasinshell would also likely adversely affect the essential physical or biological features of occupied 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.
The final critical habitat designation for the Suwannee moccasinshell totals approximately 306 kilometers 190
miles of stream channels in three units.
The riparian lands adjacent to critical habitat are under private 72 percent, State 27 percent, and county 1
percent ownership. Unit 1 is the only occupied unit and is 61 percent of the critical habitat designation. As discussed above, in this occupied area, 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 Suwannee moccasinshell. 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.
Units 2 and 3 are currently unoccupied by the species but are essential for the conservation of the species. These units total 119 km 78

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:54 Jun 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

mi and comprise 39 percent of the critical habitat designation. In these unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the critical habitat designation.
The screening analysis finds that the total annual incremental costs of critical habitat designation for the Suwannee moccasinshell are anticipated to be less than $100,000 per year. The highest costs are anticipated in Unit 3 because it is unoccupied by the species and is not already designated critical habitat for another mussel species for comparison, see discussion for Unit 2
below. In this unit, the designation is anticipated to result in a small number of additional section 7 consultations approximately three per year, primarily related to planned transportation projects that intersect the unit. Anticipated project modifications may include minimizing the extent of in-channel maintenance activities, relocation of discharge outfalls, or requiring strict adherence of water quality and habitat protections. Total annual costs to the Service and action agencies for consultations and project modifications in Unit 3 are anticipated to be less than $80,000 annually Industrial Economics 2020, pp. 912.
In Units 1 and 2, the economic costs of implementing the rule will most likely be limited to additional administrative efforts by the Service and action agencies to consider adverse modification. Unit 1 is occupied by the Suwannee moccasinshell, and conservation actions taken in order to be protective of the species would also be sufficient to protect its critical habitat.
Unit 2 is also designated as critical habitat for the oval pigtoe, a freshwater mussel with nearly identical physical or biological features to the Suwannee moccasinshell. Conservation efforts taken to protect oval pigtoe critical habitat would also be sufficient to protect Suwannee moccasinshell critical habitat. Thus, additional project modifications are not anticipated in Units 1 and 2. In total, up to six section 7 consultations per year are anticipated to occur in Units 1 and 2, with total costs of less than $20,000 annually Industrial Economics 2020, pp. 79.
Exclusions Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts We solicited data and comments from the public regarding the economic analysis, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule. We did not receive any additional information on economic impacts during the public comment
PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

34991

period to determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4b2 and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Based on the above-described consideration of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation, the Secretary is not exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the Suwannee moccasinshell based on economic impacts.
A copy of the IEM and economic screening analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Panama City Ecological Services Field Office or from the field offices website see ADDRESSES.
Exclusions Based on Impacts to National Security and Homeland Security In preparing this rule, we determined that none of the lands within the designated critical habitat for the Suwannee moccasinshell are owned or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security. We did not receive any additional information during the public comment period for the proposed designation regarding impacts of the designation on national security or homeland security that would support excluding any specific areas from the final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4b2 and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts Under section 4b2 of the Act, we considered any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We considered a number of factors including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we looked at the existence of Tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities.
We also considered any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.

E:FRFM01JYR1.SGM

01JYR1