Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

12580

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

natural open space, which has a restrictive covenant that limits development and protects natural resources on the property. The La Cebadilla Unit is occupied by the species and contains all the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Arizona eryngo. The unit is located in a rural neighborhood and is being affected by drought, woody vegetation encroachment, and ongoing human demand for water resulting in declining groundwater levels. Therefore, special management is necessary to reduce encroachment of woody vegetation and to improve groundwater levels to support continued springflow.
Unit 3: Agua Caliente Unit 3 consists of three subunits totaling 0.3 acres 0.1 hectares, all within the Agua Caliente Regional Park.
The park is located east of Tucson in Pima County within the Santa Cruz River Basin Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5
and is owned and managed by Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation. The Arizona eryngo historically occurred at this site, but the population was extirpated, likely due to multiple manipulations of the site, including spring modification Stromberg et al., p. 5; SWCA 2002, pp.
12 and pond impoundment.
Reintroduction efforts for the species began in 2017, and while a selfsustaining population does not yet exist, multiple plants have been established at various sites within the unit. Therefore, the unit is occupied by the species and contains two saturated soils and areas of open canopy of the three physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Arizona eryngo. The Agua Caliente Unit is in a semi-rural setting and is being affected by drought, nonnative species invasion, woody vegetation encroachment, and ongoing human demand for water resulting in declining groundwater levels. Therefore, special management is necessary to reduce invasion of nonnative species and encroachment of woody vegetation and to improve groundwater levels to support continued springflow.
Subunit 3a: Pond 1 WetlandSubunit 3a, Pond 1 Wetland consists of 0.04
acres 0.02 hectares of shoreline habitat on the northwest shore of Pond 1.
During restoration of Pond 1, a small wetland was created in this area, and Arizona eryngo were planted. The shoreline contains saturated soils, and portions of the shoreline contain open canopy. This subunit is currently occupied.
Subunit 3b: Pond 1 Wildlife Island Subunit 3b, Pond 1 Wildlife Island consists of 0.2 acres 0.07 hectares of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:38 Mar 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

wildlife island within Pond 1. A
channel is cut through the wildlife island, creating saturated soil conditions within the channel, where Arizona eryngo were planted. The entire wildlife island has open canopy conditions currently. This subunit is currently occupied.
Subunit 3c: Pond 2Subunit 3c, Pond 2 consists of 0.09 acres 0.04
hectares of shoreline habitat on the south shore of Pond 2. Arizona eryngo were planted just above the water line in an area of completely open canopy that contains saturated soils. This subunit is currently occupied.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation Section 7

Consultation
Section 7a2 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7a4 of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 84 FR
44976. Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency action agency must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act or that involve some other Federal action such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitatand actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal
PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

agencydo not require section 7
consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7a2 is documented through our issuance of:
1 A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or 2 A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define reasonable and prudent alternatives at 50 CFR
402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
1 Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, 2 Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agencys legal authority and jurisdiction, 3 Are economically and technologically feasible, and 4 Would, in the Service Directors opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action or the agencys discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law and, subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify some exceptions to the
E:FRFM04MRP1.SGM

04MRP1