Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules with flows and water quality to support the normal life stages of the pearl darter and the species prey sources. Further evidence of the presence of physical or biological features within this reach of the Strong River is demonstrated by recent increases in other benthic fish species e.g., frecklebelly madtom that declined concurrent with the extirpation of the pearl darter Piller et al. 2004, pp. 10071011; Wagner et al.
2018, pp. 45.
As described above, the best available information demonstrates that the pearl darter disappeared from the entire Pearl River and all known tributary segments virtually simultaneously. Therefore, it is possible that a series of back-to-back stochastic events or a single catastrophic event could significantly reduce or extirpate the surviving pearl darter population within the Pascagoula River drainage. Due to the species lack of redundancy, its naturally small numbers within the Pascagoula River drainage, and its short life span, the pearl darter is more vulnerable to existing and future threats, including habitat degradation and loss, catastrophic weather events, and introduced species. This unit would serve to protect habitat needed to reestablish a wild population within the historical range in the Pearl River drainage and recover the species. Reestablishing a population of the pearl darter within Unit 2 would also increase the species redundancy and restore ecological representation, better ensuring its survival if a stochastic event were to impact the Pascagoula River population. This unit is essential for the conservation of the species because it will provide habitat for range expansion in known historical habitat that is necessary to increase viability of the pearl darter by increasing its resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
The need for reintroduction of the pearl darter into the Pearl River drainage has been recognized and is being discussed by our conservation partners. The landowner of the type locality location where the species was described within the Strong River unit has been working with the Service and MDWFP to regularly monitor for the presence of the pearl darter and other benthic fish, and expressed interest in reestablishing the species on the property. Methods and facilities for propagating the species have been developed, tested, and proven at a Service fish hatchery. Accordingly, we are reasonably certain this unit will contribute to the conservation of the pearl darter.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:03 Jul 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 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
PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

36687

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 requirement to reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a description of those exceptions.
Application of the Destruction or Adverse Modification Standard The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of the listed species. As
E:FRFM13JYP1.SGM

13JYP1