Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security In preparing this rule, we have determined that the lands within the designation of critical habitat for Georgetown and Salado salamanders are not owned or managed by DoD or the Department of Homeland Security.
Therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.
Based on this information, the Secretary has determined not to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown or Salado salamander based on impacts on national security or homeland security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from a
designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
In the case of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the two species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the two species due to protection from destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides conservation equal to or more than the protections that result from a critical habitat designation would reduce those benefits of including that specific area in the critical habitat designation.
We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized;
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion,
46559

we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion.
If our analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, any additional public comments we received, and the best scientific data available, we evaluated whether certain lands in the proposed critical habitat designation were appropriate for exclusion from this final designation under section 4b2 of the Act. If our analysis indicated that the benefits of excluding lands from the final designation outweighed the benefits of designating those lands as critical habitat, then we identified those areas for the Secretary to exercise her discretion to exclude those lands from the final designation, unless exclusion would result in extinction.
In the paragraphs below, we provide a detailed balancing analysis of the areas being excluded under section 4b2 of the Act. Table 3 below provides approximate areas ac, ha of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat but that we are excluding from this final critical habitat designation under section 4b2 of the Act.

TABLE 3AREAS EXCLUDED BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT FOR THE SALADO SALAMANDER
Critical habitat unit 1. Hog Hollow Spring Unit
2. Solana Spring Unit
3. Cistern Spring Unit

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans or Agreements and Partnerships, in General We sometimes exclude specific areas from critical habitat designations based in part on the existence of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant partnerships. A conservation plan or agreement describes actions that are designed to provide for the conservation needs of a species and its habitat, and may include actions to reduce or mitigate negative effects on the species caused by activities on or adjacent to the area covered by the plan. Conservation plans or agreements can be developed
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:09 Aug 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

by private entities with no Service involvement, or in partnership with the Service, sometimes through the permitting process under Section 10 of the Act.
When we undertake a discretionary section 4b2 analysis, we evaluate a variety of factors to determine how the benefits of any exclusion and the benefits of inclusion are affected by the existence of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant partnerships. A nonexhaustive list of factors that we will consider for non-permitted plans or agreements is shown below. These factors are not required elements of
PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Proposed critical habitat ac ha
Area excluded ac ha
68 28
68 28
68 28

68 28
68 28
68 28

Final critical habitat ac ha 0
0 0

plans or agreements, and some elements may not apply to a particular plan or agreement.
i The degree to which the plan or agreement provides for the conservation of the species or the essential physical or biological features if present for the species.
ii Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions contained in a management plan or agreement will be implemented.
iii The demonstrated implementation and success of the chosen conservation measures.
iv The degree to which the record of the plan supports a conclusion that a
E:FRFM18AUR2.SGM

18AUR2