Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations upon which these two salamander species depend. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, channelization, removal of substrate, clearing of vegetation, construction of commercial and residential development, quarrying, and other activities that result in the physical destruction of habitat or the modification of habitat so that it is not suitable for the species.
2 Actions that would increase the concentration of sediment or contaminants in the surface or subsurface habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, increases in impervious cover in the surface watershed, inadequate erosion controls on the surface and subsurface watersheds, and release of pollutants into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release non-point source.
These activities could alter water conditions to levels that are harmful to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders or their prey and result in direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects to these salamander individuals and their life cycles. Sedimentation can also adversely affect salamander habitat by reducing access to interstitial spaces.
3 Actions that would deplete the aquifer to an extent that decreases or stops the flow of occupied springs or that reduces the quantity of subterranean habitat used by the species. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, water withdrawals from aquifers, increases in impervious cover over recharge areas, and channelization or other modification of recharge features that would decrease recharge. These activities could dewater habitat or cause reduced water quality to levels that are harmful to one of the two salamanders or their prey and result in adverse effects to their habitat.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

Exemptions Application of Section 4a3 of the Act Section 4a3Bi of the Act 16
U.S.C. 1533a3Bi provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense DoD, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act 16
U.S.C. 670a, if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. No DoD lands with a completed INRMP are within the critical habitat designation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:09 Aug 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4b2 of the Act Section 4b2 of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless we determine, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factors to use and how much weight to give to any factor. On December 18, 2020, we published a final rule in the Federal Register 85 FR 82376 revising portions of our regulations pertaining to exclusions of critical habitat. These final regulations became effective on January 19, 2021, and apply to critical habitat rules for which a proposed rule was published after January 19, 2021.
Consequently, these new regulations do not apply to this final rule.
Under section 4b2 of the Act, we may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts Section 4b2 of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects memorandum IEM and
PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

46557

screening analysis which, together with our narrative and interpretation of effects we consider our draft economic analysis DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors Industrial Economics, Incorporated IEc 2020, entire. The analysis, dated April 14, 2020, was made available for public review from September 23, 2020, through November 16, 2020 IEc 2020, entire. The DEA addressed probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation.
Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders is summarized below and available in the screening analysis for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders IEc 2021, entire, available at http
www.regulations.gov.
We received public comment on our DEA during the public comment period and updated the analysis based on public comment. The economic analysis now acknowledges The designation of critical habitat may cause developers to perceive that private lands will be subject to use restrictions or litigation from third parties, resulting in costs.
Data limitations prevent quantification of the possible incremental reduction in property values IEc 2021, p. 2 & 12
13. The updates made to the DEA did not change the overall conclusions of the analysis. 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 designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, first we identified, in the IEM dated April 14, 2020, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: 1
Future stream/river crossings and bridge replacements and maintenance; 2
pipeline construction, replacement, maintenance, or removal; 3 electrical transmission line construction; 4
stream restoration activities for habitat improvement; 5 herbicide and pesticide use along stream banks; 6
irrigation and water supply system installations; 7 livestock management and livestock facilities construction; 8
bank stabilization projects; 9 disaster
E:FRFM18AUR2.SGM

18AUR2