Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules or economic impacts associated with listing and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle totals approximately 1,977 ac 800 ha in 16 units in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Two of the 16 units are currently occupied by the Miami tiger beetle; the remaining 14 units are within the beetles historical range but were not occupied at the time the species was listed in 2016 and are not known to be currently occupied. As previously stated, the 14 unoccupied critical habitat units encompass approximately 405 ac 164 ha or 20 percent of proposed critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, of which only 17 ac 7 ha or 4 percent are not currently designated as critical habitat for other federally listed species. Tables 1 through 3, above, set forth specific information concerning each unit, including occupancy, land ownership, and extent of overlap with existing Federal critical habitat see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation.
Because the majority 80 percent of the area designated is occupied, most 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 Miami tiger beetle.
Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in approximately 80 percent of the proposed critical habitat designation. While the analysis for adverse modification of critical habitat will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
The remaining designated area is unoccupied and mostly 96 percent of the unoccupied area overlaps with existing designated critical habitat for other pine rockland habitat species, including Carters small-flowered flax, Florida brickell-bush, Bartrams scrub hairstreak butterfly, and the Florida leafwing butterfly. As a result, consultations for other listed species and critical habitats are likely to have already resulted in protections absent the critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Sep 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

recommendations for those species are anticipated to be sufficient to protect the Miami tiger beetle critical habitat.
Further, any consultation requirements for listed species and resulting costs would be at least partially split among each overlapped species with not one species being the sole source of the entire costs. Accordingly, in these unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the critical habitat designation.
The probable incremental economic impacts of the Miami tiger beetle critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future section 7
consultations. This is due to two factors:
1 A large portion of proposed critical habitat is considered to be occupied by the species 80 percent, and incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation, other than administrative costs, are unlikely; and 2 in proposed areas that are not occupied by the Miami tiger beetle 20
percent, nearly all is designated critical habitat for other pine rockland species and the designation is not likely to result in additional or different project modifications from those that would already be anticipated absent the Miami tiger beetle designation. Because of the relatively small size of the critical habitat designation, the volume of lands that are State, county, or privately owned, and the substantial amount of lands that are already being managed for conservation, the numbers of section 7
consultations expected annually are modest approximately 2 formal, 12
informal, and 14 technical assistance efforts annually across the designation.
Some potential private property value effects are possible due to public perception of impacts to private lands.
The designation of critical habitat may cause some developers or landowners to perceive that private lands will be subject to use restrictions or litigation from third parties, resulting in costs.
However, less than seven percent of the proposed critical habitat designation is privately owned land, leading to nominal incremental costs arising from changes in public perception of lands included in the designation.
Critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle is unlikely to generate costs or benefits exceeding $100 million in a single year. Therefore, this rule is unlikely to meet the threshold for an economically significant rule, with regard to costs, under E.O. 12866. In fact, the total
PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

49963

annual incremental costs of critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle is anticipated to be less than $48,000 per year, and economic benefits are also anticipated to be small.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider the information presented in the draft economic analysis and any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the public comment 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
17.90. If we receive credible information regarding the existence of a meaningful economic or other relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion, we will conduct an exclusion analysis for the relevant area or areas. We may also exercise the discretion to evaluate any other particular areas for possible exclusion. Furthermore, when we conduct an exclusion analysis based on impacts identified by experts in, or sources with firsthand knowledge about, impacts that are outside the scope of the Services expertise, we will give weight to those impacts consistent with the expert or firsthand information unless we have rebutting information. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts Section 4a3Bi of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or areas that pose potential national-security concerns e.g., a DoD installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly listed species or a species previously not covered. If a particular area is not covered under section 4a3Bi, then national-security or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of determining what areas meet the definition of critical habitat. However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security, including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by section 4a3Bi, because section 4b2 requires the Service to consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security DHS, or another Federal agency has
E:FRFM07SEP1.SGM

07SEP1