Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

49964

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

requested exclusion based on an assertion of national-security or homeland security concerns, or we have otherwise identified national security or homeland-security impacts from designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have reason to consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat on the basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, we must conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides credible information, including a reasonably specific justification of an incremental impact on national security that would result from the designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with section 7a2
of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation. If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to:
1 Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security implications; 2 the importance of those implications; and 3 the degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in the absence of an exclusion.
In that circumstance, in conducting a discretionary section 4b2 exclusion analysis, we will give great weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
DHS Land Parcel We have determined that some lands within Unit 14 of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle are owned, managed, or used by the U.S. Coast Guard, which is part of the DHS.
As discussed in the Richmond Pine Rocklands Unit 14 description above, the U.S. Coast Guard property is separated into two main areas: The COMMSTA Miami and the CEU. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Sep 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

COMMSTA houses transmitting and receiving antennas. The CEU plans and executes projects at regional shore facilities, such as construction and postdisaster assessments.
The U.S. Coast Guard parcel contains approximately 100 ac 40 ha of standing pine rocklands. The remainder of the site, outside of the developed areas, is made up of scraped pine rocklands that are mowed three to four times per year for maintenance of a communications antenna field. While disturbed, this scraped area maintains sand substrate and many native pine rockland species, including documented occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle.
The U.S. Coast Guard parcel has a draft management plan that includes management of pine rockland habitats, including vegetation control and prescribed fire and protection of lands from further development or degradation. In addition, the standing pine rockland area is partially managed through an active recovery grant to the Institute for Regional Conservation.
Under this grant, up to 39 ac 16 ha of standing pine rocklands will undergo invasive vegetation control.
Based on a review of the specific mission of the U.S. Coast Guard facility in conjunction with the measures and efforts set forth in the draft management plan to preserve pine rockland habitat and protect sensitive and listed species, we have made a preliminary determination that it is unlikely that the critical habitat, if finalized as proposed, would negatively impact the facility or its operations. As a result, we do not anticipate any impact on national security. However, if through the public comment period we receive credible information regarding impacts on national security or homeland security from designating particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of developing the final designation of critical habitat, we will conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of section 4b2
and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 17.90.
DoD Land Parcel As discussed above, we have determined that the Corps, a branch of the DoD, retains ownership over a 121
ac 49ha-parcel in Unit 14 of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle. Over 85ac 34ha of this parcel are forested but not managed for preservation of natural resources. The Corps does not have any specific management plan for the Miami tiger beetle or its habitat covering these lands. Activities conducted on this site
PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

are unknown, but we do not anticipate any impact on national security.
However, if through the public comment period we receive credible information regarding impacts on national security or homeland security from designating particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of developing the final designation of critical habitat, we will conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of section 4b2
and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 17.90.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts Under section 4b2 of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security discussed above. Other relevant impacts may include, but are not limited to, impacts to Tribes, States, local governments, public health and safety, community interests, the environment such as increased risk of wildfire or pest and invasive species management, Federal lands, and conservation plans, agreements, or partnerships. To identify other relevant impacts that may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors, including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in the areasuch as HCPs, safe harbor agreements SHAs, or candidate conservation agreements with assurances CCAAsor whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-togovernment relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any State, local, public-health, community-interest, environmental, or social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
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
E:FRFM07SEP1.SGM

07SEP1