Proposed Rule2022-20370
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Florida Keys Mole Skink and Designation of Critical Habitat
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 27, 2022
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Florida Keys mole skink (Plestiodon egregius egregius), a lizard subspecies from the Florida Keys, Florida, as a threatened species and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12- month finding on a petition to list the Florida Keys mole skink. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Florida Keys mole skink as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act ("4(d) rule"). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species. We also propose to designate critical habitat for the Florida Keys mole skink under the Act. In total, approximately 7,068 acres (2,860 hectares) within Monroe County in the Florida Keys, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Florida Keys mole skink.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58648-58703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20370]
[[Page 58647]]
Vol. 87
Tuesday,
No. 186
September 27, 2022
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Florida Keys Mole Skink and
Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58648]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0104; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BG24
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Florida Keys Mole Skink and
Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Florida Keys mole skink (Plestiodon egregius egregius), a
lizard subspecies from the Florida Keys, Florida, as a threatened
species and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-
month finding on a petition to list the Florida Keys mole skink. After
a review of the best available scientific and commercial information,
we find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose
to list the Florida Keys mole skink as a threatened species with a rule
issued under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule''). If we finalize
this rule as proposed, it would add this species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to
the species. We also propose to designate critical habitat for the
Florida Keys mole skink under the Act. In total, approximately 7,068
acres (2,860 hectares) within Monroe County in the Florida Keys,
Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat
designation. We also announce the availability of a draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Florida Keys mole skink.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 28, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2022-0104,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2022-0104, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0104. For the proposed
critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot points or both
from which the maps are generated are included in the decision file for
this critical habitat designation and are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0104 and on the
Service's website at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library">https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library</a>. Additional supporting information that we developed
for this critical habitat designation, including the conservation
strategy, will be available on the Service's website, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or both.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Division Manager,
Classification and Recovery, Florida Ecological Services Field Office,
7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517;
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#503c3f25223435230f3d353e31103627237e373f26"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="523e3d27203637210d3f373c33123425217c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone 904-731-3134. Individuals in the United
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the
Florida Keys mole skink meets the definition of a threatened species;
therefore, we are proposing to list it as such and proposing a
designation of its critical habitat. Both listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species and designating critical habitat can
be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative
Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). Additionally,
we are proposing a rule under section 4(d) of the Act because
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act can be applied to threatened
species only by issuing a section 4(d) rule.
What this document does. We propose the listing of the Florida Keys
mole skink as a threatened species with a rule under section 4(d) of
the Act, and we propose the designation of critical habitat.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human-made factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the Florida Keys mole
skink is facing threats associated with climate change, specifically
sea level rise, increased high tide flooding, and increased intensity
storm events (Factor E), as well as threats due to habitat loss and
degradation that result from development, and habitat disturbance
(Factor A).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii)
[[Page 58649]]
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.
Section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary shall issue such
regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of species listed as threatened species and that the
Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened
species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish
or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns,
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or human-made factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
(5) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the Florida Keys mole skink and that we
can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In particular,
information concerning the extent to which we should include any of the
section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether we should consider
any additional exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information regarding the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to
the species. In determining whether a designation would not be
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of
``critical habitat.''
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Florida Keys mole skink habitat;
(b) The importance, or role, of inland habitats, such as rockland
hammocks and pine rocklands, and low-density development or disturbed
areas to Florida Keys mole skink breeding, feeding, sheltering, or
dispersal;
(c) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species,
the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower Keys, and Distal Sand Keys Regions
of the Florida Keys in Monroe County, Florida, that should be included
in the designation because they are occupied at the time of listing and
contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations, or are unoccupied at the time of listing and are
essential for the conservation of the species; and
(d) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(10) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts and any additional information
regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for those based on a
conservation program or plan, and why. These may include Federal,
State, county, local, or private lands with permitted conservation
plans covering the species in the area such as habitat conservation
plans, safe harbor agreements, or conservation easements, or non-
permitted conservation plans, agreements, or partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat.
Specific information we seek includes the effectiveness of the Monroe
County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on Big Pine Key and No Name Key
in protecting pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitat and in
providing for conservation of the Florida Keys mole skink. If you think
we should exclude any additional areas, please provide information
regarding the existence of an economic or other relevant impact
supporting a benefit of exclusion.
(12) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
[[Page 58650]]
species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available and
section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific information
available. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this
proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is
endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a
threatened species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we
find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. In
addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions or the
exceptions to those prohibitions in the 4(d) rule if we conclude it is
appropriate in light of comments and new information received. For
example, we may expand the prohibitions to include prohibiting
additional activities if we conclude that those additional activities
are not compatible with conservation of the species. Conversely, we may
establish additional exceptions to the prohibitions in the final rule
if we conclude that the activities would facilitate or are compatible
with the conservation and recovery of the species.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, the Service received a petition from the Center
for Biological Diversity to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species from the southeastern United States, including the Florida Keys
mole skink, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. The
subsequent 90-day finding (76 FR 59836, September 27, 2011) provided
that the petition was substantial for 374 of the petitioned species
including the Florida Keys mole skink. On October 5, 2017, the Service
published a 12-month finding that the Florida Keys mole skink did not
warrant listing under the Act (82 FR 46618).
On September 23, 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity filed
suit against the Service, alleging the Service did not use the best
available scientific data regarding sea level rise and its impacts to
the Florida Keys mole skink habitat in its 12-month finding and
challenged the adequacy of our significant portion of the range
analysis. On September 16, 2020, the Court vacated and remanded the
challenged 12-month finding for the Florida Keys mole skink. In April
2021, the Service was ordered, upon agreement with the Center for
Biological Diversity, to submit a new finding to the Federal Register
by September 15, 2022. This finding and proposed rule reflects the
updated assessment of the status of the species based on the best
available science, including an updated species status assessment for
the Florida Keys mole skink (Service 2022, entire).
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared a revised SSA
report for the Florida Keys mole skink (Service 2022, entire). The SSA
team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other
species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best
scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the
species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors
(both negative and beneficial) affecting the species. In accordance
with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions
under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of nine appropriate
specialists regarding the updated SSA report. We received two
responses.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Florida Keys mole skink (Plestiodon egregius egregius) is presented in
the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 8-22). The Florida Keys mole skink is
one of five distinct subspecies of mole skinks in Florida, all in the
genus Plestiodon (previously Eumeces) (Brandley et al. 2005, pp. 387-
388) and is endemic to the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys mole skink is
a small, slender lizard with a long, brilliantly colored tail (color
variation from orange and red to faded pink) and short legs. Adults
reach a total length of approximately 12.7 centimeters (cm) (5 inches
(in)) (Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2001, p. 1). The age at
first reproduction is estimated at 2 years, and generation time is
approximately 4 years (McCoy 2010, p. 641).
The Florida Keys mole skink is semi-fossorial (adapted to digging
and living underground) and cryptic in nature. The Florida Keys mole
skink moves through sand and soil using a swimming motion and prefers
loose soils that allow for easy mobility. Loose soils are also
conducive for burrowing and nesting (Christman 1992, p. 179). Ground
cover, such as leaf litter, debris, and tidal wrack (organic material
and other debris deposited at high tide) provide shelter and a food
resource (insects and arthropods that live under ground cover) for
Florida Keys mole skink. Florida Keys mole skinks are found on low-
lying islands with preferred habitats consisting of beaches, dunes,
coastal berms, rockland hammocks, and pine rocklands. However,
individuals have been detected in developed areas such as cemeteries,
vacant lots, backyards, along roads, and golf courses (Mays and Enge
2016, p. 10; Emerick 2017a, pers. comm.; iNaturalist 2020,
[[Page 58651]]
entire). Home range distances for Florida Keys mole skink are estimated
at a maximum of 100 m (328 ft) (Gianopulos 2001, p. 81; Mushinsky et
al. 2001, p. 54; McCoy et al. 2020, p. 8), and dispersal between
islands is limited (Mercier 2018, pp. 18-21).
The Florida Keys is a low-lying chain of small ancient coral reef
islands extending 125 miles (mi) (201 kilometers (km)) southwest from
the southeastern tip of the Florida peninsula. The Florida Keys are
primarily mangrove islands composed of predominantly limestone
substrate (ancient coral reef). The average elevation of the Florida
Keys is less than 4.0 feet (ft) (1.2 meters (m)) above sea level
(Service 2020, p. 9). Florida Keys mole skinks have been documented on
23 islands throughout the Florida Keys (see figure, below). Fifteen of
these islands have had detections in the last two decades (years 2000
to 2021), four islands have relatively recent detections (years 1970 to
1999), and four islands have historical detections (before 1970).
Systematic surveys have not been conducted for the Florida Keys mole
skink across all of the Florida Keys; therefore, the true spatial
distribution of populations throughout the Florida Keys is unknown.
Consequently, Florida Keys mole skink may occur on Florida Keys other
than those reported.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE22.000
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. On
July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California vacated regulations that the Service (jointly with the
National Marine Fisheries Service) promulgated in 2019 modifying how
the Services add, remove, and reclassify threatened and endangered
species and the criteria for designating listed species' critical
habitat (Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-
JST, Doc. 168 (CBD v. Haaland). As a result of that vacatur,
regulations that were in effect before those 2019 regulations now
govern listing and critical habitat decisions. Our analysis for this
proposal applied those pre-2019 regulations. However, given that
litigation remains regarding the court's vacatur of those 2019
regulations, we also undertook an analysis of whether the proposal
would be different if we were to apply the 2019 regulations. We
concluded that the proposal would have been the same if we had applied
the 2019 regulations. The analysis based on the 2019 regulations is
included in the decision record for this proposal.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
subspecies because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
[[Page 58652]]
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Because
the decision in CBD v. Haaland vacated our 2019 regulations regarding
the foreseeable future, we refer to a 2009 Department of the Interior
Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The Meaning of `Foreseeable Future' in
Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-37021). That
Solicitor's opinion states that the foreseeable future ``must be rooted
in the best available data that allow predictions into the future'' and
extends as far as those predictions are ``sufficiently reliable to
provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light
of the conservation purposes of the Act.'' Id. at 13.
It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and
to the species' responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the Florida Keys mole skink, including an assessment of
the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent
our decision on whether the Florida Keys mole skink should be proposed
for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the
SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2022-0104 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
To assess Florida Keys mole skink viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the Florida Keys mole
skink's ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
Florida Keys mole skink and its resources, and the threats that
influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess
the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
The SSA report contains a detailed discussion of the Florida Keys
mole skink individual and population requirements (Service 2022, pp.
16-23); we provide a summary here. Based upon the best available
scientific and commercial information, and acknowledging existing
ecological uncertainties, the resource and demographic needs for
breeding, feeding, sheltering, and dispersal of the Florida Keys mole
are characterized as:
<bullet> Beach and dune, coastal berm, rockland hammock, and pine
rockland habitats that provide ground cover in the form of leaf litter
and wrack material Florida Keys mole skinks need for nesting, arthropod
and insect food sources, and cover;
<bullet> Dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable (crumbly in
texture) soils for digging of nest cavities and for their swimming
movement;
<bullet> Ground cover such as leaf litter, debris, or tidal wrack
(for thermoregulation, food sources, cover from predators, and
breeding); and
<bullet> Arthropod and insect food sources (found within the ground
cover and wrack).
[[Page 58653]]
Florida key mole skink abundance, distribution, and life history
behaviors (nesting, breeding) are limited to (and defined by) the
availability of these resources in the areas of beach and dune, coastal
berm, rockland hammock, and pine rockland habitats. While ground cover
and insect food sources appear sufficient and occur in adequate
amounts, no ecological or quantitative studies have been completed on
these factors.
Threats
The main threats affecting the Florida Keys mole skink are related
to shifts in climate as a result of increasing greenhouse gas
emissions. Sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding (increase of
tides above the mean high tide), and increasing intensity of storm
events (such as hurricanes) are the predominant threats to the Florida
Keys mole skink and its habitat. Other threats to the Florida Keys mole
skink include habitat loss and degradation that result from development
and habitat disturbance. We also evaluated existing regulatory
mechanisms and ongoing conservation measures. In the SSA, we considered
additional threats: overutilization due to recreational, educational,
and scientific use; disease; and oil spills and nonnative species. We
concluded that, as indicated by the best available scientific and
commercial information that these additional threats are currently
having little to no impact on the Florida Keys mole skink, and thus
their overall effect now and into the future is expected to be minimal.
For full descriptions of all threats and how they impact the Florida
Keys mole skink, please see the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 31-51).
Climate Change
The predominant threat currently affecting the Florida Keys mole
skink and its habitat are the rapid and intense shifts in climate
occurring as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The
entire Florida Keys archipelago is being affected by sea level rise,
more frequent high tide flooding, and increased intensity of storm
events. In the SSA report and this proposed rule, we discuss the
effects of climate change on the Florida Keys mole skink in terms of
increasing sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding, and increased
intensity of storm events.
Sea level rise--Within Florida, sea level rise is increasing at a
faster rate than globally, making this species especially vulnerable to
impacts from sea level rise across its entire range (Carter et al.
2014, pp. 401-403; Park and Sweet 2015, entire; Sweet et al. 2017, p.
25). Accelerated sea level rise in Florida is attributed to shifts in
the Florida Current due to added ocean mass brought on by the melting
Antarctic and Greenland ice packs and thermal expansion from warming
oceans (Park and Sweet 2015, entire; Rahmstorf et al. 2015, entire;
Deconto and Pollard 2016, p. 596; Sweet et al. 2017, p. 14).
A majority of the Florida Keys are low-lying (average elevation
less than 4.0 feet (ft) (1.2 meters (m)) (Service 2020, p. 9), making
them highly susceptible to flooding, and at risk of inundation and
saltwater intrusion (Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) 2012, p. 12; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2017, n.p.). As sea
level rises, existing Florida Keys mole skink habitats will become
inundated and likely lost. As a result of sea level rise, higher tidal
surges, coastal and inland flooding, and saltwater intrusion can
further degrade and remove habitat (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 398-400,
403; Wadlow 2016, entire). Because the Florida Keys mole skink inhabits
low-lying islands, the species is especially vulnerable to sea level
rise across its entire range.
High Tide Flooding--One of the most noticeable impacts from sea
level rise is the increased frequency of high tide flooding (Sweet et
al. 2020, p. v). High tide flooding begins when coastal water levels
exceed the mean higher high-water level (increase of tides above the
mean high tide) (Sweet et al. 2014, entire). Frequent flooding above
the high tide line is likely to cause flooded areas to become unusable
to the Florida Keys mole skink (individuals cannot easily move through
wet sand; individuals or nests will be washed away). Even prior to sea
level rise inundation, Florida Keys mole skink habitats will likely
undergo vegetation shifts triggered by changes to hydrology (wetter),
salinity (higher), and more frequent storm surge and tidal flooding
(that can result in beach erosion and salinization of soils), even if
high tide or surge flooding is infrequent (Saha et al. 2011a, pp. 181-
182; Saha et al. 2011b, pp. 82-84; Sweet et al. 2020, pp. 1-4). If high
tide or surge flooding occurs frequently, habitat could be highly
degraded or eliminated prior to sea level rise inundation. Thus, high
tide flooding is likely to result in removal of habitat, displacement
of individuals landward to less suitable habitat, and loss of
individual Florida Keys mole skinks due to drowning.
Storm Events--Habitat for the Florida Keys mole skink can be
degraded or removed by extreme storm events such as hurricanes, storm
surges, and floods. Hurricane activity has been above normal since the
Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (the natural variability of the sea
surface temperature in the Atlantic Ocean) went into its warm phase
around 1992 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
2019, p. 1). Currently, while the incidence of tropical storms in
southeast Florida (including the Florida Keys) is above normal, this
frequency is expected to decrease with climate change, but the
intensity of the storms is expected to increase (Service 2017, p. 7).
The increased intensity could result in larger tidal storm surges,
flood events, and greater destruction than historically documented
(Service 2017, p. 7).
Information on impacts of hurricanes to the Florida Keys mole skink
and its habitat are lacking. However, there is information on impacts
to habitat from hurricanes and other strong storms that have occurred
in the region. In 2005, Hurricane Wilma (Category 3) passed just north
of the Florida Keys causing maximum storm tides 5.0 ft to 6.0 ft (1.5 m
to 1.8 m) above mean sea level in Key West and flooding in
approximately 60 percent of the city, causing severe beach erosion
(Kasper 2007, p. 6). On Boca Chica and Big Pine Key, Hurricane Wilma
caused a storm surge of 5.0 ft to 8.0 ft (1.5 m to 2.4 m) (Kasper 2007,
p. 9).
In September of 2017, Hurricane Irma (Category 4) caused a storm
surge of up to 7.8 ft (2.4 m) in the Lower Keys and Middle Keys (NOAA
2018, pp. 3-4). Hurricane Irma altered whole dune ecosystems, removing
sand, vegetation, and litter from these areas via wind and storm surge
forces and uprooting many of the maritime hammock ecosystems (Emerick
2017b, p. 6). After Hurricane Irma, Florida Keys mole skink surveys
found low numbers of skinks on Sawyer Key in 2018, Content Key in 2020,
Big Pine Key in 2018, and Long Key in 2018 (Zambrano 2021, pers.
comm.). However, we do not have survey data from before Hurricane Irma
to compare how numbers of Florida mole skinks may have changed as a
result of the hurricane.
Documented effects to habitat from past storm events can provide
insight into the potential damage and loss to the Florida Keys mole
skink habitat from future events. These storm events likely disturb and
reduce the quantity and quality of Florida Keys mole skink resources
(food, cover, nesting habitat), and such impacts may be significant
depending upon the severity and proximity of the storm center.
Conversely, when storms are not too destructive, vegetative material
can be
[[Page 58654]]
deposited in localized areas high on the beach and ultimately provide
habitat and increased insect food sources for skinks.
The severity and duration of hurricane impacts to the Florida Keys
mole skink and its habitat vary based on the intensity and scale of
storm events. Localized impacts can vary greatly depending upon not
only the strength of the storm but the direction of its approach and
how quickly it moves through the area. Storm surges and their intensity
can also vary depending on location. The heavy inundation and even
complete overwash of some islands during hurricanes may explain the
lack of Florida Keys mole skinks detected during post-storm surveys,
even when an island has recovered and again contains high-quality
suitable habitat. For example, Ohio Key was surveyed between 2015 and
2017, and despite available high-quality suitable habitat and numerous
searches, no Florida Keys mole skinks have been located on this island
(Emerick 2017b, pers. comm.). However, we do not know if Ohio Key had
Florida Keys mole skinks prior to these storm events, so it's possible
that although the island contains suitable habitat, Florida Keys mole
skinks were not present on the island. Heavy rainstorms, tropical
storms, and hurricanes are part of this tropical island system. Over
time, higher intensity storms may be a factor reducing the Florida Keys
mole skink populations and thereby reducing overall population
resiliency and the species' redundancy.
In summary, impacts from climate change have the potential to
reduce survival of Florida Keys mole skink at the individual,
population, and species level. Sea level rise can degrade existing
habitat that supports the Florida Keys mole skink, reducing the habitat
features the species needs, and thus reducing population resiliency.
Increased high tide flooding and increased intensity of storm events
have the potential to further degrade Florida Keys mole skink habitat.
Increased high tide flooding and storm events also have the potential
to kill skinks directly or to reduce individual survival, which could
then lead to a reduction in population resiliency and the species'
redundancy. An increase in the intensity and frequency of storms or a
direct hit from a strong hurricane could significantly reduce species
abundance (reducing population resiliency), and potentially extirpate
populations (limiting redundancy), making the Florida Keys mole skink
more vulnerable to all other threats. There are no regulatory
mechanisms or conservation measures that address the impacts of sea
level rise, high tide flooding, or increased intensity of storm events.
Development
Within the Florida Keys, human population growth and development
has occurred at a high rate and much of the land available for
development has been developed (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 15; Carr and
Zwick 2016, entire). The April 2020 human population census of Monroe
County, Florida, was 82,874 individuals (U.S. Census Bureau 2021,
n.p.), which is already higher than the 2060 population estimate of
77,038 individuals (Carr and Zwick 2016, p. 28). An assessment of
climate change on the Florida Keys assumed that the human population is
directly related to remaining land area (Hoegh-Guldberg 2010, p. 14).
Consequently, as land area is further reduced due to coastal flooding,
erosion, and sea level rise, the human population in the Florida Keys
is expected to decline in order to accommodate the loss of land and
consequential negative effects on property values and the economy
(Zhang et al. 2011, pp. 9-17; Hino et al. 2017, entire).
The Florida Keys were designated as an Area of Critical State
Concern in 1974 by the Florida Legislature (Sec. 380.0552 Florida
Statutes) and local ordinances have been adopted to control development
growth based on the Florida Keys' carrying capacity related to
hurricane evacuation clearance time and to protect the natural
environment (FDEO 2020, p. 1). A rate of growth ordinance has been
adopted by Monroe County (MC-LDC Chapter 138) and building permit
allocation system ordinances have been adopted by the municipalities
within the Florida Keys: City of Key West (KW--Code of Ordinances Ch.
108, Art. X), Village of Islamorada (Islamorada--Code of Ordinances
Chapter 30, Art. IV, Div. 11), City of Marathon (CM-LDC Chapter 107,
Art. 1). These ordinances were adopted in order to provide for the
safety of residents in the event of a hurricane evacuation, to protect
the significant natural resources, and to acquire environmentally
sensitive lands as guided by the State of Florida's Area of Critical
State Concern designation. These ordinances guide new development
toward areas with infrastructure and away from flood zones and
environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat for threatened or
endangered species. It is projected that carrying capacity will be
reached in 2023 within the municipalities (FDEO 2020, p. 4) and 2026 in
the unincorporated Monroe County (MCCPLA 2020, p. 8) and at such a time
new building permits will no longer be issued as dictated by the State
of Florida's Area of Critical State Concern designation.
Although much of the Florida Keys has been developed, land
development ordinances are in place to guide the remaining new
development away from environmentally sensitive areas, and land
acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands are ongoing. We project
new development will not pose a substantive threat to the Florida Keys
mole skink. However, as they inhabit the same beaches, coastal berm,
and hammock habitat that is desirable for residential and commercial
development, activities related to conversion of remaining beach and
coastal hammock habitat for new development and redevelopment can
impact all of the Florida Keys mole skink's life stages.
In addition to direct impacts from loss of habitat, disturbance to
these habitats can reduce groundcover that provides shelter and
supports food resources. Additionally, loss of habitat connectivity can
impact the Florida Keys mole skink's ability to find mates and disperse
to new locations. Roads and human-made structures fragment habitat and
Florida Keys mole skink populations, leading to a reduction in
population health (resiliency) and genetic differentiation
(representation) (Jochimsen et al. 2004, p. 40). Although past
development activities have reduced Florida Keys mole skink habitat,
individual skinks show some tolerance to habitat alteration and have
been documented in developed areas (Mays and Enge 2016, p. 10; Emerick
2017a pers. comm.).
The effects of development have the potential to continue to reduce
habitat and individual survival of Florida Keys mole skink and,
therefore, may decrease population resiliency. Resiliency may be
further reduced due to loss of habitat connectivity and a decrease of
dispersal of individuals within populations as habitat becomes
fragmented.
Habitat Disturbance From Recreational Activities
The Florida Keys are well known for their outdoor recreational
activities, particularly waterfront and beachfront activities, which
directly overlap with the habitats used by Florida Keys mole skinks.
Hiking, camping, beach combing, and other activities in beach and dune,
coastal berm, rockland hammock, and pine rockland habitats can cause
direct disturbances to behavior and habitat of Florida Keys mole skink.
Beach cleaning directly
[[Page 58655]]
removes wrack and vegetative material that act as shelter and a food
resource for the Florida Keys mole skink. The behaviors (feeding,
movement, and nesting) of individual skinks are likely disturbed by
beach and inland recreational activities.
Increased road traffic is a direct consequence of visitors and
tourists as is the need for parking. Off-road parking sites, gravel
lots, and boat trailer parking can disturb the dry soils and other
areas used by Florida Keys mole skinks. Smaller off-road vehicles and
golf carts are also sometimes used in communities to get around
locally. These small vehicles use non-paved areas that can displace,
disturb, or cause direct mortality of individual skinks.
Summary of Threats
The primary threats impacting the Florida Keys mole skink and its
habitat are related to climate change, specifically sea level rise,
increased high tide flooding, and increased intensity of storm events.
The effects of sea level rise, increased high tide flooding, and an
increased intensity of storm events can degrade existing habitat that
supports the Florida Keys mole skink, leading to reductions in the
features that the species needs, and thus to population resiliency. The
effects of sea level rise, increased high tide flooding, and an
increased intensity of storm events are primarily habitat based, but
some individual skinks could also be lost during high tide floods or
large storms. Ongoing habitat degradation and loss associated with
development and recreational activities will also continue to reduce
available habitat for Florida Keys mole skink, thus decreasing
population resiliency.
Even minor threats that impact just a few individuals in a
population need to be considered for their additive effects. For
example, threats such as collection, disease, pesticides, oil spills,
and nonnative species may have low impacts on their own, but combined
with impacts of other threats, they could further reduce the relatively
low numbers of Florida Keys mole skinks. These minor threats
(collection, disease, pesticides, oil spills, and nonnative species)
were considered cumulatively for their effects to the Florida Keys mole
skink, and, while they may reduce the numbers for some individual
populations, we currently do not consider these minor threats to have
negative effects at the population level (Service 2022, pp. 36-39).
The severity of threats may also be exacerbated by the Florida Keys
mole skink's limited distribution. Currently, the existing regulatory
mechanisms are not adequate to address the threats to the Florida Keys
mole skink from sea level rise, high tide flooding, and increased
intensity of storm events. However, regulatory mechanisms that address
development or recreational activities provide some protections and
conservation lands that overlap with some Florida Keys mole skink
habitat provide a conservation benefit to the species (see Conservation
Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below).
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
State Protections
The Florida Keys mole skink species was State listed as threatened
by Florida in 1974 but was changed to a State of Florida species of
concern in 1978. In 2010, after a species status review by the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the Florida Keys mole
skink was again found warranted for listing as a State threatened
species. A Florida Keys Mole Skink State Action Plan was developed in
2013 (FWC 2013, entire). The goal of the plan is to secure the Florida
Keys mole skink within its historical range (FWC 2013, pp. 8-19).
As a threatened species under State law, intentional take and some
forms of incidental take of the Florida Keys mole skink are prohibited.
The FWC lists several measures to avoid and minimize take during
development and habitat management activities, including avoiding and
minimizing impacts to coastal strand, coastal dune, pine rockland, and
tropical hardwood hammock habitats within the range of the Florida Keys
mole skink (FWC 2016, p. 5). Specifically, these measures recommend
avoiding the removal of microhabitat features and the prevention of
activities that cause soil compaction. Some of these land management
activities may be beneficial (e.g., beach habitat restoration
activities) to the long-term quality of the natural habitats for the
Florida Keys mole skink but can also result in local disturbance or
direct mortality of individual skinks.
The Florida Coastal Management Plan designates the Florida Keys as
an Area of Critical Concern (FDEP 2014, p. 25). Through the Florida
Forever program (and the previous State of Florida Conservation and
Recreation Lands and Preservation 2000 Programs), the Monroe County
Land Authority and the State of Florida have purchased 5,205 ha (12,862
ac) of Florida Keys land for the protection of natural resources
(Florida Department of Economic Opportunity 2020, p. 1, and FDEP 2020,
pp. 199, 289). The protection of these lands from development provides
direct and indirect conservation benefits for the Florida Keys mole
skink.
Several local government plans provide conservation actions for the
benefit of the Florida Keys mole skink or provide indirect conservation
benefits to the species. The Village of Islamorada, the City of
Marathon, Monroe County, and the City of Key West also have
comprehensive plans that incorporate native habitat and species
protections, although they do not mention the Florida Keys mole skink
specifically (City of Marathon 2013, entire; City of Key West, 2013,
entire; Monroe County 2016a, entire; Village of Islamorada 2017,
entire).
The Florida Keys mole skink also occurs within numerous State
Parks, including Zachary Taylor State Park (Key West), the Florida Keys
Overseas Heritage Trail (Key West, Big Pine Key, Vaca Key, Long Key,
Lower Matecumbe Key, Key Largo), Bahia Honda State Park (Bahia Honda
Key), Long Key State Park (Long Key), Lignumvitae Key Botanical State
Park (Lower Matecumbe Key), John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park (Key
Largo), and Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park (Key
Largo). Active management of these State Parks provides indirect
benefits to the Florida Keys mole skinks by protecting and providing
habitat through management of beach restoration and nourishment and
providing nonnative plant and animal control.
National Wildlife Refuges and National Park Service Lands
The Florida Keys mole skink occurs within multiple National
Wildlife
[[Page 58656]]
Refuges including the National Key Deer Refuge on Content Key and Big
Pine Key, the Key West National Wildlife Refuge on Marquesas Key and
Boca Grande Key, the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge on Key
Largo, and the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge on Sawyer Key
and Content Key. The Florida Keys mole skink also occurs within Dry
Tortugas National Park on Loggerhead Key in the Dry Tortugas. Specific
management or conservation objectives for the Florida Keys mole skink
are not identified in the management plans for these National Wildlife
Refuges and National Park Service Lands; however, ongoing management
activities including habitat restoration and nonnative species control
provide benefits to the Florida Keys mole skink and its habitat.
Department of Defense Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans
The Sikes Act Improvement Act (1997) led to Department of Defense
(DoD) guidance regarding development of Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plans (INRMPs) for promoting environmental conservation on
military installations. There are occurrence records of Florida Keys
mole skink on lands owned and managed by the DoD as part of the Naval
Air Station Key West, on Boca Chica and Key West. The Naval Air Station
Key West has a current and completed INRMP, covering land owned by the
DoD on Boca Chica Key and Key West (Department of the Navy 2020).
Though the Florida Keys mole skink is not specifically mentioned, the
INRMP provides conservation and habitat management measures applicable
to the species.
Current Condition
For the purposes of this assessment, we divided the Florida Keys
into four geographically representative units including the Upper Keys,
Middle Keys, Lower Keys, and Distal Sand Keys. The average elevation
for the Upper Keys is 4.8 ft (1.5 m); for the Middle Keys, is 4.29 ft
(1.3 m); and for the Lower Keys, is 3.17 ft (1.0 m) (Monroe County
2022b, p. 1). The Distal Sand Keys are low-lying (average less than 4.0
ft (1.2 m)) sand islands and mangrove islands with the exception of
Loggerhead Key, which has a peak elevation of 10.0 ft (3.0 m) (Monroe
County 2022b, p. 1). Range-wide, the majority of islands within the
Florida Keys are low-lying with an average elevation less than 4.0 ft
(1.2 m) (Service 2020, p. 9).
The current condition of the Florida Keys mole skink is described
in terms of population resiliency, redundancy, and representation
across the species. The analysis of these conservation principles to
understand the species' current viability is described in more detail
in the Florida Keys mole skink SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 43-51).
Resiliency
Islands contain genetically distinct lineages of the Florida Keys
mole skink species (Mercier 2018, pp. 18-21). Thus, in order to analyze
the species' resiliency, we delineated populations of Florida Keys mole
skink by islands, where all detections on the same island represent a
population (or groups of interbreeding individuals). We considered Key
Largo to represent two different populations, based on the length of
the island and distance between detection locations (greater than 4 mi
(6.4 km)). Therefore, for our assessment of population resiliency, we
considered everything north of U.S. Route 1 as the North Key Largo
population and everything south of U.S. Route 1 as the Key Largo
population.
Due to the semi-fossorial and cryptic nature of the Florida Keys
mole skink, abundance data are lacking, and no population trend data
exist for this species. There are also no data available regarding the
population structure or demographics of the Florida Keys mole skink.
Therefore, we assessed resiliency based on the number of individuals
detected on an island (multiple individuals indicates a larger
population), and the number of locations within an area (greater than
328 ft (100 m) apart) where individual Florida Keys mole skinks were
observed (table 1). We chose the 328 ft (100 m) distance based on the
estimated dispersal distance of individuals within other skink
populations (Gianopulos 2001, p. 81; Mushinsky et al. 2001, p. 54;
McCoy et al. 2020, p. 8; table 1).
Table 1--Metrics Used for Population Resiliency Classifications for the Florida Keys Mole Skink
[For current populations, the number of individuals detected and the number of locations (>100 meters apart)
factor into whether the population is considered to have a low, moderate, high, or very high current
resiliency.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of individuals Locations (>100 meters
Last detection detected apart) Resiliency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before 1970:
Historical..................... ...................... ...................... Unknown.*
1970-1999:
Recent......................... ...................... ...................... Unknown.*
2000-2021:
Current........................ 1..................... 1..................... Low.
>1 and <=10........... 1 or >1............... Moderate.
>10................... 1..................... Moderate.
>10................... >1.................... High.
>50................... >1.................... Very high.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For historical and recent populations, we do not have survey data to indicate current status of these
populations and therefore consider the status to be unknown.
Florida Keys mole skinks have been documented on 23 islands
throughout the Florida Keys. Four populations are considered historical
(no detections since 1970), five are considered relatively recent
(skinks were detected between 1970 and 1999), and 15 are considered
current (skinks were detected between 2000 and 2021). Of the 15 current
populations, 2 are in the Upper Keys, 3 are in the Middle Keys, 8 are
in the Lower Keys, and 2 are in the Distal Sand Keys (table 2). Based
on the parameters outlined above (table 1), one current population is
considered to have very high resiliency and two current populations are
considered to have high resiliency. Six current populations are
determined to be moderately resilient, and six current populations are
considered to have low resiliency (Service 2022, pp. 46-47; table 2).
[[Page 58657]]
Table 2--Resiliency Classifications for the 15 Current Populations of
Florida Keys Mole Skink
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Island Resiliency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Keys.................... Lower Matecumbe Low.
Key. Moderate.
Key Largo........
Middle Keys................... Boot Key......... Moderate
Vaca Key......... Low.
Long Key......... Low.
Lower Keys.................... Key West......... Low.
Boca Chica Key... Moderate.
Sawyer Key....... High.
Content Keys..... Moderate.
Big Munson Island Moderate.
Cook's Island.... Low.
Big Pine Key..... Very High.
Bahia Honda Key.. High.
Distal Sand Keys.............. Marquesas Key.... Low.
Boca Grande Key.. Moderate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redundancy
Redundancy reduces the species' extinction risk if a portion of the
species' range is negatively affected by a natural or anthropogenic
catastrophic disturbance. In the Florida Keys, tropical storms and
hurricanes are regular and common events. However, catastrophic events
may include particularly strong or intense hurricanes or storms and the
resulting winds, waves, and storm surges associated with these events.
Increased frequency of such storms associated with climate change could
further reduce the ability of Florida Keys mole skink populations to
recover and could cause catastrophic impact to the species.
For the Florida Keys mole skink to withstand catastrophic events
such as hurricanes, it needs to have multiple, sufficiently resilient
populations across its range. Of the 15 currently known populations of
Florida Keys mole skink, only one population is considered to have very
high resiliency, two populations are considered to have high
resiliency, and all three of these populations are found on islands in
the Lower Keys (table 2). Although all three high-resiliency
populations are found within the Lower Keys, some redundancy is
provided by the fact that at least one moderate-resiliency population
is located in each of the other three regions (table 2).
Representation
Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to
changing environmental conditions and is measured by the breadth of
genetic or environmental diversity within and among populations.
Overall, the genetic and environmental diversity of the Florida Keys
mole skink is low, with no sign of morphological or behavioral
differences between skinks on different islands (Branch et al. 2003,
pp. 202-205; Technical Team Working Group 2016, pers. comm.; Mercier
2017, pers. comm.).
The species occurs on several islands across a narrow geographic
and ecological range; there is little variation in habitat types across
distance or elevation as occurs in wider ranging and more abundant
species. The entire species is represented within the same tropical
system. The amount of coastal sandy substrate and hammock habitat is
limited and distributed in patches throughout the Florida Keys. The
Florida Keys mole skink does not occur across different ecotones and
does not have access to different ecotones or systems in which to
adapt. However, within the narrow ecological range in which Florida
Keys mole skink occurs, there are some differences in the substrates
and habitat types available, specifically between the Upper Keys and
Lower Keys regions. Given these factors, we consider overall
representation of the Florida Keys mole skink to be relatively low.
Future Condition
Climate change impacts related to sea level rise, increased high
tide flooding, and increased storm intensity are the primary threats to
the Florida Keys mole skink. Development can also have significant
impacts on the Florida Keys mole skink and its habitat, but because
most land available for development has already been developed, we did
not include development in our future scenarios (see above section
``Development'' and Service 2022, p. 52).
As sea level rises, Florida Keys mole skink habitats will become
inundated and lost. While conditions may allow some beaches to migrate
upslope, sea level rise will most likely lead to an overall loss of
beach habitats due to inundation. In addition to sea level rise, the
Florida Keys mole skink may be affected by increased high tide flooding
and increased intensity of storm events (stronger hurricanes and
stronger storm surges), which are projected to increase in frequency
and intensity and thus exacerbate habitat loss and degradation.
For our evaluation of future condition, we used modeled projections
of sea level rise (Sweet et al. 2017, pp. 11-13) and high tide flooding
(Sweet et al. 2018, entire). We modeled threats for years 2040 and 2060
(approximately 20 years and 40 years) into the future. This timeframe
was chosen to capture sea level rise estimates before the sea level
rise scenarios begin to diverge significantly due to uncertainty of the
future of human carbon emissions (Sweet et al. 2017, pp. 11-13).
Additionally, we focused on changes that are expected within the next
40 years, because Florida Keys mole skink habitat is forecasted to be
largely inundated by sea level rise in the Florida Keys beyond 2060
(Service 2022, appendix D; table 3). A detailed estimate of Florida
Keys mole skink future conditions for later timeframes (up to 2100) is
provided in the SSA report (Service 2022, appendix D).
For our sea level rise predictions, we used a suite of scenarios
that describe the bounds of a range of plausible future conditions
(intermediate, intermediate-high, high, and extreme), which are aligned
with emissions-based, conditional probabilistic and global model
projections of mean sea level rise (Sweet et al. 2017, pp. 11-13). We
used the nearest local scenarios for specific sea level rise height
values within the Florida Keys. Future sea level rise projections
account for normal high tides (mean high tide for a given local
station) (Sweet et al. 2017, entire; NOAA 2017, entire). In addition to
normal high tides, minor, moderate, and
[[Page 58658]]
major flood events are also projected to increase in the future (Sweet
et al. 2018, entire). Minor high tide flooding is defined as more
disruptive than damaging and currently can be expected about 2 days per
year (Sweet et al. 2018, p. 11). Minor high tide flooding is likely to
increase to 7 to 15 days per year by 2030, and to 25 to 75 days per
year by 2050, with much higher rates in many coastal locations,
including much of coastal Florida and the Florida Keys (Sweet et al.
2017, p. 37; Sweet et al. 2020, pp. v-vi). To account for minor high
tide flooding events in the future, we included minor high tide
flooding threshold values from local gauges in the Florida Keys.
Detailed descriptions of sea level rise and high tide flooding data are
available in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 25-27).
Due to repeated habitat disturbance, we assume areas where high
tide flooding occurs to have negative impacts on Florida Keys mole
skink habitat and consider these areas to be degraded to the point of
no longer representing suitable habitat. Repeated high tide flooding
events are likely to degrade habitat (by moving the wrack line,
rendering habitat unsuitable until waters recede) even before sea level
is high enough to inundate habitat. Repeated habitat disturbance by
high tide flooding also reduces the chance for an area to become
repopulated by skinks following disturbance. While moderate and major
high tide floods may degrade and remove habitat, it is less certain
whether these floods will be frequent enough to render habitat
unusable.
Habitat Impacts
To assess the amount of Florida Keys mole skink habitat that would
be lost or degraded due to sea level rise and high tide flooding for
years 2040 and 2060, we evaluated the total potential habitat for each
island with a current, recent, or historical population. Since Florida
Keys mole skink have been documented in habitats away from the beach,
we included all island habitat as potential habitat. Thus, total
potential habitat was calculated as the entire island area subtracting
areas not considered to be suitable habitat for Florida Keys mole
skink, including freshwater, water, and impervious cover areas (Monroe
County 2016b, entire). For each foot of sea level rise, plus the
effects of high tide flooding, we calculated the percent area that
would be inundated or degraded for each island with a current, recent,
or historical population. We provide detailed descriptions of our
methods in the SSA report, and we also provide calculations for some
islands with data available for preferred habitats (including beach
berm, coastal hammock, and preferred soils) (Monroe County 2016b,
entire; Service 2022, pp. 59-60; appendix D).
Table 3--Current Amount and Percentage of Potential Habitat Loss for Florida Keys Mole Skinks by 2040 and 2060 for Each 1-Foot Change in Sea Level Rise
[These metrics are provided for individual populations on islands with a current (Years 2000-2021), recent (1970-1999), or historical (before 1970)
population. Total percent lost includes habitat lost due to sea level rise and high tide flooding.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2040 2060
Current ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population amount of Percent of potential habitat Percent of potential habitat lost per
Region Island status habitat lost per change in sea level change in sea level
(acres) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 ft 3 ft 4 ft 3 ft 4 ft 5 ft 6 ft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Keys................... Lower Matecumbe Current........ 866.3 43 69 90 69 90 98 99
Key.
Indian Key...... Historical..... 11.3 24 34 45 34 45 56 68
Upper Matecumbe Historical..... 903.6 47 55 65 55 65 72 78
Key.
Plantation Key.. Recent......... 1,751.0 37 48 63 48 63 73 80
Key Largo....... Current........ 14,591.0 71 77 80 77 80 84 87
North Key Largo. Recent......... 6,548.0 59 66 73 66 73 80 85
Middle Keys.................. Boot Key........ Current........ 795.4 95 98 99 98 99 100 100
Vaca Key........ Current........ 797.9 29 54 78 54 78 91 97
Grassy Key...... Historical..... 619.2 60 77 90 77 90 98 99
Long Key........ Current........ 1,114.1 82 90 97 90 97 98 99
Lower Keys................... Key West........ Current........ 3,200.0 25 51 70 51 70 82 90
Boca Chica...... Current........ 3,790.5 76 89 95 89 95 98 99
Sawyer Key...... Current........ 111.1 97 99 100 99 100 100 100
Content Key..... Current........ 166.3 98 99 100 99 100 100 100
Big Munson...... Current........ 128.0 93 96 99 96 99 100 100
Cook's Island... Current........ 61.2 89 92 95 92 95 98 100
Middle Torch.... Recent......... 758.8 83 97 100 97 100 100 100
Big Pine........ Current........ 5,482.7 60 84 94 84 94 99 100
Scout Key....... Recent......... 91.6 58 74 81 74 81 86 88
Bahia Honda Key. Current........ 351.3 78 86 90 86 90 93 96
Distal Sand Keys............. Loggerhead Key.. Historical..... 53.8 18 23 28 23 28 35 47
Marquesas Key... Current........ 1,696.8 84 94 100 94 100 100 100
Boca Grande Key. Current........ 212.5 80 90 100 90 100 100 100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ................ ............... 44,102.4 61 72 80 72 80 85 88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2040 Projected Habitat Loss--Under the 2040 scenario, sea level
rise and the effects of high tide flooding (hereafter referred to as
just sea level rise), is projected to be between 2.0 ft and 4.0 ft (0.7
m and 1.2 m) above the current mean high water line (table 3). Greatest
impacts from sea level rise are projected within the Lower Keys, where
the majority of the current populations are found; even under the
lowest scenario of 2.0-ft (0.7-m) sea level rise, 9 of the 10 islands
are projected to lose over half their potential habitat, which would
include the loss of all current populations on those islands.
2060 Projected Habitat Loss--Under the 2060 scenario, sea level
rise is projected to be between 3.0 ft (0.9 m) and 6.0 ft (1.8 m) above
the current mean high water line, throughout the Florida Keys (table
3). The Upper Keys (where most of the historical and recent populations
are located) are projected to have the least impacts from sea level
rise, whereas the Lower Keys, and the current populations in that
region, are projected to experience the greatest impacts from sea level
rise (table 3).
[[Page 58659]]
Resiliency
We assessed future resiliency, by evaluating the magnitude of sea
level rise impacts on current populations of Florida Keys mole skink
and their habitat. We also evaluated future resiliency for islands with
recent and historical populations to assess how sea level rise impacts
may affect areas where skinks have been located in the past. For many
of the recent and historical populations, follow up survey data are
lacking and it is possible that skinks still exist on these islands.
We quantified the magnitude of change in population resiliency
based on the percent of potential habitat that is projected to be lost
or degraded by sea level rise. We used the percent of total potential
habitat (usable land) to be impacted by sea level rise (lost and
degraded) and based our resiliency assessment on those values. We
represented the magnitude of a predicted change in resiliency where
greater than 10 percent, but less than or equal to 50 percent,
represents a slight decrease in resiliency; greater than 50 percent,
but less than or equal to 75 percent, represents a moderate decrease;
where greater than 75 percent, but less than or equal to 90 percent,
represents a large decrease; and greater than 90 percent decrease
represents the possibility of extirpation--as little or no unaltered
habitat remains. In the SSA report, we provide these values for all
populations up to 10.0 ft (3.0 m) sea level rise (Service 2022,
appendix D).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 58660]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE22.020
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
By 2040, three of the six populations with moderate resiliency and
one of two populations with high resiliency are projected to be
extirpated, even under the lowest sea level rise scenario of 2.0 ft
(0.7 m). Under the highest sea level
[[Page 58661]]
rise scenario of 4.0 ft (1.2 m) in 2040, 12 of the 15 current
populations of Florida Keys mole skink are projected to be extirpated,
including Big Pine Key, the only current population with very high
resiliency. However, because much of Big Pine Key population is located
in one area, resiliency may be affected more than projected under lower
sea level rise scenarios. For example, with just 2.0-ft (0.7-m) sea
level rise, much of the exposed land on Big Pine Key is projected to be
inundated, leaving only a narrow strip of beach where current Florida
Keys mole skink detections occur (Service 2020, p. 17).
Given the projected effects of sea level rise, we expect resiliency
for all populations to decrease in the future, with the greatest
impacts projected in the Lower Keys and Middle Keys, where most of the
moderate or highly resilient populations currently occur. The most
significant impacts of sea level rise are expected in 2040 with a
projected 4.0 ft (1.2 m) sea level rise. Under the 4.0 ft (1.2 m) sea
level rise scenario, one of the two current populations in the Upper
Keys is projected to be extirpated, two of the three current
populations in the Middle Keys are projected to be extirpated, 9 of the
10 current populations in the Lower Keys are projected to be
extirpated, and both current populations in the Distal Sand Keys are
projected to be extirpated (table 3). Thus, by 2040, no current
populations in the Distal Sand Keys are projected to remain, and only
one population in each of the other regions (Upper Keys, Middle Keys,
Lower Keys) is projected to remain with a 4.0 ft (1.2 m) sea level
rise.
Many islands with recent and historical populations, especially in
the Upper Keys, are projected to be less impacted by sea level rise.
Under the two highest sea level rise scenarios of 5.0 ft (1.5 m) and
6.0 ft (1.8 m) in 2060, six of the eight recent and historical
populations are projected to have remaining Florida Keys mole skink
habitat (table 3). However, many of the recent and historical
populations have not been surveyed since original detections were
reported; thus, even if suitable habitat remains, it is unknown if
Florida Keys mole skinks still exist on these islands.
Redundancy
Redundancy is typically measured by the number and distribution of
sufficiently resilient populations across a species' range. Of the 15
current populations of Florida Keys mole skink, only one population is
considered to have very high resiliency, and two populations are
considered to have high resiliency. All three of these populations are
located in the Lower Keys, an area that is expected to have some of the
greatest impacts from sea level rise. Additionally, at the lowest sea
level rise estimate of 2.0 ft (0.7 m), all islands with moderate and
high resiliency populations are expected to lose substantial habitat,
rangewide (table 3). Because the Florida Keys mole skink is endemic to
the Florida Keys, losing even a few populations to the effects of sea
level rise would result in a significant reduction in redundancy. With
the projected loss of a substantial amount of habitat by 2040, and a
loss of nearly all potential habitat in the Middle Keys, Lower Keys,
and Distal Sand Keys by 2060, redundancy for the species is expected to
be severely reduced.
With the continued loss or degradation to Florida Keys mole skink
habitat, we expect loss of island populations, thereby further reducing
the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events such as
hurricanes.
Representation
The four representative regions (Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower
Keys, and Distal Sand Keys) are at risk of losing some or all of their
Florida Keys mole skink populations. The ability of the Florida Keys
mole skink to adapt to changing environmental conditions is limited.
The reduction in Florida Keys mole skink habitat will lead to fewer
individuals and populations throughout the species' range. Because
there is little interbreeding among populations, genetic
differentiation will likely be lost each time a population is lost.
Therefore, we expect representation of the Florida Keys mole skink to
decrease in the future.
Determination of Florida Keys Mole Skink Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human-made factors affecting its
continued existence.
We presented summary evaluations of the primary threats analyzed in
the SSA including development (Factor A) and climate change,
specifically sea level rise, increased high tide flooding, and
increased intensity of storm events (Factor E). We also evaluated
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and ongoing conservation
measures. In the SSA, we also considered additional threats:
overutilization due to recreational, educational, and scientific use
(Factor B); disease (Factor C); and oil spills and nonnative species
(Factor E). We concluded that, as indicated by the best available
scientific and commercial information, that these minor threats
currently have little to no impact on Florida Keys mole skink and their
habitat, and thus their overall effect now and into the future is
expected to be minimal. However, we consider each of these minor
threats in the determination for the species, because although minor
threats may have low impacts on their own, combined with impacts of
other threats, they could further reduce the already low number of
Florida Keys mole skinks.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
found that impacts from climate change present the most substantial
threat to the Florida Keys mole skink's viability. In the foreseeable
future, we anticipate that threats associated with climate change,
specifically sea level rise, high tide flooding, and storm events will
continue to increase in magnitude and have the greatest influence on
Florida Keys mole skink viability. Sea level rise will continue to
result in the inundation and loss of habitat. More frequent and intense
high tide flooding and storm events will accelerate habitat loss, may
kill individual skinks, and will reduce overall population resiliency.
Acting together, these threats will cause irreversible habitat
degradation and loss. We also considered the effects of development,
habitat disturbance, and minor threats including overutilization due to
recreational, educational, and scientific use, disease, oil spills, and
nonnative species for their cumulative effects.
[[Page 58662]]
The Florida Keys mole skink has a current resiliency characterized
by one population with very high resiliency, two populations with high
resiliency, six populations with moderate resiliency, and six
populations with low resiliency. Although all high-resiliency
populations are found in the Lower Keys region, at least one moderate-
resiliency population is found in each of the other three regions.
Accordingly, given its current resiliency and redundancy across its
range, we conclude that the Florida Keys mole skink is not currently in
danger of extinction throughout its range.
We next considered whether the species is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range. In considering the foreseeable future for the Florida Keys
mole skink, we analyzed expected changes in sea level rise and high
tide flooding from 2040 to 2100 (Service 2022, pp. 52-63). That said,
we focused on changes that are expected within the next 40 years (year
2060), because almost all of Florida Keys mole skink habitat in the
Florida Keys is forecasted to be lost by 2060. We determined that this
timeframe represents a period for which we can reliably predict both
the threats to the species and the species' response to those threats.
By 2040, populations of Florida Keys mole skink may begin
experiencing significant losses under the lowest scenario of 2.0-ft
(0.7-m) sea level rise. One population with high resiliency and three
of the six Florida Keys mole skink populations with moderate resiliency
are projected to be extirpated by 2040, even under the lowest sea level
rise scenario (2.0 ft (0.7 m)). Big Pine Key, the only population that
currently has very high resiliency, is projected to be extirpated by
2040, under a projected 4.0-ft (1.2-m) sea level rise. In total, 12 of
the 15 current populations of Florida Keys mole skink are projected to
be extirpated by 2040, with significant habitat loss projected for
islands with remaining populations.
After assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the Florida Keys mole skink is not currently in danger of extinction
but is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. Overall, the species currently
exhibits some population resiliency and redundancy, and representation
is considered naturally low. Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we determined that the Florida Keys mole skink is not
currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. However,
after assessing all the same threats for future condition, we
determined that habitat loss and degradation resulting from sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and increased intensity of storm events will
affect the Florida Keys mole skink within the foreseeable future, such
that the species is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435
F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the aspect of the Final
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy) (79 FR 37578; July
1, 2014) that provided if the Services determine that a species is
threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze
whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the
species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In
undertaking this analysis for the Florida Keys mole skink, we choose to
address the status question first--we consider information pertaining
to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that
the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the
species is endangered.
We evaluated the range of the Florida Keys mole skink to determine
if the species is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its
range.The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of
the species' range that may meet the definition of an endangered
species. For the Florida Keys mole skink, we considered whether the
threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically
meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such
that the species is in danger of extinction now in that portion.
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a
threatened species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, we considered
the time horizon for the threats that are driving the Florida Keys mole
skink to warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of its
range. We examined the following threats: climate change (including sea
level rise, increased high tide flooding, and increased storm events),
development, habitat disturbance, overutilization due to recreational,
educational, and scientific use, disease, oil spills, and nonnative
species, as well as cumulative effects of those threats. As discussed
in our rangewide analysis, sea level rise, increased high tide
flooding, and increased intensity of storm events are the primary
threats to the Florida Keys mole skink in the future. We also
considered development, habitat disturbance, and overutilization due to
recreational, educational, and scientific use, disease, oil spills, and
nonnative species for their cumulative effects. We then considered
whether these threats or their effects are currently occurring (or may
imminently occur) in any portion of the species' range with sufficient
magnitude such that the species is in danger of extinction now in that
portion of its range.
Multiple populations currently exist in each region of the Florida
Keys mole skink's current range, with at least one moderately resilient
population in each region. The Florida Keys mole skink has a current
resiliency characterized by one population with very high resiliency,
two populations with high resiliency, six populations with moderate
resiliency, and six populations with low resiliency. Although all high
resiliency populations are found in the Lower Keys region, at least one
moderate resiliency population is found in each of the other three
regions. Given the low elevation of islands in the Florida Keys, all
populations across the range are anticipated to experience effects from
[[Page 58663]]
climate change in the foreseeable future. Additionally, development,
habitat disturbance and overutilization due to recreational,
educational, and scientific use, disease, oil spills, and nonnative
species are not concentrated in any portion of the species' range. We
found no portion of the Florida Keys mole skink's range where threats
are impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the
species elsewhere in its range. The best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that the time horizon on which the species'
responses to those threats are likely to occur is the foreseeable
future. In addition, the best scientific and commercial data available
do not indicate that any of the threats to the species and the species'
responses to those threats are more immediate in any portions of the
species' range. Therefore, we determine that the Florida Keys mole
skink is not in danger of extinction now in any portion of its range,
but that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not
conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S.
Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal.
2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d
946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did
not apply the aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of
``significant'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Florida Keys mole skink meets the
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the
Florida Keys mole skink as a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies,
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species">https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species</a>), or from our Florida Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Florida Keys mole skink. Information
on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be
found at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
Although the Florida Keys mole skink is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any
action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed
subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
For the Florida Keys mole skink, Federal agency actions within the
species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph include management and any other
[[Page 58664]]
landscape-altering activities such as mechanical treatment for
vegetation management on Federal lands administered by the Service and
the National Park Service. Other Federal agency actions under this
category may include issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.) permits (including but not limited to, dredging and spoil
area management and beach renourishment projects) by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers or the State of Florida and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. The Act allows the Secretary to
promulgate protective regulations for threatened species pursuant to
section 4(d) of the Act. The discussion below regarding protective
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act complies with our policy.
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species
listed as threatened species. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that
statutory language similar to the language in section 4(d) of the Act
authorizing the Secretary to take action that she ``deems necessary and
advisable'' affords a large degree of deference to the agency (see
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600 (1988)). Conservation is defined in
the Act to mean the use of all methods and procedures which are
necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act
states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to
any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the
case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.
Thus, the combination of the two sentences of section 4(d) provides the
Secretary with wide latitude of discretion to select and promulgate
appropriate regulations tailored to the specific conservation needs of
the threatened species. The second sentence grants particularly broad
discretion to the Service when adopting one or more of the prohibitions
under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that
included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL
511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do
not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana
v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative
history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the
threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options
available to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those
species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of
such species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation
but allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
In the early days of the ESA, the Service published at 50 CFR
[17.31/17.71] a general protective regulation that would apply to each
threatened species, unless we were to promulgate a separate species-
specific protective regulation for that species. In the wake of the
court's CBD v. Haaland decision vacating a 2019 regulation that had
made 50 CFR 17.31 inapplicable to any species listed as a threatened
species after the effective date of the 2019 regulation, the general
protective regulation applies to all threatened species, unless we
adopt a species-specific protective regulation. As explained below, we
are adopting a species-specific rule that sets out all of the
protections and prohibitions applicable to the Florida Keys mole skink.
The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of the Florida Keys mole skink by encouraging management
of the habitat for Florida Keys mole skink in ways that facilitate
conservation for Florida Keys mole skink. The provisions of this
proposed rule are one of many tools that we would use to promote the
conservation of the Florida Keys mole skink. This proposed 4(d) rule
would apply only if and when we make final the listing of the Florida
Keys mole skink as a threatened species.
As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures, section
7(a)(2) 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
7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service
on any agency action that 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.
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 Federal 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 habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
These requirements are the same for a threatened species with a
species-specific 4(d) rule. For example, a Federal agency's
determination that an action is ``not likely to adversely affect'' a
threatened species will require the Service's written concurrence.
Similarly, a Federal agency's determination that an action is ``likely
to adversely affect'' a threatened species will require formal
consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act,
we have developed a proposed rule that is designed to address the
Florida Keys mole skink's conservation needs. As discussed previously
in Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have
[[Page 58665]]
concluded that the Florida Keys mole skink is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future due to the
degradation and loss of habitat primarily due to sea level rise,
increased frequency of high tide flooding, and increased frequency of
storm events. Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such
regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to
include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that
section 9(a)(2) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We find
that, if finalized, the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in
this proposed rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d)
of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the Florida Keys mole skink.
The protective regulations we are proposing for Florida Keys mole
skink incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the
threats to the species. Section 9(a)(1) prohibits the following
activities for endangered wildlife: importing or exporting; take;
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering,
receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce
in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale
in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation includes
all these prohibitions for the Florida Keys mole skink because the
Florida Keys mole skink is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable
future and we anticipate these prohibitions will help to slow the rate
of habitat loss and fragmentation, slow the species' rate of decline,
and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other ongoing or future
threats.
In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the
conservation of the Florida Keys mole skink by prohibiting the
following activities, unless they fall within specific exceptions or
are otherwise authorized or permitted: importing or exporting; take (as
set forth at 50 CFR 17.21(c)(1) with exceptions as discussed below);
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering,
receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce
in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale
in interstate or foreign commerce.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
take would help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their
rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other
ongoing or future threats. Therefore, we propose to prohibit take of
the Florida Keys mole skink, except for take resulting from those
actions and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule.
Exceptions to the prohibition on take would include all the general
exceptions to the prohibition against take of endangered wildlife, as
set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and certain other specific activities that we
propose for exception, as described below.
The proposed 4(d) rule would also provide for the conservation of
the species by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation
actions or that, while they may have some minimal level of take of the
Florida Keys mole skink, are not expected to rise to the level that
would have a negative impact (i.e., would have only de minimis impacts)
on the species' conservation. The proposed exceptions to these
prohibitions include mechanical treatment activities, prescribed fire
activities, and nonnative plant or animal species eradication
activities (described below) that are expected to provide conservation
benefits and have negligible impacts to the Florida Keys mole skink and
its habitat. Specifically, take associated with the following
activities is excepted from the prohibitions:
(1) Mechanical treatment activities conducted within Florida Keys
mole skink habitat that are carried out in accordance with a habitat
management plan developed by a Federal, State, or county entity in
coordination with the Service as long as the treatments are used to
maintain, restore, or enhance a natural diversity and abundance of
habitats for native plants and wildlife.
(2) Prescribed fire activities conducted within Florida Keys mole
skink habitat that are carried out in accordance with a fire management
plan developed by a Federal, State, or county entity in coordination
with the Service as long as the treatments are used to maintain,
restore, or enhance a natural diversity and abundance of habitats for
native plants and wildlife. Prescribed fire activities include
maintenance and creation of fire breaks, fire line installations,
mechanical treatments to reduce fuel loads, and any other pre-fire
preparations needed.
(3) Nonnative plant or animal species eradication activities that
are carried out in accordance with a habitat management plan developed
by a Federal, State, or county entity in coordination with the Service
as long as the treatments are used to maintain, restore, or enhance a
natural diversity and abundance of habitats for native plants and
wildlife.
Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more
otherwise-prohibited activities, including those described above. The
regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise
prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR
17.32). The statute also contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a
State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement
with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated
by his or her agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct
activities designed to conserve Florida Keys mole skink that may result
in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or our ability to
enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the
Florida Keys mole skink. However, interagency cooperation may be
further
[[Page 58666]]
streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for the species
between us and other Federal agencies, where appropriate. We ask the
public, particularly State agencies and other interested stakeholders
that may be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to provide comments and
suggestions regarding additional guidance and methods that we could
provide or use, respectively, to streamline the implementation of this
proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested, above).
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species;
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However,
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. We note that the court in CBD v. Haaland vacated the
provisions from the 2019 regulations regarding unoccupied critical
habitat. Therefore, the regulations that now govern designations of
critical habitat are the implementing regulations that were in effect
before the 2019 regulations.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in the 4(d) rule. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings
in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue
to
[[Page 58667]]
contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of those planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that a designation
of critical habitat is not prudent when any of the following situations
exist:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species; or
(ii) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial
to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of
``critical habitat.''
As discussed earlier in this document, there is currently no
imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B
for this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is
not expected to initiate any such threat. In our SSA report and
proposed listing determination for the Florida Keys mole skink, we
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to Florida Keys mole
skinks. Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met, we have determined
that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Florida
Keys mole skink.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
Florida Keys mole skink is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one
or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the Florida Keys mole skink.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features''
as the features that support the life-history needs of the species,
including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type,
geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or
other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a
more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may
include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic
habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to
principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity. For example, physical features essential
to the conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular
size required for spawning, alkaline soil for seed germination,
protective cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire
that maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses,
specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic
fungi, or absence of a particular level of nonnative species consistent
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
As described in the Species Needs section in the Proposed Listing
Determination, above, and the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 30-31), the
resource and demographic needs for breeding, feeding, sheltering, and
dispersal of the Florida Keys mole skink are characterized as:
<bullet> Beach and dune, coastal berm, rockland hammock, and pine
rockland habitats that provide ground cover in the form of leaf litter
and wrack material skinks need for nesting, arthropod and insect food
sources, and cover;
<bullet> Dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable (crumbly in
texture) soils for digging of nest cavities and for their swimming
movement;
<bullet> Ground cover such as leaf litter, debris, or tidal wrack
(for thermoregulation, food sources, cover from predators, and
breeding); and
<bullet> Arthropod and insect food sources (found within the ground
cover of the habitat).
Habitats
The Florida Keys mole skink is endemic to the Florida Keys and has
been documented on 23 islands from Key Largo in the Upper Keys to
Loggerhead Key of the Dry Tortugas in the Distal Sand Keys (see
Background in Proposed Listing Determination, above). The species is
most frequently surveyed on Lower Keys beaches, and therefore, that is
where the species is most documented; specifically the area above mean
higher high water (increase of tides above the mean high tide) where
wrack is deposited and sand dunes occur (Emerick 2017b, p. 5; Service
2022, pp. 24-27). However, beach formation is not common in the Florida
Keys, and there are no naturally occurring beaches in the Upper Keys,
yet the Florida Keys mole skink is still
[[Page 58668]]
found in this region (Clark 1990, p. 6; Zambrano 2021, pers. comm.).
Though surveys have been limited mostly to beaches, with some in
coastal berms hammocks, Florida Keys mole skinks have been documented
in a variety of both natural and altered habitats along the coast and
on the interior of islands (Service 2022, pp. 21, 24-27). Other habitat
types they have been documented in include coastal cactus and rock
barrens, rockland hammocks, pine rocklands, and small areas of habitat
with suitable substrate within other mapped landcover types, such as
urban open land and developed areas (FNAI 2011, entire; Emerick 2017b,
pp. 4-5; iNaturalist 2020, entire; Zambrano 2021, pers. comm.).
Most areas where the Florida Keys mole skink have been documented
have an open canopy and are sparsely vegetated with herbaceous ground
cover, shrubs, and small trees (beaches, coastal berms, rock barrens,
urban open land) (FNAI 2010, pp. 77, 81, 109, 2015; Kawula and Redner
2018, pp. 13-16). Florida Keys mole skinks have also been documented in
coastal maritime hammock and rockland hammocks, both of which may have
a closed canopy and are generally more vegetated but can have suitable
substrate under the leaf litter (FNAI 2010, pp. 29-30, 91-92; Kawula
and Redner 2018, pp. 9, 14). Florida Keys mole skinks have also been
documented in pine rockland habitat, which has an open pine canopy with
a mixed shrub and herb understory and requires fire approximately every
3 to 7 years to maintain an open shrub layer (FNAI 2010, pp. 69-70;
Kawula and Redner 2018, p. 12).
Specific information on the amount of space needed for individual
and population growth (dispersal distance, home range, and carrying
capacity) for this species is lacking. The closest related species with
information on home range and dispersal distances is the sand skink (P.
reynoldsi), which occurs in scrub habitat on the Lake Wales Ridge of
central Florida. Maximum dispersal distances for sand skinks in Florida
scrub habitat have been documented at 115 ft (35 m) to 460 ft (140 m)
although just a few adults were recorded at distances greater than 328
ft (100 m) (Gianopulos 2001, p. 81; Mushinsky et al. 2001, p. 54; McCoy
et al. 2020, p. 8). The larger home range distances of a few individual
sand skinks beyond 328 ft (100 m) could be attributed to localized
resource limitations. The total size of an area needed to support a
population of sand skinks or Florida Keys mole skinks has not been
determined (Service 2022, p. 29).
While the amount of habitat necessary to support Florida Keys mole
skink individual and population growth and normal behavior is unknown,
preservation of the features described above is essential for the
species to protect their home ranges. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify natural upland habitats (primarily sand
beach, beach dune, coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and pine rocklands)
as physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Florida Keys mole skink.
Soils
Florida Keys mole skinks require sandy soils for nesting that are
generally dry and unconsolidated to allow for the digging of nest
cavities and their swimming movement through substrate (Service 2022,
p. 28). No nests have been identified for the Florida Keys mole skink,
but nest depth is probably dependent upon substrate depth and is
documented to vary greatly for other mole skinks from 0.13 in (0.33 cm)
to 6.0 ft (1.83 m) (Neill 1940, p. 266; Hamilton and Pollack 1958, p.
27). Because of the predominantly limestone, prehistoric coral reef,
and rocky makeup of the Florida Keys archipelago, only a few areas
provide the sandy, dry, unconsolidated soils considered preferred by
the Florida Keys mole skink for nesting. In the Florida Keys, the
sandy, dry, unconsolidated soil types are predominantly Beach and Bahia
Fine sand and total only approximately 440 ac (178 ha) of soils in the
archipelago (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2021 (USDA), p. 1).
However, Florida Keys mole skinks have been documented in several other
soil types that are also likely suitable for mole skink reproduction
and movement based on their official soil series descriptions (dry,
loose, sandy, permeable, or friable (crumbly in texture)) (USDA 2022,
n.p.).
Based on the information above, we consider suitable habitats
containing dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable soils as a physical
or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
Ground Cover
Florida Keys mole skinks rely on ground cover over loose substrate
as protection from predators and the insects existing in this ground
cover as a food source. In this case, ground cover as a resource for
the Florida Keys mole skink refers to a variety of materials such as
leaf litter, logs, vegetative debris, and tidal wrack (deposited above
the mean higher high-water level) rather than a strictly vegetative
ground cover such as grass (Service 2022, p. 18). These ground cover
and substrate conditions also provide areas for reproduction and
thermoregulatory refugia.
As a reptile, the Florida Keys mole skink is a cold-blooded
(ectothermic) animal and therefore highly dependent on the air and soil
temperature to thermoregulate (maintain body core temperature) (Mount
1963, p. 362). The Florida Keys mole skink is specialized to live
within a stable and relatively narrow thermal tropical environment. It
is a thermoconformer, lacking the capacity to adjust or regulate to
changes in temperature outside of this stable and relatively narrow
thermal range in which it occurs (Gallagher et al. 2015, p. 62). Ground
cover moderates soil temperatures and provides shade to assist in the
skinks' thermoregulation in hot climates.
Based on the information above, we consider suitable habitats
containing appropriate ground cover including tidal wrack, leaf litter,
or vegetative debris for protection from predators and temperature
extremes, sources of food, and areas for reproduction as a physical or
biological feature essential for the Florida Keys mole skink.
Food Source
The Florida Keys mole skink preys on a variety of small insects
(Hamilton and Pollack 1958, p. 26; Mount 1963, p. 364; Technical Team
Working Group 2016, pers. comm.). The make-up of diets has been shown
to shift seasonally with prey relative to abundance. Prey is also
thought to be caught and eaten within ground cover material or
underground (Mount 1963, p. 365). Since their feeding behavior is
generalist and opportunistic (preying on those insects that are present
and are of a size they can ingest), the prey-related requirements
(abundance, diversity, range) to sustain a viable population of Florida
Keys mole skink is unknown, but appear to be sufficient (Service 2022,
pp. 28, 31).
Based on the information above, we consider habitats containing
appropriate ground cover for arthropod and insect food sources as a
physical or biological feature essential for the Florida Keys mole
skink.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological feature essential to
the conservation of the Florida Keys mole skink from studies of the
species' habitat, ecology, and life history. Additional information can
be found in the Proposed Listing Determination,
[[Page 58669]]
above, and the SSA report (Service 2022, entire). We have determined
that the following physical or biological feature is essential to the
conservation of the Florida Keys mole skink:
Natural habitats (including, but not limited to beaches, dunes,
coastal berms, rockland hammocks, and pine rocklands) along the coast
or on the interior of the Florida Keys that contain:
(a) Suitable soils (dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable soils)
for movement and nesting; and
(b) Sufficient, appropriate ground cover (including, but not
limited to tidal wrack deposited above the mean high-water line, leaf
litter, and vegetative debris) for protection from predators and
temperature extremes, sources of food, and areas for reproduction.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The feature essential to the conservation of the Florida
Keys mole skink may require special management considerations or
protection to reduce threats posed by climate change (sea level rise,
more frequent tidal flooding, and increasing intensity of storm
events); recreational activities (beach cleaning to remove wrack and
other vegetative material); and human-caused disasters and response
activities (e.g., oil spills). For an in-depth discussion of threats,
see Summary of Biological Status and Threats in the Proposed Listing
Determination, above, and the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 32-49).
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include
(but are not limited to): maintaining and protecting suitable habitat
within occupied areas; identifying areas where beach erosion is
occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal
wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing renourishment or
restoration/protection activities further upland; conducting
restoration and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently
minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat;
establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats
to persist; coordinating with landowners and local managers to
implement best management practices during regular beach cleaning
activities; conducting public outreach and education at all occupied
areas; and preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings
that consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. We
also are proposing to designate specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species because we have determined those areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. By the year 2040, 8 out
of 15 areas occupied by the Florida Keys mole skink at the time of
listing will lose 75 percent or more of their available habitat under
the lowest projected sea level rise scenario of 2.0 ft (0.7 m), and 12
of 15 occupied areas will lose 90 percent or more under the highest sea
level rise scenario of 4.0 ft (1.2 m) (Service 2022, pp. 6-7). Islands
with recent and historical populations of the Florida Keys mole skink
are projected to be less affected by sea level rise under all scenarios
(especially in the Upper Keys) than islands with current populations
(see Future Condition in Proposed Listing Determination, above).
Therefore, we identified suitable habitat within recently and
historically occupied areas that met the definition of critical habitat
and that are essential to provide for species redundancy into the
foreseeable future. These unoccupied areas are both essential for the
conservation of the species and contain habitat essential to the life
history of the species.
We developed the following criteria for determining the specific
areas that contain the physical and biological feature essential to the
conservation of the species:
(1) Genetic differentiation and geographic extent--To maintain
viability in populations of the Florida Keys mole skink that represent
and conserve the genetic differentiation and habitat in each of the
four geographic regions of the Florida Keys (see Current Condition in
Proposed Listing Determination, above), critical habitat units should
encompass all current populations, ensuring that each of the four
geographic regions of the Florida Keys are represented.
(2) Climate change resilience--To provide sufficient amounts of
suitable habitat for the Florida Keys mole skink predicted to be less
affected by sea level rise (see Future Condition in Proposed Listing
Determination, above), critical habitat should include at least one
unit that is less vulnerable to sea level rise within each of the four
geographic regions of the Florida Keys.
(3) Structural connectivity--To maintain, enhance, and establish
connectivity within Florida Keys mole skink populations (see Summary of
Biological Status and Threats in Proposed Listing Determination,
above), critical habitat units should incorporate corridors for
connectivity, dispersal, and refuge areas during high tide flooding and
storm events.
Sources of data used for the delineation of critical habitat units
included:
(1) Confirmed presence data compiled in our Geographic Information
System database from 1862 through 2021 and provided by multiple
databases maintained by museums, universities, and State agencies in
Florida; State agency reports; and numerous survey reports for projects
throughout the species' range.
(2) Habitat and land use cover types from the Cooperative Land
Cover map (version 3.5), developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FWC and
FNAI 2021, entire), determined to be suitable for the species based on
peer-reviewed articles on this species or similar species, and gray
literature by researchers involved in wildlife biology and conservation
activities.
(3) Monroe County soil data layers from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey
(USDA, entire) determined to be suitable for the species based on their
official soil series descriptions (see Soils, above).
(4) Composite shoreline data representing the mean high-water line
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of
Coastal Management (NOAA 2007, entire).
(5) Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United
States from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Ocean Service Center for Operational
[[Page 58670]]
Oceanographic Products and Services (Sweet et al. 2017).
(6) Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI's)
Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage Geographical Information System
(ArcGIS) online basemap aerial imagery (2018 to 2020) to cross-check
Cooperative Land Cover data and ensure the presence of the physical or
biological feature.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by the Florida Keys
mole skink at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) We determined occupied areas for this species by reviewing the
best available scientific and commercial data on occurrence records. As
discussed in the Background section of the Proposed Listing
Determination, Florida Keys mole skinks are cryptic and adapted to
living underground. Because of their cryptic nature, we determined that
if suitable habitat containing the physical and biological feature was
still present in an area where a Florida Keys mole skink had been
detected between 2000 and 2021, that there was a high likelihood that
the species would still be present. Therefore, based on the best
available information, we defined occupied areas as islands with at
least one current occurrence record ranging from 2000 to 2021.
(2) We selected all suitable habitat that contained the physical or
biological feature as determined using the data sources listed above,
and within a 328 ft (100 m) radius (the estimated home range of Florida
Keys mole skink, see Habitats, above), for all current, recent, and
historical occurrence records. When the exact location of an occurrence
record could not be determined for an island (a verified record, but
only general location information, such as the name of the island, was
provided), or the location was accurate but in unsuitable habitat
(developed areas), all suitable habitat on the island was selected.
(3) We selected additional suitable habitat that extended beyond
the 328 ft (100 m) radius to include corridors for greater dispersal
due to population expansions, localized resource limitations, and sea
level rise, storm surge, or tidal flooding refugia areas for the
species.
(4) We then constrained the boundary of a critical habitat unit
based on potential effects of physical barriers (for example, roads
wider than two lanes, permanent water channels, or unsuitable habitat
greater than 820 ft (250 m) wide) that cause habitat fragmentation or
prevent connectivity and dispersal opportunities within units, as we
consider that individuals would be unable or unlikely to pass such
barriers (Mercier 2018, pp. 21-23). On the shorelines of critical
habitat units, boundaries were constrained to whichever occurred
furthest offshore including the habitat boundary (for upland habitats
only), mean high water line, or shoreline that was visible in aerial
imagery.
For areas outside the geographic area currently occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we looked at islands considered
recently occupied (from 1970 to 1999) and historically occupied (prior
to 1970) by the Florida Keys mole skink. We analyzed recently and
historically occupied islands for those that contained suitable habitat
and evaluated each site for its potential conservation contribution
based on quality of habitat, vulnerability to climate change,
specifically sea level rise, high tide flooding, and increased
intensity of storm events, and existing protections and management of
the habitat and sites. Based on these criteria, we identified five
islands with recent or historical populations that contained
appropriate habitat for the species and are essential for the
conservation of the species, but that are considered unoccupied at the
time of listing. For areas outside the geographic area occupied by the
Florida Keys mole skink at the time of listing, we delineated critical
habitat unit boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) Based on the best available information, we defined unoccupied
areas as islands with at least one recent (1970 to 1999) or historical
(before 1970) occurrence record.
(2) To ensure unoccupied areas would provide skink habitat into the
future, we analyzed impacts to potential habitat on each island
containing recent or historical occurrence records and included only
those that will still have habitat remaining after the most extreme
scenario of 6.0 ft (1.8 m) of sea level rise by the year 2060 (see
Future Condition in Proposed Listing Determination, above).
(3) We selected all suitable habitat that contained the physical or
biological feature as determined using Criteria 2-4 outlined above for
occupied units.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
the physical or biological feature necessary for the Florida Keys mole
skink. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical or biological feature in
the adjacent critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied) and that contain the physical or biological feature essential
to support life-history processes of the species. We have also
identified, and propose for designation as critical habitat, unoccupied
areas that are essential for the conservation of the species. Nineteen
units are proposed for designation based on current, recent, or
historical occurrences and the physical or biological feature being
present to support the Florida Keys mole skink's life-history
processes.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2022-0104 and on our internet site (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library">https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library</a>).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate approximately 7,068 ac (2,860 ha) in
19 units as critical habitat for the Florida Keys mole skink. The
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the Florida Keys mole skink. The 19 areas we propose as critical
habitat are: (1) Key Largo, (2) Plantation Key, (3) Upper Matecumbe
Key, (4) Indian Key, (5) Lower Matecumbe Key, (6) Long Key, (7) Vaca
Key, (8) Boot Key, (9) Bahia Honda Key, (10) Scout Key, (11) Big Pine
Key, (12) Cook's Island, (13) Big Munson Island, (14) Content Key, (15)
Sawyer Key, (16) Key West, (17)
[[Page 58671]]
Boca Grande Key, (18) Marquesas Key, and (19) Loggerhead Key. Table 5
shows the proposed critical habitat units, occupancy, land ownership,
and the approximate area of each unit.
Table 5--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Florida Keys Mole Skink
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership: acres [hectares]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total area:
Unit Occupied? Unknown/ acres
Federal State Local Private undefined [hectares]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Key Largo...................... Yes................. 608 [246] 2,176 [881] 85 [34] 158 [64] 130 [53] 3,157 [1,278]
2. Plantation Key................. No.................. 0 63 [26] 29 [12] 177 [72] 6 [2] 275 [111]
3. Upper Matecumbe Key............ No.................. 0 24 [10] 18 [7] 93 [37] 5 [2] 140 [57]
4. Indian Key..................... No.................. 0 12 [5] 0 0 0 12 [5]
5. Lower Matecumbe Key............ Yes................. 0 34 [14] 6 [3] 41 [17] 13 [5] 95 [38]
6. Long Key....................... Yes................. 0 350 [142] 20 [8] 2 [1] 32 [13] 405 [164]
7. Vaca Key....................... Yes................. 0 0 1 [<1] 69 [28] 1 [1] 72 [29]
8. Boot Key....................... Yes................. 0 14 [6] <1 [<1] 206 [83] 1 [<1] 221 [90]
9. Bahia Honda Key................ Yes................. 0 57 [23] 0 0 8 [3] 65 [26]
10. Scout Key..................... No.................. 0 9 [4] 33 [13] 7 [3] 5 [2] 53 [21]
11. Big Pine Key.................. Yes................. 1,547 [626] 412 [167] 80 [32] 79 [32] 40 [16] 2,159 [874]
12. Cook's Island................. Yes................. 0 0 0 13 [5] 2 [1] 15 [6]
13. Big Munson Island............. Yes................. 0 0 0 50 [20] 1 [1] 51 [21]
14. Content Keys.................. Yes................. 6 [3] 1 [<1] 0 0 3 [1] 10 [4]
15. Sawyer Key.................... Yes................. 10 [4] 0 0 0 1 [<1] 11 [4]
16. Key West...................... Yes................. 0 15 [6] 10 [4] 16 [6] 1 [1] 42 [17]
17. Boca Grande Key............... Yes................. 71 [29] 0 0 0 0 71 [29]
18. Marquesas Key................. Yes................. 149 [60] 0 0 0 0 149 [60]
19. Loggerhead Key................ No.................. 65 [26] 0 0 0 0 65 [26]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... N/A................. 2,456 [994] 3,168 [1,284] 283 [115] 911 [365] 250 [101] 7,068 [2,860]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida Keys mole
skink, below.
Unit 1: Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 1 encompasses approximately 3,157 ac (1,278 ha) within Monroe
County and the city of Key Largo, of the upper Florida Keys. This unit
is considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. As no sandy beaches
occur on Key Largo, the majority of Florida Keys mole skink habitat on
the island is rockland hammock with small areas of other suitable
habitats along the edges or within the unit. This unit includes Federal
lands within Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge (608 ac (246 ha)),
State lands within Dagny Johnson Botanical State Park, John Pennekamp
Coral Reef State Park, and the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental
Area (2,176 ac (881 ha)), local lands (85 ac (34 ha)), and property in
private or unknown or undefined ownership (288 ac (117 ha)). The
entirety of Unit 1 overlaps with designated critical habitat for the
American crocodile (Crocodilus acutus), Cape Sable thoroughwort
(Chromolaena frustrata), and Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea
corallicola).
The habitat in the northern part of the unit(north of where U.S.
Route 1 turns west to the Florida mainland) is surrounded by the
Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Florida Bay to the west. Habitat
consists primarily of contiguous habitat owned by several Federal
agencies (National Park Service, U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and the
Service), in which the Service owns the majority as Crocodile Lake
National Wildlife Refuge. The other Federal landowners have or are in
the process of turning over ownership to the Service and records may
not reflect this yet. The State of Florida owns and manages Dagny
Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical Park. Monroe County, local
government, and private entities own additional habitat within the
northern part of the unit. The physical and biological feature in the
northern part of the unit may require special management considerations
or protection such as identifying areas where beach erosion is
occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal
wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing renourishment or
restoration/protection activities further upland; conducting
restoration and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently
minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat;
and conducting public outreach and education to address threats from
climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and storm
events).
The habitat in the southern part of the unit (south of where U.S.
Route 1 turns west to the Florida mainland) is surrounded or fragmented
by residential and commercial development. The majority of habitat
consists of lands owned by private entities and the State of Florida
(John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park). Smaller portions of habitat are
owned by Monroe County. Habitat connectivity among occurrences is
lacking within the southern part of the unit; fragmentation is from
residential and light commercial development, as well as canals and
two-lane roads. The physical and biological feature in the southern
part of the unit may require special management considerations or
protection such as identifying areas where beach erosion is occurring
or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal wetlands
due to sea level rise and implementing renourishment or restoration/
protection activities further upland; conducting restoration and debris
cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing disturbance to
Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat; and conducting public
outreach and education to address threats from climate change (e.g.,
sea level rise, high tide flooding, and storm events).
Unit 2: Plantation Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 2 encompasses approximately 275 ac (111 ha) in Monroe County
and
[[Page 58672]]
the village of Islamorada, of the upper Florida Keys. This unit is
considered unoccupied. As few sandy beaches occur on Plantation Key,
the majority of Florida Keys mole skink habitat on the island is
rockland hammock with small areas of other suitable habitats along the
edges or within the unit. This unit includes State lands within the
Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area (63 ac (26 ha)), local
lands (29 ac (12 ha)), and property in private or unknown/undefined
ownership (183 ac (74 ha)). The entirety of Unit 2 overlaps with
designated critical habitat for the American crocodile. The habitat in
this unit is surrounded or fragmented by residential and commercial
development. Threats from development are moderate, and threats from
climate change are low in this unit because of its higher elevation
(see Summary of Biological Status and Threats in Proposed Listing
Determination, above).
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, the Florida Keys
mole skink was documented on the island in the past (FNAI 2011,
entire), and it is possible that the lack of current detections could
be due to lack of surveys. Also, this unit constitutes habitat for the
species because it contains the physical or biological feature
necessary for the life history of the species. This unit is essential
for the conservation of the species because it will still provide
habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of sea level rise (as
described in Future Condition in Proposed Listing Determination, above,
and Service 2022, pp. 61-70) or stochastic events (such as hurricanes),
should other areas of suitable habitat be destroyed, or the Florida
Keys mole skink be extirpated from one of its currently occupied
locations.
Unit 3: Upper Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 3 encompasses approximately 140 ac (57 ha) in Monroe County
and the village of Islamorada, of the upper Florida Keys. This unit is
considered unoccupied. As few sandy beaches occur on Upper Matecumbe
Key, the majority of Florida Keys mole skink habitat on the island is
rockland hammock with small areas of other suitable habitats along the
edges or within the unit. This unit includes State lands within the
Lignumvitae Key Botanical and Indian Key Historic State Parks (24 ac
(10 ha)), local lands (18 ac (7 ha)), and property in private or
unknown/undefined ownership (97 ac (39 ha)). The majority (94 percent)
of Unit 3 overlaps with designated critical habitat for the American
crocodile and Cape Sable thoroughwort. The habitat in this unit is
surrounded or fragmented by residential and commercial development.
Threats from development and climate change are moderate in this unit
(see Summary of Biological Status and Threats in Proposed Listing
Determination, above).
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, the Florida Keys
mole skink was documented on the island in the past (FNAI 2011,
entire), and it is possible that the lack of current detections could
be due to lack of surveys. Also, this unit constitutes habitat for the
species because it contains the physical or biological feature
necessary for the life history of the species. This unit is essential
for the conservation of the species because it will still provide
habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of sea level rise (as
described in Future Condition in Proposed Listing Determination, above,
and Service 2022, pp. 61-70) or stochastic events (such as hurricanes),
should other areas of suitable habitat be destroyed, or the Florida
Keys mole skink be extirpated from one of its currently occupied
locations. Additionally, a portion of this unit is on State lands,
where reintroductions would be likely.
Unit 4: Indian Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 4 encompasses approximately 12 ac (5 ha) within Monroe County
and the village of Islamorada, of the upper Florida Keys. This unit is
considered unoccupied. The habitat in this unit is classified by the
Cooperative Landcover Classification map (FWC and FNAI 2021) as
mangrove swamp but is more accurately described as ruderal
(historically cleared area with recolonizing native vegetation) with a
mangrove and Keys tidal rock barren fringe (FDEP 2012, entire). The
unit encompasses the entire island of Indian Key, which is owned by the
State as part of Indian Key Historic State Park. The habitat in this
unit is contiguous since there is very little development on the
island, which is only accessible by boat. The threat of development is
low due to designation as a state park and threats from climate change
are low because of its higher elevation (see Summary of Biological
Status and Threats in Proposed Listing Determination, above).
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, the Florida Keys
mole skink was documented on the island in the past (FNAI 2011,
entire), and it is possible that the lack of current detections could
be due to lack of surveys. Also, this unit constitutes habitat for the
species because it contains the physical or biological feature
necessary for the life history of the species. This unit is essential
for the conservation of the species because it will still provide
habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of sea level rise (as
described in Future Condition in Proposed Listing Determination, above,
and Service 2022, pp. 61-70) or stochastic events (such as hurricanes),
should other areas of suitable habitat be destroyed, or the Florida
Keys mole skink be extirpated from one of its currently occupied
locations. Additionally, the entire unit is on State lands, where
reintroductions would be likely.
Unit 5: Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 5 encompasses approximately 95 ac (38 ha) in Monroe County and
the village of Islamorada, of the upper Florida Keys. This unit is
considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. As few sandy beaches
occur on Lower Matecumbe Key, the majority of Florida Keys mole skink
habitat on the island is rockland hammock with small areas of other
suitable habitats along the edges or within the unit. This unit
includes State lands that are part of Lignumvitae Key Botanical State
Park (34 ac (14 ha)), local lands (6 ac (3 ha)), and property in
private or unknown/undefined ownership (54 ac (22 ha)). The majority
(99 percent) of Unit 5 overlaps with designated critical habitat for
the American crocodile, Cape Sable thoroughwort, and piping plover
(Charadrius melodus). The habitat in this unit is surrounded and/or
fragmented by residential and commercial development. The physical and
biological feature in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection identifying areas where beach erosion is
occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal
wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing renourishment or
restoration/protection activities further upland; conducting
restoration and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently
minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat;
establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats
to persist; conducting public outreach and education; and preparing
disaster response plans and conducting trainings that consider Florida
Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats from climate
change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and
human-
[[Page 58673]]
caused disasters and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 6: Long Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 6 encompasses approximately 405 ac (164 ha) within Monroe
County and the city of Layton, of the middle Florida Keys. This unit is
considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. Habitat on Long Key
is a mix of sand beach, beach dune, coastal berm, rockland hammock, and
some suitable upland mangrove fringe areas. This unit includes State
lands that are part of Long Key State Park (350 ac (142 ha)), local
lands (20 ac (8 ha)), and property in private or unknown/undefined
ownership (34 ac (14 ha)). The majority (99 percent) of Unit 6 overlaps
with designated critical habitat for the American crocodile, Cape Sable
thoroughwort, and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). The habitat
in this unit is primarily contiguous with residential and commercial
development located on both ends of the unit. The physical and
biological feature in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection such as identifying areas where beach
erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or
other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing
renourishment or restoration/protection activities further upland;
conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach and education;
and preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings that
consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats
from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and
storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities (e.g.,
oil spills).
Unit 7: Vaca Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 7 encompasses approximately 72 ac (29 ha) within Monroe County
and the city of Marathon, within the middle Florida Keys. This unit is
considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. As few sandy beaches
occur on Vaca Key, the majority of Florida Keys mole skink habitat on
the island is rockland hammock with small areas of upland mangrove
habitats along the edges or within the unit. This unit includes local
lands (1 ac (less than 1 ha)) and property in private or unknown or
undefined ownership (71 ac (29 ha)), 62 ac (25 ha) of which are part of
Crane Point Hammock, a preserve owned by the Florida Keys Land and Sea
Trust Incorporated. The habitat in this unit is surrounded or
fragmented by residential and commercial development. The physical and
biological feature in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection such as identifying areas where beach
erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or
other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing
renourishment or restoration/protection activities further upland;
conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; and conducting public outreach and
education to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level rise,
high tide flooding, and storm events).
Unit 8: Boot Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 8 encompasses approximately 221 ac (90 ha) within Monroe
County and the city of Marathon, within the middle Florida Keys. This
unit is considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. Habitat on Boot Key
is a mix of coastal berm, rockland hammock, and some suitable upland
mangrove fringe areas. This unit includes State lands (14 ac (6 ha))
and property in private or unknown or undefined ownership (207 ac (84
ha)). The habitat in this unit is primarily contiguous as very little
development occurs on the island, which is only accessible by boat. The
physical and biological feature in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection such as identifying areas where
beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp
or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing
renourishment or restoration/protection activities further upland;
conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach and education;
and preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings that
consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats
from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and
storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities (e.g.,
oil spills).
Unit 9: Bahia Honda Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 9 encompasses approximately 65 ac (26 ha) within Monroe County
in the lower Florida Keys. This unit is considered occupied by the
species and contains the physical or biological feature essential to
its conservation. Habitat on Bahia Honda Key is a mix of sand beach,
beach dune, coastal berm, maritime hammock, and some suitable upland
mangrove fringe areas. This unit is almost entirely within Bahia Honda
State Park (57 ac (23 ha)), with approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of unknown/
undefined ownership. The majority (98 percent) of Unit 9 overlaps with
designated critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle and piping
plover. The habitat in this unit is primarily contiguous with low-
intensity development located on both ends of the unit. The physical
and biological feature in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection such as identifying areas where beach
erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or
other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing
renourishment or restoration/protection activities further upland;
conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach and education;
and preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings that
consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats
from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and
storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities (e.g.,
oil spills).
Unit 10: Scout Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 10 encompasses approximately 53 ac (21 ha) within Monroe
County in the lower Florida Keys. This unit is considered unoccupied.
Habitat on Scout Key (also called West Summerland Key) is a mix of
beach dune and rockland hammock with small areas of other suitable
habitats along the edges or within the unit. This unit includes State
lands (9 ac (4 ha)), local lands (33 ac (13 ha)), and property in
private or unknown/undefined ownership (12 ac (5 ha)). The habitat in
this unit is primarily contiguous with
[[Page 58674]]
boy scout and girl scout camps located on the southwest end of the
unit. Threats from development and climate change are moderate in this
unit (see Summary of Biological Status and Threats in Proposed Listing
Determination, above).
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, the Florida Keys
mole skink was documented on the island in the past (FNAI 2011,
entire), and it is possible that the lack of current detections could
be due to lack of surveys. Also, this unit constitutes habitat for the
species because it contains the physical or biological feature
necessary for the life history of the species. This unit is essential
for the conservation of the species because it will still provide
habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of sea level rise (as
described in Future Condition in Proposed Listing Determination, above,
and Service 2022, pp. 61-70) or stochastic events (such as hurricanes),
should other areas of suitable habitat be destroyed, or the Florida
Keys mole skink be extirpated from one of its currently occupied
locations. Additionally, a portion of the unit is on State lands, where
reintroductions would be likely.
Unit 11: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 11 encompasses approximately 2,159 ac (874 ha) within Monroe
County and the town of Big Pine Key, in the lower Florida Keys. This
unit is considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. The habitat in the
northern part of the unit (north of U.S. Route 1) is a mix of pine
rockland and rockland hammock with small areas of other suitable
habitats along the edges or within the unit. In the southern part of
the unit (south of U.S. Route 1), the habitat is a mix of beach dune,
coastal berm, and rockland hammock with small areas of other suitable
habitats bordering or within the unit. This unit includes Federal lands
within the National Key Deer Refuge (1,547 ac (626 ha)), State lands
(412 ac (167 ha)), local lands (80 ac (32 ha)), and property in private
or unknown or undefined ownership (120 ac (49 ha)). The majority (73
percent) of Unit 11 overlaps with designated critical habitat for the
Cape Sable thoroughwort, Florida semaphore cactus, Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterfly (Strymon acis bartrami), and Florida leafwing
butterfly (Anaea floridalis). The habitat in the northern part of the
unit is surrounded or fragmented by residential communities, light
commercial development, and two-lane roads (primarily in the central
and southern portions of the northern part of the unit). The habitat in
the southern part of the unit is primarily contiguous with residential
development to the west of the unit. The physical and biological
feature in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection such as identifying areas where beach erosion is occurring
or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal wetlands
due to sea level rise and implementing renourishment or restoration/
protection activities further upland; conducting restoration and debris
cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing disturbance to
Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat; establishing protocols and
agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; conducting
public outreach and education; and preparing disaster response plans
and conducting trainings that consider Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 12: Cook's Island, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 12 encompasses approximately 15 ac (6 ha) within Monroe County
and the town of Big Pine Key, in the lower Florida Keys. This unit is
considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. Habitat on Cook's
Island is mostly coastal berm with some areas of suitable upland
mangroves along the edges of the unit. This unit is almost entirely in
private ownership (13 ac (5 ha)), with approximately 2 ac (1 ha) of
unknown or undefined ownership. The habitat in this unit is primarily
contiguous with low-density residential development scattered along the
southern shoreline of the island, which is only accessible by boat. The
physical and biological feature in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection such as identifying areas where
beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp
or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing
renourishment or restoration/protection activities further upland;
conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach and education;
and preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings that
consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats
from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and
storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities (e.g.,
oil spills).
Unit 13: Big Munson Island, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 13 encompasses approximately 51 ac (21 ha) within Monroe
County and the town of Big Pine Key, in the lower Florida Keys. This
unit is considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. Habitat on Big Munson
Island is a mix of sand beach, coastal berm, and rockland hammock with
small areas of other suitable habitats along the edges or within the
unit. This unit is almost entirely in private ownership by the Boy
Scouts of America (50 ac (20 ha)), with approximately 1 ac (1 ha) of
unknown or undefined ownership. Approximately half (52 percent) of Unit
13 overlaps with designated critical habitat for the Cape Sable
thoroughwort. The habitat in this unit is contiguous since very little
development occurs on the island, which is accessible only by boat. The
physical and biological feature in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection such as identifying areas where
beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp
or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing
renourishment or restoration/protection activities further upland;
conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach and education;
and preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings that
consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats
from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and
storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities (e.g.,
oil spills).
Unit 14: Content Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 14 encompasses approximately 10 ac (4 ha) within Monroe County
in the lower Florida Keys. This unit is considered occupied by the
species and contains the physical or biological feature essential to
its conservation. Habitat on Content Key is a mix of sand beach,
coastal berm, and some suitable upland mangrove fringe areas. This unit
includes Federal lands within the
[[Page 58675]]
National Key Deer Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wildlife
Refuge (6 ac (3 ha)), State lands (1 ac (less than 1 ha)), and property
with unknown/undefined (3 ac (1 ha)). The habitat in this unit is
contiguous since there is no development on the island, which is
accessible only by boat. The physical and biological feature in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection such
as identifying areas where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is
succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level
rise and implementing renourishment or restoration/protection
activities further upland; conducting restoration and debris cleanup
after storms while concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys
mole skinks and their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to
allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach
and education; and preparing disaster response plans and conducting
trainings that consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to
address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide
flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters and response
activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 15: Sawyer Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 15 encompasses approximately 11 ac (4 ha) within Monroe County
in the lower Florida Keys. This unit is considered occupied by the
species and contains the physical or biological feature essential to
its conservation. Habitat on Sawyer Key is a mix of beach dune,
rockland hammock, and some suitable upland mangrove fringe areas. This
unit is almost entirely in Federal ownership as part of the Great White
Heron National Wildlife Refuge (10 ac (4 ha)), with approximately 1 ac
(less than 1 ha) of unknown or undefined ownership. The habitat in this
unit is contiguous since there is no development on the island, which
is accessible only by boat. The physical and biological feature in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection such
as identifying areas where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is
succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level
rise and implementing renourishment or restoration/protection
activities further upland; conducting restoration and debris cleanup
after storms while concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys
mole skinks and their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to
allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach
and education; and preparing disaster response plans and conducting
trainings that consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to
address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide
flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters and response
activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 16: Key West, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 16 encompasses approximately 42 ac (17 ha) within Monroe
County and the city of Key West, in the lower Florida Keys. This unit
is considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. Habitat on Key West
is mostly sand beach and a few small patches of rockland hammock. This
unit includes State lands within Fort Zachary Taylor State Park (15 ac
(6 ha)), local lands (10 ac (4 ha)), and property in private or
unknown/undefined ownership (17 ac (7 ha)). Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act, we are exempting Naval Air Station Key West lands within
this unit (8 ac (3 ha)) from the critical habitat designation because
the U.S. Navy within the DoD has an approved INRMP that provides
benefits to the Florida Keys mole skink and its habitat (see
Exemptions, below). The habitat in this unit is surrounded or
fragmented by residential and commercial development. The physical and
biological feature in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection such as identifying areas where beach
erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or
other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing
renourishment or restoration/protection activities further upland;
conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; coordinating with landowners and local
managers to implement best management practices during regular beach
cleaning activities; conducting public outreach and education; and
preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings that
consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats
from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and
storm events), recreational activities (beach cleaning to remove wrack
and other vegetative material), and human-caused disasters and response
activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 17: Boca Grande Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 17 encompasses approximately 71 ac (29 ha) within Monroe
County, in the Distal Sand Region of the Florida Keys. This unit is
considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. Habitat on Boca
Grande Key is a mix of sand beach, beach dune, coastal berm, rockland
hammock and some suitable upland mangrove fringe areas. This unit is
entirely in Federal ownership as part of the Key West National Wildlife
Refuge. The majority (95 percent) of Unit 17 overlaps with designated
critical habitat for the Cape Sable thoroughwort, loggerhead sea
turtle, and piping plover. The habitat in this unit is contiguous since
there is no development on the island, which is accessible only by
boat. The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection such as identifying
areas where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to
mangrove swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and
implementing renourishment or restoration/protection activities further
upland; conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach and education;
and preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings that
consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats
from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and
storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities (e.g.,
oil spills).
Unit 18: Marquesas Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 18 encompasses approximately 149 ac (60 ha) within Monroe
County, in the Distal Sand Region of the Florida Keys. This unit is
considered occupied by the species and contains the physical or
biological feature essential to its conservation. Habitat on Marquesas
Key is mostly coastal berm with a thin sandy shoreline. This unit is
entirely in Federal ownership as part of the Key West National Wildlife
Refuge. The entirety of Unit 18 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle and piping plover. The habitat in
this unit is contiguous since there is no development on the island,
which is accessible only by boat. The physical and biological feature
in this unit may require special
[[Page 58676]]
management considerations or protection such as identifying areas where
beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp
or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing
renourishment or restoration/protection activities further upland;
conducting restoration and debris cleanup after storms while
concurrently minimizing disturbance to Florida Keys mole skinks and
their habitat; establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-
enhanced habitats to persist; conducting public outreach and education;
and preparing disaster response plans and conducting trainings that
consider Florida Keys mole skinks and their habitat to address threats
from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, and
storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities (e.g.,
oil spills) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
Unit 19: Loggerhead Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit 19 encompasses approximately 65 ac (26 ha) within Monroe
County, in the Distal Sand Region of the Florida Keys. This unit is
considered unoccupied. Habitat on Loggerhead Key is sand beach and
coastal uplands. This unit is entirely in Federal ownership as part of
the Dry Tortugas National Park. Approximately 31 percent of Unit 19
overlaps with designated critical habitat for the loggerhead sea
turtle. The habitat in this unit is contiguous since there is very
little development on the island, which is accessible only by boat. The
threat of development is low due to designation as a national park and
threats from climate change are low because of its higher elevation
(see Summary of Biological Status and Threats in Proposed Listing
Determination, above).
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, the Florida Keys
mole skink was documented on the island in the past (FNAI 2011,
entire), and it is possible that the lack of current detections could
be due to lack of surveys. Also, this unit constitutes habitat for the
species because it contains the physical or biological feature
necessary for the life history of the species. This unit is essential
for the conservation of the species because it will still provide
habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of sea level rise (as
described in Future Condition in Proposed Listin
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on September 27, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.