Proposed Rule2022-21604
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat), and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida prairie-clover)
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
October 14, 2022
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat), and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida prairie- clover) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In total, approximately 179,680 acres (72,714 hectares) for Everglades bully, 177,879 acres (71,985 hectares) for Florida pineland crabgrass, 8,867 acres (3,588 hectares) for pineland sandmat, and 179,300 acres (72,560 hectares) for Florida prairie-clover in Monroe, Collier, and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designations. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to the species' critical habitats. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designations of critical habitat for these four plant species.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62564-62611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21604]
[[Page 62563]]
Vol. 87
Friday,
No. 198
October 14, 2022
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades
bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass), Chamaesyce
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat), and Dalea carthagenensis
var. floridana (Florida prairie-clover); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62564]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0125; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE48
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense
(Everglades bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass),
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat), and Dalea
carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida prairie-clover)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp.
austrofloridense (Everglades bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida
pineland crabgrass), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland
sandmat), and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida prairie-
clover) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In
total, approximately 179,680 acres (72,714 hectares) for Everglades
bully, 177,879 acres (71,985 hectares) for Florida pineland crabgrass,
8,867 acres (3,588 hectares) for pineland sandmat, and 179,300 acres
(72,560 hectares) for Florida prairie-clover in Monroe, Collier, and
Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat designations. If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to the species'
critical habitats. We also announce the availability of a draft
economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designations of critical
habitat for these four plant species.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 13, 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
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 28, 2022.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: 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-2022-0125,
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 or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2022-0125; 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 the Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: For the proposed critical
habitat designations, the coordinates or plot points or both from which
the maps are generated are included in the decision file for these
critical habitat designations and are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0125 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 these critical habitat designations 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, Classification and
Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida
Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200,
Jacksonville, FL 32256; by telephone 904-731-3134; or by facsimile 904-
731-3045. 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, when we determine
that any species is an endangered or threatened species, we must
designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only
be completed by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act
rulemaking process.
What this document does. This document proposes to designate
critical habitat for one plant species, Florida prairie-clover, that is
listed as an endangered species under the Act and for three plant
species, Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland
sandmat that are listed as threatened species under the Act (see
listing rule at 82 FR 46691, October 6, 2017).
The basis for our action. 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) 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 and commercial 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.
Draft economic analysis of the proposed designations of critical
habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the probable economic impacts
of the proposed critical habitat designations and related factors. In
this document, we announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis and seek additional public review and comment.
Public comment. We are seeking comments and soliciting information
from the public on our proposed designations to make sure we consider
the best scientific and commercial information available in developing
our final designations. Because we will consider all comments and
information we receive during the comment period, our final
determinations may differ from this proposal. We will respond to
substantive comments we receive during the comment period in our final
rule.
Peer review. 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 determination
[[Page 62565]]
under section 4 of the Act, including listing determinations and
critical habitat designations, we are seeking comments from independent
specialists. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our critical
habitat designations are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the
biology, habitat, and threats to the species addressed in this proposed
rule. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment on our specific
assumptions and conclusions in this critical habitat proposal during
the public comment period for this proposed rule (see DATES, above).
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 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; or
(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.''
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Everglades bully, Florida
pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover
habitat;
(b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species,
i.e., south and central Florida, that should be included in the
designations because they (i) 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 (ii) are unoccupied at the time of listing and are
essential for the conservation of the species because they have
potential to successfully support introduced or reintroduced
populations of these species;
(c) 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; and
(d) Whether we have appropriately identified the physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation for each
species.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover and proposed critical
habitat.
(5) 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.
(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designations, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(7) 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. If you think we should exclude any
additional areas, please provide information supporting a benefit of
exclusion.
(8) 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, will not be considered in
making a final critical habitat determination. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the
basis of the best scientific data 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 designations may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), our final designations 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.
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 October 11, 2016, we proposed to list Florida prairie-clover as
an endangered species and Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
and
[[Page 62566]]
pineland sandmat as threatened species under the Act (81 FR 70282). On
October 6, 2017, we published our final determination in the Federal
Register (82 FR 46691) and added Florida prairie-clover as an
endangered species and Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
and pineland sandmat as threatened species to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12(h). At the time of our proposal,
we determined that critical habitat was prudent, but not determinable,
because we lacked specific information on the impacts of our
designation. In our final listing rule (82 FR 46691; October 6, 2017),
we stated we were in the process of obtaining information on the
impacts of the designation. All previous Federal actions for Everglades
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida
prairie-clover are outlined in our proposed listing rule for the four
plant species (81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016).
It is our intent to discuss in this proposed rule only those topics
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Everglades
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida
prairie-clover. For more information on the taxonomy, life history,
habitat, population descriptions, and factors affecting the species for
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and
Florida prairie-clover, please refer to the October 11, 2016, proposed
listing rule (81 FR 70282) and the October 6, 2017, final listing rule
(82 FR 46691) for these species.
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in
50 CFR parts 17 and 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
threatened and endangered species and the criteria for designating
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August
27, 2019).
However, on July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California vacated the 2019 regulations (Center for
Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D.
Cal. July 5, 2022) (CBD v. Haaland)), reinstating the regulations that
were in effect before the effective date of the 2019 regulations as the
law governing species classification and critical habitat decisions.
Accordingly, in developing the analysis contained in this proposal, we
applied the pre-2019 regulations, which may be reviewed in the 2018
edition of the Code of Federal Regulations at 424.02 and 424.12(a)(1)
and (b)(2)). Because of the ongoing litigation regarding the court's
vacatur of the 2019 regulations, and the resulting uncertainty
surrounding the legal status of the regulations, we also undertook an
analysis of whether the proposal would be different if we were to apply
the 2019 regulations. That analysis, which we described in a separate
memo in the decisional file and posted on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>,
concluded that we would have reached the same proposal if we had
applied the 2019 regulations because under either regulatory scheme we
find that critical habitat is prudent for the four plant species and
that the occupied areas proposed for critical habitat are adequate to
ensure the conservation of the species. The amount and distribution of
critical habitat we are proposing for designation in occupied areas
would allow existing and future established populations of Everglades
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida
prairie-clover to maintain their existing distributions; expand their
distributions into suitable nearby areas (needed to offset habitat loss
and fragmentation); increase the size of each population to a level
where the threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental
uncertainties are diminished; and maintain their ability to withstand
local or unit-level environmental fluctuations or catastrophic events.
Accordingly, we have not identified unoccupied areas that are essential
for the conservation of the species at this time.
On September 21, 2022, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit stayed the district court's July 5, 2022, order vacating
the 2019 regulations until a pending motion for reconsideration before
the district court is resolved (In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-
70194). The effect of the stay is that the 2019 regulations are
currently the governing law. Because a court order requires us to
submit this proposal to the Federal Register by September 30, 2022, it
is not feasible for us to revise the proposal in response to the Ninth
Circuit's decision. Instead, we hereby adopt the analysis in the
separate memo that applied the 2019 regulations as our primary
justification for the proposal. However, due to the continued
uncertainty resulting from the ongoing litigation, we also retain the
analysis in this preamble that applies the pre-2019 regulations and we
conclude that, for the reasons stated in our separate memo analyzing
the 2019 regulations, this proposal would have been the same if we had
applied the 2019 regulations.
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, and
(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
[[Page 62567]]
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
likely 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 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.
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 listing rules 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; 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 section 9 of the Act.
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 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)) currently in effect
state that a designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or
both 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.''
No imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism
was identified under Factor B for these species in the final listing
rule (82 FR 46691; October 6, 2017), nor has such a threat been
identified since, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is
not expected to initiate or increase the degree of any such threat. In
our listing determination for these species, we determined that the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range is a threat to these species. Therefore, because none
of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1) has been met, we have determined that the designation of
critical habitat is prudent for Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation of critical habitat is prudent
for each species, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether
critical habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover 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.''
[[Page 62568]]
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)).
At the time of our proposal, we determined that critical habitat
was prudent, but not determinable because we lacked specific
information on the impacts of our designation (81 FR 70282; October 11,
2016). In our final listing rule, we stated we were in the process of
obtaining information on the impacts of the designation (82 FR 46691;
October 6, 2017). We reviewed the available information pertaining to
the biological needs of the species and habitat characteristics where
these species are located. At this time, we are proposing to designate
critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent, for Everglades bully,
Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-
clover.
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.
Following vacatur of the 2019 regulations, our regulations now in
effect 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 features to support the life history of the
species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, the Service 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.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and
Florida prairie-clover from studies of these plants' habitat, ecology,
and life history as described below. Additional information can be
found in the October 11, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and
October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR 46691) for these species. We
have determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie.
Everglades Bully, Florida Pineland Crabgrass, and Pineland Sandmat
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Plant Community and Competitive Ability--Everglades bully and
Florida pineland crabgrass occur in pine rockland and marl prairies, as
well as the ecotone between these habitats in Collier, Miami-Dade, and
Monroe Counties (Gann et al. 2006, p. 12; Bradley et al. 2013, p. 4;
Gann 2015, p. 30; Maschinski et al. 2002, p. 79), whereas pineland
sandmat occurs only in communities classified as pine rockland habitat
in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 24).
Detailed descriptions of these communities and their associated native
plant species for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and
pineland sandmat are provided under Background in the October 11, 2016,
proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and under Summary of Biological
Status and Threats in the October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR
46691). These habitats and their associated plant communities provide
vegetation structure that allows for adequate growing space, moisture,
sunlight, pollinators, and a competitive regime that is required for
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat to
persist and spread. Pine rocklands and marl prairies are fire-
maintained ecosystems characterized by an open canopy and understory
and a limestone substrate (often exposed). Open canopy conditions are
required to allow sufficient sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer and
permit growth and flowering of Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat (Ross and Ruiz 1996, pp. 5-6; Bradley
and Saha 2009, p. 4). These species also require a calcareous limestone
substrate that varies from nearly bare to thin layers or small pockets
of shallow soil to provide suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH,
nutrients, anchoring, and proper drainage). As a result of these
marginal soil conditions, plants such as Everglades bully, Florida
pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat rely on sparse competition and
periodic disturbance to thrive and persist. This combination of
ecosystem characteristics (i.e., open canopy with a partially exposed
limestone substrate and periodic disturbance) occurs only in pine
rockland habitats (as opposed to rockland hammock, which occurs in
conjunction with pine rockland and has a limestone substrate but a
closed canopy) and marl prairie habitats.
In Miami-Dade County, development and agriculture have reduced pine
rockland habitat by 90 percent in mainland south Florida. Recent
vegetation mapping in Everglades National Park (ENP) indicates there
are a total of 14,211 acres (ac) (5,751 hectares (ha)) of pine
rocklands remaining in ENP, which includes the largest remaining area
of pine rockland (approximately 10,895 ac (4,409 ha)) in Florida (Long
Pine Key) (Ruiz et al. 2022). Outside of ENP, pine rockland habitat
decreased from approximately 185,329 ac (75,000 ha) in the early 1900s
to only 3,707 ac (1,500 ha) in 2014 (Possley et al. 2014, p. 154) and
2,275 ac (921 ha) in 2019 (USGS 2019, p. 28), leaving only about 1.2
percent of the pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge remaining.
Further, much of what is left are small remnants scattered throughout
the Miami metropolitan area, isolated from other natural areas
[[Page 62569]]
(Herndon 1998, p. 1). The extreme rarity of high-quality pine rockland
habitat supporting Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and
pineland sandmat and marl prairie habitat supporting Everglades bully
and Florida pineland crabgrass elevates the importance of disturbed
remnant sites that still retain some pine rockland species.
We consider pine rockland and adjacent ecotonal areas to be primary
habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland
sandmat. Similarly, we also consider marl prairie and adjacent ecotonal
areas to be primary habitat for Everglades bully and Florida pineland
crabgrass. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
upland habitats consisting of pine rocklands and adjacent ecotonal
areas to be a physical or biological feature essential to the
conservation of Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and
pineland sandmat. Additionally, we identify upland habitats consisting
of marl prairie and adjacent ecotonal areas to be a physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of Everglades bully
and Florida pineland crabgrass.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Climate (Temperature and Precipitation)--Everglades bully, Florida
pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat require adequate rainfall and
do not tolerate prolonged freezing temperatures. The climate of south
Florida where Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and
pineland sandmat occur is characterized by distinct wet and dry
seasons, a monthly mean temperature above 64.4 degrees ([deg])
Fahrenheit (F) (18 [deg]Celsius (C)) in every month of the year, and
annual rainfall averaging 30 to 60 inches (in) (75 to 150 centimeters
(cm)) (Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). Areas of pine rockland that are
adjacent to wetlands may experience prolonged flooded periods lasting
up to 60 days, while those at higher elevation have shorter or no
annual flooding period (Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2010, p.
2). Freezes can occur in the winter months but are very infrequent at
this latitude in Florida. Therefore, based on the information above, we
determined a subtropical humid climate (Miami-Dade County) or tropical
humid climate (Collier and Monroe Counties) to be an essential physical
feature for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland
sandmat.
Soils--Substrates supporting Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat are composed of oolitic limestone that
is at or very near the surface (Kernan and Bradley 1996, p. 2).
Solution holes occasionally form where the surface limestone is
dissolved by organic acids. There is typically very little soil
development, consisting primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient
sand, marl, clayey loam, and organic debris found in solution holes,
depressions, and crevices on the limestone surface (FNAI 2010, p. 62).
However, these species can be found at the northern end of the Miami
Rock Ridge, where the substrate includes extensive sandy pockets,
beginning from approximately North Miami Beach and extending south to
approximately SW 216 Street (which runs east-west approximately one-
half mile south of Quail's Roost Pineland) (Service 1999, p. 3-162).
These substrates provide anchoring, nutrients, moisture regime, and
suitable soil chemistry for Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat; they facilitate a community of
associated plant species that creates competition, which allows these
species to persist and spread. Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify substrates derived from calcareous limestone (often
exposed with little soil development) that provide nutritional
requirements and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients,
anchoring, and drainage) to be an essential physical feature for
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat.
Hydrology--Pine rocklands occur on relatively flat, moderately to
well drained terrain from 6 to 21 feet (ft) (2 to 7 meters (m)) above
sea level. Drainage varies according to the porosity of the limestone
substrate but is generally rapid. Consequently, most sites are wet for
only short periods following heavy rains. During the rainy season,
however, some sites may be shallowly inundated by slow-flowing surface
water for up to 60 days each year (hydroperiods) (FNAI 2010, p. 62).
Marl prairies also are dependent on short hydroperiods (up to 60 days).
Longer hydroperiods favor the development of peat and the dominance of
sawgrass while shorter hydroperiods permit the invasion of woody
species (FNAI 2010, p. 108). Therefore, based on the information above,
we identify pine rockland habitat with short hydroperiods (up to 60
days) to be an essential feature for Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat. Additionally, we identify marl prairie
habitat with short hydroperiods (up to 60 days) to be an essential
habitat feature for Everglades bully and Florida pineland crabgrass.
Cover or Shelter
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat
occur in open to semi-open canopy habitats. Pine rockland is
characterized by an open canopy of Pinus elliottii var. densa (South
Florida slash pine), with a limited subcanopy (Snyder et al. 1990, p.
253). Marl prairie is characterized by a sparsely vegetated, grass-
dominated community. Although the vegetative community is diverse, most
marl prairie plant species contribute little cover, and over 90 percent
of the cover is contributed by only two or three dominant species in
any given area (FNAI 2010, p. 108). The spatial and temporal
distribution of open canopy areas varies in these habitats based on
time since the last disturbance, such as fire, caused canopy openings.
An open canopy and understory are required to allow sufficient
sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering
of Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify vegetation
composition and structure characterized by an open to semi-open canopy
that allows for sufficient sunlight and space for individual growth and
population expansion to be an essential feature for Everglades bully,
Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Little is known about the life history of Everglades bully, Florida
pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat, including pollination
biology, seed production, or dispersal. Reproduction is sexual, with
new plants generated from seeds. Therefore, insect pollination is
likely important to these species' reproduction, and declines in
pollinator visitation may cause decreased seed or fruit production of
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat,
which could lead to lower seedling establishment and numbers of mature
plants.
The pine rocklands, marl prairies, and adjacent ecotonal habitats
identified above as essential features provide a plant community with
associated plant species that foster a competitive regime suitable to
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat and
contain adequate open space for the recruitment of new plants.
Associated plant species in these habitats attract and provide cover
for
[[Page 62570]]
insect pollinators required for Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat pollination (for more information, see
Background in the October 11, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282)
and Summary of Biological Status and Threats in the October 6, 2017,
final listing rule (82 FR 46691)).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine
rockland and adjacent ecotonal areas containing the presence of native
pollinators for natural pollination and reproduction to be an essential
feature for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland
sandmat. Additionally, we identify marl prairie and adjacent ecotonal
areas containing the presence of native pollinators for natural
pollination and reproduction to be an essential feature for Everglades
bully and Florida pineland crabgrass.
Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat
continue to occur in habitats that are protected from incompatible
human disturbance, which are habitats representative of the species'
historical, geographical, and ecological distributions, although their
ranges have been reduced. These species are still found in pine
rocklands, and, in addition, Everglades bully and Florida pineland
crabgrass are still found in marl prairies, along with the ecotonal
regions between these two habitat types. As described above, these
habitats provide a community of associated plant and animal species
that are compatible with Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
and pineland sandmat. In addition, these habitats provide the
vegetation structure that provides adequate sunlight levels and open
space for plant growth and regeneration, and substrates with adequate
moisture availability and suitable soil chemistry needed for these
species. Representative communities are located on Federal, State,
local, and private conservation lands that implement conservation
measures benefitting the species.
Disturbance Regime--Pine rockland and marl prairie habitats that
could or currently support Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat depend on natural disturbance regimes
from hurricanes or fires to open the canopy in order to provide light
levels sufficient to support the species. The historical frequency and
magnitude of hurricanes and fire have allowed for the persistence of
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat by
occasionally creating areas of open canopy. In the absence of
disturbance, these habitats may have closed canopies, resulting in
areas lacking enough available sunlight to support Everglades bully,
Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat. Most of these areas
can be restored if habitats are managed with a combination of
mechanical hardwood removal and prescribed fire. We consider wildfire
to be the natural disturbance factor for pine rocklands, marl prairies,
and adjacent ecotonal areas. Therefore, we identify habitats that are
subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or unnatural
(e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open canopy
conditions in pine rocklands, marl prairies, and adjacent ecotonal
areas as essential habitat features for Everglades bully, Florida
pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat.
Summary of Physical or Biological Features Essential to the
Conservation of Everglades Bully, Florida Pineland Crabgrass, and
Pineland Sandmat
Based on the best available science related to the life history and
ecology of these species, as outlined in the discussion above, we have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of Everglades bully and Florida pineland
crabgrass:
South Florida pine rockland, marl prairie, and adjacent ecotonal
areas:
(1) Consisting of calcareous limestone substrate (often exposed
with little soil development) that provides nutritional requirements
and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, and
drainage);
(2) Characterized by an open to semi-open canopy and understory
with a high proportion of native plant species to provide for
sufficient sunlight to permit growth and flowering;
(3) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County or the tropical
humid classification in Collier and Monroe Counties and short
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
(4) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or
unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open
canopy conditions; and
(5) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural
pollination and reproduction.
Based on the best available science related to the life history and
ecology of the species, as outlined in the discussion above, we have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of pineland sandmat:
South Florida pine rockland and adjacent ecotonal areas:
(1) Consisting of calcareous limestone substrate (often exposed
with little soil development) that provides nutritional requirements
and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, and
drainage);
(2) Characterized by an open canopy and understory with a high
proportion of native pine rockland plant species to provide for
sufficient sunlight to permit growth and flowering;
(3) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County and short
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
(4) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or
unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open
canopy conditions; and
(5) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural
pollination and reproduction.
Florida Prairie-Clover
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Plant Community and Competitive Ability--Florida prairie-clover
occurs in Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties in communities
classified as pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and
coastal berm, in addition to disturbed sites adjacent to these
habitats, such as roadsides and mowed areas still dominated by native
species (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 3; Gann 2015, p. 26). These
communities and their associated native plant species are described in
the October 11, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and the
October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR 46691). These habitats and
their associated plant communities provide vegetation structure that
allows for adequate growing space, moisture, sunlight, pollinators, and
a competitive regime that is required for Florida prairie-clover to
persist and spread. The plant also requires a calcareous limestone
substrate that varies from nearly bare to thin layers or small pockets
of shallow soil to provide suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH,
nutrients, anchoring, and proper drainage). As a result of these
marginal soil conditions, plants such as Florida prairie-clover rely on
sparse competition and periodic disturbance to thrive and persist.
As discussed above for Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, and
[[Page 62571]]
pineland sandmat, pine rocklands and marl prairies are fire-maintained
ecosystems characterized by an open canopy and understory and a
limestone substrate (often exposed). Rockland hammock is a species-rich
tropical hardwood forest on upland sites in areas where limestone is
very near the surface and often exposed. Coastal berms are landscape
features found along low-energy coastlines in south Florida and the
Florida Keys. Coastal berm is a short forest or shrub thicket found on
long, narrow, storm-deposited ridges (sand dunes) of loose sediment
formed by a mixture of coarse shell fragments, pieces of coralline
algae, and other coastal debris.
Like Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland
sandmat, open canopy conditions are required to allow sufficient
sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering
of Florida prairie-clover. These conditions are maintained by fire in
pine rocklands and marl prairies. In rockland hammocks, only the edges
and canopy disruption in the interior provide enough sunlight for
Florida prairie-clover. Canopy disruption on rockland hammocks can
occur due to natural events such as hurricanes and storm surge. Human
disturbance, especially mowing, also maintains suitable conditions in
disturbed areas. The plant also requires a limestone substrate to
provide suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring,
and proper drainage). This combination of ecosystem characteristics
(i.e., open canopy and limestone substrate) occurs in pine rocklands,
along edges and gaps in rockland hammocks, and in coastal berm.
Disturbed areas that support Florida prairie-clover consist of
sites that formerly were pine rocklands or rockland hammocks, but in
most cases have no remaining pine or hardwood canopy because of
previous disturbance (clearing or scraping). These include roadsides,
firebreaks, levees, and other areas that are infrequently mowed, or
have no tree canopy but retain native herbs and grass species (Bradley
2006, p. 37: Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 61).
Loss of pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties is
discussed above for the other three species. Habitat modification and
destruction from residential and commercial development have severely
impacted rockland hammocks and coastal berm that support Florida
prairie-clover. Rockland hammocks were once abundant in Miami-Dade and
Monroe Counties but are now considered imperiled locally and globally
(FNAI 2010, pp. 24-26). Development and agricultural pressures in south
Florida have resulted in significant reductions of rockland hammock
(Phillips 1940, p. 167; Snyder et al. 1990, pp. 271-272; FNAI 2010, pp.
24-26).
The extreme rarity of high-quality pine rockland, rockland hammock,
and coastal berm habitat supporting Florida prairie-clover in Miami-
Dade and Monroe Counties elevates the importance of disturbed remnant
sites that still retain some habitat values. We consider pine
rocklands; marl prairies; edges or gaps in rockland hammocks; and
coastal berm to be the primary habitats for Florida prairie-clover.
However, adjacent disturbed areas currently supporting the species are
considered more important when adjacent pine rocklands, marl prairie,
rockland hammocks, or coastal berm do not support an existing
population, or are of insufficient size or connectivity to support a
population of Florida prairie-clover. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify upland habitats consisting of pine
rocklands, marl prairie, rockland hammocks, coastal berm, and adjacent
disturbed areas to be an essential habitat feature for Florida prairie-
clover.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Climate (Temperature and Precipitation)--Florida prairie-clover
requires adequate rainfall and does not tolerate prolonged freezing
temperatures. The climate of south Florida where Florida prairie-clover
occurs is classified as tropical humid and subtropical humid, as
described above for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and
pineland sandmat. Rainfall within the range of Florida prairie-clover
varies from an annual average of 60-65 in (153-165 cm) in the northern
portion of the Miami Rock Ridge to an average of 35-40 in (89-102 cm)
in the lower Florida Keys (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 238). Freezes can
occur in the winter months but are very infrequent at this latitude in
Florida. Therefore, based on the information above, we determined this
type of climate to be an essential habitat feature for Florida prairie-
clover.
Soils--Substrates supporting Florida prairie-clover are composed of
oolitic limestone that is at or very near the surface. Solution holes
occasionally form where the surface limestone is dissolved by organic
acids. There is typically very little soil development, consisting
primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient sand, marl, clayey loam, and
organic debris found in solution holes, depressions, and crevices on
the limestone surface (FNAI 2010, p. 62). However, Florida prairie-
clover can be found at the northern end of the Miami Rock Ridge, where
the substrate includes extensive sandy pockets, beginning from
approximately North Miami Beach and extending south to approximately SW
216 Street (which runs east-west approximately one-half mile south of
Quail Roost Pineland) (Service 1999, p. 3-162). Rockland hammock occurs
on a thin layer of highly organic soil covering limestone on high
ground that does not regularly flood (FNAI 2010, pp. 24-26). In coastal
berms, deep, calcareous sandy soils are the typical substrate of this
habitat.
These substrates provide anchoring, nutrients, moisture regime, and
suitable soil chemistry for Florida prairie-clover, and they facilitate
a community of associated plant species that create a competitive
regime that allows Florida prairie-clover to persist and spread.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify substrates
derived from calcareous limestone (often exposed with little soil
development in pine rocklands; with a thin to thick organic soil layer
in the case of rockland hammocks; deep, calcareous soils in coastal
berm) that provide nutritional requirements and suitable growing
conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, and drainage) that provide
anchoring and nutritional requirements to be an essential feature for
Florida prairie-clover.
Hydrology--Pine rocklands occur on relatively flat, moderately to
well drained terrain from 2 to 7 meters above sea level. Drainage
varies according to the porosity of the limestone substrate but is
generally rapid. Consequently, most sites are wet for only short
periods following heavy rains. During the rainy season, however, some
sites may be shallowly inundated by slow-flowing surface water for up
to 60 days each year (FNAI 2010, p. 62). Marl prairies also are
dependent on short hydroperiods up to 60 days. Longer hydroperiods
favor the development of peat and the dominance of sawgrass; shorter
hydroperiods permit the invasion of woody species (FNAI 2010, p. 108).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rockland,
rockland hammock, marl prairie, and coastal berm habitats with short
hydroperiods (up to 60 days) to be an essential habitat feature for
Florida prairie-clover.
Cover or Shelter
As previously mentioned, Florida prairie-clover occurs in pine
rocklands,
[[Page 62572]]
marl prairies, rockland hammocks, and coastal berms, and in adjacent
disturbed areas, in Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties (Bradley and Gann
1999, p. 3). Pine rockland is characterized by an open canopy of South
Florida slash pine, with a limited subcanopy (Snyder et al. 1990, p.
253). Marl prairie is a sparsely vegetated, grass-dominated community.
Although the vegetative community is diverse, most marl prairie plant
species contribute little cover and over 90 percent of the cover is
contributed by only two or three dominant species in any given area
(FNAI 2010, p. 107). The open canopy and understory of pine rocklands
and marl prairies allow sufficient sunlight to reach the herbaceous
layer and permit growth and flowering of Florida prairie-clover (Ross
and Ruiz 1996, pp. 5-6; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4).
Rockland hammock forest floor is largely covered by leaf litter and
may have an organic soil layer of variable depth. Rockland hammocks
typically have larger, more mature trees in the interior and deep
organic soil layer in the interior, while the margins can be almost
impenetrable in places with dense growth of smaller shrubs, trees, and
vines and shallow organic soil layer. Mature hammocks may be open
beneath a tall, well-defined canopy and subcanopy. More commonly, in
less mature or disturbed hammocks, dense woody vegetation of varying
heights from canopy to short shrubs is often present. Herbaceous
species are occasionally present and generally sparse in coverage (FNAI
2010, pp. 24-26).
Coastal berm is a short forest or shrub thicket found on long,
narrow, storm-deposited ridges (sand dunes). Structure and composition
of the vegetation is variable depending on height and time since the
last storm event. The most stable berms may share some tree species
with rockland hammocks, but generally have a greater proportion of
shrubs and herbs. This is a structurally variable community that may
appear in various stages of succession following storm disturbance,
from scattered herbaceous beach colonizers to a dense stand of tall
shrubs (FNAI 2010, pp. 73-74).
Disturbed areas that are adjacent to pine rocklands, marl prairies,
rockland hammocks, and coastal berms that support Florida prairie-
clover may have little to no pine or hardwood canopy, but may have an
herbaceous layer dominated by native herbs and grasses. Usually these
are former (remnant) pine rocklands or rockland hammocks that have a
history of disturbance (clearing or scraping). These sites tend to be
infrequently (every 2 to 3 months) mowed areas adjacent to existing
pine rocklands or rockland hammocks, such as roadsides and fields.
These areas provide the open conditions required by Florida prairie-
clover (Bradley 2006, p. 37).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify vegetation
composition and structure characterized by an open canopy and
understory that allows for adequate sunlight and space for individual
growth and population expansion, to be an essential habitat feature for
Florida prairie-clover.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Little is known about the life history of Florida prairie-clover,
including pollination biology, seed production, or dispersal.
Reproduction is sexual, with new plants generated from seeds. This
species likely requires insect visitation for pollination, although
there is limited information on this.
The pine rocklands, marl prairies, rockland hammocks, coastal
berms, and adjacent disturbed habitats identified above as physical or
biological features provide a plant community with associated plant
species that foster a competitive regime suitable to Florida prairie-
clover and contain adequate open space for the recruitment of new
plants. Associated plant species in these habitats attract and provide
cover for insect pollinators required for Florida prairie-clover
pollination (for more information, see Background in the October 11,
2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and Summary of Biological
Status and Threats in the October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR
46691)).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine
rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats,
and adjacent disturbed areas, containing the presence of native
pollinators for natural pollination and reproduction to be essential
habitat features for Florida prairie-clover.
Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species
Florida prairie-clover continues to occur in habitats that are
representative of the species' historical, geographical, and ecological
distribution, although its range has been reduced. The species is
currently found in pine rocklands, marl prairies, rockland hammocks,
and coastal berms, and it also occurs in adjacent disturbed areas. As
described above, these habitats provide a community of associated plant
and animal species that are compatible with Florida prairie-clover,
vegetation structure that provides adequate sunlight levels and open
space for plant growth and regeneration, and substrates with adequate
moisture availability and suitable soil chemistry. Representative
communities are located on Federal, State, local, and private
conservation lands that implement conservation measures benefitting the
species.
Disturbance Regime--Pine rockland habitat that could or that
currently supports Florida prairie-clover depends on a disturbance
regime of wild or prescribed fire to open the canopy in order to
provide light levels sufficient to support Florida prairie-clover. The
historical frequency and magnitude of fire allowed for the persistence
of Florida prairie-clover by maintaining an open canopy and understory
and preventing succession (transition) of pine rocklands to hardwood-
dominated community (rockland hammock). In the absence of fire, some
areas of pine rockland may have closed canopies, resulting in areas
lacking enough available sunlight to support Florida prairie-clover.
Most of these areas can be restored if habitats are managed with a
combination of mechanical hardwood removal and prescribed fire.
Rockland hammock is susceptible to fire, frost, canopy disruption,
and ground water reduction. Rockland hammock can be the advanced
successional stage of pine rockland, especially in cases where rockland
hammock is adjacent to pine rockland. In such cases, when fire is
excluded from pine rockland for 15 to 25 years, it can succeed to
rockland hammock vegetation. Historically, rockland hammocks in south
Florida evolved with fire in the landscape; fire most often
extinguished near the edges when it encountered the hammock's moist
microclimate and litter layer. However, rockland hammocks are
susceptible to damage from fire during extreme drought or when the
water table is lowered. In these cases, fire can cause tree mortality
and consume the organic soil layer. Rockland hammocks are also
sensitive to the strong winds and storm surge associated with
infrequent hurricanes (FNAI 2010, p. 25).
Coastal berms are deposited by storm waves along low-energy coasts.
Their distance inland depends on the height of the storm surge. Coastal
berms that are deposited far enough inland and remain long-undisturbed
may in time succeed to hammock. This is a structurally variable
community that may appear in various stages of succession following
storm disturbance, from scattered herbaceous beach
[[Page 62573]]
colonizers to a dense stand of tall shrubs (FNAI 2010, p. 73).
The sparsely vegetated edges or interior portions laid open by
canopy disruption are the areas of rockland hammock and coastal berm
that have light levels sufficient to support Florida prairie-clover.
However, the dynamic nature of these habitats means that areas not
currently open may become open in the future because of canopy
disruption from hurricanes, while areas currently open may develop
denser canopy over time, eventually rendering those portions of
rockland hammock or coastal berm unsuitable for Florida prairie-clover.
Disturbed sites that support Florida prairie-clover are typically
maintained by infrequent mowing. Mowing is similar in effect to fire in
that it limits encroachment of hardwood species and maintains open
canopy conditions suitable for Florida prairie-clover. We consider fire
to be the natural disturbance factor for pine rocklands and marl
prairie; periodic hurricanes and storm surge are the natural
disturbance factors for rockland hammock and coastal berm. In adjacent
disturbed areas currently supporting the species, mowing serves some of
the ecological function of fire and maintains suitable habitat
conditions (open canopy) for the species.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify periodic
natural (e.g., fire, hurricanes, and storm surge) or unnatural (e.g.,
prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance regimes that maintain open canopy
conditions to be essential habitat features for Florida prairie-clover.
Summary of Physical or Biological Features Essential to the
Conservation of Florida Prairie-Clover
Based on the best available science related to the life history and
ecology of the species, as outlined in the discussion above, we have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of Florida prairie-clover:
South Florida pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and
coastal berm habitat and adjacent disturbed areas:
(1) Consisting of limestone substrate that provides nutritional
requirements and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients,
anchoring, and drainage);
(2) Characterized by an open canopy and understory with a high
proportion of native plant species to provide for sufficient sunlight
to permit growth and flowering;
(3) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County or the tropical
humid classification in Collier and Monroe Counties and short
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
(4) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire, hurricanes, and
storm surge) or unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance
regimes to maintain open canopy conditions; and
(5) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural
pollination and 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 features essential to the conservation of Everglades
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida
prairie-clover may require special management considerations or
protection to reduce threats related to habitat loss, fragmentation,
and modification primarily due to development; inadequate fire
management; nonnative plants; hurricanes and storm surge; changes in
disturbance regime; and sea level rise. (For an in-depth discussion of
threats, see Summary of Biological Status and Threats in the October
11, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species in the October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR
46691)).
Some of these threats (e.g., habitat loss, inadequate fire
management) can be addressed by special management considerations or
protection while others (e.g., sea level rise, hurricanes, storm surge)
are beyond the control of landowners and managers. However, even when
landowners or land managers may not be able to control all the threats,
they may be able to address the results of the threats. Habitat loss is
a primary threat to Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover. For example, in Miami-
Dade County, development and agriculture have reduced pine rockland
habitat by 90 percent in mainland south Florida. Recent vegetation
mapping in ENP indicates there are a total of 14,211 ac (5,751 ha) of
pine rocklands remaining in ENP, which includes the largest remaining
area of pine rockland (approximately 10,895 ac (4,409 ha)) in Florida
(Long Pine Key) (Ruiz et al. 2022). Outside of ENP, pine rockland
habitat decreased from approximately 185,329 ac (75,000 ha) in the
early 1900s to only 3,707 ac (1,500 ha) in 2014 (Possley et al. 2014,
p. 154) and 2,275 ac (921 ha) in 2019 (USGS 2019, p. 28), leaving only
about 1.2 percent of the pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge
remaining, and much of what is left are small remnants scattered
throughout the Miami metropolitan area, isolated from other natural
areas (Herndon 1998, p. 1). Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover occur on a mix
of private and publicly owned lands, most of which are managed for
conservation.
Habitat fragmentation can have negative effects on populations,
especially rare plants, and can affect survival and recovery (Aguilar
et al. 2006, pp. 968-980; Aguilar et al. 2008, pp. 5177-5188; Potts et
al. 2010, pp. 345-352). In general, habitat fragmentation causes
habitat loss, habitat degradation, habitat isolation, changes in
species composition, changes in species interactions, increased edge
effects, and reduced habitat connectivity (Fahrig 2003, pp. 487-515;
Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007, pp. 265-280). Habitat fragments are often
functionally smaller than they appear because edge effects (such as
increased nonnative, invasive species or wind speeds) impact the
available habitat within the fragment (Lienert and Fischer 2003, p.
597).
Populations of these species that occur on private land or non-
conservation public land are vulnerable to habitat loss, while
populations on conservation lands are vulnerable to the effects of
habitat degradation if disturbance regimes are disrupted (e.g., through
inadequate fire management or change in management practices on
disturbed sites that support the species). Prolonged lack of fire in
pine rockland typically results in succession to rockland hammock, and
displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often
occurs. While Florida prairie-clover also occurs in rockland hammocks,
the change from pine is a significant concern because pine rocklands
are an extremely rare habitat. Changes in management practices at
disturbed sites may include changes in mowing frequency or height,
herbicide use, deposition of fill material, and sodding. Further
development and degradation of pine rocklands, marl prairies, rockland
hammock, and coastal berm increase fragmentation and decrease the
conservation value of the remaining functioning habitats. In addition,
pine rocklands and marl
[[Page 62574]]
prairies are expected to be further degraded and fragmented due to
anticipated sea level rise, which would fully or partially inundate
these habitats, and cause increases in the salinity of the water table
and soils resulting in vegetation shifts in additional pine rocklands
in South Florida. Some existing pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland
hammock, and coastal berm areas are also projected to be developed for
housing as the human population grows and adjusts to changing sea
levels.
In summary, the features essential to the conservation of
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and
Florida prairie-clover may require special management considerations or
protection to reduce threats and conserve these features. Actions that
could ameliorate threats include, but are not limited to:
(1) Increase habitat restoration and management efforts, including
fire management and nonnative plant control;
(2) Protect, restore, or enhance inland or higher elevation
habitats where these species occur and are predicted to be unaffected
or less affected by sea-level rise;
(3) Augment existing small populations; and
(4) Conduct annual or seasonal monitoring efforts, or conduct
monitoring prior to, but coordinated with, habitat and fire management
planning to refine management efforts over time.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial 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 these species at the time of their
listing in 2017. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas
outside the geographical area occupied by these species at the time of
listing in 2017 because we have not identified any unoccupied areas
that meet the definition of critical habitat.
Ranges
Everglades Bully
The historical range of Everglades bully includes Collier, Miami-
Dade, and Monroe Counties, Florida. There are currently 14 extant
populations of Everglades bully across these 3 counties. In Miami-Dade
County, of 13 historical records for Everglades bully, 11 populations
were extant at the time of listing, while 2 (Grant Hammock and Nixon-
Smiley Preserve) were extirpated at the time of listing (Bradley et al.
2013, p. 1). The largest population (10,000-100,000 individuals) of
Everglades bully in Miami-Dade County occurs at Long Pine Key in ENP
(Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 42; Gann et al. 2006, p. 11; Gann 2015, p.
9). In Monroe and Collier Counties, of two historical records for
Everglades bully, two populations were extant at the time of listing in
the Lostman's Pines section of Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP;
Monroe County). Since listing, an additional population was discovered
in BCNP (extending into Collier County) that owing to the size and
maturity of plants, was clearly extant at the time of listing (Lange et
al. 2022, pp. 7-8).
The species was historically collected as far south as Key Largo,
in the Florida Keys, but was extirpated at the time of listing and is
still extirpated from the island. The species was not found during
recent surveys of pine rocklands on Key Largo (Hodges and Bradley 2006,
p. 42) or elsewhere in the Florida Keys (Gann et al. 2002, p. 526;
Corogin and Judd 2014, p. 412).
Six out of 14 extant Everglades bully populations have fewer than
100 individuals (low resiliency). These small populations are at risk
of adverse effects from reduced genetic variation, an increased risk of
inbreeding depression, and reduced reproductive output. Many of these
populations are small and isolated from each other, decreasing the
likelihood that they could be naturally re-established if extinction
from one location occurred.
Florida Pineland Crabgrass
The historical range of Florida pineland crabgrass consists of
central and southern Miami-Dade County along the Miami Rock Ridge, from
the southern Miami to Long Pine Key region of ENP (Bradley and Gann
1999, p. 49) and BCNP in mainland Monroe County (Bradley et al. 2013,
p. 2). The current range of Florida pineland crabgrass includes two
extant populations, one in ENP (Miami-Dade County) and another in BCNP
(mainland Monroe County). Since listing, surveys in BCNP have revealed
that the population is more extensive than was known at the time of
listing (Lange et al. 2022, p. 8). Outside these areas, of five
historical records for Florida pineland crabgrass on Miami Rock Ridge,
all were extirpated at the time of listing and remain extirpated.
The extant Florida pineland crabgrass population in ENP has
100,000-200,000 individuals (Gann 2015, p. 142; Maschinki and Lange
2015, p. 18), and the extant population in BCNP has more than 10,000
individuals (Bradley 2005 pers comm.), which suggests some level of
resiliency. However, these two populations are isolated from one
another, and redundancy is reduced from historical levels as several
populations in Miami-Dade County have been extirpated. This increases
the risk from catastrophic events and decreases the likelihood that
they could naturally re-establish if extinction from one location
occurred.
Pineland Sandmat
The historical range of pineland sandmat includes Miami-Dade
County, Florida, specifically within the southern portion of the Miami
Rock Ridge, from the Richmond Pine Rocklands of southern Miami to the
Long Pine Key region of ENP (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 24). The current
range of pineland sandmat includes 20 extant populations in Miami-Dade
County, although 98 percent of the pine rocklands outside of the ENP
have been lost to development. In Miami-Dade County, of 21 historical
records for pineland sandmat, 20 populations were extant at the time of
listing, while 1 (Larry Penny Thompson Park) was extirpated at the time
of listing (J. Possley 2011, pers. comm.). The largest population of
pineland sandmat in Miami-Dade County occurs at ENP.
Ten out of 20 extant pineland sandmat populations have fewer than
100 individuals (low resiliency). These small populations are at risk
of adverse effects from reduced genetic variation, an increased risk of
inbreeding depression, and reduced reproductive output. Many of these
populations are small and isolated from each other, decreasing the
likelihood that they could be naturally re-established in the event
that extinction from one location would occur.
Florida Prairie-Clover
The historical range of Florida prairie-clover includes Miami-Dade,
Monroe, Collier, and Palm Beach Counties (Gann et al. 2015, pp. 25-26).
There have been no reports of this plant from Palm Beach County since
1918 (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 42).
[[Page 62575]]
In Miami-Dade County, of 12 historical records for Florida prairie-
clover, 7 populations were extant at the time of listing, while 4
(Castellow Hammock, the Coral Gables area, Cox Hammock, and ENP) were
considered extirpated at the time of listing (Bradley and Gann 1999,
pp. 42-43; Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 39), and the status of one
population (Pineland south of Miami River) was unknown (Bradley 2005
pers. comm.). In the final listing rule (82 FR 46691), the ENP
populations were considered extirpated because the last official record
was from 1964. Surveys were sporadic since that time, however, suitable
habitat remained, and the species was recorded at ENP in 2018. Given
the dynamic nature of this species and its response to localized
disturbances, it likely occurs somewhat cryptically until mowing or
fire produces suitable conditions for the species to be readily
observed. Therefore, since Florida prairie-clover was found at ENP in
2018, only a year after listing, and was not introduced, we assume the
species occurred at ENP at the time of listing in 2017.
The largest populations of Florida prairie-clover in Miami-Dade
County occur at Crandon Park, Charles Deering Estate, and R. Hardy
Matheson Preserve, with population sizes ranging from 98 to 500 plants
(Maschinski et al. 2015, pp. 30-32) at each location.
In Monroe and Collier Counties, Florida prairie-clover is extant
only within BCNP, where there is at least one population (Pernas 2021,
pers. comm.).
The current range of Florida prairie-clover consists of 9 extant
populations; 8 in Miami-Dade County, including at least one in ENP, and
at least one extant population in Monroe and Collier Counties in BCNP
(Pernas 2021, pers comm.). Many of these populations are small and
isolated from each other, decreasing the likelihood that they could be
naturally re-established if extinction from one location occurred.
We anticipate that full recovery for Everglades bully, Florida
pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover will
require continued protection of the remaining extant populations and
habitat and augmenting extant populations. It may also require
reestablishing populations in occupied areas to provide connectivity
among populations to there are adequate numbers of plants and stable
populations. This will help to reduce the chance that catastrophic
events, such as storms, will simultaneously affect all known
populations. However, some of the historical locations no longer
contain suitable habitat, and thus are not proposed as designated
critical habitat. Accordingly, we have not identified unoccupied areas
that are essential for the conservation of the species at this time.
Conservation Strategy
In considering our proposal of critical habitat, we identified the
following conservation strategy for Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover:
(1) Conserve existing populations with sufficient native habitat;
(2) Work with partners to conserve existing populations, and
implement efforts that will benefit the species and its habitat; and
(3) Augment existing populations and facilitate establishment/re-
establishment of populations into suitable protected habitat.
To facilitate the application of our conservation strategy and
goals for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover, we utilized the Shaffer and Stein
(2000) methodology for conserving imperiled species known as the `three
Rs': representation, resiliency, and redundancy. Resiliency is the
ability to sustain populations through the natural range of favorable
and unfavorable conditions. Representation ensures adaptive capacity
within a species and allows it to respond to environmental changes.
This can be facilitated by conserving not just genetic diversity, but
also the species' associated habitat type and plant communities.
Redundancy ensures an adequate number of sites with resilient
populations such that the species has the ability to withstand
catastrophic events. Implementation of this methodology has been widely
accepted as a reasonable conservation strategy (Tear et al. 2005, p.
841).
The amount and distribution of critical habitat we are proposing
for designation in occupied areas would allow existing and future
established populations of Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover to:
(1) Maintain their existing distributions;
(2) Expand their distributions into suitable nearby areas (needed
to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
(3) Use habitat depending on habitat availability (response to
changing nature of coastal habitat, including sea level rise) and
support genetic diversity;
(4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the
threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties
are diminished; and
(5) Maintain their ability to withstand local or unit-level
environmental fluctuations or catastrophic events.
Everglades Bully
Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of
pine rockland and marl prairie habitats remaining in Miami-Dade,
Collier, and Monroe Counties. All Everglades bully populations, outside
of ENP and BCNP, are on small remnant pine rockland and marl prairie
and adjacent ecotonal areas (less than 1,000 ac (404 ha)) in Miami-Dade
County. Therefore, the resiliency of the populations and redundancy of
the species will continue to be influenced by the amount of habitat
remaining in the Monroe, Collier, and Miami-Dade Counties. We are
proposing to designate critical habitat units that contain the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that support extant populations at the time of listing. We have not
identified any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time it was listed that are essential for the
conservation of the species. Accordingly, we are not proposing any
unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
Florida Pineland Crabgrass
Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of
pine rockland and marl prairie habitats remaining in Miami-Dade,
Collier, and Monroe Counties. All habitat for the historical Florida
pineland crabgrass populations, outside of ENP and BCNP, is now on
small remnant pine rockland, marl prairie, and ecotonal areas in Miami-
Dade County. We are proposing critical habitat units that contain the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and supported extant populations at the time of listing. We
have not identified any specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it was listed that are essential
for the conservation of the species. Accordingly, we are not proposing
unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
Pineland Sandmat
Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of
pine rockland habitat remaining in Miami-Dade County. Most of the
pineland sandmat populations, outside of ENP, are on small remnant pine
rockland sites and adjacent ecotonal areas. Therefore, the resiliency
of the populations and redundancy of the species will continue
[[Page 62576]]
to be influenced by the amount of habitat remaining in the Miami-Dade
County. We are proposing to designate as critical habitat for the
pineland sandmat all pine rocklands remaining within the historical
range of the species where the species was extant at the time of
listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. We have not identified any specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed that are essential for the conservation of the species.
Accordingly, we are not proposing any unoccupied areas as critical
habitat.
Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of
pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berms
habitats remaining in Miami-Dade, Collier, and Monroe Counties. Most
Florida prairie-clover populations are on small remnant pine rockland
sites and adjacent disturbed areas, with population sizes only ranging
from the tens to hundreds of individuals. Five of the eight extant
population have fewer than 25 individuals. Therefore, the resiliency of
the populations and redundancy of the species will continue to be
influenced by the amount of habitat remaining in the Monroe, Collier,
and Miami-Dade Counties. We are proposing critical habitat units that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and supported extant populations at the
time of listing. We have not identified any specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed
that are essential for the conservation of the species. Accordingly, we
are not proposing any unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
Sources of Data to Identify Critical Habitat Boundaries
We have determined that all areas known to be occupied at the time
of listing should be proposed for critical habitat designation because
all occupied sites are necessary to conserve the species. To determine
the location and boundaries of occupied critical habitat, the Service
used the following sources of data and information for Everglades
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida
prairie-clover:
(1) Species occurrence spatial data and ArcGIS geographic
information system (GIS) software to spatially depict the location and
extent of documented populations of Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover;
(2) Reports prepared by FNAI, Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden
(FTBG), Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC), National Park
Service (NPS), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP);
(3) Historical records found in reports and associated voucher
specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are referenced in the above-
mentioned reports;
(4) Digitally produced habitat maps provided by Miami-Dade,
Collier, and Monroe Counties; and
(5) Aerial images of Miami-Dade, Collier, and Monroe Counties. The
presence of pine rocklands and marl prairie was determined using GIS
and spatial data depicting the current habitat status. These habitat
data for Miami-Dade County were developed by Miami-Dade Department of
Environmental Protection (DERM), for the Natural Forest Community (NFC)
program, and include pine rocklands and marl prairie. Pine rockland,
rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitat follow predictable landscape
patterns and have a recognizable signature in the aerial imagery.
Aerial imagery was utilized to identify these habitats in Monroe and
Collier Counties and disturbed areas adjacent to marl prairie, pine
rocklands, rockland hammock, and coastal berm.
We delineated critical habitat unit boundaries using the following
criteria:
(1) The delineation included space to allow for the successional
nature of the habitats (i.e., gain and loss of areas with sufficient
light availability due to disturbance of the vegetation, driven by
natural events such as inundation and hurricanes and through prescribed
fire), and habitat transition or loss due to sea level rise.
(2) All areas (i.e., physical or biological features) may require
special management to be able to support a higher density of the plants
within the occupied space. These areas generally are habitats where
some of the habitat features have been degraded or lost through natural
or human causes. These areas would help to offset the anticipated loss
and degradation of habitat occurring or expected from the effects of
climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to development.
(3) The areal extent of a plant population is dynamic over time
within suitable habitat, while a survey represents a snapshot in time.
Unsurveyed areas near mapped populations likely support plants
currently or did in the past.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
The proposed occupied critical habitat designation for Everglades
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida
prairie-clover focuses on areas within the plants' historical ranges
that have retained the essential habitat features that will allow for
the maintenance and expansion of existing populations. The proposed
occupied critical habitat units were delineated around extant
populations at the time of listing. These units include the mapped
extent of the population that contains one or more of the essential
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by Everglades bully
and Florida pineland crabgrass at the time of listing, we delineated
critical habitat unit boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) Pine rockland and marl prairie habitat, and the transitional
areas (ecotones) between these and other vegetation types that was
occupied by the species at the time of listing; and
(2) Presence of suitable habitat and physical or biological
essential features.
For Everglades bully, five occupied units are being proposed as
critical habitat. These five units encompass the 14 extant populations
of Everglades bully in Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties. We
consider pine rockland and marl prairies to be the primary habitat for
Everglades bully. Adjacent ecotonal areas currently supporting the
species are also considered essential when adjacent pine rocklands and
marl prairies do not support an existing population or are of
insufficient size or connectivity to support a population of the
species. We have not identified any specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed
that are essential for the conservation of the species. Accordingly, we
are not proposing unoccupied critical habitat for the Everglades bully.
For Florida pineland crabgrass, two occupied units are being
proposed as critical habitat. These two units encompass the two extant
populations of Florida pineland crabgrass in Monroe and Miami-Dade
Counties. We consider pine rockland and marl prairies to be the primary
habitat for Florida pineland crabgrass. Adjacent ecotonal areas
currently supporting the species are also considered essential when
adjacent pine rocklands and marl prairies do not support an existing
population or are of insufficient size or connectivity to support a
population of the species. We have not identified any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it
was listed that are essential for the conservation of
[[Page 62577]]
the species. Accordingly, we are not proposing unoccupied critical
habitat for the Florida pineland crabgrass.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by pineland sandmat
at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries
using the following criteria:
(1) Pine rockland habitat and the transitional areas (ecotones)
between pine rocklands and adjacent habitat that was occupied by the
species at the time of listing;
(2) Pine rockland habitat that is currently occupied by the
species; and
(3) Presence of essential physical or biological features.
For pineland sandmat, three occupied units are being proposed as
critical habitat. These three units encompass the 20 extant populations
of pineland sandmat in Miami-Dade County. We consider pine rockland to
be the primary habitat for pineland sandmat. Adjacent ecotonal areas
currently supporting the species are also considered essential when
adjacent pine rocklands do not support an existing population or are of
insufficient size or connectivity to support a population of the
species. We have not identified any specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed
that are essential for the conservation of the species. Accordingly, we
are not proposing unoccupied critical habitat for the pineland sandmat.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by Florida prairie-
clover at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) Pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berm
habitat and the transitional areas (ecotones) between these and other
vegetation types that was occupied by the species at the time of
listing;
(2) Pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berm
habitat that is currently occupied by the species; and
(3) Presence of essential physical or biological features.
For Florida prairie-clover, four occupied units are being proposed
as critical habitat. These four units encompass the eight extant
populations of Florida prairie-clover in Collier and Miami-Dade
Counties. We consider pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock,
and coastal berm to be the primary habitats for Florida prairie-clover.
Adjacent disturbed areas currently supporting the species are also
considered essential when adjacent pine rockland, marl prairie,
rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats do not support an existing
population or are of insufficient size or connectivity to support a
population of the species. In addition, because we have determined that
occupied habitat is sufficient to conserve the species, we did not
propose any unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
In summary, for areas within the geographical area occupied by
Everglades bully and Florida pineland crabgrass, at the time of
listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries around extant
populations at the time of listing and also evaluating habitat
suitability of pine rockland and marl prairie habitats within the
historical range of the plants. We retained those areas that contain
some or all of the essential physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and that may require special
management. For areas within the geographical area occupied by pineland
sandmat at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries around extant populations at the time of listing and also
evaluating habitat suitability of pine rockland habitat within the
historical range of the plant. We retained those areas that contain
some or all of the essential physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and that may require special
management. For areas within the geographical area occupied by Florida
prairie-clover at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat
unit boundaries around extant populations at the time of listing and
also evaluating habitat suitability of pine rockland, marl prairie,
rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats within the historical range
of the plant. We retained those areas that contain some or all of the
essential physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species and that may require special management.
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
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
plants, nor are they essential to the conservation of the species
themselves. 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 features in
the adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designations are 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
designations 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-
2022-0125, on our internet site at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library">https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library</a>, and at the field office responsible for
the designations (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Everglades Bully
We are proposing to designate approximately 179,680 ac (72,714 ha)
in five units as critical habitat for Everglades bully. The critical
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Everglades
bully. All areas with known extant populations at the time of listing
are proposed for designation as critical habitat. Some units currently
may contain multiple populations, but the number can vary over a 1- to
5-year period due to the dynamic nature of this species in response to
disturbance. The five areas we propose as critical habitat are:
(1) EB1, Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and
Monroe Counties, Florida;
(2) EB2, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(3) EB3, Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(4) EB4, Quail Roost Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
(5) EB5, Navy Wells, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of
Federal (86 percent), State (0.1 percent), County (13 percent), and
private and other (1 percent). Other lands include areas for which
ownership information is unclear or unavailable. Table 1 shows these
units by land ownership, area, and occupancy.
[[Page 62578]]
Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Everglades Bully, Including Total Area, Area by Land Ownership, and Occupancy
[All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private/ other
Unit Total ac (ha) Federal ac (ha) State ac (ha) County ac (ha) ac (ha) Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB1--Big Cypress National Preserve..... 169,885 (68,750) 146,014 (59,090) 0 (0) 22,411 (9,070) 1,460 (591) Yes.
EB2--Everglades National Park.......... 7,994 (3,235) 7,860 (3,181) 0 (0) 0 (0) 133 (54) Yes.
EB3-- Richmond Pine Rocklands.......... 987 (399) 191 (77) 0 (0) 609 (247) 187 (76) Yes.
EB4--Quail Roost Pineland.............. 256 (104) 0 (0) 103 (42) 47 (19) 107 (43) Yes.
EB5--Navy Wells........................ 558 (226) 0 (0) 74 (30) 324 (131) 160 (65) Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 179,680 (72,714) 154,065 (62,348) 177 (72) 23,391 (9,467) 2,048 (829) ......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total............... ................. 86 0.1 13 1 ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies.
Approximately 5.4 percent (9,763 ac (3,951 ha)) of the lands
contained within units proposed as critical habitat for Everglades
bully are already designated critical habitat for other federally
listed species. Most of the lands proposed in this rule that are not
designated as critical habitat for other federally listed species occur
in the BCNP.
We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat
units and the justification for why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for Everglades bully, below. All proposed critical
habitat units were occupied at the time of listing and are currently
occupied. All units contain all the physical or biological features,
including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native
plant species, and disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation
of the species.
Unit EB1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and
Monroe Counties, Florida
Unit EB1 consists of approximately 169,885 ac (68,750 ha) in
Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties, Florida. The unit is
comprised of lands in BCNP, including Federal lands in BCNP (146,014 ac
(59,090 ha)) and County lands (22,411 ac (9,070 ha)) and parcels in
private or other ownership (1,460 ac (591 ha)) within BCNP.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, off-road vehicle use, oil and gas exploration
and extraction, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully.
This unit is part of lands contained within the BCNP. Within this
unit, as part of their 2019 Fire Management Plan (NPS 2019), the NPS
conducts nonnative species control and prescribed fire in areas that
could support Everglades bully.
Unit EB1 does not contain previously designated critical habitat.
The federally threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi),
federally endangered Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi),
and federally endangered Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) occur
in this unit.
Unit EB2: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit EB2 consists of approximately 7,994 ac (3,235 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands in ENP (ENP) (7,860
ac (3,181 ha)) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54
ha)). The unit includes Long Pine Key and some of the surrounding areas
in ENP.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully.
This unit is part of lands contained within the ENP. Within this
unit, as part of their General Management Plan (NPS 2015), the NPS
conducts nonnative species control and prescribed fire in areas that
support or could support Everglades bully.
The entirety of Unit EB2 is designated critical habitat for the
federally endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak (Strymon acis bartrami)
and Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) butterflies. The
federally threatened eastern indigo snake occurs in this unit.
Unit EB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit EB3 consists of approximately 987 ac (399 ha) in Miami-Dade
County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands owned by the U.S. Coast
Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (191 ac (77 ha));
County lands within and adjacent to Larry and Penny Thompson Park,
Martinez Preserve, Zoo Miami, and Eachus Pineland (609 ac (247 ha));
and parcels in private or other ownership, including the preserve and
mitigation area associated with the Coral Reef Commons Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) (187 ac (76 ha)).
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully. Within this
unit, the Miami-Dade DERM conducts nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands owned by
Miami-Dade County. The U.S. Coast Guard also conducts nonnative species
control and mechanical vegetation treatments on their property in this
unit. The actions help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully.
Within this unit, approximately 109.3 ac (44.2 ha) of land owned by
Coral Reef Commons is proposed for critical habitat designation for
Everglades bully. Everglades bully is a covered species under the Coral
Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan. Because Everglades bully is a
covered species under the Coral Reef Commons HCP and the preserve and
mitigation area within this
[[Page 62579]]
proposed critical habitat unit are being managed for the conservation
of the species and pine rockland habitat, the on-site preserve and the
off-site mitigation area are being considered for exclusion from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (please refer to
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below).
The entirety of unit EB3 is designated critical habitat for the
following federally endangered species: Carter's small-flowered flax
(Linum carteri var. carteri), Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia
mosieri), and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing
butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake and
federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in this unit.
Unit EB4: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit EB4 consists of approximately 256 ac (104 ha) in Miami-Dade
County. The unit is comprised of State lands within Quail Roost
Pineland, Goulds Pineland and Addition, and Silver Palm Groves Pineland
(103 ac (42 ha)); County lands, including Medsouth Park, Black Creek
Forest, and Rock Pit #46 (47 ac (19 ha)); and parcels in private
ownership (107 ac (43 ha)), including Porter-Russell Pineland owned by
the Tropical Audubon Society.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully. Within this
unit, DERM conducts nonnative species control, prescribed fire, and
mechanical vegetation treatments on lands owned by Miami-Dade County.
The entirety of unit EB4 is designated critical habitat for the
federally endangered Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-
bush, and much of the area is designated critical habitat for the
federally endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The
federally threatened eastern indigo snake and federally endangered
Florida bonneted bat occur in this unit.
Unit EB5: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida
Unit EB5 consists of approximately 558 ac (226 ha) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. The unit is comprised of State lands within Florida
City Pineland, Palm Drive Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland Preserve
(portion), and Navy Wells Pineland #39 (74 ac (30 ha)); County/local
lands, including Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (portion) and Sunny Palms
Pineland (324 ac (131 ha)); and parcels in private ownership (160 ac
(65 ha)).
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully. Within this
unit, DERM conducts nonnative species control, prescribed fire, and
mechanical vegetation treatments on lands owned by Miami-Dade County.
The entirety of unit EB5 is designated critical habitat for the
following federally endangered species: Carter's small-flowered flax,
Florida brickell-bush, and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida
leafwing butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake and
federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in this unit.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Florida Pineland Crabgrass
We are proposing to designate approximately 177,879 ac (71,985 ha)
in two units as critical habitat for Florida pineland crabgrass. The
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
Florida pineland crabgrass. The two areas we propose as critical
habitat are:
(1) FPCG1, Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and
Monroe Counties, Florida; and
(2) FPCG2, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of
Federal (86 percent), County (13 percent), and private and other (1
percent). Other lands include areas for which ownership information is
unclear or unavailable. Table 2 shows these units by land ownership,
area, and occupancy.
Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Florida Pineland Crabgrass, Including Area, Area by Land Ownership, and Occupancy
[All areas rounded to the nearest whole acres (ac) and hectares (ha).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private/ other
Unit Total ac (ha) Federal ac (ha) State ac (ha) County ac (ha) ac (ha) Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPCG1--Big Cypress National Preserve... 169,885 (68,750) 146,014 (59,090) 0 (0) 22,411 (9,070) 1,460 (591) Yes.
FPCG2--Everglades National Park........ 7,994 (3,235) 7,860 (3,181) 0 (0) 0 (0) 133 (54) Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 177,879 (71,985) 153,874 (62,271) 0 (0) 22,411 (9,070) 1,593 (645) ......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total............... ................. 86 0 13 1 ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies.
Approximately 5 percent (8,894 ac (3,599 ha)) of the area proposed
as critical habitat for Florida pineland crabgrass is also currently
designated under the Act as critical habitat for the federally
endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing butterflies.
We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat
units and the justification for why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for Florida pineland crabgrass, below.
Unit FPCG1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and
Monroe Counties, Florida. All proposed critical habitat units were
occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied. All units
contain all the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit FPCG1 consists of approximately 169,885 ac (68,750 ha) in
Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties. The unit is comprised of
Federal lands in BCNP (146,014 ac (59,090 ha)), County
[[Page 62580]]
lands (22,411 ac (9,070 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership
(1,460 ac (591 ha)).
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, off-road vehicle use, oil and gas exploration
and extraction, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Florida pineland crabgrass.
This unit is part of lands within BCNP. Within this unit, as part
of their 2019 Fire Management Plan (NPS 2019), the NPS conducts
nonnative species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or
could support Florida pineland crabgrass.
Unit FPCG1 does not contain previously designated critical habitat.
The federally threatened eastern indigo snake, federally endangered
Florida panther, and federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in
this unit.
Unit FPCG2: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit FPCG2 consists of approximately 7,994 ac (3,235 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands in ENP (7,860 ac
(3,181 ha) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54 ha)).
The unit includes Long Pine Key and some of the surrounding areas in
ENP.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Florida pineland crabgrass.
This unit is part of lands within ENP. Within this unit, as part of
their General Management Plan (NPS 2015), the NPS conducts nonnative
species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or could
support Florida pineland crabgrass.
The entirety of unit FPCG2 is designated critical habitat for the
federally endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing
butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake, federally
endangered Florida panther, and federally endangered Florida bonneted
bat occur in this unit.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Pineland Sandmat
We are proposing to designate approximately 8,867 ac (3,588 ha) in
three units as critical habitat for pineland sandmat. The critical
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for pineland
sandmat. All areas with known extant populations at the time of listing
are proposed for designation as critical habitat. The units currently
may contain multiple populations, but the number can vary over a 1- to
5-year period due to the dynamic nature of this species in response to
disturbance. The three areas we propose as critical habitat are:
(1) PS1, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(2) PS2, Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
(3) PS3, Navy Wells, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of
Federal (89 percent), State (1 percent), County (5 percent), and
private and other (5 percent). Other lands include areas for which
ownership information is unclear or unavailable. Table 3 shows these
units by land ownership, area, and occupancy.
Table 3--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Pineland Sandmat, Including Area, Area by Land Ownership, and Occupancy
[All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private/ other
Unit Total ac (ha) Federal ac (ha) State ac (ha) County ac (ha) ac (ha) Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS1--Everglades National Park.......... 7,994 (3,235) 7,860 (3,181) 0 (0) 0 (0) 133 (54) Yes.
PS2--Camp Owaissa Bauer................ 315 (127) 0 (0) 49 (20) 145 (59) 122 (49) Yes.
PS3--Navy Wells........................ 558 (226) 0 (0) 74 (30) 310 (125) 174 (70) Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 8,867 (3,588) 7,860 (3,181) 123 (50) 455 (184) 429 (173) ......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total............... ................. 89 1 5 5 ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or small mapping discrepancies.
Approximately 99.9 percent (8,854 ac (3,583 ha)) of the lands
contained within units proposed as critical habitat for pineland
sandmat are already designated critical habitat for other federally
listed species.
We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat
units and the justification for why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for pineland sandmat, below. All proposed critical
habitat units were occupied at the time of listing and are currently
occupied. All units contain all the physical or biological features,
including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native
plant species, and disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation
of the species.
Unit PS1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit PS1 consists of approximately 7,994 ac (3,235 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands in ENP (7,860 ac
(3,181 ha)) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54 ha)).
The unit includes Long Pine Key and some of the surrounding areas in
ENP.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports pineland sandmat.
This unit is part of lands within ENP. Within this unit, as part of
their General Management Plan (NPS 2015), the NPS conducts nonnative
species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or could
support pineland sandmat.
The entirety of unit PS1 is designated critical habitat for the
federally endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing
butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake, federally
endangered Florida panther, and federally endangered Florida bonneted
bat occur in this unit.
[[Page 62581]]
Unit PS2: Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Unit PS2 consists of approximately 315 ac (127 ha) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. The unit is comprised of State lands within Owaissa
Bauer Pineland Addition, West Biscayne Pineland, Ingram Pineland, and
Fuchs Hammock Addition (49 ac (20 ha)); County lands, including Camp
Owaissa Bauer, Pine Island Lake Park, Seminole Wayside Park, and
Northrop Pineland (145 ac (59 ha)); and parcels in private ownership
(122 ac (49 ha)), including the Pine Ridge Sanctuary (a private
conservation area).
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports pineland sandmat.
The entirety of unit PS2 is designated critical habitat for the
following federally endangered species: Carter's small-flowered flax,
Florida brickell-bush, and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The
federally threatened eastern indigo snake occurs in this unit.
Unit PS3: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida
Unit PS3 consists of approximately 558 ac (226 ha) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. The unit is comprised of State lands within Florida
City Pineland, Palm Drive Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (a
portion), and Navy Wells Pineland #39 (74 ac (30 ha)); County lands,
including Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (a portion) and Sunny Palms
Pineland (310 ac (125 ha)); and parcels in private ownership (174 ac
(70 ha)).
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports pineland sandmat.
The entirety of unit PS3 is designated critical habitat for the
following federally endangered species: Carter's small-flowered flax,
Florida brickell-bush, and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida
leafwing butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake
occurs in this unit.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Florida Prairie-Clover
We are proposing to designate approximately 179,300 ac (72,560 ha)
in four units as critical habitat for Florida prairie-clover. The
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
Florida prairie-clover. All areas with known extant populations at the
time of listing are proposed for designation as critical habitat. Some
units currently contain multiple populations, but the number can vary
over a 1- to 5-year period due to the dynamic nature of this species in
response to disturbance. The four areas we propose as critical habitat
are:
(1) FPC1, Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and
Monroe Counties, Florida;
(2) FPC2, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(3) FPC3, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Subtropical
Horticultural Research Station, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
(4) FPC4, Crandon Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of
Federal (86.2 percent), State (0.7 percent), County (12.6 percent), and
private and other (0.5 percent). Other lands include areas for which
ownership information is unclear or unavailable. Table 4 shows these
units by land ownership, area, and occupancy.
Table 4--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Florida Prairie-Clover, Including Area, Area by Land Ownership, and Occupancy
[All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private/
Unit Total ac (ha) Federal ac (ha) State ac (ha) County ac (ha) other ac Occupied
(ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPC1--Big Cypress National Preserve.... 169,885 (68,750) 146,014 (59,090) 0 (0) 22,411 (9,070) 1,460 (591) Yes.
FPC2--Everglades National Park......... 8,728 (3,532) 8,595 (3,478) 0 (0) 0 (0) 133 (54) Yes.
FPC3--USDA............................. 630 (255) 145 (58) 253 (103) 192 (78) 40 (16) Yes.
FPC4--Crandon Park..................... 57 (23) 0 (0) 0 (0) 57 (23) 0 (0) Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 179,300 (72,560) 154,754 (62,627) 253 (103) 22,660 (9,170) 1,633 (661)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total............... .................. 86% 1% 13% 1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies.
Approximately 4.6 percent of the lands (8,310 ac (3,363 ha))
contained within units proposed as critical habitat for Florida
prairie-clover are designated critical habitat for other federally
listed species.
We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat
units and the justification for why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for Florida prairie-clover, below. All proposed
critical habitat units were occupied at the time of listing and are
currently occupied. All units contain all the physical or biological
features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated
native plant species, and disturbance regimes, essential to the
conservation of the species.
Unit FPC1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and
Monroe Counties, Florida
Unit FPC1 consists of approximately 169,885 ac (68,750 ha) in
Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe County. The unit is comprised of
Federal lands in BCNP (146,014 ac (59,090 ha)), County land (22,411 ac
(9,070 ha), and parcels in private or other ownership (1,460 ac (591
ha)).
[[Page 62582]]
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, off-road vehicle use, oil and gas exploration
and extraction, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Florida prairie-clover.
This unit is part of lands within BCNP. Within this unit, as part
of their 2019 Fire Management Plan (NPS 2019), the NPS conducts
nonnative species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or
could support Florida prairie-clover.
Unit FPC1 does not contain previously designated critical habitat.
The federally threatened eastern indigo snake, federally endangered
Florida panther, and federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in
this unit.
Unit FPC2: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit FPC2 consists of approximately 8,728 ac (3,532 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands in ENP (8,595 ac
(3,478 ha) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54 ha)).
The unit includes Long Pine Key and some of the surrounding areas in
ENP.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Florida prairie-clover.
This unit is part of lands within ENP. Within this unit, as part of
their General Management Plan (NPS 2015), the NPS conducts nonnative
species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or could
support pineland sandmat. Most (91.6 percent) of unit FPC2 is
designated critical habitat for the federally endangered Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing butterflies. The federally
threatened eastern indigo snake, federally endangered Florida panther,
and federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in this unit.
Unit FPC3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit FPC3 consists of approximately 630 ac (255 ha) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands within the
USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station (145 ac (58 ha)); State
lands within the R. Hardy Matheson Preserve, Ludlam Pineland, Deering
Estate at Cutler, and Deering Estate South Addition (253 ac (103 ha));
County lands within Bill Sadowski Park and Matheson Hammock (192 ac (78
ha)); and parcels in private ownership (40 ac (16 ha)).
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Florida prairie-clover.
The entirety of unit FPC3 is designated critical habitat for the
federally endangered Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-
bush. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake occurs in this
unit.
Unit FPC4: Crandon Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit FPC4 consists of approximately 57 ac (23 ha) in Miami-Dade
County. The unit is comprised entirely of land owned by Miami-Dade
County. The unit includes coastal berm and rockland hammock on the east
side of County Road 913 to the shoreline, from the vicinity of the
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Biscayne Nature Center to near the northern
tip of the island.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control,
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions
that help improve habitat that supports Florida prairie-clover.
Unit FPC4 does not contain previously designated critical habitat.
The federally threatened eastern indigo snake occurs in this unit.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
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 which 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.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214). (We also
published a revised definition after that (on August 27, 2019))
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat
for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include,
but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or
significantly delay development of such features.
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 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.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
[[Page 62583]]
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation: (a) if the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (c) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (d) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected
by the identified action. In such situations, Federal agencies
sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but
Congress also enacted some exceptions in 2018 to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation on certain land management plans on the basis
of a new species listing or new designation of critical habitat that
may be affected by the subject Federal action (see the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141), Division O, 132 Stat. 1059
(2018)).
Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the
conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology or
substrate, such as ditching or filling. Such activities may include,
but are not limited to, road construction or maintenance, and
residential, commercial, or recreational development.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of roads,
residential and commercial development, recreational facilities, and
trails.
(3) Actions that would introduce nonnative species that would
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and
commercial development and road construction.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense (DOD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a)
(Sikes Act), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan
provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is
proposed for designation. No DOD lands with a completed INRMP are
within the proposed critical habitat designations for Everglades bully,
Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, or Florida prairie-
clover.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226,
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016). We explain each decision to exclude areas, as well as decisions
not to exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is reasonable.
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. We describe below the process that we undertook for
taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of
the relevant impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific activities
for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas
[[Page 62584]]
proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result
of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed
solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular
species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat
designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless
of whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical
habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts associated
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species.
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not
be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable
solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the
baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final
designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities.
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 identifies four criteria when a regulation
is considered a ``significant'' rulemaking, and requires additional
analysis, review, and approval if met. The criterion relevant here is
whether the designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect
of greater than $100 million in any given year (section 3(f)(1)).
Therefore, our consideration of economic impacts uses a screening
analysis to assess whether a designation of critical habitat for these
species is likely to exceed the economically significant threshold.
For these particular designations, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from the proposed designations of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover (IEc 2021, entire). We
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designations
of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors
that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose
of the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas
of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and
are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e.,
absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic
impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans,
land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that
protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of
the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our
analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation.
The presence of the listed species in occupied areas of critical
habitat means that any destruction or adverse modification of those
areas is also likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species. Therefore, designating occupied areas as critical habitat
typically causes little if any incremental impacts above and beyond the
impacts of listing the species. Accordingly, the screening analysis
focuses on areas of unoccupied critical habitat. The screening analysis
also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and thus may
require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of
the critical habitat designation for the species; these additional
efforts may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis
combined with the information contained in our IEM are what we consider
our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat
designations for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover; our DEA is summarized in the
narrative below.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat designations. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designations of critical habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover, first we
identified, in the IEM dated August 30, 2021, probable incremental
economic impacts associated with the following categories of
activities:
(1) Federal lands management (National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers);
(2) Roadway and bridge construction and maintenance;
(3) Oil and gas exploration and extraction;
(4) Commercial or residential development; and
(5) Recreation (including construction and maintenance of
recreation infrastructure).
We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally,
we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that
do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. In areas where Everglades bully, Florida pineland
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover are present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical
habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that will result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for Everglades
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida
prairie-clover. Because the designation of critical habitat for these
species is being proposed several years after these species were listed
under the Act, data from our consultation history are available to help
us discern which
[[Page 62585]]
conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and
those which will result solely from the designation of critical
habitat. The following specific circumstances help to inform our
evaluation: (1) The essential physical or biological features
identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the
life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions that would likely
adversely affect the essential physical or biological features of
occupied critical habitat are also likely to adversely affect these
species. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this limited
distinction between baseline conservation efforts and incremental
impacts of the designation of critical habitat for these species. This
evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as the basis to
evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of these proposed
designations of critical habitat.
Approximately 179,680 ac (72,714 ha) in five units in Collier,
Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, are being proposed for
designation as critical habitat for the Everglades bully. All five
units are occupied by Everglades bully. Approximately 177,879 ac
(71,985 ha) in two units in Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties,
Florida, are being proposed for designation as critical habitat for
Florida pineland crabgrass; both units are occupied by the species.
Approximately 8,867 ac (3,588 ha) in three units in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, are being proposed for designation as critical habitat for
pineland sandmat. All three units are occupied by pineland sandmat.
Approximately 179,300 ac (72,560 ha) in four units in Collier, Monroe,
and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, are being proposed for designation as
critical habitat for Florida prairie-clover. All four units are
occupied by Florida prairie-clover. Land ownership across the units for
all four plants includes Federal lands (85 percent), State of Florida
lands (less than 1 percent), county lands (13 percent), and private
lands (1 percent). The majority of the proposed area for Everglades
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and Florida prairie-clover is within
BCNP. Approximately 6 percent of the total proposed designated critical
habitat area for all four plants overlaps with existing designated
critical habitat for other species.
Because all of the area proposed for designation is occupied, most
actions that may adversely affect designated critical habitat would
also adversely affect the species, and it is unlikely that any
additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the
adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as
necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of these four
plants. Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in the
proposed critical habitat designation. While the analysis for adverse
modification of critical habitat will require time and resources by
both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in
most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative
in nature and would not be significant.
The economic costs of critical habitat designation for these four
plants will most likely be limited to additional administrative efforts
to consider adverse modification in section 7 consultations. This
finding is based on the following factors: (1) All of the proposed
critical habitat units for the four plants are considered occupied by
the species; (2) a number of additional baseline protections exist for
the species due to the presence of other listed species and designated
critical habitats, with approximately 6 percent of the proposed
critical habitat overlapping with designated critical habitat for other
species; and (3) nearly 100 percent of the proposed critical habitat is
occupied by other federally listed species, including Florida panther
and Florida bonneted bat. Several management plans and conservation
plans also provide baseline protections to the species in proposed
critical habitat areas.
In total, approximately 20 formal consultations, 123 informal
consultations, and 29 technical assistance efforts that will include
the four plants are anticipated to occur during the next 10 years in
proposed critical habitat areas, with costs to the Service and Federal
action agencies of approximately $43,600 annually. Although the
specific geographic distribution of these costs is uncertain, it
appears likely that most costs would occur in the BCNP units, which
comprises 94 percent of proposed critical habitat in total for these
four plants.
Potential private property value effects are possible due to public
perception of impacts to private lands. The designation of critical
habitat may cause some developers or landowners to perceive that
private lands will be subject to use restrictions or litigation from
third parties, resulting in costs. However, any costs associated with
public perception are speculative and not possible to quantify.
Further, only 1 percent of the proposed critical habitat designations
is privately owned land, leading to at-most nominal incremental costs
arising from changes in public perception of lands included in the
designations.
The total annual incremental costs of critical habitat designation
for these four plants are anticipated to be approximately $43,600 per
year, and economic benefits are also anticipated to be small.
Therefore, critical habitat designation for these four plants is
unlikely to generate costs or benefits exceeding $100 million in a
single year, and this rule is unlikely to meet the threshold for an
economically significant rule, with regard to costs under E.O. 12866.
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA
discussed above, as well as all aspects of this proposed rule and our
required determinations. During the development of final designations,
we will consider the information presented in the DEA and any
additional information on economic impacts received during the public
comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designations under authority
of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the
benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the
area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of these
species.
Exclusions
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared an analysis of the probable
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designations and
related factors. At this time, we are not considering any exclusions
based on economic impacts.
During the development of final designations, we will consider any
additional economic impact information received through the public
comment period, and as such, areas may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designations under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DOD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species
[[Page 62586]]
previously not covered). If a particular area is not covered under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security or homeland-security
concerns are not a factor in the process of determining what areas meet
the definition of ``critical habitat.'' However, the Service must still
consider impacts on national security, including homeland security, on
those lands or areas not covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because
section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to consider those impacts whenever
it designates critical habitat. Accordingly, if DOD, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), or another Federal agency has requested
exclusion based on an assertion of national-security or homeland-
security concerns, or we have otherwise identified national-security or
homeland-security impacts from designating particular areas as critical
habitat, we generally have reason to consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DOD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, it must
provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental impact on
national security that would result from the designation of that
specific area as critical habitat. That justification could include
demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing border-
security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in training or
facility construction, as a result of compliance with section 7(a)(2)
of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does not provide us
with a reasonably specific justification, we will contact the agency to
recommend that it provide a specific justification or clarification of
its concerns relative to the probable incremental impact that could
result from the designation. If we conduct an exclusion analysis
because the agency provides a reasonably specific justification or
because we decide to exercise the discretion to conduct an exclusion
analysis, we will defer to the expert judgment of DOD, DHS, or another
Federal agency as to: (1) Whether activities on its lands or waters, or
its activities on other lands or waters, have national-security or
homeland-security implications; (2) the importance of those
implications; and (3) the degree to which the cited implications would
be adversely affected in the absence of an exclusion. In that
circumstance, in conducting a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion
analysis, we will give great weight to national-security and homeland-
security concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
We have evaluated whether any of the lands within the proposed
designations of critical habitat are owned by DOD or DHS or could lead
to national-security or homeland-security impacts if designated. Below,
we describe the areas within the proposed designations that are owned
by DOD or DHS or for which designation could lead to national-security
or homeland-security impacts. For each area, we describe the available
information indicating whether we have reason to consider excluding the
area from the designations. If, during the comment period, we identify
or receive information about additional areas for which designations
may result in incremental national-security or homeland-security
impacts, then we may consider conducting a discretionary exclusion
analysis to determine whether to exclude those additional areas under
authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
DHS Land Parcel
We have determined that some lands within the Richmond Pine
Rocklands and surrounding areas unit (Unit EB3) of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Everglades bully are owned,
managed, or utilized by the U.S. Coast Guard, which is part of the DHS.
The U.S. Coast Guard property is separated into two main areas: the
Communication Station (COMMSTA) Miami and the Civil Engineering Unit
(CEU). The COMMSTA houses transmitting and receiving antennas. The CEU
plans and executes projects at regional shore facilities, such as
construction and post-disaster assessments.
The U.S. Coast Guard parcel contains approximately 100 ac (40 ha)
of standing pine rocklands. The remainder of the site, outside of the
developed areas, is made up of scraped pine rocklands that are mowed
three to four times per year for maintenance of a communications
antenna field. While disturbed, this scraped area maintains sand
substrate and many native pine rockland species, including documented
occurrences of Everglades bully. As of the drafting of this proposed
rule, the U.S. Coast Guard parcel has a draft management plan that
includes management of pine rockland habitats, including vegetation
control and prescribed fire and protection of lands from further
development or degradation, and is anticipated to be finalized in late
2022. In addition, the standing pine rockland area is partially managed
through an active recovery grant to the Institute for Regional
Conservation. Under this grant, up to 39 ac (16 ha) of standing pine
rocklands will undergo invasive vegetation control.
Based on a review of the specific mission of the U.S. Coast Guard
facility in conjunction with the measures and efforts set forth in the
draft management plan to preserve pine rockland habitat and protect
sensitive and listed species, we have determined that it is unlikely
that the critical habitat, if finalized as proposed, would negatively
impact the facility or its operations. As a result, we do not
anticipate any impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary
does not intend to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from
the final designations based on impacts on national security. We will,
however, review this determination, in light of any new information and
public comments we receive prior to making a decision in the final
rule.
DOD Land Parcel
As discussed above, we have determined that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), a branch of the DOD, retains ownership over a 121-ac
(49-ha) parcel in Unit EB3 of the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Everglades bully. More than 85 ac (34 ha) of this parcel
are forested but not managed for preservation of natural resources. The
Corps does not have an INRMP or any specific management plan for the
Everglades bully or its habitat covering these lands. Activities
conducted on this site are unknown, but we do not anticipate any impact
on national security.
Following our process for coordinating with Federal partners, we
contacted the DOD and DHS about this designation and shared the IEM for
their feedback. Neither agency identified any potential national-
security impact, nor requested an exclusion from critical habitat based
on potential national-security impacts. Consequently, the Secretary
does not intend to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from
the final designations based on impacts on national security. However,
if through the public comment period we receive information regarding
impacts on national security or homeland security from designating
particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of developing the
final designations of critical habitat, we may consider conducting a
discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those
areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
[[Page 62587]]
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that may
affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors,
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the
species in the area--such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or
candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs)--or whether
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that
may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat.
In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or
partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, or other impacts
that might occur because of the designation. When analyzing other
relevant impacts of including a particular area in a designation of
critical habitat, we weigh those impacts relative to the conservation
value of the particular area. To determine the conservation value of
designating a particular area, we consider a number of factors,
including, but not limited to, the additional regulatory benefits that
the area would receive due to the protection from destruction or
adverse modification as a result of actions with a Federal nexus, the
educational benefits of mapping essential habitat for recovery of the
listed species, and any benefits that may result from a designation due
to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
In the case of Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover, the benefits of critical
habitat include public awareness of the presence of these four plant
species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal
nexus exists, habitat protection for the four species due to protection
from destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued
implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides conservation
equal to or more than the protections that result from a critical
habitat designation would reduce those benefits of including that
specific area in the critical habitat designation.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the
designation.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits
Under Section 10 of the Act
HCPs for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act provide for partnerships with non-Federal entities to minimize and
mitigate impacts to listed species and their habitat. In some cases,
HCP permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species and
their habitats on private lands than designation of critical habitat
would provide alone. We place great value on the partnerships that are
developed during the preparation and implementation of HCPs.
CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve
candidate and listed species, respectively, on non-Federal lands. In
exchange for actions that contribute to the conservation of species on
non-Federal lands, participating property owners are covered by an
``enhancement of survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Act, which authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may
result from implementation of conservation actions, specific land uses,
and, in the case of SHAs, the option to return to a baseline condition
under the agreements. The Service also provides enrollees assurances
that we will not impose further land-, water-, or resource-use
restrictions, or require additional commitments of land, water, or
finances, beyond those agreed to in the agreements.
When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion
analysis based on permitted conservation plans (e.g., CCAAs, SHAs, and
HCPs), we anticipate consistently excluding such areas if incidental
take caused by the activities in those areas is covered by the permit
under section 10 of the Act and the CCAA/SHA/HCP meets all of the
following three factors (see the 2016 Policy for additional details):
a. The permittee is properly implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and is
expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. A CCAA/
SHA/HCP is properly implemented if the permittee is and has been fully
implementing the commitments and provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP,
implementing agreement, and permit.
b. The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a
covered species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very similar in its habitat
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Services
extend to such an agreement depends on the degree to which the
conservation measures undertaken in the CCAA/SHA/HCP would also protect
the habitat features of the similar species.
c. The CCAA/SHA/HCP specifically addresses that species' habitat
and meets the conservation needs of the species in the planning area.
The proposed critical habitat designations include areas that are
covered by the following permitted plan providing for the conservation
of Everglades bully: Coral Reef Commons HCP.
Coral Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan--In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that lands associated with the Coral Reef
Commons HCP within Unit EB3 for Everglades bully (Richmond Pine
Rocklands and surrounding areas) are included within the boundaries of
the proposed critical habitat.
Coral Reef Commons is a mixed-use community, which consists of 900
apartments, retail stores, restaurants, and parking. In 2017, a HCP and
associated permit under section 10 of the Act was developed and issued
for the Coral Reef Commons development.
As part of the HCP and permit, an approximately 53-ac (21-ha) on-
site preserve (same as the area for proposed critical habitat
designation) was established under a conservation encumbrance that will
be managed in perpetuity for pine rockland habitat and sensitive and
listed species, including Everglades bully.
The Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing
(CSTARS) site is an offsite mitigation area for Coral Reef Commons
comprised of 57 ac (23 ha). Both the on-site preserve and the off-site
mitigation area are being managed to maintain healthy pine rockland
habitat through the use of invasive, exotic plant management;
mechanical treatment; and prescribed fire. Since initiating the Coral
Reef Commons HCP, pine rockland restoration efforts have been conducted
within all of the management units in both the on-site preserves and
the off-site mitigation area. A second round of prescribed fire began
in February 2021. Currently, the on-site preserves meet or exceed the
success criteria described in the HCP.
[[Page 62588]]
Critical habitat within (EB3) that is associated with the Coral
Reef Commons HCP is limited to the on-site preserves and off-site
mitigation area. Based on a cursory review of the HCP and proposed
critical habitat for Everglades bully, we do not anticipate requesting
any additional conservation measures for this species beyond those that
are currently in place. Therefore, at this time, we are considering
excluding those specific lands associated with the Coral Reef Commons
HCP that are in the preserve and off-site mitigation area from the
final designation of critical habitat for Everglades bully. However, we
will more thoroughly review the HCP, its implementation of the
conservation measures for Everglades bully and its habitat therein, and
public comment on this issue prior to finalizing critical habitat, and,
if appropriate, in the final rule, exclude from critical habitat for
Everglades bully those lands associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP
that are in the on-site preserves and off-site mitigation area.
We have determined that there are no additional HCPs or other
management plans for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass,
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover.
Tribal Lands
Several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and policies concern
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--Secretarial Order 3206,
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)--is the most
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition
to the general direction discussed above, the appendix to S.O. 3206
explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in any
listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal trust
resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat. Section
3(B)(4) of the appendix requires the Service to consult with affected
Tribes ``when considering the designation of critical habitat in an
area that may impact tribal trust resources, tribally-owned fee lands,
or the exercise of tribal rights.'' That provision also instructs the
Service to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat
designation unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species,
and it requires the Service to ``evaluate and document the extent to
which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by
limiting the designation to other lands.''
Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy
are consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary
exclusion analysis, in accordance with S.O. 3206 we consult with any
Tribe whose Tribal trust resources, Tribally owned fee lands, or Tribal
rights may be affected by including any particular areas in the
designation, and we evaluate the extent to which the conservation needs
of the species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other
areas. When we undertake a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we
always consider exclusion of Tribal lands, and give great weight to
Tribal concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory
requirement of designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we
must consult with any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may
affect Tribal lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas
that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied
at the time of listing that contain the essential physical or
biological features that may require special management or protection
and unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of a
species), without regard to land ownership. While S.O. 3206 provides
important direction, it expressly states that it does not modify the
Secretary's statutory authority under the Act or other statutes.
There are no Tribal lands in the proposed critical habitat
designations for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover.
Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act
At this time, we are considering excluding those specific lands
associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in the preserve and
off-site mitigation area from the final designation of critical habitat
for Everglades bully (unit ES3). In conclusion, we specifically solicit
comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such areas.
During the development of final designations, we will consider any
information currently available or received during the public comment
period regarding other relevant impacts of the proposed designations
and will determine whether these or any other specific areas should be
considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designations
under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
[[Page 62589]]
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under these
proposed designations as well as types of project modifications that
may result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is
meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designations. The
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designations will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designations
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designations would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not foresee any energy development projects,
supply, distribution, or use that may affect or be affected by the
proposed critical habitat for pineland sandmat. There may be energy
development projects (i.e., oil and gas exploration and extraction
activities) at BCNP that may affect or be affected by the proposed
critical habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and
Florida prairie-clover. However, in our evaluation of potential
economic impacts, we did not find that the proposed critical habitat
designations for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and
Florida prairie-clover would significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal
[[Page 62590]]
funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The government lands being proposed
for critical habitat designation are owned by the State of Florida,
Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, and numerous Federal agencies (USCG,
NOAA, Corps, FBP, USDA, and NPS). None of these government entities fit
the definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
for the proposed designations of critical habitat for Everglades bully,
Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-
clover, and it concludes that, if adopted, the designations of critical
habitat do not pose significant takings implications for lands within
or affected by the designations.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of the proposed critical habitat designations
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designations may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological fea
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on October 14, 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.