Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax), 49845-49886 [2015-19533]
Download as PDF
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 158
August 17, 2015
Part III
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var.
carteri (Carter’s Small-flowered Flax); Final Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
49846
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0108:
4500030114]
RIN 1018–AZ64
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida
Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var.
carteri (Carter’s Small-flowered Flax)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri
(Florida brickell-bush) and Linum
carteri var. carteri (Carter’s smallflowered flax) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We designate as critical habitat
approximately 1,062 hectares (ha) (2,624
acres (ac)) for B. mosieri and
approximately 1,072 ha (2,649 ac) for
L. c. var. carteri. The critical habitat
areas for these plants, located entirely in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, largely
overlap, for a combined total of
approximately 1,095 ha (2,706 ac).
Critical habitat for both plants includes
both occupied and unoccupied habitat.
The Service determined that the
unoccupied units are essential for the
conservation of the plants, to provide
for the necessary expansion of current
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri populations, and for
reestablishment of populations into
areas where these plants previously
occurred. The effect of this regulation is
to extend the Act’s protections to these
plants’ critical habitats.
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and from the
South Florida Ecological Services Field
Office. Comments and materials we
received, as well as some supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this final rule, are available for public
inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov. All of the
comments, materials, and
documentation that we considered in
this rulemaking are available by
appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
South Florida Ecological Services Field
Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL
32960; by telephone 772–562–3909; or
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
by facsimile 772–562–4288. Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
The coordinates or plot points or both
from which the maps were generated are
included in the administrative record
for this critical habitat designation and
are available at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0108, and at the
South Florida Ecological Services Field
Office (https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/)
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Any additional tools or supporting
information that we developed for this
critical habitat designation will also be
available at the Fish and Wildlife
Service Web site and Field Office
addresses provided above, and at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Hartley, Endangered Species
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, South Florida Ecological
Services Field Office, 1339 20th Street,
Vero Beach, FL 32960; by telephone
772–562–3909; or by facsimile 772–
562–4288. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, when we list a species as
endangered or threatened, we must
designate critical habitat, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations of critical
habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule.
We listed Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri as endangered
species on September 4, 2014 (79 FR
52567). On October 3, 2013, we
published in the Federal Register a
proposed critical habitat designation for
B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri (78 FR
61293). Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states
that the Secretary shall designate 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 critical habitat areas we are
designating in this rule constitute our
current best assessment of the areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat for
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri. Here we are designating
approximately 1,062 ha (2,624 ac) as
critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and
approximately 1,072 ha (2,649 ac) for
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Linum carteri var. carteri. The critical
habitat areas for these plants, located
entirely in Miami-Dade County, Florida,
largely overlap, for a combined total of
approximately 1,095 ha (2,706 ac).
Critical habitat for both plants includes
both occupied and unoccupied habitat.
The Service determined that the
unoccupied units are essential for the
conservation of the plants, to provide
for the necessary expansion of current
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri populations, and for
reestablishment of populations into
areas where these plants previously
occurred.
This rule consists of: A final rule
designating critical habitat for Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri
under the Act.
We have prepared an economic
analysis of the designation of critical
habitat. We have prepared an analysis
of the economic impacts of the critical
habitat designations and related factors.
We announced the availability of the
draft economic analysis (DEA) in the
Federal Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR
41211), allowing the public to provide
comments on our analysis. We have
incorporated the comments and have
completed the economic analysis
concurrently with this final designation.
Peer review and public comment. We
sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our
designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We obtained
opinions from five knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to
review our technical assumptions and
analysis, and whether or not we had
used the best available information.
These peer reviewers generally
concurred with our methods and
conclusions, and provided additional
information and suggestions to improve
this final rule. Information we received
from peer review is incorporated in this
final revised designation. We also
considered all comments and
information received from the public
during the comment periods.
Previous Federal Actions
For more information on previous
Federal actions concerning Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri,
refer to the proposed rules published in
the Federal Register on October 3, 2013
(78 FR 61273 and 78 FR 61293), and the
final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on September 4, 2014
(79 FR 52567), which are available
online at https://www.regulations.gov or
from the South Florida Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We requested written comments from
the public on the proposed designation
of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri
and Linum carteri var. carteri during
two comment periods. The first
comment period opened with the
publication of the proposed rule (78 FR
61293) on October 3, 2013, and closed
on December 2, 2013. We also requested
comments on the proposed critical
habitat designation and associated draft
economic analysis during a comment
period that opened July 15, 2014, and
closed on August 14, 2014 (79 FR
41211). We also contacted appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies;
scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to
comment on the proposed rule and draft
economic analysis during these
comment periods.
During the first comment period, we
received 10 comment letters directly
addressing the proposed critical habitat
designation. During the second
comment period, we received six
comment letters addressing the
proposed critical habitat designation.
We did not receive any requests for a
public hearing during either comment
period. All substantive information
provided during the comment periods
specifically relating to the proposed
designation either has been
incorporated directly into this final
designation or is addressed below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review
policy published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we
solicited expert opinions from six
knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise, that included
familiarity with Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri and/or their
habitat, biological needs, and threats;
the geographical region of South Florida
in which these plants occur; and
conservation biology principles. We
received responses from five of the peer
reviewers.
We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information
regarding critical habitat for Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri.
The peer reviewers generally concurred
with our methods and conclusions, and
provided additional information and
suggestions to improve the final critical
habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments
are addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer
requested that additional information be
provided regarding the source of
ownership data and conservation lands.
This reviewer also requested that
ownership data and conservation land
boundaries be referenced on the critical
habitat maps or additional maps.
Our Response: Ownership of
proposed critical habitat areas in the
proposed rule was determined using
geographic information system (GIS)
data consisting of Miami-Dade County
parcel layer (August 2008 version) and
the Florida Natural Areas Inventory
(FNAI) Florida Managed Areas layer
(March 2009 version). Ownership of
critical habitat areas in this final rule
was determined using updated GIS data
consisting of Miami-Dade County parcel
layer (July 2013 version) and FNAI
Florida Managed Areas layer (March
2014 version); this information has been
incorporated into Tables 1 and 2 in the
Final Critical Habitat Designation
section, below. With regard to the
inclusion of ownership data and
conservation area boundaries on critical
habitat maps, we prepare these maps
under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations.
While we attempted in the proposed
rule to provide detail such as select area
names to better show the location of
critical habitat areas along the Miami
Rock Ridge, the scale of the maps
prevented all conservation areas or
ownership data from being depicted.
This is still the case for maps showing
the final critical habitat designation,
which retained the same scale as maps
in the proposed rule. More detailed
information is available at the South
Florida Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer
suggested that the FNAI Florida Element
Occurrence (FLEO) data for the pine
rockland natural community and rare
plants, animals, and invertebrates could
have been used in our designation of
critical habitat units. The reviewer also
commented on the lack of map
references to these and other spatial
occurrence data (from Fairchild
Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG), the
Institute for Regional Conservation
(IRC), and other sources), while
allowing that the latter were well
referenced in the proposed rule.
Our Response: We appreciate the
reviewer’s comment. We did review the
FLEO data for rare pine rockland
species as part of our anlaysis, and have
added text reflecting this under the
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section, below. We were not
aware of available FLEO data for the
pine rockland natural community. We
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49847
have since inquired with FNAI
regarding these data, and have found
out that the information available is
only for some, not all, pine rocklands on
the Miami Rock Ridge, and that detailed
data (e.g., habitat condition, species
occurrences) for most areas are at least
10 years old. Thus, we believe that the
information we used in our critical
habitat analysis (specifically, recent
aerial photography and the feedback of
experts familiar with on-the-ground
conditions) is more appropriate to a
current assessment of habitat conditions
than the FLEO pine rockland data, and
constitutes the best available scientific
and commercial information. Please
refer to our response to Comment (1),
above, regarding the inclusion of
additional information on critical
habitat maps.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer
recommended including the firesuppressed pine rockland habitat
located between Ross and Castellow
Hammocks in Brickellia mosieri’s
designated critical habitat, based on it
being the type locality for the plant.
Our Response: In our analysis of
proposed critical habitat, some areas of
former pine rockland habitat were
considered too severely fire suppressed
(i.e., having extremely dense canopy
cover, based on our assessment of aerial
photography) such that they are now
unsuitable habitat for Brickellia mosieri,
and unlikely to be able to be restored.
These areas were not delineated as pine
rocklands in our critical habitat
analysis, and thus were not included in
the consequence matrix used to identify
unoccupied habitat for designation. This
included the severely fire-suppressed
pine rockland between Ross and
Castellow Hammocks. Our assessment
has been confirmed by a species expert
who conducts monitoring in the area
and is familiar with current habitat
conditions. Thus, we believe that the
subject area is not appropriate for
inclusion in the critical habitat
designation at this time.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer
noted that our methodology and choice
of critical habitat patches appear very
reasonable, but suggested supporting
future critical habitat designations with
quantitative analyses, such as those that
would provide the quantitative
contribution of each patch to network
connectivity.
Our Response: We appreciate the
reviewer’s comment. In our analysis for
the proposed rule, we evaluated
connectivity of each habitat patch using
two criteria: The number of other pine
rockland habitat patches within 2
kilometers (km) (1.2 miles (mi)), and the
distance to the nearest pine rockland
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
49848
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
patch within a 2-km (1.2-mi) radius
(where a score of ‘‘0’’ signaled adjacent
patches). In this quantitative ranking,
scores for both of these criteria were
calculated in GIS using the pine
rockland habitat layer we previously
delineated as described in the Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section, below. By applying these
criteria, given areas of equal habitat
quality, size, and surrounding landscape
composition, those patches having more
and closer neighbors (i.e., other pine
rockland patches) would be ranked
higher in our evaluation. The intent of
these criteria was to maximize patch
connectivity within each geographic
area. We believe this was the best
approach for delineating the critical
habitat for these two plants, but
appreciate that the reviewer’s suggested
evaluation approach may be useful in
developing a consequence matrix in
future critical habitat designations,
where necessary and appropriate.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer
suggested adding many of the mowed
fields within the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) and Miami Zoo properties to the
designated critical habitat in Unit 4
(now, Units BM4 and LCC4). The
reviewer stated that these lack a pine
canopy and shrub layer, but support a
high diversity of pine rockland species,
including State-listed and federally
listed plants, and noted that similar
mowed areas likely occur in other
portions of the Richmond Pinelands. We
received a similar comment, concerning
a mowed area on the USCG property,
during the second public comment
period (see response to Comment (10)
below).
Our Response: We thank the reviewer
for this comment. We acknowledge that
mown areas having pine rockland
substrate (i.e., cleared pine rocklands)
support some imperiled pine rockland
plants, including Linum carteri var.
carteri. However, while cleared areas
currently support occurrences of L. c.
var. carteri, scientific data are lacking
with regard to the reason for this—
whether it be a requirement related to
very high light conditions, disturbed
substrate, or a combination of these or
other factors not yet identified. For the
long-term conservation of these plants,
we consider habitats having a
completely open canopy (i.e., cleared
pine rocklands) to be less preferred than
intact pine rockland having suitable
canopy cover. Accordingly, cleared
areas scored lower quantitatively for
onsite habitat quality than intact pine
rockland, and thus had a lower overall
ranking in our consequence matrix,
which we used to evaluate the
conservation quality of unoccupied
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
habitat (discussed in the Criteria Used
To Identify Critical Habitat section,
below). Mown fields within USCG and
Miami Zoo lands, and surrounding land
in the Richmond Pinelands, were
included in our evaluation, but did not
rank high enough (i.e., conservation
quality ranking was less than 0.50) for
inclusion in the critical habitat
designation. Based on our assessment,
we do not believe these areas are
essential to the plant’s conservation at
this time. However, we are actively
communicating with both USCG and
Miami-Dade County, and are supportive
of conservation measures that would
benefit L. c. var. carteri on these lands
(e.g., optimizing mowing regime).
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer
provided additional information related
to cultivated plantings of Brickellia
mosieri, citing an observation of larger,
more vigorous individuals than their
wild counterparts, and the potential for
plantings of both B. mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri to provide a continual
input of propagules that may
successfully colonize other pine
rockland areas.
Our Response: We thank the reviewer
for this additional information, and
support such planting programs (e.g.,
FTBG’s Connect to Protect Network) to
aid in the recovery of these plants.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) states, ‘‘the Secretary shall
submit to the State agency a written
justification for [her] failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency’s
comments or petition.’’ The two plants
only occur in Florida, and we received
no comments from the State of Florida
regarding the critical habitat proposal.
We note, however, that one peer
reviewer was from the Florida Forest
Service, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services;
those comments are addressed above.
Public Comments
(7) Comment: One commenter stated
that there is no reason why a population
of Brickellia mosieri could not be
supported at Tropical Park (in the
vicinity of Unit BM1).
Our Response: We thank the reviewer
for this comment. In our evaluation of
unoccupied habitat, we used the best
available scientific data to establish a
minimum habitat size that would likely
support a sustaining population of
Brickellia mosieri. Based on expert
opinion, we excluded unoccupied
patches below 2 ha (5 ac) for B. mosieri
(see ‘‘Sites for Breeding, Reproduction,
or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring,’’ in the proposed critical
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
habitat rule published in the Federal
Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR
61293)). The pine rockland habitat
patch at Tropical Park (unoccupied) is
approximately 1.7 ha (4.3 ac), and thus
was not included in the consequence
matrix for B. mosieri. Although some
sites occupied by B. mosieri are less
than 2 ha (5 ac) in size, it is not known
whether these populations are
sustainable in the long term. Thus, we
believe that our minimum size
threshold for unoccupied habitat is a
conservative estimate, and that the
methodology we used to determine
proposed critical habitat supports the
identification of pine rockland habitat
patches with the highest conservation
quality.
(8) Comment: Two commenters
suggested revising the criteria used to
evaluate onsite habitat quality in the
consequence matrix, which was used to
score and rank unoccupied pine
rockland habitat patches in our critical
habitat analysis. Both commenters
stated that it would be more appropriate
(especially for Linum carteri var. carteri)
for pine rockland with a canopy
openness greater than 50 percent to
score higher than pine rockland with
25–50 percent canopy openness.
Our Response: We appreciate the
comment and acknowledge that Linum
carteri var. carteri responds favorably to
high light conditions, including
disturbed pine rocklands with canopy
openness near 100 percent. Such
cleared areas currently support
occurrences of L. c. var. carteri, but
scientific data are lacking with regard to
the reason for this—whether it be a
requirement related to very high light
conditions, disturbed substrate, or a
combination of these or other factors not
yet identified. The criteria used to
evaluate onsite habitat quality reflect
our belief that habitats having a
completely open canopy (i.e., cleared
pine rocklands) are less preferred than
intact pine rockland having suitable
canopy cover for the long-term
conservation of these plants. However,
to investigate whether and how the
suggested change to scoring would
impact the set of unoccupied habitat
patches having an overall score greater
than 0.50, we conducted a test revision
of the consequence matrix for L. c. var.
carteri. Scoring of canopy cover was
adjusted as follows: If canopy was
estimated to be 50 to 75 percent open,
that patch received the highest possible
score for that criteria (i.e., a ‘‘4’’; original
score for these patches was a ‘‘3’’);
patches with a canopy estimated to be
greater than 75 percent open received a
score of ‘‘3’’ (original score was a ‘‘2’’);
patches with a canopy estimated to be
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
25 to 50 percent open received a score
of ‘‘2’’ (original score was a ‘‘4’’); and
patches with a canopy estimated to be
less than 25 percent open (e.g., having
a closed canopy due to inadequate fire
management and extensive cover by
nonnative invasive plants) received the
lowest possible score (‘‘1’’; unchanged
from original scoring). We then
compared these test patch rankings to
rankings under the original scoring
scheme. All habitat patches for L. c. var.
carteri in the original matrix having a
total score greater than 0.63 were still in
the revised set. Based on total score
greater than 0.50 (our chosen cut-off for
conservation quality as discussed in the
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section, below), the revised set
of unoccupied habitat patches for L. c.
var. carteri included 3 new patches, but
did not include 28 previously included
patches (compared to proposed critical
habitat in the proposed rule published
in the Federal Register on October 3,
2013 (78 FR 61293)). The net area
difference, based on the revised versus
original matrix, was approximately 101
ha (250 ac) less than the proposed
critical habitat. We also evaluated the
revised set of habitat patches spatially,
and determined that the revised polygon
set had reduced connectivity,
particularly in the area between the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Chapman
Field (on the coast) and more interior
habitat to the southwest. Lastly, we
evaluated aerial photography of the
individual polygons that would be
added, and do not believe that they
represent quality habitat—as pine
rockland habitat in general, or for L. c.
var. carteri specifically. Evaluation of
aerial photography of the individual
polygons that would be deleted
indicates that at least some of these
areas represent high-quality pine
rockland habitat, including areas that
could be open enough for L. c. var.
carteri.
Based on our test revision, it seems
apparent that a lower cut-off value for
conservation quality would be needed
to capture these high-quality areas and
achieve adequate connectivity if the
revised scoring was used. Therefore, we
do not believe that the suggested scoring
revision would result in a more
appropriate set of habitat patches for L.
c. var. carteri, and thus have not made
any changes to the consequence matrix.
One reason that the revised scoring did
not result in the anticipated
improvement to proposed critical
habitat for L. c. var. carteri may be due
to the way in which we scored patch
canopy cover—that is, the entire
polygon received a single score for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
canopy cover, although in many cases
canopy cover is not distributed evenly
through a habitat patch. While there are
likely many alternative methods for
evaluating conservation quality of pine
rockland habitat, peer reviewers of the
proposed rule agreed that our
methodology is sound and that the
resulting determination for unoccupied
critical habitat is appropriate.
(9) Comment: One commenter
suggested technical corrections to
sections of the proposed rule pertaining
to characteristic pine rockland
vegetation, related to scientific names.
Our Response: We appreciate the
comment and have incorporated these
corrections into the Physical or
Biological Features, the Primary
Constituent Elements, and the
Regulation Promulgation sections of the
final rule, below.
(10) Comment: One commenter stated
that the ‘‘antenna field’’ area of mowed
pine rockland bordered on the north by
Coral Reef Drive (152nd Street) and on
the east by SW 117th Street would
support both Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri, and that it is
possible that one or both plants are
there already. The commenter further
stated that, although the area has been
mown for decades, the vegetation is
primarily native pine rockland plants
that have adapted to the mowing by
growing prostrate instead of vertically.
Our Response: Please see our
response to Peer Review Comment (5),
above, with regard to how these areas
were handled in the methodology for
designation. In addition, a survey of this
area has recently been conducted, and
neither Brickellia mosieri nor Linum
carteri var. carteri were found. However,
we continue to actively communicate
with both USCG and Miami-Dade
County, and are supportive of
conservation measures that would
benefit pine rockland plants on these
lands (e.g., optimizing mowing regime).
Summary of Changes From Proposed
Rule
Based on information we received in
comments regarding Brickellia mosieri
and Linum carteri var. carteri, we
refined our description of physical or
biological features and primary
constituent elements for both plants to
include corrections to the following
scientific names, in order to more
accurately describe the characteristic
vegetation of pine rocklands on the
Miami Rock Ridge:
(1) Lysiloma bahamense has been
changed to L. latisiliquum;
(2) Thrinax morrisii has been deleted;
(3) Rapanea punctata has been
changed to Myrsine floridana;
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49849
(4) Dodonaea viscosa has been
deleted;
(5) Quercus elliottii has been changed
to Q. pumila;
(6) Chamaecrista fasciculata has been
changed to C. deeringiana; and
(7) Zamia pumila has been changed to
Z. integrifolia.
These revisions have also been made
in the critical habitat discussion as well
as in the Regulation Promulgation
section of this final rule.
We also made revisions and
refinements of the proposed critical
habitat designation, and described these
amendments in our document making
available the draft economic analysis
and reopening the proposed rule’s
comment period (79 FR 41211; July 15,
2014). Please refer to that notice for
details; those revisions, with the
exception of the proposed additions on
Department of Defense lands, are
reflected in this final rule, and
described below in Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat.
Since publishing the revised proposed
critical habitat designation on July 15,
2014 (79 FR 41211), we have
determined that three unoccupied areas
on Department of Defense lands
(Homestead Air Reserve Base and the
Special Operations Command South
Headquarters) meet the criteria for
exemption from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act (discussed under the Exemptions
section, below), and we have removed
these from this final designation. The
exemptions result in the removal of one
area (one subunit; approximately 5.2 ha
(12.9 ac)) from the critical habitat
designation for Brickellia mosieri, and
three areas (two subunits; totaling
approximately 7.0 ha (17.3 ac)) from the
critical habitat designation for Linum
carteri var. carteri. The amount of
critical habitat designated for each plant
in this final rule (1,062 ha (2,624 ac) for
B. mosieri and 1,072 ha (2,649 ac) for L.
c. var. carteri) reflects these exempted
areas.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
49850
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(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.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even
in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of
the Federal action agency and the
landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an
area, we focus on the principal
biological or physical constituent
elements (primary constituent elements
such as roost sites, nesting grounds,
seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide,
soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary
constituent elements are those specific
elements of the physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. We designate critical habitat in
areas outside the geographical area
occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its range would
be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial 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 developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological
assessments, other unpublished
materials, or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) section 9
of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including
taking caused by actions that affect
habitat. 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 this 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 these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which
areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing to designate as critical habitat,
we consider the physical or biological
features (PBFs) essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. These
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PBFs essential
for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri
var. carteri from studies of the plants’
habitat, ecology, and life history as
described in the Critical Habitat section
of the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat published in the Federal
Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR
61293), and in the information
presented below. Additional
information can be found in the final
listing rule published in the Federal
Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR
52567). The PBFs for Brickellia mosieri
and Linum carteri var. carteri were
defined on the basis of the habitat
features of the areas occupied by the
plants at the time of listing, which
included substrate types, plant
community structure, and associated
plant species. The PBFs below include
an updated description of the PBF
related to ‘‘Cover or Shelter.’’ We have
determined that B. mosieri and L. c. var.
carteri require the following PBFs:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Space for Individual and Population
Growth
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri
var. carteri are endemic to, and occur
exclusively within, pine rockland
habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge
outside of Everglades National Park
(ENP) in Miami-Dade County in south
Florida. This community and associated
native plant species are described in the
Status Assessment for Brickellia mosieri
and Linum carteri var. carteri section in
the proposed listing rule published in
the Federal Register on October 3, 2013
(78 FR 61273). Pine rocklands are a firemaintained ecosystem characterized by
an open canopy and understory and by
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 B. mosieri and L. c. var.
carteri. These plants also require 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 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). Therefore, based on this
information, we identify pine rockland
habitats to be a PBF for these plants.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
49851
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Soils—Substrates supporting
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri for anchoring or nutrient
absorption 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, extensive sandy pockets can
be found at the northern end of the
Miami Rock Ridge, 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). In this area (the northern
Biscayne region), pine rockland soils are
primarily quartz sands classified as
Opalocka sand-rock outcrop complex.
This region has the least exposed rock.
In the southern Biscayne, or Redlands,
region to the south, pine rockland soils
are rockier (i.e., exposed rock is the
predominant surface) and are primarily
classified as Cardsound silty clay loamrock outcrop complex. Other soil types
that are loosely associated with pine
rocklands include Udorthents (in the
northern half of the plants’ current
ranges) and Krome very gravelly loam
(in the southern half). Therefore, based
on the information above, we identify
substrate derived from oolitic limestone
to provide anchoring and nutritional
requirements to be a PBF for these
plants.
Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm),
Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Myrsine
floridana (myrsine), Metopium
toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima
lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia bicolor
(tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra (rough
velvetseed), Ardisia escallonioides
(marlberry), Psidium longipes
(mangroveberry), Sideroxylon
salicifolium (willow bustic), and Rhus
copallinum (winged sumac) (FNAI
2010, pp. 61–62). Short-statured shrubs
may include, but are not limited to,
Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia
aculeata (white indigoberry),
Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas
berry), Morinda royoc (redgal), and
Chiococca alba (snowberry) (FNAI 2010,
p. 62). Understory vegetation may
include, but is not limited to:
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium
gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida
purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn);
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided
Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora
floridensis (Florida white-top sedge);
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn);
Echites umbellata (devil’s potato);
Croton linearis (pineland croton);
Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats);
Chamaecrista deeringiana (partridge
pea); Zamia integrifolia (coontie); and
Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair
pineland fern) (FNAI 2010, p. 62). An
open canopy and understory are
required to allow sufficient sunlight to
reach the herbaceous layer and permit
growth and flowering of B. mosieri and
L. c. var. carteri. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify
vegetation composition and structure
that allows for adequate sunlight, and
space for individual growth and
population expansion, to be a PBF for
these plants.
Cover or Shelter
Pine rockland is characterized by an
open canopy of Pinus elliottii var. densa
(South Florida slash pine). Subcanopy
development is rare in well-maintained
pine rocklands, with only occasional
hardwoods such as Lysiloma
latisiliquum (wild tamarind) and
Quercus virginiana (live oak) growing to
tree size in Miami Rock Ridge pinelands
(Snyder et al. 1990, p. 253). The shrub/
understory layer is also
characteristically open, although the
height and density of the shrub layer
varies based on fire frequency, with
understory plants growing taller and
more dense as time since fire increases.
Subcanopy/shrub species that typically
occur include, but may not be limited
to, Serenoa repens (saw palmetto),
Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm),
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
Brickellia mosieri—The reproductive
biology and needs of B. mosieri have not
been studied (Bradley and Gann 1999,
p. 12), and our knowledge of the ecology
of the species related to reproduction
needs primarily consists of observed
habitat requirements and demographic
trends. Field observations indicate that
the species does not usually occur in
great abundance; populations are
typically sparse and contain a low
density of plants, even in wellmaintained pine rockland habitat
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 12). Bradley
(2013b, pers. comm.) estimated that,
based on this observation, the minimum
habitat patch size to support a
sustaining population may be
approximately 2 ha (5 ac), although no
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
49852
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
studies have been conducted to evaluate
this estimate. Some occupied sites are
less than 2 ha (5 ac) in size, but it is not
known whether these populations are
sustainable in the long term.
Reproduction is sexual (Bradley and
Gann 1999, p. 12), but specific
pollinators or dispersers are unknown.
Flower morphology suggests the species
may be pollinated by butterflies, bees, or
both (Koptur 2013, pers. comm.). Wind
is one likely dispersal vector (Gann
2013b, pers. comm.), as is seed dispersal
by animals. Within pine rocklands,
more than 50 species of butterflies have
been observed that may act as
pollinators for Brickellia mosieri .
Similarly, a large variety of native and
nonnative bee species are known to
pollinate pine rockland plants, which
may include B. mosieri. Declines in
pollinator visitation may cause
decreased seed set or fruit production,
which could lead to lower seedling
establishment and numbers of mature
plants. The availability of pollinators of
appropriate type and sufficient numbers
is necessary for B. mosieri to reproduce
and ensure sustainable populations.
Because the specific type(s) and number
of pollinators of B. mosieri are
unknown, and may include nongeneralist species closely tied to pine
rockland habitats, preserving and
restoring connectivity of pine rockland
habitat fragments is essential to the
long-term conservation of the species.
Sufficient connectivity of pine rockland
habitat is also necessary to support
establishment of new populations
through seed dispersal, and to preserve
and enhance genetic diversity.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify habitat connectivity
of sufficient size and suitability, or
habitat that can be restored to these
conditions that supports the species’
growth, distribution, and population
expansion, to be a PBF for Brickellia
mosieri.
Linum carteri var. carteri—The
reproductive needs of L. c. var. carteri
are not well understood. Maschinski
(2006, p. 83) reported that L. c. var.
carteri has typical behavior for an early
successional plant—plants grow to
reproductive status quickly, and
populations typically contain a higher
density of plants. The minimum habitat
patch size to support a sustaining
population may be smaller than that
needed for Brickellia mosieri, possibly
as small as 0.4 ha (1 ac) (Bradley 2013b,
pers. comm.), although no studies have
been conducted to evaluate this
estimate. Reproduction is believed to be
sexual (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 71),
but specific pollinators are unknown.
Flower morphology suggests this variety
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
may also be pollinated by butterflies or
bees, or both (Koptur 2013, pers.
comm.). Alternatively, Mosquin and
Hayley (1967, p. 1278) suggested L. c.
var. carteri may be self-pollinated.
Dispersal agents are unknown, but most
likely include animal and humanrelated vectors in the existing
landscape.
Therefore, given the uncertainty
regarding specific pollinators and
dispersal vectors, the importance of
connectivity of pine rockland habitat
discussed above for Brickellia mosieri
also applies to Linum carteri var. carteri.
We identify habitat connectivity of
sufficient size and suitability, or habitat
that can be restored to these conditions
to support the species’ growth,
distribution, and population expansion,
to also be a PBF for L. c. var. carteri.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or
Representative of the Historical,
Geographic, and Ecological
Distributions of Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri
var. carteri continue to occur in habitats
that are protected from incompatible
human-generated disturbances and are
only partially representative of the
plants’ historical, geographical, and
ecological distributions because their
ranges within these habitats has been
reduced. These plants are still found in
their representative plant communities
of pine rocklands. Representative
communities are located on Federal,
State, local, and private lands that
implement habitat management
activities which benefit these plants.
Disturbance Regime—Pine rockland is
dependent on some degree of
disturbance, most importantly from
natural or prescribed fires (Loope and
Dunevitz 1981, p. 5; Snyder et al. 2005,
p. 1; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4; Saha
et al. 2011, pp. 169–184; FNAI 2010, p.
63). These fires are a vital component in
maintaining native vegetation, such as
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri, which require high light
conditions and exposed substrate.
Without fire, succession from pine
rockland to rockland hammock (an
upland tropical hardwood forest
occurring over limestone) is rapid, and
understory species such as B. mosieri
and L. c. var. carteri are shaded out by
dense canopy and deep leaf litter. In
addition, displacement of native species
by invasive, nonnative plants often
occurs.
Hurricanes and other significant
weather events also create openings in
the pine rockland canopy (FNAI 2010,
p. 63), although these types of
disturbances are more sporadic in
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
nature and may pose a threat to small,
isolated populations such as those that
remain of Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri. For L. c. var. carteri,
mowing may also serve as another
means of maintaining an open canopy
where the plant occurs in firebreaks,
rights-of-way, and cleared fields.
However, in order to avoid potential
negative impacts, the timing of mowing
is critical and should be conducted after
flowering has occurred (see
Demographics, Reproductive Biology
and Population Genetics of L. c. var.
carteri in the proposed listing rule
published October 3, 2013 (78 FR
61273)). Mechanical control of
hardwoods may also help maintain an
open canopy in pine rockland, but
cannot entirely replace fire since it does
not have the same benefits related to
removal of leaf litter and nutrient
cycling. Natural and prescribed fire
remains the primary and ecologically
preferred disturbance regime for pine
rockland.
Brickellia mosieri tends to occur on
exposed limestone with minimal
organic litter and in areas with only
minor amounts of substrate disturbance
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 11). In
contrast, Linum carteri var. carteri is
currently associated with pine
rocklands that have undergone some
sort of substrate disturbance (e.g.,
firebreaks, canal banks, edges of railway
beds). All known occurrences over the
last 15 years have been within either
scarified pine rockland, disturbed areas
adjacent to or within pine rocklands, or
completely disturbed areas having a
limestone substrate (Bradley and Gann
1999, p. 71; Bradley 2013a, pers.
comm.). Inadequate fire management,
resulting in closed canopy conditions,
may have excluded L. c. var. carteri
(which responds positively to low
competition and high light
environments) from otherwise suitable
pine rocklands habitat (Bradley and
Gann 1999, p. 71). Alternatively, this
variety may only proliferate on sites
where exposed substrate occurs
following disturbance; historically this
may have occurred following hurricanes
(e.g., under tip-up mounds of fallen
trees), animal disturbance, or fire (Gann
2013a, pers. comm.). Whether current
occurrences of L. c. var. carteri reflect a
need for higher light conditions than B.
mosieri, a requirement for disturbed
substrate, or some combination of these,
or other unidentified factors, is
unknown, and microhabitat data for
either plant are generally lacking. The
best available scientific data suggest that
both plants require a similar disturbance
regime to maintain the open canopy and
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
low litter conditions characteristics of
pine rockland habitat, and thereby
maintain persistent populations.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify natural or prescribed
fire, or other disturbance regimes that
maintain the pine rockland habitat, to
be a PBF for these plants.
Primary Constituent Elements
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features’ primary
constituent elements (PCEs). PCEs are
those specific elements of the PBFs that
provide for a species’ life-history
processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of
the PBFs and habitat characteristics
required to sustain the plants’ lifehistory processes, we determine that the
PCEs specific to Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri are:
(1) Areas of pine rockland habitat that
contain:
(a) Open canopy, semi-open
subcanopy, and understory;
(b) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock;
and
(c) A plant community of
predominately native vegetation that
may include, but is not limited to:
(i) Canopy vegetation dominated by
Pinus elliottii var. densa (South Florida
slash pine);
(ii) Subcanopy vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to, Serenoa
repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto
(cabbage palm), Coccothrinax argentata
(silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax
myrtle), Myrsine floridana (myrsine),
Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood),
Byrsonima lucida (locustberry),
Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia),
Guettarda scabra (rough velvetseed),
Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry),
Psidium longipes (mangroveberry),
Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow
bustic), and Rhus copallinum (winged
sumac);
(iii) Short-statured shrubs that may
include, but are not limited to, Quercus
pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata
(white indigoberry), Crossopetalum
ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda
royoc (redgal), and Chiococca alba
(snowberry); and
(iv) Understory vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to:
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium
gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida
purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn);
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora
floridensis (Florida white-top sedge);
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn);
Echites umbellata (devil’s potato);
Croton linearis (pineland croton);
Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats);
Chamaecrista deeringiana (partridge
pea); Zamia integrifolia (coontie); and
Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair
pineland fern).
(2) A disturbance regime that
naturally or artificially duplicates
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire,
hurricanes, or other weather events) and
that maintains the pine rockland habitat
as described in PCE (1).
(3) Habitats that are connected and of
sufficient area to sustain viable
populations of Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri in the pine
rockland habitat as described in PCE (1).
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 that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The
features essential to the conservation of
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri 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,
invasive plants; and sea level rise. For
an indepth discussion of threats, see
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species in our proposed listing rule
published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61273), and as
updated in our final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on
September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567). For a
discussion of the special management
considerations or protection for the
PBFs in this critical habitat designation,
see the discussion in the proposed
critical habitat rule published in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78
FR 612793).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we use the best scientific data
available to designate critical habitat. In
accordance with the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b) we review available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species and identify
occupied areas at the time of listing that
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49853
contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species. If, after
identifying areas occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we
determine that those areas are
inadequate to ensure conservation of the
species, in accordance with the Act and
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(e) we then consider whether
designating additional areas—outside
those occupied at the time of listing—
are essential for the conservation of the
species.
In this rule, we are designating as
critical habitat habitat both within the
geographical area occupied by these
plants at the time of listing, and outside
the geographical area occupied by these
plants at the time of listing but within
their historical range, because such
areas are essential for the conservation
of these plants. We used habitat and
historical occurrence data, and applied
general conservation design principles,
to identify unoccupied habitat essential
for the conservation of these plants.
To determine the general extent,
location, and boundaries of critical
habitat, the Service used the following
sources of information:
(1) Historical and current records of
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri occurrences and distributions
found in publications, reports, personal
communications, and associated
voucher specimens housed at museums
and private collections;
(2) FNAI, IRC, and FTBG GIS data
showing the location and extent of
documented occurrences of Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, as
well as occurrence data for other
imperiled pine rockland species;
(3) Reports and databases prepared by
botanists with IRC and FTBG. Some of
these were funded by the Service, while
others were requested or volunteered by
biologists with IRC or FTBG;
(4) ESRI ArcGIS online basemap aerial
imagery (collected December 2010) and
Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles
(DOQQs; 1-m true color; collected 2004)
of Miami-Dade County. Because pine
rockland habitat has a recognizable
signature in these aerial photographs,
the presence of PCEs was partially
determined through evaluation of this
imagery; and
(5) GIS data depicting soils (Soil
Service Geographic (SSURGO) dataset),
land cover (South Florida Water
Management District Land Use and
Cover 2008–2009), and elevation (Dade
County LiDAR 88—2003) within MiamiDade County; these data were also used
to determine the presence of PCEs.
Due to the lack of existing taxaspecific data or recommendations
related to conservation design (e.g.,
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
49854
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
minimum area or number of
populations needed for recovery), we
used general conservation design
principles in conjunction with the best
available data for Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri to identify
those unoccupied pine rocklands with
the highest conservation quality—that
is, those areas that currently provide the
best quality habitat and are likely to
continue to do so in the future, or areas
that have the highest restoration
potential. Guidelines for conservation
design, which have been developed
using island biogeography models, are
highly relevant to areas such as the
fragmented pine rocklands of the Miami
Rock Ridge (i.e., pine rockland islands
in a sea of urban and agriculture
development). Due to the degree of
habitat loss that has already occurred,
application of all such guidelines are
somewhat limited by the nature of the
remaining habitat (e.g., sizes, shapes,
and locations of individual habitat
patches). As such, we evaluated
conservation quality of unoccupied pine
rockland habitat using the following
three major principles:
(1) Geographic spread—Species that
are well distributed across their native
ranges are less susceptible to extinction
than are species confined to small
portions of their ranges.
(2) Size—Large habitat patches are
superior to small habitat patches, in that
larger areas will support larger
populations and will be less negatively
impacted by edge effects. All else being
equal, conservation design options that
include greater areal extent are superior.
When comparative circumstances are
not otherwise equal, factors such as
habitat quality, the presence of specific
landscape features, and the spatial
arrangement of habitat may offset a
solely area-driven selection process.
(3) Connectivity—Habitat that occurs
in less fragmented, contiguous patches
is preferable to habitat that is
fragmented or isolated by urban lands.
Habitat patches close to one another
serve species of concern better than
patches situated far apart.
Interconnected patches are better than
isolated patches. Conservation design
alternatives should seek, in order of
priority:
(a) Continuity within habitat
(minimize additional fragmentation);
(b) Connectedness (increase existing
habitat patches); and
(c) Proximity (minimize distance
between habitat patches).
Using these guiding principles, we
evaluated the remaining unoccupied
pine rockland habitat on the Miami
Rock Ridge outside of ENP with the
intent of identifying the largest patches
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
and highest quality habitat available
(patches of sufficient size and quality to
support populations), in sufficient
amount (i.e., sufficient numbers of
populations) and spatial arrangement (to
provide opportunities for future
migration and colonization) to provide
for the conservation of Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri.
Our evaluation consisted of the
following steps:
(1) Using primarily aerial imagery and
GIS-based vegetation and soils data,
wedelineated pine rockland habitat in
Miami Dade County outside of ENP.
Pine rocklands were identified based on
the presence of specific soil types (see
‘‘Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements,’’above), and presence of
pine rockland vegetation. Firesuppressed areas and areas where
intergrading with rockland hammock
occurs were also evaluated. Some
former pine rockland habitat was
considered too severely fire suppressed
(i.e., having extremely dense canopy
cover) such that it is now unsuitable
habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri, and unlikely to be
able to be restored; these areas were not
delineated as pine rocklands in our
critical habitat analysis. Some cleared
areas occurring over pine rockland soils
were delineated, with the intent that
such areas provide opportunities for
restoration. The resulting habitat layer
consisted of 245 habitat patches.
(2) To maximize geographic spread
within the plants’ historical ranges, we
divided the extent of delineated habitat
into five geographic areas (northeast to
southwest).
(3) For each plant, we included
occupied patches in final critical habitat
(25 habitat patches for Brickellia
mosieri, and 6 patches for Linum carteri
var. carteri). One occurrence of L. c. var.
carteri (a single plant found on a canal
bank) is not included in final critical
habitat due to the anomalous nature of
the occurrence, and because we were
not able to define patch boundaries
based on any of the criteria described in
(1), above. In addition, a new
occurrence of L. c. var. carteri (11 plants
in a firebreak) was discovered on
October 17, 2014 on the Deering Estate,
but outside the proposed critical habitat
subunit. Because we believe that the
proposed critical habitat designation
contains sufficient habitat for the
conservation of this plant, subunit
boundaries were not revised and this
occurrence is not included in the final
critical habitat designation.
(4) For each plant, for the remaining
(unoccupied) habitat, we excluded
patches below the estimated minimum
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
size for each plant based on expert
opinion—2 ha (5 ac) for Brickellia
mosieri, and 0.4 ha (1 ac) for Linum
carteri var. carteri (see ‘‘Sites for
Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or
Development) of Offspring,’’ above). The
resulting layers consisted of 106 habitat
patches for B. mosieri, and 218 patches
for L. c. var. carteri.
(5) For each plant, for the remaining
habitat (unoccupied; 2 ha (5 ac) or
greater than or equal to 0.4 ha (1 ac),
Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var.
carteri, respectively), we assigned a
score for eight evaluation criteria
designed to assess overall conservation
quality of the patch, using the following
five major objectives (discussed more
indepth below and at https://
www.regulations.gov):
(a) Onsite habitat quality (intact, open
pine rocklands scored higher than
cleared patches or patches having a
closed canopy);
(b) Patch size (larger patches scored
higher);
(c) Surrounding landscape
composition (pine rocklands
surrounded by less development scored
higher);
(d) Connectivity (within each
geographic area, pine rockland patches
in closer proximity to each other and
with greater numbers of neighbors
scored higher); and
(e) Vulnerability to sea level rise (pine
rockland patches located at higher
elevations scored higher).
(6) For each plant, within each
geographic area, we used a consequence
matrix to evaluate the performance of
each unoccupied pine rockland patch
across the objectives described above in
(5). The resulting total score of each
patch was a 0.0–1.0 value, summed
across all criteria, where a score of 1.0
indicates the patch in each geographic
area that has the highest conservation
quality, based on the defined objectives.
Using the results of the consequence
matrix for each plant, we evaluated
potential ‘‘cut-off’’ values for patch total
score by visually assessing and
comparing habitat amounts and spatial
arrangements between various cut-off
values in order to identify the best
conservation arrangement. Because taxaspecific data and recommendations
were not available regarding how much
area is needed for the conservation and
recovery of Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri, we applied
the general conservation design
principles related to connectivity,
above, and principles of population
viability and metapopulation theory.
Small populations and plant species
with limited distributions, like those of
B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri, are
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
vulnerable to relatively minor
environmental disturbances (Frankham
2005, pp. 135–136), and are subject to
the loss of genetic diversity from genetic
drift, the random loss of genes, and
inbreeding (Ellstrand and Elam 1993,
pp. 217–237; Leimu et al. 2006, pp.
942–952). These factors increase the
probability of both local extinctions and
population extinction (Barrett and Kohn
1991, pp. 4, 28; Newman and Pilson
1997, p. 360; Palstra and Ruzzante 2008,
pp. 3428–3447). To ameliorate these
effects, the recovery of many rare plant
species includes the creation of new
sites or reintroductions to increase
population size (each occurrence, and
overall) and support genetic diversity.
Sufficient area is also required to allow
B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri to
expand their current distributions
(curtailed compared to historical
ranges), use habitat depending on the
availability of suitable conditions
(dynamic, related to time since
disturbance within each patch), and
maintain their ability to withstand localor unit-level environmental fluctuations
or catastrophes.
Based on our assessment, as described
above, we determined that unoccupied
pine rockland patches with a total score
for conservation quality greater than
0.50 should be proposed for critical
habitat designation. In addition, in the
proposed critical habitat rule published
in the Federal Register on October 3,
2013 (78 FR 61293), we proposed 15
supplemental pine rockland patches for
critical habitat designation for one or
more of the following reasons: (1) A
population of Brickellia mosieri was
previously observed in the patch
(although not recently enough to
consider the population extant at this
time); (2) addition of the patch increases
conservation quality of adjacent critical
habitat; (3) addition of the patch
increases connectivity of pine rockland
habitat across the landscape; and (4) the
patch is located at the northernmost end
of these plants’ historical ranges (an area
not captured using the consequence
matrix approach). The last category
consists of four patches with
conservation quality less than or equal
to 0.50, due to some combination of
lower onsite habitat quality, smaller
size, and more development in the
surrounding landscape, all of which are
related to their position closer to Miami.
While these patches may not represent
the best habitat currently available, they
do provide needed opportunities to
increase these plants’ geographic spread
and restore the plants to the
northernmost intact habitat within their
historical ranges, which is more heavily
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
impacted, and are essential to the
conservation of these plants, as
discussed above.
Revisions to the resulting set of
habitat patches were proposed in the
revised proposed rule and availability of
the draft economic analysis published
in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014
(79 FR 41211), based on new
information concerning the current
habitat condition of proposed areas as
well as information regarding additional
areas of suitable habitat that were not
included in the proposed designation
but that meet the definition of critical
habitat. The proposed changes consisted
of the removal of two unoccupied
patches from the proposed designation,
the revision of patch boundaries for
three unoccupied areas, and the
proposed designation of six new
unoccupied pine rockland patches
(multiple patches may make up a single
subunit). For more information
regarding these proposed changes, refer
to that notice. We have since
determined that three of the six new
proposed patches (i.e., three unoccupied
areas on Department of Defense lands)
meet the criteria for exemption from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (discussed
under the Exemptions section, below),
and we have removed these from the
designation of critical habitat in this
final rule.
Habitat Within the Geographic Range at
the Time of Listing
We are designating seven critical
habitat units for each plant. Five of the
seven units were occupied by Brickellia
mosieri at the time of listing; the
remaining two units are within the
plant’s historical range, but were
unoccupied at the time of listing. Three
of the seven units were occupied by
Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of
listing; the remaining four units are
within the plant’s historical range, but
were unoccupied at the time of listing.
The occupied units include the mapped
extent of each plant’s population and
contain the PCEs.
Within each of these occupied units is
also unoccupied habitat, which is
included based on our determination
that such areas are essential to the
conservation of these plants, as
discussed above. In addition to
providing sufficient habitat (area,
number of patches, connectivity), this
unoccupied habitat allows for the
dynamic nature of pine rockland
habitat. Conditions within pine
rockland patches, such as the openness
of the canopy and understory and the
accumulation of leaf litter over the
limestone substrate, vary greatly across
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49855
the landscape and across time. Only a
portion of the delineated habitat is
suitable for Brickellia mosieri or Linum
carteri var. carteri, or both plants, at any
given time, and the size and location of
suitable areas within the population is
dynamic over time, being largely driven
by the frequency and scale of natural or
prescribed fires and other types of
disturbance (e.g., for L. c. var. carteri,
mowing or other events that disturb the
limestone substrate). Although
prescribed burns are administered on
conservation lands that retain B. mosieri
or L. c. var. carteri, or both, populations,
fire return intervals and scope are
inconsistent. Thus, areas of pine
rockland habitat that now support one
or both of these plants may not support
the plants in the future, as inadequate
fire management removes or fragments
suitable habitat. Conversely, suitable
habitat conditions may return or
increase in areas following natural or
prescribed fires, allowing opportunities
for the plants to expand or colonize
these areas in the future.
The delineation of units (occupied
plus unoccupied patches) also includes
space to plan for the persistence of
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri populations in the face of
imminent effects on habitats as a result
of sea level rise. Although occupied
habitat within each unit contains the
PCEs, some of these areas may be
altered, as a result of vegetation shifts or
salt water intrusion, to an extent which
cannot be predicted at this time.
In identifying unoccupied patches
with these units, we considered the
following additional criteria, which we
incorporated into the consequence
matrix described above:
(1) Objective 1 (onsite habitat quality):
Pine rockland areas of sufficient habitat
quality to support the growth and
reproduction of Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri. In general,
areas of intact pine rockland having an
open canopy and understory are more
likely to support populations of these
plants over the long term. In some cases,
disturbed or cleared pine rockland areas
have also been included in the
designation; these areas possess other
desirable characteristics (e.g., size,
connectivity) and could allow B. mosieri
or L. c. var. carteri to expand from areas
already occupied by these plants. These
areas are typically habitats within or
adjacent to pine rocklands that have
been affected by natural or
anthropogenic impacts, but that retain
areas that are still suitable for the plants.
These areas would help to off-set the
anticipated loss and degradation of
habitat occurring or expected from the
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
49856
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
effects of climate change (such as sea
level rise) or due to development.
(2) Objective 2 (patch size): Pine
rockland areas of sufficient size to
support ecosystem processes for
populations of Brickellia mosieri or
Linum carteri var. carteri. Given areas of
equal habitat quality, larger areas would
be ranked higher in our evaluation.
(3) Objective 3 (surrounding
landscape composition): Pine rockland
areas within a suitable landscape to
allow for natural disturbance regimes—
specifically, prescribed fire—and to
minimize negative impacts related to
changes in hydrology or nutrient/
pollution inputs from the surrounding
area. Pine rocklands surrounded by
other natural communities will likely
provide higher quality habitat in the
long term than pine rocklands that are
imbedded in a highly urbanized or
agricultural matrix. Given areas of equal
habitat quality and size, areas with more
natural communities and less urban
development in the surrounding area
would be ranked higher in our
evaluation.
(4) Objective 4 (connectivity): Pine
rockland areas of sufficient amount and
arrangement to maintain connectivity of
habitat to allow for population
sustainability and expansion. Sufficient
connectivity of pine rockland habitat
will contribute to the availability of
pollinators of appropriate type and
sufficient numbers to allow Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri to
reproduce and ensure sustainable
populations, and to allow for population
expansion through seed dispersal. Given
areas of equal habitat quality, size, and
surrounding landscape composition,
those patches having more and closer
neighbors (i.e., other pine rockland
patches) would be ranked higher in our
evaluation.
(5) Objective 5 (vulnerability to sea
level rise): Pine rockland areas of
suitable elevation to reduce
vulnerability to sea level rise. Those
pine rocklands situated at higher
elevations are less likely to be
negatively affected by either inundation
or vegetation shifts caused by changes
in the salinity of the water table and
soils associated with sea level rise.
Given areas of equal conservation
quality, as described above, those
patches having a higher average
elevation would be ranked higher in our
evaluation.
A complete description regarding how
these objectives were weighted and
evaluated in our consequence matrix
can be found in the supplemental
materials provided with the proposed
rule at https://www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
For unoccupied habitat within the
geographic area occupied by Brickellia
mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri at
We are designating two critical habitat the time of listing, we delineated critical
units that were unoccupied by Brickellia habitat unit boundaries by evaluating
mosieri at the time of listing, and four
the five objectives incorporated into the
critical habitat units that were
consequence matrix (see discussion
unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri above).
at the time of listing, which have been
For habitat outside the geographic
determined to be essential to the
area occupied by the species at the time
conservation of these plants. These
of listing, we delineated critical habitat
units represent portions of these plants’ unit boundaries based on the
availability of remaining pine rockland
historical ranges in which the plants
habitat in the unit. All four available
have been extirpated (see Current
Range, Population Estimates, and Status patches were included in the
delineation in order to provide
for both plants in our proposed listing
sufficient area for Brickellia mosieri and
rule published in the Federal Register
Linum carteri var. carteri to expand
on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61273)). In
one unit, located in the northern portion their current restricted ranges.
When determining critical habitat
of these plants’ historical ranges but
boundaries within this final rule, we
unoccupied by either B. mosieri or L. c.
made every effort to avoid including
var. carteri, the unoccupied critical
developed areas such as lands covered
habitat patches are the only pine
by buildings, pavement, and other
rockland habitat that remains in this
structures because such lands lack
area. While the full extent of B.
physical or biological features for
mosieri’s historical range is unknown,
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
due to limited data, comparing its
carteri. The scale of the maps we
current distribution to historical
prepared under the parameters for
observations suggests that its range has
publication within the Code of Federal
contracted at least 30 percent (based on
Regulations may not reflect the
our revised estimate of the species’
historical range as described in the final exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands inadvertently left inside
listing rule published in the Federal
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR
52567)). Likewise, the historical range of maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not
L. c. var. carteri has been reduced
designated as critical habitat. Therefore,
approximately 30 percent. The
a Federal action involving these lands
reductions in the historical ranges of
will not trigger section 7 consultation
these plants have occurred almost
with respect to critical habitat and the
entirely in their northern portions,
requirement of no adverse modification
between Pinecrest and South Miami/
unless the specific action would affect
Coconut Grove. As noted earlier, little
pine rockland habitat has escaped urban the physical or biological features in the
adjacent critical habitat.
development in this area, and those
The critical habitat designation is
patches that remain are of lesser
defined by the map or maps, as
conservation quality due to lower onsite modified by any accompanying
habitat quality, smaller patch sizes, and regulatory text, presented at the end of
higher amounts of development in the
this document in the Regulation
surrounding landscape. While these
Promulgation section. We include more
patches may not represent the best pine detailed information on the boundaries
rockland habitat currently available,
of the critical habitat designation in the
they provide needed habitat to increase
preamble of this document. We will
these plants’ geographic spread to
make the coordinates or plot points or
currently unoccupied portions of their
both on which each map is based
historical ranges, and are essential for
available to the public on https://
the conservation of the two plants.
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
In summary, for occupied habitat
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0108, and at the
within the geographic area occupied by
field office responsible for the
Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var.
designation (see FOR FURTHER
carteri at the time of listing, we
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
delineated critical habitat unit
Units and subunits are designated
boundaries by evaluating habitat
based on sufficient elements of physical
suitability of pine rockland habitat
or biological features being present to
within this geographic area, and
support the life processes of Brickellia
retained those areas that contain some
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri.
or all of the PCEs to support life-history Some subunits contain all of the
functions essential for conservation of
identified elements of physical or
these plants.
biological features and support multiple
Habitat Outside of the Geographic Range
at the Time of Listing
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
life processes. Some subunits contain
only some elements of the physical or
biological features necessary to support
particular use of that habitat by B.
mosieri or L. c. var. carteri.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating seven units, each,
as critical habitat for Brikellia mosieri
and Linum carteri. var. carteri. The
critical habitat areas described below
constitute our best assessment at this
time of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat.
49857
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and
surrounding areas. Because of the highly
fragmented nature of the remaining pine
rockland habitat, these large overall unit
boundaries encompass multiple, smaller
designations (i.e., subunits) within each
unit; only these subunits within the unit
boundaries meet the definition of
critical habitat. Subunit designations
identify individual habitat patches, or
multiple habitat patches having the
same occupancy status that are only
separated by a road. Table 1 shows
occupancy, area, and land ownership
for each subunit within the critical
habitat designation for B. mosieri.
Brickellia mosieri
The seven units (all located in MiamiDade County, Florida) we are
designating as critical habitat for
Brickellia mosieri are: (1) Unit BM1:
Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas;
(2) Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley Pineland
Preserve and surrounding areas; (3) Unit
BM3: U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Subtropical Horticultural
Research Station and surrounding areas;
(4) Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and
surrounding areas; (5) Unit BM5: Quail
Roost Pineland and surrounding areas;
(6) Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and
surrounding areas; and (7) Unit BM7:
TABLE 1—OCCUPANCY (O = OCCUPIED, U = UNOCCUPIED), AREA, AND LAND OWNERSHIP OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT SUBUNITS FOR BRICKELLIA MOSIERI. AREA ESTIMATES REFLECT ALL LAND WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT/
SUBUNIT BOUNDARIES. SUBSTANTIAL OVERLAP EXISTS WITH AREAS BEING DESIGNATED FOR LINUM CARTERI. VAR.
CARTERI
Occupancy
BM1 ...................................
BM1A ................................
BM1B ................................
U
U
5
12
13
30
County/Local.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
Unit Total ....................
BM2 ...................................
...........................................
BM2A ................................
BM2B ................................
BM2C ................................
BM2D ................................
BM2E ................................
BM2F ................................
BM2G ...............................
....................
U
U
U
O
O
U
O
18
32
47
8
3
2
1
16
43
78
115
19
8
5
2
39
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local.
State.
County/Local.
County/Local.
County/Local.
State, County/Local.
Unit Total ....................
BM3 ...................................
...........................................
BM3A ................................
BM3B ................................
BM3C ................................
BM3D ................................
BM3E ................................
BM3F ................................
BM3G ...............................
BM3H ................................
....................
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
108
2
59
11
3
34
6
5
8
267
6
146
28
6
84
15
11
19
State.
Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local.
State, County/Local.
State, County/Local.
County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Unit Total ....................
BM4 ...................................
...........................................
BM4A ................................
BM4B ................................
BM4C ................................
BM4D ................................
BM4E ................................
BM4F ................................
BM4G ...............................
BM4H ................................
....................
U
O
U
U
O
U
O
U
127
89
137
10
17
124
5
6
7
315
219
339
24
42
306
13
15
17
Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
Federal, County/Local.
County/Local.
Federal, County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Private/Other.
County/Local.
Unit Total ....................
BM5 ...................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Subunit
...........................................
BM5A ................................
BM5B ................................
BM5C ................................
BM5D ................................
BM5E ................................
BM5F ................................
BM5G ...............................
BM5H ................................
BM5I .................................
BM5J ................................
BM5K ................................
....................
O
U
U
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
395
25
6
4
3
22
3
4
9
6
13
3
975
62
14
10
8
53
7
10
22
14
31
6
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Private/Other.
Unit Total ....................
BM6 ...................................
...........................................
BM6A ................................
BM6B ................................
BM6C ................................
BM6D ................................
....................
U
U
U
U
96
38
14
5
4
238
93
35
12
10
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Hectares
Land ownership by type 1
Unit
Sfmt 4700
Acres
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
49858
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—OCCUPANCY (O = OCCUPIED, U = UNOCCUPIED), AREA, AND LAND OWNERSHIP OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT SUBUNITS FOR BRICKELLIA MOSIERI. AREA ESTIMATES REFLECT ALL LAND WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT/
SUBUNIT BOUNDARIES. SUBSTANTIAL OVERLAP EXISTS WITH AREAS BEING DESIGNATED FOR LINUM CARTERI. VAR.
CARTERI—Continued
Unit
Hectares
Land ownership by type 1
Subunit
Occupancy
Acres
BM6E ................................
BM6F ................................
BM6G ...............................
BM6H ................................
BM6I .................................
BM6J ................................
BM6K ................................
BM6L ................................
O
O
O
O
U
U
U
O
13
7
1
1
6
11
7
5
32
17
3
4
15
28
16
12
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Unit Total ....................
BM7 ...................................
...........................................
BM7A ................................
BM7B ................................
BM7C ................................
BM7D ................................
BM7E ................................
BM7F ................................
BM7G ...............................
BM7H ................................
....................
U
U
U
U
U
O
U
U
112
11
10
8
7
16
133
11
11
276
27
24
20
18
39
330
27
26
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
Unit Total ....................
CH Total ..............
...........................................
...........................................
....................
....................
206
1,062
510
2,624
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
1 Ownership information is based on Miami-Dade County parcel data (July 2013) and FNAI’s Florida Managed Lands data (March 2014).
historical ranges of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the
historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should B. mosieri be
extirpated from one of its current
locations.
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for
Brickellia mosieri, below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Unit BM1: Trinity Pineland and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit BM1 consists of 18 ha (43 ac) in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM1,
there are two subunits—BM1A (Countyowned) and BM1B (combination of
State, County, and privately owned
lands). The unit is comprised of State
lands within Trinity Pineland County
Park (4 ha (10 ac)); County lands
primarily within A. D. ‘‘Doug’’ Barnes
Park (6 ha (14 ac)); and parcels in
private ownership (8 ha (19 ac)). This
unit is bordered on the north by SW 24
Street, on the south by the Snapper
Creek Expressway (State Road (SR) 878),
on the east by SW 67 Avenue, and on
the west by SW 87 Avenue. The unit is
within the historical range of Brickellia
mosieri, although data are lacking
regarding historical occupancy of the
specific critical habitat patches in the
unit. This unit includes the only
remaining pine rockland habitat in this
northern portion of the Miami Rock
Ridge.
This unit was not occupied by
Brickellia mosieri at the time of listing
but is essential to the conservation of
the species because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the species,
reestablish wild populations within the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley Pineland
Preserve and Surrounding Areas,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit BM2 consists of approximately
108 ha (267 ac) of habitat in MiamiDade County. Within Unit BM2, there
are seven subunits (BM2A–BM2G)
comprising primarily conservation
lands and including four larger areas
plus three smaller areas. The unit is
comprised of State lands within Camp
Matecumbe, Tamiami Pineland
Complex Addition, and Rockdale
Pineland (49 ha (121 ac)); County/local
lands primarily within Nixon Smiley
Pineland Preserve, Tamiami #8 (Nixon
Smiley Addition) Pineland, Pine Shore
Pineland Preserve, Ron Ehman Park,
and Rockdale Pineland Addition (59 ha
(146 ac)); and small portions of parcels
in private or other ownership (less than
1 ha (less than 1 ac)). This unit is
bordered on the north by SW 104 Street,
on the south by SW 152 Street (Coral
Reef Drive), on the east by U.S. 1 (South
Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW
177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
This unit is composed of both
occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
habitat within the unit was occupied by
Brickellia mosieri (three occurrences;
approximately 21 ha (52 ac)) at the time
of listing. This occupied habitat
contains some or all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic
limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or
artificial disturbance regimes, and
habitat connectivity of sufficient size
and suitability. The PCEs in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat fragmentation;
inadequate fire management;
competition with nonnative, invasive
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions.
Some of the unoccupied habitat
within this unit was historically
occupied by Brickellia mosieri, although
it was not occupied by the species at the
time of listing. This unoccupied habitat
is essential to the conservation of B.
mosieri because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the species,
reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the
historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should B. mosieri be
extirpated from one of its current
locations.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Unit BM3: USDA Subtropical
Horticultural Research Station and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit BM3 consists of approximately
127 ha (315 ac) of habitat in MiamiDade County. Within Unit BM3, there
are eight subunits (BM3A–BM3H),
including two larger areas (U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Subtropical Horticultural Research
Station, and Deering Estate at Cutler)
plus six smaller areas surrounding
these. The unit is comprised of Federal
lands within the USDA Subtropical
Horticultural Research Station (59 ha
(145 ac)); State lands within the R.
Hardy Matheson Preserve, Ludlam
Pineland, Deering Estate at Cutler, and
Deering Estate South Addition (45 ha
(112 ac)); County/local lands within
Coral Reef Park, Ned Glenn Nature
Preserve, and Bill Sadowski Park (15 ha
(38 ac)); and parcels in private
ownership (8 ha (19 ac)). This unit is
bordered on the north by SW 112 Street,
on the south by the intersection of Old
Cutler Road and Franjo Road (County
Road (CR) 977), on the east by the
Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by U.S.
1 (South Dixie Highway). The unit is
within the historical range of Brickellia
mosieri, although data are lacking
regarding historical occupancy of the
specific critical habitat patches in the
unit.
This unit was unoccupied by
Brickellia mosieri at the time of listing
but is essential to the conservation of
the species because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the species,
reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the
historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should B. mosieri be
extirpated from one of its current
locations.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit BM4 consists of approximately
395 ha (975 ac) in Miami-Dade County.
Within Unit BM4, there are eight
subunits (BM4A–BM4H), most within
the Richmond Pinelands complex (made
up of Federal and County-owned lands,
as well as land owned by the University
of Miami). The unit is comprised of
Federal lands owned by the USCG
(Homeland Security), U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE; Department of
Defense), U.S. Prison Bureau
(Department of Justice), and the U.S.
Department of Commerce/National
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) (75 ha (185
ac)); County/local lands within and
adjacent to Larry and Penny Thompson
Park, Martinez Pineland, Zoo Miami,
and Eachus Pineland (239 ha (590 ac));
and parcels in private or other
ownership (81 ha (200 ac)). This unit is
bordered on the north by SW 152 Street
(Coral Reef Drive), on the south by SW
200 St (Quail Drive/SR 994), on the east
by U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on
the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome
Avenue).
This unit is composed of both
occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by
Brickellia mosieri (approximately 267
ha (660 ac)) at the time of listing. All
occupied habitat occurs within the
Richmond Pinelands, which together
compose the largest remaining group of
contiguous fragments of pine rockland
habitat outside of ENP. This occupied
habitat contains all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic
limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or
artificial disturbance regimes, and
habitat connectivity of sufficient size
and suitability. The PCEs in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat loss and
fragmentation; inadequate fire
management; competition with
nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level
rise. In some cases, these threats are
being addressed or coordinated with our
partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.
Some of the unoccupied habitat
within this unit was historically
occupied by Brickellia mosieri, although
it was not occupied by the species at the
time of listing. This unoccupied habitat
is essential to the conservation of B.
mosieri because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the species,
reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the
historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should B. mosieri be
extirpated from one of its current
locations.
Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit BM5 consists of approximately
96 ha (238 ac) in Miami-Dade County.
Within Unit BM5, there are 11 subunits
(BM5A–BM5K), including 4 larger areas
plus 7 smaller areas surrounding these.
The unit is comprised of State lands
within Quail Roost Pineland, Goulds
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49859
Pineland and Addition, and Silver Palm
Groves Pineland (39 ha (97 ac)); County/
local lands including Black Creek
Forest, Rock Pit #46, and lands owned
by the School Board of Miami-Dade
County (15 ha (37 ac)); and parcels in
private ownership (42 ha (104 ac)),
including Porter-Russell Pineland
owned by the Tropical Audubon
Society. This unit is bordered on the
north by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/SR
994), on the south by SW 248 Street, on
the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on
the west by SW 194 Avenue.
This unit is composed of both
occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by
Brickellia mosieri (two occurrences;
approximately 28 ha (70 ac)) at the time
of listing. This occupied habitat
contains some or all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic
limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or
artificial disturbance regimes, and
habitat connectivity of sufficient size
and suitability. The PCEs in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat fragmentation;
inadequate fire management;
competition with nonnative, invasive
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions.
Unoccupied habitat in the unit is
essential to the conservation of
Brickellia mosieri because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the
species, reestablish wild populations
within the historical ranges of the
species, and maintain populations
throughout the historical distribution of
the species in Miami-Dade County. It
also provides habitat for recovery in the
case of stochastic events, should B.
mosieri be extirpated from one of its
current locations.
Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit BM6 consists of approximately
112 ha (276 ac) of habitat in MiamiDade County. Within Unit BM6, there
are 12 subunits (BM6A–BM6L),
composed of 1 larger area (Camp
Owaissa Bauer and its addition) and 11
smaller areas to the south. The unit is
comprised of State lands within
Owaissa Bauer Pineland Addition,
Ingram Pineland, West Biscayne
Pineland, and Fuchs Hammock
Addition (20 ha (50 ac)); County/local
lands including Camp Owaissa Bauer,
Pine Island Lake Park, Seminole
Wayside Park, and Northrop Pineland
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
49860
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(63 ha (156 ac)); and parcels in private
ownership (28 ha (70 ac)), including the
private conservation area, Pine Ridge
Sanctuary. This unit is bordered on the
north by SW 248 Street, on the south by
SW 312 Street, on the east by SW 112
Avenue, and on the west by SW 217
Avenue.
This unit is composed of both
occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by
Brickellia mosieri (five occurrences;
approximately 27 ha (67 ac)) at the time
of listing. This occupied habitat
contains some or all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic
limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or
artificial disturbance regimes, and
habitat connectivity of sufficient size
and suitability. The PCEs in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat loss and
fragmentation; inadequate fire
management; competition with
nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level
rise. In some cases, these threats are
being addressed or coordinated with our
partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.
Some of the unoccupied habitat
within this unit was historically
occupied by Brickellia mosieri.
Although it was unoccupied by the
species at the time of listing, this habitat
is essential to the conservation of B.
mosieri because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the species,
reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the
historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should B. mosieri be
extirpated from one of its current
locations.
Some of the unoccupied habitat
within this unit was historically
occupied by Brickellia mosieri.
Although it was unoccupied by the
species at the time of listing, this habitat
is essential to the conservation of B.
mosieri because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the species,
reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the
historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should B. mosieri be
extirpated from one of its current
locations.
Unit BM7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve
and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit BM7 consists of approximately
206 ha (510 ac) of habitat in MiamiDade County. Within Unit BM7, there
are eight subunits (BM7A–BM7H),
including one larger area (Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve) and seven smaller
outlying areas. The unit is comprised of
State lands within Palm Drive Pineland,
Navy Wells Pineland #39, Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve (portion), and Florida
City Pineland (53 ha (132 ac)); County/
local lands including primarily Sunny
Palms Pineland and Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve (portion) (125 ha (309
ac)); and parcels in private ownership
(28 ha (68 ac)). This unit is bordered on
the north by SW 320 Street, on the south
by SW 368 Street, on the east by U.S.
1 (South Dixie Highway), and on the
west by SW 217 Avenue.
This unit is composed of both
occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat in the unit was occupied by
Brickellia mosieri (one occurrence;
approximately 134 ha (330 ac)) at the
time of listing. This occurrence is on
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, which is
one of the largest remaining areas of
pine rockland habitats outside of ENP.
This occupied habitat contains all of the
PCEs, including pine rockland habitat,
oolitic limestone substrate, suitable
vegetation composition and structure,
natural or artificial disturbance regimes,
and habitat connectivity of sufficient
size and suitability. The PCEs in this
unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat fragmentation;
inadequate fire management;
competition with nonnative, invasive
plants; and sea level rise. However, in
Navy Wells, most of these threats are
being addressed or coordinated with our
partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.
Linum carteri var. carteri
The seven units (all located in MiamiDade County, Florida) we are
designating as critical habitat for Linum
carteri var. carteri are: (1) Unit LCC1:
Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas;
(2) Unit LCC2: Nixon Smiley Pineland
Preserve and surrounding areas; (3) Unit
LCC3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural
Research Station and surrounding areas;
(4) Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands and
surrounding areas; (5) Unit LCC5: Quail
Roost Pineland and surrounding areas;
(6) Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and
surrounding areas; and (7) Unit LCC7:
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and
surrounding areas. Because of the highly
fragmented nature of the remaining pine
rockland habitat, these large overall unit
boundaries encompass multiple, small
designations (i.e., subunits) within each
unit; only these subunits within the unit
boundaries are designated as critical
habitat. Subunit designations identify
individual habitat patches, or multiple
habitat patches having the same
occupancy status that are only separated
by a road. Table 2 shows occupancy,
area, and land ownership for each
subunit within the critical habitat
designation for L. c. var. carteri.
TABLE 2—OCCUPANCY (O = OCCUPIED, U = UNOCCUPIED), AREA, AND LAND OWNERSHIP OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT SUBUNITS FOR LINUM CARTERI VAR. CARTERI. AREA ESTIMATES REFLECT ALL LAND WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT
UNIT/SUBUNIT BOUNDARIES. SUBSTANTIAL OVERLAP EXISTS WITH AREAS BEING DESIGNATED FOR BRICKELLIA
MOSIERI
Occupancy
LCC1 .............................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Subunit
LCC1A ..........................................
LCC1B ..........................................
LCC1C ..........................................
U
U
U
5
2
12
13
4
30
County/Local.
County/Local.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
Unit Total ...............................
LCC2 .............................................
.......................................................
LCC2A ..........................................
LCC2B ..........................................
LCC2C ..........................................
LCC2D ..........................................
LCC2E ..........................................
LCC2F ..........................................
....................
U
U
U
U
U
O
19
32
47
12
3
3
16
48
78
115
30
8
7
39
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local.
State, County/Local.
County/Local.
County/Local.
State, County/Local.
Unit Total ...............................
LCC3 .............................................
.......................................................
LCC3A ..........................................
LCC3B ..........................................
....................
O
O
113
2
1
278
6
2
State.
County/Local, Private/Other.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Hectares
Land ownership by type 1
Unit
Sfmt 4700
Acres
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
49861
TABLE 2—OCCUPANCY (O = OCCUPIED, U = UNOCCUPIED), AREA, AND LAND OWNERSHIP OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT SUBUNITS FOR LINUM CARTERI VAR. CARTERI. AREA ESTIMATES REFLECT ALL LAND WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT
UNIT/SUBUNIT BOUNDARIES. SUBSTANTIAL OVERLAP EXISTS WITH AREAS BEING DESIGNATED FOR BRICKELLIA
MOSIERI—Continued
Unit
Hectares
Land ownership by type 1
Subunit
Occupancy
Acres
LCC3C ..........................................
LCC3D ..........................................
LCC3E ..........................................
LCC3F ..........................................
LCC3G ..........................................
LCC3H ..........................................
LCC3I ...........................................
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
59
11
3
34
6
5
8
146
28
6
84
15
11
19
Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local.
State, County/Local.
State, County/Local.
County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Unit Total ...............................
LCC4 .............................................
.......................................................
LCC4A ..........................................
LCC4B ..........................................
LCC4C ..........................................
LCC4D ..........................................
....................
U
U
U
U
128
236
142
1
7
316
582
350
3
17
Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
Federal, County/Local.
Private/Other.
County/Local.
Unit Total ...............................
LCC5 .............................................
.......................................................
LCC5A ..........................................
LCC5B ..........................................
LCC5C ..........................................
LCC5D ..........................................
LCC5E ..........................................
LCC5F ..........................................
LCC5G ..........................................
LCC5H ..........................................
LCC5I ...........................................
LCC5J ...........................................
....................
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
386
25
2
7
4
3
29
4
9
13
3
952
62
4
18
10
8
71
10
22
31
6
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Private/Other.
Unit Total ...............................
LCC6 .............................................
.......................................................
LCC6A ..........................................
LCC6B ..........................................
LCC6C ..........................................
LCC6D ..........................................
LCC6E ..........................................
LCC6F ..........................................
LCC6G ..........................................
LCC6H ..........................................
LCC6I ...........................................
LCC6J ...........................................
LCC6K ..........................................
LCC6L ..........................................
LCC6M .........................................
LCC6N ..........................................
LCC6O ..........................................
LCC6P ..........................................
LCC6Q ..........................................
LCC6R ..........................................
LCC6S ..........................................
LCC6T ..........................................
LCC6U ..........................................
....................
U
U
U
O
U
U
U
U
U
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
98
1
1
1
8
30
1
4
5
<1
2
14
5
4
13
7
1
1
6
11
7
6
242
3
1
3
19
74
2
9
13
1
4
35
12
10
32
17
3
4
15
28
16
15
Private/Other.
Private/Other.
State, Private/Other.
State, County/Local.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
Unit Total ...............................
LCC7 .............................................
.......................................................
LCC7A ..........................................
LCC7B ..........................................
LCC7C ..........................................
LCC7D ..........................................
LCC7E ..........................................
LCC7F ..........................................
LCC7G ..........................................
....................
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
128
11
4
8
7
16
145
11
315
27
9
20
18
39
359
26
County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
State, County/Local, Private/Other.
Unit Total ...............................
Total CH ..........................
.......................................................
.......................................................
....................
....................
201
1,072
497
2,649
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
1 Ownership information based on Miami-Dade County parcel data (July 2013) and FNAI’s Florida Managed Lands data (March 2014).
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for Linum
carteri var. carteri, below.
Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit LCC1 consists of 19 ac (48 ha) in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC1,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
there are three subunits—LCC1A and
LCC1B (primarily County-owned), and
LCC1C (combination of State lands and
private ownership). The unit is
comprised of State lands within Trinity
Pineland County Park (4 ac (10 ha));
County lands primarily within Tropical
Park and A. D. ‘‘Doug’’ Barnes Park (7
ha (18 ac)); and parcels in private
ownership (8 ha (19 ac)). This unit is
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
bordered on the north by SW 24 Street,
on the south by the Snapper Creek
Expressway (State Road (SR) 878), on
the east by SW 67 Avenue, and on the
west by SW 87 Avenue. The unit is
within the historical range of Linum
carteri var. carteri, although data are
lacking regarding historical occupancy
of the specific critical habitat patches in
the unit. This unit includes the only
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
49862
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
remaining pine rockland habitat in this
northern portion of the Miami Rock
Ridge.
This unit was unoccupied by Linum
carteri var. carteri at the time of listing
but is essential to the conservation of
the plant because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the plant,
reestablish wild populations within the
plant’s historical range, and maintain
populations throughout the plant’s
historical distribution in Miami-Dade
County. It also provides habitat for
recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated
from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC2: Nixon Smiley Pineland
Preserve and Surrounding Areas,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit LCC2 consists of approximately
113 ha (278 ac) of habitat in MiamiDade County. Within Unit LCC2, there
are six subunits (LCC2A–LCC2F)
comprising primarily conservation
lands and including four larger areas
plus two smaller areas. The unit is
comprised of State lands within Camp
Matecumbe, Tamiami Pineland
Complex Addition, and Rockdale
Pineland (53 ha (131 ac); County/local
lands within Nixon Smiley Pineland
Preserve, Tamiami #8 (Nixon Smiley
Addition) Pineland, Pine Shore
Pineland Preserve, Ron Ehman Park,
and Rockdale Pineland Addition (59 ha
(147 ac)); and parcels in private or other
ownership (<1 ha (<1 ac)). This unit is
bordered on the north by SW 104 Street,
on the south by SW 152 Street (Coral
Reef Drive), on the east by U.S. 1 (South
Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW
177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
This unit is composed of both
occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by
Linum carteri var. carteri (one
occurrence; approximately 16 ha (39
ac)) at the time of listing. This occupied
habitat contains some or all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic
limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or
artificial disturbance regimes, and
habitat connectivity of sufficient size
and suitability. The PCEs in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat fragmentation;
inadequate fire management;
competition with nonnative, invasive
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions.
Unoccupied habitat within the unit is
essential to the conservation of Linum
carteri var. carteri because it serves to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
protect habitat needed to recover the
plant, reestablish wild populations
within the plant’s historical range, and
maintain populations throughout the
plant’s historical distribution in MiamiDade County. It also provides habitat for
recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated
from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC3: USDA Subtropical
Horticultural Research Station and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit LCC3 consists of approximately
128 ha (316 ac) of habitat in MiamiDade County. Within Unit LCC3, there
are nine subunits (LCC3A–LCC3I),
including two larger areas (USDA and
Deering Estate at Cutler) plus seven
smaller areas surrounding these. The
unit is comprised of Federal lands
within the USDA Subtropical
Horticultural Research Station (59 ha
(145 ac)); State lands within the R.
Hardy Matheson Preserve, Ludlam
Pineland, Deering Estate at Cutler, and
Deering Estate South Addition (45 ha
(112 ac)); County/local lands within
Coral Reef Park, Ned Glenn Nature
Preserve, and Bill Sadowski Park (15 ha
(38 ac)); and parcels in private
ownership (8 ha (21 ac)). This unit is
bordered on the north by SW 112 Street,
on the south by the intersection of Old
Cutler Road and Franjo Road (County
Road (CR) 977), on the east by the
Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by U.S.
1 (South Dixie Highway).
This unit is composed of both
occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by
Linum carteri var. carteri (three
occurrences; approximately 62 ha (153
ac)) at the time of listing. This occupied
habitat contains some or all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic
limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or
artificial disturbance regimes, and
habitat connectivity of sufficient size
and suitability. The PCEs in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat loss and
fragmentation; inadequate fire
management; competition with
nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level
rise, including storm surge. In some
cases, these threats are being addressed
or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions.
Unoccupied habitat within the unit is
essential to the conservation of Linum
carteri var. carteri because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the
plant, reestablish wild populations
within the plant’s historical range, and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
maintain populations throughout the
plant’s historical distribution in MiamiDade County. It also provides habitat for
recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated
from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit LCC4 consists of approximately
386 ha (952 ac) in Miami-Dade County.
Within Unit LCC4, there are four
subunits (LCC4A–LCC4D), primarily
within the Richmond Pinelands
complex (made up of Federal and
County-owned lands, as well as land
owned by the University of Miami). The
unit is comprised of Federal lands
owned by USCG, ACOE, U.S. Prison
Bureau, and NOAA (75 ha (185 ac));
County/local lands within and adjacent
to Larry and Penny Thompson Park,
Martinez Pineland, Zoo Miami, and
Eachus Pineland (240 ha (592 ac)); and
parcels in private or other ownership
(71 ha (175 ac)). This unit is bordered
on the north by SW 152 Street (Coral
Reef Drive), on the south by SW 200 St
(Quail Drive/SR 994), on the east by
U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on
the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome
Avenue).
This unit was unoccupied by Linum
carteri var. carteri at the time of listing
but is essential to the conservation of
the plant because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the plant,
reestablish wild populations within the
plant’s historical range, and maintain
populations throughout the plant’s
historical distribution in Miami-Dade
County. It also provides habitat for
recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated
from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC5: Quail Roost Pineland and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit LCC5 consists of approximately
98 ha (242 ac) in Miami-Dade County.
Within Unit LCC5, there are 10 subunits
(LCC5A–LCC5J), including 4 larger areas
plus 6 smaller areas surrounding these.
The unit is comprised of State lands
within Quail Roost Pineland, Goulds
Pineland and Addition, and Silver Palm
Groves Pineland (39 ha (97 ac)); County/
local lands including Medsouth Park,
Black Creek Forest, Rock Pit #46, and
lands owned by the School Board of
Miami-Dade County (18 ha (44 ac)); and
parcels in private ownership (41 ha (101
ac)), including Porter-Russell Pineland
owned by the Tropical Audubon
Society. This unit is bordered on the
north by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/SR
994), on the south by SW 248 Street, on
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on
the west by SW 194 Avenue.
This unit was unoccupied by Linum
carteri var. carteri at the time of listing
but is essential to the conservation of
the plant because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the plant,
reestablish wild populations within the
plant’s historical range, and maintain
populations throughout the plant’s
historical distribution in Miami-Dade
County. It also provides habitat for
recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated
from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit LCC6 consists of approximately
128 ha (315 ac) of habitat in MiamiDade County. Within Unit LCC6, there
are 21 subunits (LCC6A–LCC6U),
composed of 1 larger area (Camp
Owaissa Bauer and its addition) and 20
smaller areas surrounding it. The unit is
comprised of State lands within
Owaissa Bauer Pineland Addition,
Ingram Pineland, West Biscayne
Pineland, and Fuchs Hammock
Addition (20 ha (51 ac)); County/local
lands including Camp Owaissa Bauer,
Pine Island Lake Park, Seminole
Wayside Park, and Northrop Pineland
(63 ha (156 ac)); and parcels in private
ownership (44 ha (109 ac)), including
the private conservation area, Pine
Ridge Sanctuary. This unit is bordered
on the north by SW 248 Street, on the
south by SW 312 Street, on the east by
SW 112 Avenue, and on the west by SW
217 Avenue.
This unit is composed of both
occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by
Linum carteri var. carteri (2
occurrences; approximately 9 ha (23 ac))
at the time of listing. This occupied
habitat contains some or all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic
limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or
artificial disturbance regimes, and
habitat connectivity of sufficient size
and suitability. The PCEs in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat loss and
fragmentation; inadequate fire
management; competition with
nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level
rise. In some cases, these threats are
being addressed or coordinated with our
partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.
Unoccupied habitat within the unit is
essential to the conservation of Linum
carteri var. carteri because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
plant, reestablish wild populations
within the plant’s historical range, and
maintain populations throughout the
plant’s historical distribution in MiamiDade County. It also provides habitat for
recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated
from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC7: Navy Wells Pineland
Preserve and Surrounding Areas,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit LCC7 consists of approximately
201 ha (497 ac) of habitat in MiamiDade County. Within Unit LCC7, there
are seven subunits (LCC7A–LCC7G),
including one larger area (Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve) and six smaller
outlying areas. The unit is comprised of
State lands within Palm Drive Pineland,
Navy Wells Pineland #39, Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve (portion), and Florida
City Pineland (53 ha (132 ac)); County/
local lands including primarily Sunny
Palms Pineland and Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve (portion) (125 ha (309
ac)); and parcels in private ownership
(23 ha (56 ac)). This unit is bordered on
the north by SW 320 Street, on the south
by SW 368 Street, on the east by U.S.
1 (South Dixie Highway), and on the
west by SW 217 Avenue.
This unit was unoccupied by Linum
carteri var. carteri at the time of listing
but is essential to the conservation of
the plant because it serves to protect
habitat needed to recover the plant,
reestablish wild populations within the
plant’s historical range, and maintain
populations throughout the plant’s
historical distribution in Miami-Dade
County. It also provides habitat for
recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated
from one of its current locations.
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.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeal have invalidated our
regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49863
adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d
1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245
F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not
rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the provisions of the Act,
we determine destruction or adverse
modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species.
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 or
authorized, do not require section 7
consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) 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:
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
49864
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(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 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 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri.
As discussed above, the role of critical
habitat is to support life-history needs of
the 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
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
Activities that may affect critical
habitat, when carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency, should
result in consultation for Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri.
These activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly
alter the pine rockland ecosystem,
including significant alterations to
hydrology or substrate. Such activities
may include, but are not limited to,
residential, commercial, or recreational
development, including associated
infrastructure.
(2) Actions that would significantly
alter vegetation structure or
composition, such as suppression of
natural fires or excessive prescribed
burning, or clearing vegetation for
construction of residential, commercial,
or recreational development and
associated infrastructure.
(3) Actions that would introduce
nonnative plant species that would
significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition. Such activities may
include, but are not limited to,
residential and commercial
development, and associated
infrastructure.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an INRMP prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), if the Secretary determines in
writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat
is proposed for designation.’’
We consulted with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations
located within the range of our
proposed critical habitat designation for
B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri to
determine if they met the criteria for
exemption from critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We found that
the following areas are Department of
Defense lands with completed, Serviceapproved INRMPs within the range of
the proposed critical habitat
designation.
Homestead Air Reserve Base—Unit
LCC6
The Homestead Air Reserve Base
(HARB) has a current and completed
INRMP, signed in July 2009. This
INRMP identifies goals, objectives, and
strategies for the management of
HARB’s natural resources for a 5-year
period (i.e., through 2014), and provides
environmental stewardship initiatives
for the remaining natural communities
on HARB, including pine rocklands, as
well as efforts to control invasive and
nonnative animal and plant species. The
INRMP (including appendices)
identifies a ‘‘Remnant Pine Rockland’’
management unit (2.1 ha (5.1 ac)),
which includes the unoccupied habitat
patch proposed for critical habitat
designation for Linum carteri var. carteri
(subunit LCC6V; 1.0 ha (2.5 ac)) in the
revised proposed rule and availability of
the draft economic analysis published
in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014
(79 FR 41211). The INRMP briefly
discusses management
recommendations for this area including
mechanical reduction of fuel load,
herbicide treatment of Neyraudia
reynaudiana (Burma reed), and
potential reforestation of canopy
species. The INRMP identifies one
objective for the remnant pine rockland:
To restore and protect the habitat to
support native plant communities and
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
associated wildlife, including
endangered and threatened species’
habitat. To achieve this objective, the
INRMP proposes the development of a
Pine Rockland Restoration and
Management Plan (PRRMP) to include
invasive and nonnative species removal.
An updated INRMP has been drafted
and is expected to be finalized by the
time this final critical habitat rule
publishes in the Federal Register or
shortly thereafter. The revised INRMP
incorporates the PRRMP, which was
finalized in September 2012, as well as
a Protected Plant Management Plan
(PPMP). The updated INRMP goals
include implementation of both plans,
which consist of restoring the pine
rockland management unit to natural
conditions by removing invasive and
nonnative plants and animals,
reintroducing extirpated native species,
preventing pollution, and conducting
various maintenance and monitoring
procedures. The PPMP is used to
supplement and update the INRMP, and
currently focuses on measures to
manage habitat for Galactia smallii
(Small’s milkpea), Linum arenicola
(sand flax), and State-protected plant
species occurring on HARB. The PPMP
states that if Brickellia mosieri or Linum
carteri var. carteri are identified on
HARB, the PPMP will be revised to
include these plants and appropriate
management and monitoring activities
will be implemented.
The current HARB INRMP benefits
Linum carteri var. carteri through
ongoing ecosystem management, which
should provide suitable habitat for this
plant. Specifically, the PPMP includes
control of woody and herbaceous
invasive pest plants, which would
support suitable habitat for L. c. var.
carteri by helping ensure a more open
canopy. In addition, the INRMP
includes continued mowing and ‘‘weed
whacking,’’ which function as a
surrogate for periodic fires by reducing
competition with weedy species and
helping to maintain an open canopy.
While these activities are proposed to
continue at the current frequencies,
weed whacking would be raised to 15
cm (6 in) above the ground to avoid
cutting L. arenicola too low—this would
also benefit L. c. var. carteri, which has
a similar life history and response to
mowing, if it were to occur there. (For
an indepth discussion related to the
effects of invasive, nonnative plants and
mowing on L. c. var. carteri, see
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species in our proposed listing rule
published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61273), and as
updated in our final listing rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
published in the Federal Register on
September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567)).
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the HARB INRMP and that
conservation efforts identified in the
INRMP will provide a benefit to Linum
carteri var. carteri. Therefore, lands
within this installation are exempt from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 1.0 ha (2.5 ac)
of habitat in this final critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
Special Operations Command South
Headquarters—Units BM6 and LCC6
The U.S. Special Operations
Command South Headquarters (SOCSO)
has an INRMP that was finalized in
December 2014. SOCSO is a 34.1–ha
(84.2–ac) property that was formerly
part of HARB and is now leased by
SOCSO from Miami-Dade County. The
SOCSO INRMP provides natural
resource management for portions of
this property for a 5-year period (2012–
2017), focusing on the management of
Galactia smallii and Linum arenicola. In
part, the INRMP designates two pine
rockland management areas, totaling
approximately 7.2 ha (17.9 ac), that will
be conserved and managed, including
permanent fencing of the areas, invasive
plant control, mowing, and prescribed
burning. These designated management
areas include the unoccupied habitat
patches proposed for critical habitat
designation for Brickellia mosieri
(subunit BM6M; 5.2 ha (12.9 ac)) and
Linum carteri var. carteri (subunit
LCC6W; totaling 6.0 ha (14.8 ac)) in the
revised proposed rule and availability of
the draft economic analysis published
in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014
(79 FR 41211).
The SOCSO INRMP benefits Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri
through ongoing ecosystem
management, which should provide
suitable habitat for these plants.
Although conservation benefits and
management for Galactia smallii and
Linum arenicola are the focus of the
INRMP, some protection and
conservation for other native pine
rockland plant species (including B.
mosieri and L. c. var. carteri, if they
were to occur there) will be provided by
the use of prescribed fire and invasive
species control including herbicide
treatments used to benefit G. smallii and
L. arenicola. Prescribed fire is proposed
in the management areas on a 4- to
7-year interval, the year following the
herbicide treatment if weather
conditions permit. In addition,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49865
proposed protocols for mowing of the
inside perimeter of the management
areas would benefit L. c. var. carteri.
Where G. smallii and L. arenicola occur
within the fenced perimeter, winter
mowing (mid-January to mid-February)
would avoid primary seed set by these
species and L. c. var. carteri, if it were
to occur there. In addition, where
invasive and nonnative species occur in
the mowed area, a broadcast herbicide
would be applied to the areas with
exotic species approximately 1 month
after mowing, further reducing
competition and helping to ensure an
open canopy.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the SOCSO INRMP and that
conservation efforts identified in the
INRMP will provide a benefit to
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri. Therefore, lands within this
installation are exempt from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3)
of the Act. We are not including
approximately 6.0 ha (14.8 ac) of habitat
in this final critical habitat designation
because of this exemption.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the
Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if she determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless she
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
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.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
must consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) and
screening analysis (Industrial
Economics, Incorporated, 2014) which
together with our narrative and
interpretation of effects constitute our
draft economic analysis (DEA) of the
critical habitat designation and related
factors. This analysis was made
available for public review from July 15,
2014, through August 14, 2014.
Following the close of the comment
period, we reviewed and evaluated all
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
49866
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
information submitted during the
comment period that may pertain to our
consideration of the probable
incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. This
information is summarized below and
available in the screening analysis for
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri (Industrial Economics,
Incorporated, 2014), available at https://
www.regulations.gov.
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 Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri’s
critical habitat. Because the
designations of critical habitat for B.
mosieri and L.c. var. carteri were
proposed concurrently with the listing,
it has been our experience that it is
more difficult to discern which
conservation efforts are attributable to
the species being listed and those which
will result solely from the designation of
critical habitat. However, the following
specific circumstances in this case help
to inform our evaluation: (1) The PBFs
identified for critical habitat are the
same features essential for the life
requisites of the species, and (2) any
actions that would result in sufficient
harm or harassment to constitute
jeopardy to B. mosieri and L. c. var.
carteri would also likely adversely affect
the essential physical and biological
features of critical habitat. The IEM
outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between baseline
conservation efforts and incremental
impacts of the designation of critical
habitat for this species. This evaluation
of the incremental effects has been used
as the basis to evaluate the probable
incremental economic impacts of the
designation of critical habitat.
In occupied areas, the economic
impacts of implementing the rule
through section 7 of the Act will most
likely be limited to additional
administrative effort to consider adverse
modification. This finding is based on
the following factors:
• Any activities with a Federal nexus
occurring within occupied habitat will
be subject to section 7 consultation
requirements regardless of critical
habitat designation, due to the presence
of the listed species; and
• In most cases, project modifications
requested to avoid adverse modification
are likely to be the same as those needed
to avoid jeopardy in occupied habitat.
In unoccupied areas, incremental
section 7 costs will include both the
administrative costs of consultation and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
the costs of developing and
implementing conservation measures
needed to avoid adverse modification of
critical habitat. Therefore, this analysis
focuses on the likely impacts to
activities occurring in unoccupied areas
of the critical habitat designation.
This analysis forecasts the total
number and administrative cost of
future consultations likely to occur for
transportation and land management
activities undertaken by or funded by
Federal agencies within unoccupied
habitat. In addition, the analysis
forecasts costs associated with
conservation efforts that may be
recommended in consultation for those
activities occurring in unoccupied areas.
The total incremental section 7 costs
associated with the designation are
estimated to be $120,000 (2013 dollars)
in a single year for both administrative
and conservation effort costs.
The designation of critical habitat is
unlikely to trigger additional
requirements under State or local
regulations. This assumption is based
on the protective status currently
afforded pine rocklands habitat.
Additionally, the designation of critical
habitat may cause developers to
perceive that private lands will be
subject to use restrictions, resulting in
perceptional effects. Such costs, if they
occur, are unlikely to result in costs
reaching $100 million in any one year.
Our economic analysis did not
identify any disproportionate costs that
are likely to result from the designation.
Consequently, the Secretary is not
exercising her discretion to exclude any
areas from this designation of critical
habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri based on economic
impacts.
A copy of the IEM and screening
analysis with supporting documents
may be obtained by contacting the
South Florida Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES) or by
downloading from the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts or Homeland Security Impacts
As discussed above, we have already
exempted from the designation of
critical habitat under Section 4(a)(3) of
the Act those Department of Defense
lands with completed INRMPs
determined to provide a benefit to
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
we consider whether there are other
lands where a national security or
homeland security impact might exist.
In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that additional lands within
the proposed designation are owned or
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
managed by the Department of Defense
and the Department of Homeland
Security. However, we anticipate that
designation of these additional lands
will have no impact on national security
or homeland security. Consequently, the
Secretary is not intending to exercise
her discretion to exclude any areas from
this final designation based on impacts
on national security or homeland
security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
also consider any other relevant impacts
resulting from the designation of critical
habitat. We consider a number of
factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs
or other management plans for the area,
or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged
by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. In addition, we look at
any tribal issues and consider the
government-to-government relationship
of the United States with tribal entities.
In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that there are currently no
permitted HCPs or other approved
management plans for Brickellia mosieri
and Linum carteri var. carteri, and the
final designation does not include any
tribal lands or tribal trust resources. We
anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this critical
habitat designation. Accordingly, the
Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this
final designation based on other
relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs 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
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this 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
this designation 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.
The Service’s current understanding
of the requirements under the RFA, as
amended, and following recent court
decisions, is that Federal agencies are
only required to evaluate the potential
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
incremental impacts of rulemaking on
those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not
required 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 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 will be
directly regulated by this designation.
There is no requirement under RFA to
evaluate the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover,
Federal agencies are not small entities.
Therefore, because no small entities are
directly regulated by this rulemaking,
the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a 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.
Following our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts
resulting from the designation of critical
habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri, we affirm the
information in our proposed rule
concerning E.O. 13211. Specifically, the
designation of critical habitat is not
expected to 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 findings:
(1) This rule will 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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49867
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 nonFederal entities that receive Federal
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
will significantly or uniquely affect
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
49868
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
small governments because it will not
produce a Federal mandate of $100
million or greater in any year, that is, it
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The economic analysis concludes
that incremental impacts may primarily
occur due to administrative costs of
section 7 consultations for
transportation and land management
projects; however, these are not
expected to significantly affect small
governments. Incremental impacts
stemming from various species
conservation and development control
activities are expected to be borne by
the Federal Government, State of
Florida, and Miami-Dade County, which
are not considered small governments.
Consequently, we do not believe that
the critical habitat designation will
significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. As such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order
12630 (‘‘Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Private Property Rights’’), we
have analyzed the potential takings
implications of designating critical
habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri in a takings
implications assessment. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Although
private parties that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or 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. The economic analysis
found that no significant economic
impacts are likely to result from the
designation of critical habitat for B.
mosieri and L. c. var. carteri. Because
the Act’s critical habitat protection
requirements apply only to Federal
agency actions, few conflicts between
critical habitat and private property
rights should result from this
designation. Based on the best available
information, the takings implications
assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for B.
mosieri and L. c. var. carteri does not
pose significant takings implications.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A
federalism summary impact statement is
not required. In keeping with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and
coordinated development of this critical
habitat designation with, appropriate
State resource agencies in Florida. We
did not receive comments from the State
of Florida. We note, however, that one
peer reviewer was from the Florida
Forest Service, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, and
we have addressed those comments in
the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section of this rule.
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 rule does not have substantial
direct effects either on the States, or on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The designation
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 and
biological features of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning
(because these local governments no
longer have to wait for case-by-case
section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal 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.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating
critical habitat in accordance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provisions of the Act. To assist the
public in understanding the habitat
needs of these plants, the rule identifies
the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri. The designated areas of critical
habitat are presented on maps, and the
rule provides several options for the
interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act in connection with
designating critical habitat under the
Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
49869
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We have determined that there are no
tribal lands occupied by Brickellia
mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri at
the time of listing that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to conservation of the species, and no
tribal lands unoccupied by B. mosieri or
L. c. var. carteri that are essential for the
conservation of the species. Therefore,
we are not designating critical habitat
for B. mosieri or L. c. var. carteri on
tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
is available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the South Florida Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
Authors
■
The primary authors of this
rulemaking are the staff members of the
South Florida Ecological Services Field
Office.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
2. Amend § 17.12(h) by revising the
entries for ‘‘Brickellia mosieri’’ and
‘‘Linum carteri var. carteri’’ under
FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants to
read as follows:
Regulation Promulgation
§ 17.12
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
*
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
■
Endangered and threatened plants.
*
*
(h) * * *
*
Species
Historic range
Scientific name
Family
Status
When listed
Common name
*
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
Flowering Plants
*
Brickellia mosieri ......
*
Florida brickell-bush
*
U.S.A. (FL) .............
*
Asteraceae .............
*
E
*
844
17.96(a)
*
Linum carteri var.
carteri.
*
Carter’s small-flowered flax.
*
U.S.A. (FL) .............
*
Linaceae .................
*
E
*
844
17.96(a)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 17.96, amend paragraph (a) as
follows:
■ a. By adding an entry for ‘‘Brickellia
mosieri (Florida brickell-bush)’’ in
alphabetical order under the family
Asteraceae;
■ b. By adding Family Linaceae in
alphabetical order to the list of families;
and
■ c. By adding an entry for ‘‘Linum
carteri var. carteri (Carter’s smallflowered flax)’’ in alphabetical order
under the family Linaceae.
The additions read as follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
§ 17.96
Critical habitat—plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
*
*
*
*
*
Family Asteraceae: Brickellia mosieri
(Florida brickell-bush)
(1) Critical habitat units for Brickellia
mosieri are depicted for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, on the maps in this
entry.
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Brickellia mosieri are:
(i) Areas of pine rockland habitat that
contain:
(A) Open canopy, semi-open
subcanopy, and understory;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
*
(B) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock;
and
(C) A plant community of
predominately native vegetation that
may include, but is not limited to:
(1) Canopy vegetation dominated by
Pinus elliottii var. densa (South Florida
slash pine);
(2) Subcanopy vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to, Serenoa
repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto
(cabbage palm), Coccothrinax argentata
(silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax
myrtle), Myrsine floridana (myrsine),
Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood),
Byrsonima lucida (locustberry),
Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia),
Guettarda scabra (rough velvetseed),
Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry),
Psidium longipes (mangroveberry),
Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow
bustic), and Rhus copallinum (winged
sumac);
(3) Short-statured shrubs that may
include, but are not limited to, Quercus
pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata
(white indigoberry), Crossopetalum
ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda
royoc (redgal), and Chiococca alba
(snowberry); and
(4) Understory vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to:
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
NA
*
NA
*
gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida
purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn);
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided
Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora
floridensis (Florida white-top sedge);
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn);
Echites umbellata (devil’s potato);
Croton linearis (pineland croton);
Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats);
Chamaecrista deeringiania (partridge
pea); Zamia integrifolia (coontie); and
Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair
pineland fern).
(ii) A disturbance regime that
naturally or artificially duplicates
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire,
hurricanes, or other weather events) and
that maintains the pine rockland habitat
described in paragraph (2)(i) of this
entry.
(iii) Habitats that are connected and of
sufficient area to sustain viable
populations of Brickellia mosieri in the
pine rockland habitat described in
paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located exists within the legal
boundaries on September 16, 2015.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
49870
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(5) Critical habitat map units. Unit
maps were developed using ESRI
ArcGIS mapping software along with
various spatial data layers. ArcGIS was
also used to calculate the size of habitat
areas. The projection used in mapping
and calculating distances and locations
within the units was North American
Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0108), and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is
based are available to the public at the
Service’s Internet site at https://
www.fws.gov/verobeach/, at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (https://
Index Map of Critical Habitat Units for Brickellia mosieri
BROWARD
COLLIER
MIAMI-DADE
UnitBM1D
Unit BM6
MONROE
.......
Unit BM71·. _; ·~
I
Atlantic
Ocean
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
5
10
15
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
20 Kilometers
17AUR3
ER17AU15.002
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
. . Critical Habitat Brickellia mosieri
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
49871
(6) Unit BM1: Trinity Pineland and
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida. Map of Unit BM1 follows:
Critical Habitat Units forBrickellia mosieri
Unit BM1: Trinity Pineland and Surrounding Areas
Coral Terrace
Olympia Heights
Glenvar
Heights
South Miami
Glenvar Heights
I
BM1B
Trinity Pineland
County Park
South Miami
Browa
~ Critical Habitat Brickelfia mosieri
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
0.5
f.5 Kilometers
0.5
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
1.5 Miles
17AUR3
ER17AU15.003
0
49872
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(7) Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley Pineland
Preserve and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM2
follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Brickellia mosieri
Unit 8M2: Nixon
Pineland Preserve and
The Crossings
Ron Ehman
Park
I
BM2F
BM2E
Kendall
Camp
Matecumbe
Ill Pine Shore
Plneklnd Preserve
BM2D
Three Lakes
Richmond
Heights
Critical Habitat BrlckeNia mosieri
0.5
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
1.$
2Kilomelan
1.5
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
2MIIeo
17AUR3
ER17AU15.004
-
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(8) Unit BM3: USDA Subtropical
Horticultural Research Station and
49873
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida. Map of Unit BM3 follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Brickellia mosieri
Unit 8M3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and Surrounding Areas
Pinecrest
SUbttroplcal Horticultural
Research Station
BM3D
Coral Reef 1111111_1
1
Park
-a1
Atlantic
Ocean
Cutler
Bill Sadows~-
Park
IIBM3H
Palmetto
Bay
IIBM3G
Ned Glenn
Nature Preserve
Collier
~ Critical Habitat Brickellia mosieri
Miami-Dade
OL----1..L...---...L2-----J·~-
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
3Miles
17AUR3
ER17AU15.005
2
0
t
49874
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(9) Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands
and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM4
follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Bn"ckel/ia mosieri
Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and
Areas
Richmond
west
Eachus
Ill BM4H
'Ill
Pineland
South Miami
Heights
~BM4G
Critical Habitat Brickellia mosieri
G.$
0
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
0.5
Sfmt 4725
1.5
2 Kilometers
1.5
2Mil001
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
ER17AU15.006
-
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(10) Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland
and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
49875
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM5
follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Brickellia mosieri
Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas
South Miami
Heights
BMSA~
.,
Medsouth
Park !II
~/Roost
Black eek BMSB
Fofest
~
Pineland
BM~D
~
BMSC l§j
Goulds
Porter-Russellfl
BMSF
Si1ver Palm
Pinelami
~ ~
·
Grows Pineland
BMSE
Goulds
....
lli!ll
...4 Pinelands
g:
-wBM5H
blill&'l
~
""'BM5G
~
Ross
li
BMSI~
~BM5K
~
~M5J
Princeton
~
Critical Habitat Blickellia mosieri
B
0.5
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 Kllometars
2
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
3MiiM
17AUR3
ER17AU15.007
-
49876
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(11) Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer
and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM6
follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Brickellia mosieri
Unit BM6:
Owaissa Bauer and
Camp
Owaissa Bauer
SM6F
~~ West Biscayne
Pineland
Northrop
BM&K Pineland
BM6L
"'~
Pine ...,e
sanctuary
R
I
~
BM6J
"BMeG
.
II BM6H
,Fuchs Hammack
Preserve
81161
Homestead
Browafd
~Critical
0
Habitat Brickellia mosieri
2
3KIIam-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
ER17AU15.008
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
3 Mileo
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(12) Unit BM7: Navy Wells Pineland
Preserve and surrounding areas, Miami-
49877
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM7
follows:
Critical Habitat Units forBrickellia mosieri
Unit BM7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas
Homestead
~BM7A
BM7C
I
Florida City
Pineland
Palm Drive Pineland
BM7H
Florida
City
-
BM7G
Navy
.
!&iv
~
Pineland Preserve
Ill!
BM7D ~~~ Navy Wells
Pineland #39
B
Ill
N~
Navy Wells
Pineland #23
BM7E
Sunny Palms
Pineland
Browam
~ Critical Habitat Brickellia mosieri
Collier
M'18mi-Oade
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0
*
*
*
*
*
Family Linaceae: Linum carteri var.
carteri (Carter’s small-flowered flax)
(1) Critical habitat units for Linum
carteri var. carteri are depicted for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, on the
maps in this entry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
0.5
0.5
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Linum carteri var.
carteri are:
(i) Areas of pine rockland habitat that
contain:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1.5
1
2 Kilometers
1.5
2 Miles
(A) Open canopy, semi-open
subcanopy, and understory;
(B) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock;
and
(C) A plant community of
predominately native vegetation that
may include, but is not limited to:
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
ER17AU15.009
0
D
49878
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(1) Canopy vegetation dominated by
Pinus elliottii var. densa (South Florida
slash pine);
(2) Subcanopy vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to, Serenoa
repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto
(cabbage palm), Coccothrinax argentata
(silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax
myrtle), Myrsine floridana (myrsine),
Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood),
Byrsonima lucida (locustberry),
Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia),
Guettarda scabra (rough velvetseed),
Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry),
Psidium longipes (mangroveberry),
Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow
bustic), and Rhus copallinum (winged
sumac);
(3) Short-statured shrubs that may
include, but are not limited to, Quercus
pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata
(white indigoberry), Crossopetalum
ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda
royoc (redgal), and Chiococca alba
(snowberry); and
(4) Understory vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to:
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium
gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida
purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn);
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided
Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora
floridensis (Florida white-top sedge);
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn);
Echites umbellata (devil’s potato);
Croton linearis (pineland croton);
Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats);
Chamaecrista deeringiania (partridge
pea); Zamia integrifolia (coontie); and
Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair
pineland fern).
(ii) A disturbance regime that
naturally or artificially duplicates
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire,
hurricanes, or other weather events) and
that maintains the pine rockland habitat
described in paragraph (2)(i) of this
entry.
(iii) Habitats that are connected and of
sufficient area to sustain viable
populations of Linum carteri var. carteri
in the pine rockland habitat described
in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located exists within the legal
boundaries on September 16, 2015.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Unit
maps were developed using ESRI
ArcGIS mapping software along with
various spatial data layers. ArcGIS was
also used to calculate the size of habitat
areas. The projection used in mapping
and calculating distances and locations
within the units was North American
Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The
maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is
based are available to the public at the
Service’s Internet site at https://
www.fws.gov/verobeach/, at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0108), and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
49879
(5) Index map follows:
Index Map of Critical Habitat Units for Unum carteri var. carteri
----~L------8-RO_W_~_R_D
________
COLUER
MIAMI-DADE
UnitLCC1
.,.. ._
Unit LCC6
MONROE
D
t
.......
~
Unit LCC7 ·.... ·•
Atlantic
Ocean
. . Critical Habitat Unum carteri var. carteri
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
5
5
10
15
10
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
20 Kilometers
15
17AUR3
20 Miles
ER17AU15.010
0
49880
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(6) Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida. Map of Unit LCC1 follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Unum carteri var. carteri
Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and Surrounding Areas
Coral Terrace
Olympia Heights
Glenvar
Heights
South Miami
I
Glenvar Heights
LCC1C
Trinity Pineland
County Park
South Miami
Browa
~ Critical Habitat Unum carter/ var. carteri
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
0.5
1.5 Kilometers
0.5
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
1.5 Miles
17AUR3
ER17AU15.011
0
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(7) Unit LCC2: Nixon Smiley Pineland
Preserve and surrounding areas, Miami-
49881
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit
LCC2 follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Unum carteri var. carteri
Unit LCC2: Nixon
Pineland Preserve and
The Crossings
Areas
Ron Ehman
Park
I
LCC2E
Kendall
Camp
Matecumbe
LCC2D
-Pine Share
1!11111 Pineland Preserve
Thtee lakes
Richmond
Heights
Critical Habitat
0.5
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
unum carteli var. carteli
1.$
2Kilom-
1.5
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
2MHes
17AUR3
ER17AU15.012
-
49882
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(8) Unit LCC3: USDA Subtropical
Horticultural Research Station and
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida. Map of Unit LCC3 follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Unum carteri var. carteri
Unit LCC3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and Surrounding Areas
Pinecrest
SUbtrropical Horticultural
Research Station
Atlantic
Ocean
Cutler
Bill Sadows~
Park gLCC31
Palmetto
Bay
IIILCC3H
Ned Glenn
Nature Preserve
Collier
R
Critical Habitat Unum carteri var. carteri
Miami-Dade
1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
2
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
3Miles
17AUR3
~
~
ER17AU15.013
OL...---.L..---...L2----.J3 Kilometers
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(9) Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands
and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
49883
County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC4
follows:
Richmond
West
Eachusi!ILCC40
Plnelandl!lfa
Sooth Miami
Heights
Critical Habitat Unum carteri var. carteri
0
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
0.5
0.5
Sfmt 4725
1.5
2KHomelers
1.5
2Mileol
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
ER17AU15.014
-
49884
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(10) Unit LCC5: Quail Roost Pineland
and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC5
follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Unum carteri var. carteri
Unit LCC5: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas
Lee~,
South Miami
Heights
Medsouth
Park Iii t.eCSB
Roost
Black Cn ek
~
Ross
Porter-Russellfl
Silver Palm
Groves Pineland
~
Pinelands
Pineland
•§!
LeeSF'
ji!a LCC5G
LCC5H'
LCC5J
LCC51
Leese
a.tl
.,""'"'"i~ . ,.
;y
Pineland
rfiJ!.r
i
I
Princeton
~·
8
Critical Habitat Unum carteri var. carteri
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 Kllometars
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
3Mil""
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
ER17AU15.015
0
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(11) Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa Bauer
and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
49885
County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC6
follows:
Critical Habitat Units for Unum carteri var. carteri
Unit LCC6:
Owaissa Bauer and
Areas
..,LCC6A
,.LCCIIB
11 LCC6C
LCC60111. West Biscayne
Ill Pineland
Northrop
Pineland
LCC&"
1111
LCC6U..
Pine Ridge
Sanctuary
13 LCC6P
m,Fuchs Hammock
.
LCC6S
. IJLCC&Q
Preserve
LCC6R
Homestead
Brow..,
~?§iii Critical
Habitat Linum carteri var. carteri
3KIIomelers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
2
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
3Mllea
17AUR3
ER17AU15.016
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
0
49886
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit
LCC7 follows:
*
Dated: July 16, 2015.
Michael Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–19533 Filed 8–14–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\17AUR3.SGM
17AUR3
ER17AU15.017
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(12) Unit LCC7: Navy Wells Pineland
Preserve and surrounding areas, Miami-
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49845-49886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19533]
[[Page 49845]]
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 158
August 17, 2015
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 Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum
carteri var. carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49846]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108: 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AZ64
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and
Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-bush) and
Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-flowered flax) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We designate as
critical habitat approximately 1,062 hectares (ha) (2,624 acres (ac))
for B. mosieri and approximately 1,072 ha (2,649 ac) for L. c. var.
carteri. The critical habitat areas for these plants, located entirely
in Miami-Dade County, Florida, largely overlap, for a combined total of
approximately 1,095 ha (2,706 ac). Critical habitat for both plants
includes both occupied and unoccupied habitat. The Service determined
that the unoccupied units are essential for the conservation of the
plants, to provide for the necessary expansion of current Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri populations, and for
reestablishment of populations into areas where these plants previously
occurred. The effect of this regulation is to extend the Act's
protections to these plants' critical habitats.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and from the South Florida Ecological Services
Field Office. Comments and materials we received, as well as some
supporting documentation we used in preparing this final rule, are
available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. All of
the comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this
rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business hours
at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services
Field Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; by telephone 772-
562-3909; or by facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps were
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108, and at the South Florida Ecological
Services Field Office (https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/) (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we developed for this critical habitat designation will also be
available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office
addresses provided above, and at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Hartley, Endangered Species
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological
Services Field Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; by
telephone 772-562-3909; or by facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, when we list a
species as endangered or threatened, we must designate critical
habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designations
of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
We listed Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri as
endangered species on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567). On October 3,
2013, we published in the Federal Register a proposed critical habitat
designation for B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri (78 FR 61293).
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate
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 critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule
constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri
var. carteri. Here we are designating approximately 1,062 ha (2,624 ac)
as critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and approximately 1,072 ha
(2,649 ac) for Linum carteri var. carteri. The critical habitat areas
for these plants, located entirely in Miami-Dade County, Florida,
largely overlap, for a combined total of approximately 1,095 ha (2,706
ac). Critical habitat for both plants includes both occupied and
unoccupied habitat. The Service determined that the unoccupied units
are essential for the conservation of the plants, to provide for the
necessary expansion of current Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri
var. carteri populations, and for reestablishment of populations into
areas where these plants previously occurred.
This rule consists of: A final rule designating critical habitat
for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri under the Act.
We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts
of the critical habitat designations and related factors. We announced
the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal
Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 41211), allowing the public to provide
comments on our analysis. We have incorporated the comments and have
completed the economic analysis concurrently with this final
designation.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from five knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical
assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we had used the best
available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred with
our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information and
suggestions to improve this final rule. Information we received from
peer review is incorporated in this final revised designation. We also
considered all comments and information received from the public during
the comment periods.
Previous Federal Actions
For more information on previous Federal actions concerning
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, refer to the
proposed rules published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78
FR 61273 and 78 FR 61293), and the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567), which are
available online at https://www.regulations.gov or from the South
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
[[Page 49847]]
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri during two comment periods. The first comment
period opened with the publication of the proposed rule (78 FR 61293)
on October 3, 2013, and closed on December 2, 2013. We also requested
comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and associated
draft economic analysis during a comment period that opened July 15,
2014, and closed on August 14, 2014 (79 FR 41211). We also contacted
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment
on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis during these comment
periods.
During the first comment period, we received 10 comment letters
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During
the second comment period, we received six comment letters addressing
the proposed critical habitat designation. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing during either comment period. All
substantive information provided during the comment periods
specifically relating to the proposed designation either has been
incorporated directly into this final designation or is addressed
below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions
from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise, that
included familiarity with Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri and/or their habitat, biological needs, and threats; the
geographical region of South Florida in which these plants occur; and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from five of the
peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. The peer reviewers
generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided
additional information and suggestions to improve the final critical
habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following
summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer requested that additional
information be provided regarding the source of ownership data and
conservation lands. This reviewer also requested that ownership data
and conservation land boundaries be referenced on the critical habitat
maps or additional maps.
Our Response: Ownership of proposed critical habitat areas in the
proposed rule was determined using geographic information system (GIS)
data consisting of Miami-Dade County parcel layer (August 2008 version)
and the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Florida Managed Areas
layer (March 2009 version). Ownership of critical habitat areas in this
final rule was determined using updated GIS data consisting of Miami-
Dade County parcel layer (July 2013 version) and FNAI Florida Managed
Areas layer (March 2014 version); this information has been
incorporated into Tables 1 and 2 in the Final Critical Habitat
Designation section, below. With regard to the inclusion of ownership
data and conservation area boundaries on critical habitat maps, we
prepare these maps under the parameters for publication within the Code
of Federal Regulations. While we attempted in the proposed rule to
provide detail such as select area names to better show the location of
critical habitat areas along the Miami Rock Ridge, the scale of the
maps prevented all conservation areas or ownership data from being
depicted. This is still the case for maps showing the final critical
habitat designation, which retained the same scale as maps in the
proposed rule. More detailed information is available at the South
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the FNAI Florida
Element Occurrence (FLEO) data for the pine rockland natural community
and rare plants, animals, and invertebrates could have been used in our
designation of critical habitat units. The reviewer also commented on
the lack of map references to these and other spatial occurrence data
(from Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG), the Institute for
Regional Conservation (IRC), and other sources), while allowing that
the latter were well referenced in the proposed rule.
Our Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We did review
the FLEO data for rare pine rockland species as part of our anlaysis,
and have added text reflecting this under the Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section, below. We were not aware of available FLEO
data for the pine rockland natural community. We have since inquired
with FNAI regarding these data, and have found out that the information
available is only for some, not all, pine rocklands on the Miami Rock
Ridge, and that detailed data (e.g., habitat condition, species
occurrences) for most areas are at least 10 years old. Thus, we believe
that the information we used in our critical habitat analysis
(specifically, recent aerial photography and the feedback of experts
familiar with on-the-ground conditions) is more appropriate to a
current assessment of habitat conditions than the FLEO pine rockland
data, and constitutes the best available scientific and commercial
information. Please refer to our response to Comment (1), above,
regarding the inclusion of additional information on critical habitat
maps.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended including the fire-
suppressed pine rockland habitat located between Ross and Castellow
Hammocks in Brickellia mosieri's designated critical habitat, based on
it being the type locality for the plant.
Our Response: In our analysis of proposed critical habitat, some
areas of former pine rockland habitat were considered too severely fire
suppressed (i.e., having extremely dense canopy cover, based on our
assessment of aerial photography) such that they are now unsuitable
habitat for Brickellia mosieri, and unlikely to be able to be restored.
These areas were not delineated as pine rocklands in our critical
habitat analysis, and thus were not included in the consequence matrix
used to identify unoccupied habitat for designation. This included the
severely fire-suppressed pine rockland between Ross and Castellow
Hammocks. Our assessment has been confirmed by a species expert who
conducts monitoring in the area and is familiar with current habitat
conditions. Thus, we believe that the subject area is not appropriate
for inclusion in the critical habitat designation at this time.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that our methodology and
choice of critical habitat patches appear very reasonable, but
suggested supporting future critical habitat designations with
quantitative analyses, such as those that would provide the
quantitative contribution of each patch to network connectivity.
Our Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. In our analysis
for the proposed rule, we evaluated connectivity of each habitat patch
using two criteria: The number of other pine rockland habitat patches
within 2 kilometers (km) (1.2 miles (mi)), and the distance to the
nearest pine rockland
[[Page 49848]]
patch within a 2-km (1.2-mi) radius (where a score of ``0'' signaled
adjacent patches). In this quantitative ranking, scores for both of
these criteria were calculated in GIS using the pine rockland habitat
layer we previously delineated as described in the Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section, below. By applying these criteria,
given areas of equal habitat quality, size, and surrounding landscape
composition, those patches having more and closer neighbors (i.e.,
other pine rockland patches) would be ranked higher in our evaluation.
The intent of these criteria was to maximize patch connectivity within
each geographic area. We believe this was the best approach for
delineating the critical habitat for these two plants, but appreciate
that the reviewer's suggested evaluation approach may be useful in
developing a consequence matrix in future critical habitat
designations, where necessary and appropriate.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested adding many of the mowed
fields within the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and Miami Zoo properties to
the designated critical habitat in Unit 4 (now, Units BM4 and LCC4).
The reviewer stated that these lack a pine canopy and shrub layer, but
support a high diversity of pine rockland species, including State-
listed and federally listed plants, and noted that similar mowed areas
likely occur in other portions of the Richmond Pinelands. We received a
similar comment, concerning a mowed area on the USCG property, during
the second public comment period (see response to Comment (10) below).
Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We
acknowledge that mown areas having pine rockland substrate (i.e.,
cleared pine rocklands) support some imperiled pine rockland plants,
including Linum carteri var. carteri. However, while cleared areas
currently support occurrences of L. c. var. carteri, scientific data
are lacking with regard to the reason for this--whether it be a
requirement related to very high light conditions, disturbed substrate,
or a combination of these or other factors not yet identified. For the
long-term conservation of these plants, we consider habitats having a
completely open canopy (i.e., cleared pine rocklands) to be less
preferred than intact pine rockland having suitable canopy cover.
Accordingly, cleared areas scored lower quantitatively for onsite
habitat quality than intact pine rockland, and thus had a lower overall
ranking in our consequence matrix, which we used to evaluate the
conservation quality of unoccupied habitat (discussed in the Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat section, below). Mown fields within
USCG and Miami Zoo lands, and surrounding land in the Richmond
Pinelands, were included in our evaluation, but did not rank high
enough (i.e., conservation quality ranking was less than 0.50) for
inclusion in the critical habitat designation. Based on our assessment,
we do not believe these areas are essential to the plant's conservation
at this time. However, we are actively communicating with both USCG and
Miami-Dade County, and are supportive of conservation measures that
would benefit L. c. var. carteri on these lands (e.g., optimizing
mowing regime).
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional information
related to cultivated plantings of Brickellia mosieri, citing an
observation of larger, more vigorous individuals than their wild
counterparts, and the potential for plantings of both B. mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri to provide a continual input of propagules
that may successfully colonize other pine rockland areas.
Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this additional
information, and support such planting programs (e.g., FTBG's Connect
to Protect Network) to aid in the recovery of these plants.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) states, ``the
Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for
[her] failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's
comments or petition.'' The two plants only occur in Florida, and we
received no comments from the State of Florida regarding the critical
habitat proposal. We note, however, that one peer reviewer was from the
Florida Forest Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services; those comments are addressed above.
Public Comments
(7) Comment: One commenter stated that there is no reason why a
population of Brickellia mosieri could not be supported at Tropical
Park (in the vicinity of Unit BM1).
Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In our
evaluation of unoccupied habitat, we used the best available scientific
data to establish a minimum habitat size that would likely support a
sustaining population of Brickellia mosieri. Based on expert opinion,
we excluded unoccupied patches below 2 ha (5 ac) for B. mosieri (see
``Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring,'' in the proposed critical habitat rule published in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293)). The pine rockland
habitat patch at Tropical Park (unoccupied) is approximately 1.7 ha
(4.3 ac), and thus was not included in the consequence matrix for B.
mosieri. Although some sites occupied by B. mosieri are less than 2 ha
(5 ac) in size, it is not known whether these populations are
sustainable in the long term. Thus, we believe that our minimum size
threshold for unoccupied habitat is a conservative estimate, and that
the methodology we used to determine proposed critical habitat supports
the identification of pine rockland habitat patches with the highest
conservation quality.
(8) Comment: Two commenters suggested revising the criteria used to
evaluate onsite habitat quality in the consequence matrix, which was
used to score and rank unoccupied pine rockland habitat patches in our
critical habitat analysis. Both commenters stated that it would be more
appropriate (especially for Linum carteri var. carteri) for pine
rockland with a canopy openness greater than 50 percent to score higher
than pine rockland with 25-50 percent canopy openness.
Our Response: We appreciate the comment and acknowledge that Linum
carteri var. carteri responds favorably to high light conditions,
including disturbed pine rocklands with canopy openness near 100
percent. Such cleared areas currently support occurrences of L. c. var.
carteri, but scientific data are lacking with regard to the reason for
this--whether it be a requirement related to very high light
conditions, disturbed substrate, or a combination of these or other
factors not yet identified. The criteria used to evaluate onsite
habitat quality reflect our belief that habitats having a completely
open canopy (i.e., cleared pine rocklands) are less preferred than
intact pine rockland having suitable canopy cover for the long-term
conservation of these plants. However, to investigate whether and how
the suggested change to scoring would impact the set of unoccupied
habitat patches having an overall score greater than 0.50, we conducted
a test revision of the consequence matrix for L. c. var. carteri.
Scoring of canopy cover was adjusted as follows: If canopy was
estimated to be 50 to 75 percent open, that patch received the highest
possible score for that criteria (i.e., a ``4''; original score for
these patches was a ``3''); patches with a canopy estimated to be
greater than 75 percent open received a score of ``3'' (original score
was a ``2''); patches with a canopy estimated to be
[[Page 49849]]
25 to 50 percent open received a score of ``2'' (original score was a
``4''); and patches with a canopy estimated to be less than 25 percent
open (e.g., having a closed canopy due to inadequate fire management
and extensive cover by nonnative invasive plants) received the lowest
possible score (``1''; unchanged from original scoring). We then
compared these test patch rankings to rankings under the original
scoring scheme. All habitat patches for L. c. var. carteri in the
original matrix having a total score greater than 0.63 were still in
the revised set. Based on total score greater than 0.50 (our chosen
cut-off for conservation quality as discussed in the Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section, below), the revised set of
unoccupied habitat patches for L. c. var. carteri included 3 new
patches, but did not include 28 previously included patches (compared
to proposed critical habitat in the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293)). The net area
difference, based on the revised versus original matrix, was
approximately 101 ha (250 ac) less than the proposed critical habitat.
We also evaluated the revised set of habitat patches spatially, and
determined that the revised polygon set had reduced connectivity,
particularly in the area between the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Chapman Field (on the coast) and more interior habitat to the
southwest. Lastly, we evaluated aerial photography of the individual
polygons that would be added, and do not believe that they represent
quality habitat--as pine rockland habitat in general, or for L. c. var.
carteri specifically. Evaluation of aerial photography of the
individual polygons that would be deleted indicates that at least some
of these areas represent high-quality pine rockland habitat, including
areas that could be open enough for L. c. var. carteri.
Based on our test revision, it seems apparent that a lower cut-off
value for conservation quality would be needed to capture these high-
quality areas and achieve adequate connectivity if the revised scoring
was used. Therefore, we do not believe that the suggested scoring
revision would result in a more appropriate set of habitat patches for
L. c. var. carteri, and thus have not made any changes to the
consequence matrix. One reason that the revised scoring did not result
in the anticipated improvement to proposed critical habitat for L. c.
var. carteri may be due to the way in which we scored patch canopy
cover--that is, the entire polygon received a single score for canopy
cover, although in many cases canopy cover is not distributed evenly
through a habitat patch. While there are likely many alternative
methods for evaluating conservation quality of pine rockland habitat,
peer reviewers of the proposed rule agreed that our methodology is
sound and that the resulting determination for unoccupied critical
habitat is appropriate.
(9) Comment: One commenter suggested technical corrections to
sections of the proposed rule pertaining to characteristic pine
rockland vegetation, related to scientific names.
Our Response: We appreciate the comment and have incorporated these
corrections into the Physical or Biological Features, the Primary
Constituent Elements, and the Regulation Promulgation sections of the
final rule, below.
(10) Comment: One commenter stated that the ``antenna field'' area
of mowed pine rockland bordered on the north by Coral Reef Drive (152nd
Street) and on the east by SW 117th Street would support both
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, and that it is
possible that one or both plants are there already. The commenter
further stated that, although the area has been mown for decades, the
vegetation is primarily native pine rockland plants that have adapted
to the mowing by growing prostrate instead of vertically.
Our Response: Please see our response to Peer Review Comment (5),
above, with regard to how these areas were handled in the methodology
for designation. In addition, a survey of this area has recently been
conducted, and neither Brickellia mosieri nor Linum carteri var.
carteri were found. However, we continue to actively communicate with
both USCG and Miami-Dade County, and are supportive of conservation
measures that would benefit pine rockland plants on these lands (e.g.,
optimizing mowing regime).
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
Based on information we received in comments regarding Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, we refined our description of
physical or biological features and primary constituent elements for
both plants to include corrections to the following scientific names,
in order to more accurately describe the characteristic vegetation of
pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge:
(1) Lysiloma bahamense has been changed to L. latisiliquum;
(2) Thrinax morrisii has been deleted;
(3) Rapanea punctata has been changed to Myrsine floridana;
(4) Dodonaea viscosa has been deleted;
(5) Quercus elliottii has been changed to Q. pumila;
(6) Chamaecrista fasciculata has been changed to C. deeringiana;
and
(7) Zamia pumila has been changed to Z. integrifolia.
These revisions have also been made in the critical habitat
discussion as well as in the Regulation Promulgation section of this
final rule.
We also made revisions and refinements of the proposed critical
habitat designation, and described these amendments in our document
making available the draft economic analysis and reopening the proposed
rule's comment period (79 FR 41211; July 15, 2014). Please refer to
that notice for details; those revisions, with the exception of the
proposed additions on Department of Defense lands, are reflected in
this final rule, and described below in Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat.
Since publishing the revised proposed critical habitat designation
on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 41211), we have determined that three
unoccupied areas on Department of Defense lands (Homestead Air Reserve
Base and the Special Operations Command South Headquarters) meet the
criteria for exemption from critical habitat designation under section
4(a)(3) of the Act (discussed under the Exemptions section, below), and
we have removed these from this final designation. The exemptions
result in the removal of one area (one subunit; approximately 5.2 ha
(12.9 ac)) from the critical habitat designation for Brickellia
mosieri, and three areas (two subunits; totaling approximately 7.0 ha
(17.3 ac)) from the critical habitat designation for Linum carteri var.
carteri. The amount of critical habitat designated for each plant in
this final rule (1,062 ha (2,624 ac) for B. mosieri and 1,072 ha (2,649
ac) for L. c. var. carteri) reflects these exempted areas.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
[[Page 49850]]
(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.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation 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 consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those
specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial 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 developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. 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 this
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 these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features (PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species and which
may require special management considerations or protection. These
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
[[Page 49851]]
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PBFs essential for Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri from studies of the plants' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section
of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293), and in the
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on September 4,
2014 (79 FR 52567). The PBFs for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri
var. carteri were defined on the basis of the habitat features of the
areas occupied by the plants at the time of listing, which included
substrate types, plant community structure, and associated plant
species. The PBFs below include an updated description of the PBF
related to ``Cover or Shelter.'' We have determined that B. mosieri and
L. c. var. carteri require the following PBFs:
Space for Individual and Population Growth
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri are endemic to,
and occur exclusively within, pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock
Ridge outside of Everglades National Park (ENP) in Miami-Dade County in
south Florida. This community and associated native plant species are
described in the Status Assessment for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri section in the proposed listing rule published in
the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61273). Pine rocklands
are a fire-maintained ecosystem characterized by an open canopy and
understory and by 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 B. mosieri and L.
c. var. carteri. These plants also require 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 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). Therefore, based on this information, we identify pine
rockland habitats to be a PBF for these plants.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Soils--Substrates supporting Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri
var. carteri for anchoring or nutrient absorption 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, extensive sandy
pockets can be found at the northern end of the Miami Rock Ridge,
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). In
this area (the northern Biscayne region), pine rockland soils are
primarily quartz sands classified as Opalocka sand-rock outcrop
complex. This region has the least exposed rock. In the southern
Biscayne, or Redlands, region to the south, pine rockland soils are
rockier (i.e., exposed rock is the predominant surface) and are
primarily classified as Cardsound silty clay loam-rock outcrop complex.
Other soil types that are loosely associated with pine rocklands
include Udorthents (in the northern half of the plants' current ranges)
and Krome very gravelly loam (in the southern half). Therefore, based
on the information above, we identify substrate derived from oolitic
limestone to provide anchoring and nutritional requirements to be a PBF
for these plants.
Cover or Shelter
Pine rockland is characterized by an open canopy of Pinus elliottii
var. densa (South Florida slash pine). Subcanopy development is rare in
well-maintained pine rocklands, with only occasional hardwoods such as
Lysiloma latisiliquum (wild tamarind) and Quercus virginiana (live oak)
growing to tree size in Miami Rock Ridge pinelands (Snyder et al. 1990,
p. 253). The shrub/understory layer is also characteristically open,
although the height and density of the shrub layer varies based on fire
frequency, with understory plants growing taller and more dense as time
since fire increases. Subcanopy/shrub species that typically occur
include, but may not be limited to, Serenoa repens (saw palmetto),
Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm), Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm),
Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Myrsine floridana (myrsine), Metopium
toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia
bicolor (tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra (rough velvetseed), Ardisia
escallonioides (marlberry), Psidium longipes (mangroveberry),
Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow bustic), and Rhus copallinum (winged
sumac) (FNAI 2010, pp. 61-62). Short-statured shrubs may include, but
are not limited to, Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata
(white indigoberry), Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas berry),
Morinda royoc (redgal), and Chiococca alba (snowberry) (FNAI 2010, p.
62). Understory vegetation may include, but is not limited to:
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn);
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora floridensis (Florida white-top sedge);
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn); Echites umbellata (devil's
potato); Croton linearis (pineland croton); Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats);
Chamaecrista deeringiana (partridge pea); Zamia integrifolia (coontie);
and Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair pineland fern) (FNAI 2010, p. 62).
An open canopy and understory are required to allow sufficient sunlight
to reach the herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering of B.
mosieri and L. c. var. carteri. Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify vegetation composition and structure that allows for
adequate sunlight, and space for individual growth and population
expansion, to be a PBF for these plants.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Brickellia mosieri--The reproductive biology and needs of B.
mosieri have not been studied (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 12), and our
knowledge of the ecology of the species related to reproduction needs
primarily consists of observed habitat requirements and demographic
trends. Field observations indicate that the species does not usually
occur in great abundance; populations are typically sparse and contain
a low density of plants, even in well-maintained pine rockland habitat
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 12). Bradley (2013b, pers. comm.) estimated
that, based on this observation, the minimum habitat patch size to
support a sustaining population may be approximately 2 ha (5 ac),
although no
[[Page 49852]]
studies have been conducted to evaluate this estimate. Some occupied
sites are less than 2 ha (5 ac) in size, but it is not known whether
these populations are sustainable in the long term.
Reproduction is sexual (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 12), but specific
pollinators or dispersers are unknown. Flower morphology suggests the
species may be pollinated by butterflies, bees, or both (Koptur 2013,
pers. comm.). Wind is one likely dispersal vector (Gann 2013b, pers.
comm.), as is seed dispersal by animals. Within pine rocklands, more
than 50 species of butterflies have been observed that may act as
pollinators for Brickellia mosieri . Similarly, a large variety of
native and nonnative bee species are known to pollinate pine rockland
plants, which may include B. mosieri. Declines in pollinator visitation
may cause decreased seed set or fruit production, which could lead to
lower seedling establishment and numbers of mature plants. The
availability of pollinators of appropriate type and sufficient numbers
is necessary for B. mosieri to reproduce and ensure sustainable
populations. Because the specific type(s) and number of pollinators of
B. mosieri are unknown, and may include non-generalist species closely
tied to pine rockland habitats, preserving and restoring connectivity
of pine rockland habitat fragments is essential to the long-term
conservation of the species. Sufficient connectivity of pine rockland
habitat is also necessary to support establishment of new populations
through seed dispersal, and to preserve and enhance genetic diversity.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify habitat
connectivity of sufficient size and suitability, or habitat that can be
restored to these conditions that supports the species' growth,
distribution, and population expansion, to be a PBF for Brickellia
mosieri.
Linum carteri var. carteri--The reproductive needs of L. c. var.
carteri are not well understood. Maschinski (2006, p. 83) reported that
L. c. var. carteri has typical behavior for an early successional
plant--plants grow to reproductive status quickly, and populations
typically contain a higher density of plants. The minimum habitat patch
size to support a sustaining population may be smaller than that needed
for Brickellia mosieri, possibly as small as 0.4 ha (1 ac) (Bradley
2013b, pers. comm.), although no studies have been conducted to
evaluate this estimate. Reproduction is believed to be sexual (Bradley
and Gann 1999, p. 71), but specific pollinators are unknown. Flower
morphology suggests this variety may also be pollinated by butterflies
or bees, or both (Koptur 2013, pers. comm.). Alternatively, Mosquin and
Hayley (1967, p. 1278) suggested L. c. var. carteri may be self-
pollinated. Dispersal agents are unknown, but most likely include
animal and human-related vectors in the existing landscape.
Therefore, given the uncertainty regarding specific pollinators and
dispersal vectors, the importance of connectivity of pine rockland
habitat discussed above for Brickellia mosieri also applies to Linum
carteri var. carteri. We identify habitat connectivity of sufficient
size and suitability, or habitat that can be restored to these
conditions to support the species' growth, distribution, and population
expansion, to also be a PBF for L. c. var. carteri.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri continue to occur
in habitats that are protected from incompatible human-generated
disturbances and are only partially representative of the plants'
historical, geographical, and ecological distributions because their
ranges within these habitats has been reduced. These plants are still
found in their representative plant communities of pine rocklands.
Representative communities are located on Federal, State, local, and
private lands that implement habitat management activities which
benefit these plants.
Disturbance Regime--Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of
disturbance, most importantly from natural or prescribed fires (Loope
and Dunevitz 1981, p. 5; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Bradley and Saha
2009, p. 4; Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169-184; FNAI 2010, p. 63). These
fires are a vital component in maintaining native vegetation, such as
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, which require high
light conditions and exposed substrate. Without fire, succession from
pine rockland to rockland hammock (an upland tropical hardwood forest
occurring over limestone) is rapid, and understory species such as B.
mosieri and L. c. var. carteri are shaded out by dense canopy and deep
leaf litter. In addition, displacement of native species by invasive,
nonnative plants often occurs.
Hurricanes and other significant weather events also create
openings in the pine rockland canopy (FNAI 2010, p. 63), although these
types of disturbances are more sporadic in nature and may pose a threat
to small, isolated populations such as those that remain of Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. For L. c. var. carteri, mowing
may also serve as another means of maintaining an open canopy where the
plant occurs in firebreaks, rights-of-way, and cleared fields. However,
in order to avoid potential negative impacts, the timing of mowing is
critical and should be conducted after flowering has occurred (see
Demographics, Reproductive Biology and Population Genetics of L. c.
var. carteri in the proposed listing rule published October 3, 2013 (78
FR 61273)). Mechanical control of hardwoods may also help maintain an
open canopy in pine rockland, but cannot entirely replace fire since it
does not have the same benefits related to removal of leaf litter and
nutrient cycling. Natural and prescribed fire remains the primary and
ecologically preferred disturbance regime for pine rockland.
Brickellia mosieri tends to occur on exposed limestone with minimal
organic litter and in areas with only minor amounts of substrate
disturbance (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 11). In contrast, Linum carteri
var. carteri is currently associated with pine rocklands that have
undergone some sort of substrate disturbance (e.g., firebreaks, canal
banks, edges of railway beds). All known occurrences over the last 15
years have been within either scarified pine rockland, disturbed areas
adjacent to or within pine rocklands, or completely disturbed areas
having a limestone substrate (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 71; Bradley
2013a, pers. comm.). Inadequate fire management, resulting in closed
canopy conditions, may have excluded L. c. var. carteri (which responds
positively to low competition and high light environments) from
otherwise suitable pine rocklands habitat (Bradley and Gann 1999, p.
71). Alternatively, this variety may only proliferate on sites where
exposed substrate occurs following disturbance; historically this may
have occurred following hurricanes (e.g., under tip-up mounds of fallen
trees), animal disturbance, or fire (Gann 2013a, pers. comm.). Whether
current occurrences of L. c. var. carteri reflect a need for higher
light conditions than B. mosieri, a requirement for disturbed
substrate, or some combination of these, or other unidentified factors,
is unknown, and microhabitat data for either plant are generally
lacking. The best available scientific data suggest that both plants
require a similar disturbance regime to maintain the open canopy and
[[Page 49853]]
low litter conditions characteristics of pine rockland habitat, and
thereby maintain persistent populations.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify natural or
prescribed fire, or other disturbance regimes that maintain the pine
rockland habitat, to be a PBF for these plants.
Primary Constituent Elements
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri in
areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features'
primary constituent elements (PCEs). PCEs are those specific elements
of the PBFs that provide for a species' life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and habitat
characteristics required to sustain the plants' life-history processes,
we determine that the PCEs specific to Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri are:
(1) Areas of pine rockland habitat that contain:
(a) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
(b) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
(c) A plant community of predominately native vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to:
(i) Canopy vegetation dominated by Pinus elliottii var. densa
(South Florida slash pine);
(ii) Subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to,
Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm),
Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle),
Myrsine floridana (myrsine), Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima
lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra
(rough velvetseed), Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry), Psidium
longipes (mangroveberry), Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow bustic), and
Rhus copallinum (winged sumac);
(iii) Short-statured shrubs that may include, but are not limited
to, Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata (white indigoberry),
Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda royoc (redgal),
and Chiococca alba (snowberry); and
(iv) Understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to:
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn);
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora floridensis (Florida white-top sedge);
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn); Echites umbellata (devil's
potato); Croton linearis (pineland croton); Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats);
Chamaecrista deeringiana (partridge pea); Zamia integrifolia (coontie);
and Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair pineland fern).
(2) A disturbance regime that naturally or artificially duplicates
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or other weather
events) and that maintains the pine rockland habitat as described in
PCE (1).
(3) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain
viable populations of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri
in the pine rockland habitat as described in PCE (1).
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 that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri 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, invasive plants; and sea level
rise. For an indepth discussion of threats, see Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species in our proposed listing rule published in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61273), and as updated in
our final listing rule published in the Federal Register on September
4, 2014 (79 FR 52567). For a discussion of the special management
considerations or protection for the PBFs in this critical habitat
designation, see the discussion in the proposed critical habitat rule
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 612793).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If,
after identifying areas occupied by the species at the time of listing,
we determine that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of
the species, in accordance with the Act and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) we then consider whether designating
additional areas--outside those occupied at the time of listing--are
essential for the conservation of the species.
In this rule, we are designating as critical habitat habitat both
within the geographical area occupied by these plants at the time of
listing, and outside the geographical area occupied by these plants at
the time of listing but within their historical range, because such
areas are essential for the conservation of these plants. We used
habitat and historical occurrence data, and applied general
conservation design principles, to identify unoccupied habitat
essential for the conservation of these plants.
To determine the general extent, location, and boundaries of
critical habitat, the Service used the following sources of
information:
(1) Historical and current records of Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri occurrences and distributions found in
publications, reports, personal communications, and associated voucher
specimens housed at museums and private collections;
(2) FNAI, IRC, and FTBG GIS data showing the location and extent of
documented occurrences of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri, as well as occurrence data for other imperiled pine rockland
species;
(3) Reports and databases prepared by botanists with IRC and FTBG.
Some of these were funded by the Service, while others were requested
or volunteered by biologists with IRC or FTBG;
(4) ESRI ArcGIS online basemap aerial imagery (collected December
2010) and Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs; 1-m true
color; collected 2004) of Miami-Dade County. Because pine rockland
habitat has a recognizable signature in these aerial photographs, the
presence of PCEs was partially determined through evaluation of this
imagery; and
(5) GIS data depicting soils (Soil Service Geographic (SSURGO)
dataset), land cover (South Florida Water Management District Land Use
and Cover 2008-2009), and elevation (Dade County LiDAR 88--2003) within
Miami-Dade County; these data were also used to determine the presence
of PCEs.
Due to the lack of existing taxa-specific data or recommendations
related to conservation design (e.g.,
[[Page 49854]]
minimum area or number of populations needed for recovery), we used
general conservation design principles in conjunction with the best
available data for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri to
identify those unoccupied pine rocklands with the highest conservation
quality--that is, those areas that currently provide the best quality
habitat and are likely to continue to do so in the future, or areas
that have the highest restoration potential. Guidelines for
conservation design, which have been developed using island
biogeography models, are highly relevant to areas such as the
fragmented pine rocklands of the Miami Rock Ridge (i.e., pine rockland
islands in a sea of urban and agriculture development). Due to the
degree of habitat loss that has already occurred, application of all
such guidelines are somewhat limited by the nature of the remaining
habitat (e.g., sizes, shapes, and locations of individual habitat
patches). As such, we evaluated conservation quality of unoccupied pine
rockland habitat using the following three major principles:
(1) Geographic spread--Species that are well distributed across
their native ranges are less susceptible to extinction than are species
confined to small portions of their ranges.
(2) Size--Large habitat patches are superior to small habitat
patches, in that larger areas will support larger populations and will
be less negatively impacted by edge effects. All else being equal,
conservation design options that include greater areal extent are
superior. When comparative circumstances are not otherwise equal,
factors such as habitat quality, the presence of specific landscape
features, and the spatial arrangement of habitat may offset a solely
area-driven selection process.
(3) Connectivity--Habitat that occurs in less fragmented,
contiguous patches is preferable to habitat that is fragmented or
isolated by urban lands. Habitat patches close to one another serve
species of concern better than patches situated far apart.
Interconnected patches are better than isolated patches. Conservation
design alternatives should seek, in order of priority:
(a) Continuity within habitat (minimize additional fragmentation);
(b) Connectedness (increase existing habitat patches); and
(c) Proximity (minimize distance between habitat patches).
Using these guiding principles, we evaluated the remaining
unoccupied pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge outside of ENP
with the intent of identifying the largest patches and highest quality
habitat available (patches of sufficient size and quality to support
populations), in sufficient amount (i.e., sufficient numbers of
populations) and spatial arrangement (to provide opportunities for
future migration and colonization) to provide for the conservation of
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Our evaluation
consisted of the following steps:
(1) Using primarily aerial imagery and GIS-based vegetation and
soils data, wedelineated pine rockland habitat in Miami Dade County
outside of ENP. Pine rocklands were identified based on the presence of
specific soil types (see ``Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other
Nutritional or Physiological Requirements,''above), and presence of
pine rockland vegetation. Fire-suppressed areas and areas where
intergrading with rockland hammock occurs were also evaluated. Some
former pine rockland habitat was considered too severely fire
suppressed (i.e., having extremely dense canopy cover) such that it is
now unsuitable habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri, and unlikely to be able to be restored; these areas were not
delineated as pine rocklands in our critical habitat analysis. Some
cleared areas occurring over pine rockland soils were delineated, with
the intent that such areas provide opportunities for restoration. The
resulting habitat layer consisted of 245 habitat patches.
(2) To maximize geographic spread within the plants' historical
ranges, we divided the extent of delineated habitat into five
geographic areas (northeast to southwest).
(3) For each plant, we included occupied patches in final critical
habitat (25 habitat patches for Brickellia mosieri, and 6 patches for
Linum carteri var. carteri). One occurrence of L. c. var. carteri (a
single plant found on a canal bank) is not included in final critical
habitat due to the anomalous nature of the occurrence, and because we
were not able to define patch boundaries based on any of the criteria
described in (1), above. In addition, a new occurrence of L. c. var.
carteri (11 plants in a firebreak) was discovered on October 17, 2014
on the Deering Estate, but outside the proposed critical habitat
subunit. Because we believe that the proposed critical habitat
designation contains sufficient habitat for the conservation of this
plant, subunit boundaries were not revised and this occurrence is not
included in the final critical habitat designation.
(4) For each plant, for the remaining (unoccupied) habitat, we
excluded patches below the estimated minimum size for each plant based
on expert opinion--2 ha (5 ac) for Brickellia mosieri, and 0.4 ha (1
ac) for Linum carteri var. carteri (see ``Sites for Breeding,
Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring,'' above). The
resulting layers consisted of 106 habitat patches for B. mosieri, and
218 patches for L. c. var. carteri.
(5) For each plant, for the remaining habitat (unoccupied; 2 ha (5
ac) or greater than or equal to 0.4 ha (1 ac), Brickellia mosieri or
Linum carteri var. carteri, respectively), we assigned a score for
eight evaluation criteria designed to assess overall conservation
quality of the patch, using the following five major objectives
(discussed more indepth below and at https://www.regulations.gov):
(a) Onsite habitat quality (intact, open pine rocklands scored
higher than cleared patches or patches having a closed canopy);
(b) Patch size (larger patches scored higher);
(c) Surrounding landscape composition (pine rocklands surrounded by
less development scored higher);
(d) Connectivity (within each geographic area, pine rockland
patches in closer proximity to each other and with greater numbers of
neighbors scored higher); and
(e) Vulnerability to sea level rise (pine rockland patches located
at higher elevations scored higher).
(6) For each plant, within each geographic area, we used a
consequence matrix to evaluate the performance of each unoccupied pine
rockland patch across the objectives described above in (5). The
resulting total score of each patch was a 0.0-1.0 value, summed across
all criteria, where a score of 1.0 indicates the patch in each
geographic area that has the highest conservation quality, based on the
defined objectives.
Using the results of the consequence matrix for each plant, we
evaluated potential ``cut-off'' values for patch total score by
visually assessing and comparing habitat amounts and spatial
arrangements between various cut-off values in order to identify the
best conservation arrangement. Because taxa-specific data and
recommendations were not available regarding how much area is needed
for the conservation and recovery of Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri, we applied the general conservation design
principles related to connectivity, above, and principles of population
viability and metapopulation theory. Small populations and plant
species with limited distributions, like those of B. mosieri and L. c.
var. carteri, are
[[Page 49855]]
vulnerable to relatively minor environmental disturbances (Frankham
2005, pp. 135-136), and are subject to the loss of genetic diversity
from genetic drift, the random loss of genes, and inbreeding (Ellstrand
and Elam 1993, pp. 217-237; Leimu et al. 2006, pp. 942-952). These
factors increase the probability of both local extinctions and
population extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28; Newman and
Pilson 1997, p. 360; Palstra and Ruzzante 2008, pp. 3428-3447). To
ameliorate these effects, the recovery of many rare plant species
includes the creation of new sites or reintroductions to increase
population size (each occurrence, and overall) and support genetic
diversity. Sufficient area is also required to allow B. mosieri and L.
c. var. carteri to expand their current distributions (curtailed
compared to historical ranges), use habitat depending on the
availability of suitable conditions (dynamic, related to time since
disturbance within each patch), and maintain their ability to withstand
local- or unit-level environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
Based on our assessment, as described above, we determined that
unoccupied pine rockland patches with a total score for conservation
quality greater than 0.50 should be proposed for critical habitat
designation. In addition, in the proposed critical habitat rule
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293), we
proposed 15 supplemental pine rockland patches for critical habitat
designation for one or more of the following reasons: (1) A population
of Brickellia mosieri was previously observed in the patch (although
not recently enough to consider the population extant at this time);
(2) addition of the patch increases conservation quality of adjacent
critical habitat; (3) addition of the patch increases connectivity of
pine rockland habitat across the landscape; and (4) the patch is
located at the northernmost end of these plants' historical ranges (an
area not captured using the consequence matrix approach). The last
category consists of four patches with conservation quality less than
or equal to 0.50, due to some combination of lower onsite habitat
quality, smaller size, and more development in the surrounding
landscape, all of which are related to their position closer to Miami.
While these patches may not represent the best habitat currently
available, they do provide needed opportunities to increase these
plants' geographic spread and restore the plants to the northernmost
intact habitat within their historical ranges, which is more heavily
impacted, and are essential to the conservation of these plants, as
discussed above.
Revisions to the resulting set of habitat patches were proposed in
the revised proposed rule and availability of the draft economic
analysis published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR
41211), based on new information concerning the current habitat
condition of proposed areas as well as information regarding additional
areas of suitable habitat that were not included in the proposed
designation but that meet the definition of critical habitat. The
proposed changes consisted of the removal of two unoccupied patches
from the proposed designation, the revision of patch boundaries for
three unoccupied areas, and the proposed designation of six new
unoccupied pine rockland patches (multiple patches may make up a single
subunit). For more information regarding these proposed changes, refer
to that notice. We have since determined that three of the six new
proposed patches (i.e., three unoccupied areas on Department of Defense
lands) meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (discussed under the
Exemptions section, below), and we have removed these from the
designation of critical habitat in this final rule.
Habitat Within the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing
We are designating seven critical habitat units for each plant.
Five of the seven units were occupied by Brickellia mosieri at the time
of listing; the remaining two units are within the plant's historical
range, but were unoccupied at the time of listing. Three of the seven
units were occupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of
listing; the remaining four units are within the plant's historical
range, but were unoccupied at the time of listing. The occupied units
include the mapped extent of each plant's population and contain the
PCEs.
Within each of these occupied units is also unoccupied habitat,
which is included based on our determination that such areas are
essential to the conservation of these plants, as discussed above. In
addition to providing sufficient habitat (area, number of patches,
connectivity), this unoccupied habitat allows for the dynamic nature of
pine rockland habitat. Conditions within pine rockland patches, such as
the openness of the canopy and understory and the accumulation of leaf
litter over the limestone substrate, vary greatly across the landscape
and across time. Only a portion of the delineated habitat is suitable
for Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri, or both plants,
at any given time, and the size and location of suitable areas within
the population is dynamic over time, being largely driven by the
frequency and scale of natural or prescribed fires and other types of
disturbance (e.g., for L. c. var. carteri, mowing or other events that
disturb the limestone substrate). Although prescribed burns are
administered on conservation lands that retain B. mosieri or L. c. var.
carteri, or both, populations, fire return intervals and scope are
inconsistent. Thus, areas of pine rockland habitat that now support one
or both of these plants may not support the plants in the future, as
inadequate fire management removes or fragments suitable habitat.
Conversely, suitable habitat conditions may return or increase in areas
following natural or prescribed fires, allowing opportunities for the
plants to expand or colonize these areas in the future.
The delineation of units (occupied plus unoccupied patches) also
includes space to plan for the persistence of Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri populations in the face of imminent effects
on habitats as a result of sea level rise. Although occupied habitat
within each unit contains the PCEs, some of these areas may be altered,
as a result of vegetation shifts or salt water intrusion, to an extent
which cannot be predicted at this time.
In identifying unoccupied patches with these units, we considered
the following additional criteria, which we incorporated into the
consequence matrix described above:
(1) Objective 1 (onsite habitat quality): Pine rockland areas of
sufficient habitat quality to support the growth and reproduction of
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. In general, areas of
intact pine rockland having an open canopy and understory are more
likely to support populations of these plants over the long term. In
some cases, disturbed or cleared pine rockland areas have also been
included in the designation; these areas possess other desirable
characteristics (e.g., size, connectivity) and could allow B. mosieri
or L. c. var. carteri to expand from areas already occupied by these
plants. These areas are typically habitats within or adjacent to pine
rocklands that have been affected by natural or anthropogenic impacts,
but that retain areas that are still suitable for the plants. These
areas would help to off-set the anticipated loss and degradation of
habitat occurring or expected from the
[[Page 49856]]
effects of climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to
development.
(2) Objective 2 (patch size): Pine rockland areas of sufficient
size to support ecosystem processes for populations of Brickellia
mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri. Given areas of equal habitat
quality, larger areas would be ranked higher in our evaluation.
(3) Objective 3 (surrounding landscape composition): Pine rockland
areas within a suitable landscape to allow for natural disturbance
regimes--specifically, prescribed fire--and to minimize negative
impacts related to changes in hydrology or nutrient/pollution inputs
from the surrounding area. Pine rocklands surrounded by other natural
communities will likely provide higher quality habitat in the long term
than pine rocklands that are imbedded in a highly urbanized or
agricultural matrix. Given areas of equal habitat quality and size,
areas with more natural communities and less urban development in the
surrounding area would be ranked higher in our evaluation.
(4) Objective 4 (connectivity): Pine rockland areas of sufficient
amount and arrangement to maintain connectivity of habitat to allow for
population sustainability and expansion. Sufficient connectivity of
pine rockland habitat will contribute to the availability of
pollinators of appropriate type and sufficient numbers to allow
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri to reproduce and
ensure sustainable populations, and to allow for population expansion
through seed dispersal. Given areas of equal habitat quality, size, and
surrounding landscape composition, those patches having more and closer
neighbors (i.e., other pine rockland patches) would be ranked higher in
our evaluation.
(5) Objective 5 (vulnerability to sea level rise): Pine rockland
areas of suitable elevation to reduce vulnerability to sea level rise.
Those pine rocklands situated at higher elevations are less likely to
be negatively affected by either inundation or vegetation shifts caused
by changes in the salinity of the water table and soils associated with
sea level rise. Given areas of equal conservation quality, as described
above, those patches having a higher average elevation would be ranked
higher in our evaluation.
A complete description regarding how these objectives were weighted
and evaluated in our consequence matrix can be found in the
supplemental materials provided with the proposed rule at https://www.regulations.gov.
Habitat Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing
We are designating two critical habitat units that were unoccupied
by Brickellia mosieri at the time of listing, and four critical habitat
units that were unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of
listing, which have been determined to be essential to the conservation
of these plants. These units represent portions of these plants'
historical ranges in which the plants have been extirpated (see Current
Range, Population Estimates, and Status for both plants in our proposed
listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78
FR 61273)). In one unit, located in the northern portion of these
plants' historical ranges but unoccupied by either B. mosieri or L. c.
var. carteri, the unoccupied critical habitat patches are the only pine
rockland habitat that remains in this area. While the full extent of B.
mosieri's historical range is unknown, due to limited data, comparing
its current distribution to historical observations suggests that its
range has contracted at least 30 percent (based on our revised estimate
of the species' historical range as described in the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567)).
Likewise, the historical range of L. c. var. carteri has been reduced
approximately 30 percent. The reductions in the historical ranges of
these plants have occurred almost entirely in their northern portions,
between Pinecrest and South Miami/Coconut Grove. As noted earlier,
little pine rockland habitat has escaped urban development in this
area, and those patches that remain are of lesser conservation quality
due to lower onsite habitat quality, smaller patch sizes, and higher
amounts of development in the surrounding landscape. While these
patches may not represent the best pine rockland habitat currently
available, they provide needed habitat to increase these plants'
geographic spread to currently unoccupied portions of their historical
ranges, and are essential for the conservation of the two plants.
In summary, for occupied habitat within the geographic area
occupied by Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri at the
time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by
evaluating habitat suitability of pine rockland habitat within this
geographic area, and retained those areas that contain some or all of
the PCEs to support life-history functions essential for conservation
of these plants.
For unoccupied habitat within the geographic area occupied by
Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of
listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by evaluating
the five objectives incorporated into the consequence matrix (see
discussion above).
For habitat outside the geographic area occupied by the species at
the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries
based on the availability of remaining pine rockland habitat in the
unit. All four available patches were included in the delineation in
order to provide sufficient area for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri to expand their current restricted ranges.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, 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 for Brickellia mosieri and
Linum carteri var. carteri. 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 final rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving
these lands will 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 designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2013-0108, and at the field office responsible for the designation (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Units and subunits are designated based on sufficient elements of
physical or biological features being present to support the life
processes of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Some
subunits contain all of the identified elements of physical or
biological features and support multiple
[[Page 49857]]
life processes. Some subunits contain only some elements of the
physical or biological features necessary to support particular use of
that habitat by B. mosieri or L. c. var. carteri.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating seven units, each, as critical habitat for
Brikellia mosieri and Linum carteri. var. carteri. The critical habitat
areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat.
Brickellia mosieri
The seven units (all located in Miami-Dade County, Florida) we are
designating as critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri are: (1) Unit
BM1: Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas; (2) Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley
Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas; (3) Unit BM3: U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and
surrounding areas; (4) Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding
areas; (5) Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas; (6)
Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and surrounding areas; and (7) Unit BM7:
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas. Because of the
highly fragmented nature of the remaining pine rockland habitat, these
large overall unit boundaries encompass multiple, smaller designations
(i.e., subunits) within each unit; only these subunits within the unit
boundaries meet the definition of critical habitat. Subunit
designations identify individual habitat patches, or multiple habitat
patches having the same occupancy status that are only separated by a
road. Table 1 shows occupancy, area, and land ownership for each
subunit within the critical habitat designation for B. mosieri.
Table 1--Occupancy (O = occupied, U = unoccupied), Area, and Land Ownership of Designated Critical Habitat Subunits for Brickellia mosieri. Area
Estimates Reflect All Land Within Critical Habitat Unit/Subunit Boundaries. Substantial Overlap Exists With Areas Being Designated for Linum carteri.
var. carteri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Subunit Occupancy Hectares Acres Land ownership by type \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BM1.............................. BM1A................ U 5 13 County/Local.
BM1B................ U 12 30 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 18 43 .......................................................
BM2.............................. BM2A................ U 32 78 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM2B................ U 47 115 County/Local.
BM2C................ U 8 19 State.
BM2D................ O 3 8 County/Local.
BM2E................ O 2 5 County/Local.
BM2F................ U 1 2 County/Local.
BM2G................ O 16 39 State, County/Local.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 108 267 .......................................................
BM3.............................. BM3A................ U 2 6 State.
BM3B................ U 59 146 Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM3C................ U 11 28 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM3D................ U 3 6 County/Local.
BM3E................ U 34 84 State, County/Local.
BM3F................ U 6 15 State, County/Local.
BM3G................ U 5 11 County/Local.
BM3H................ U 8 19 County/Local, Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 127 315 .......................................................
BM4.............................. BM4A................ U 89 219 Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM4B................ O 137 339 Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM4C................ U 10 24 Federal, County/Local.
BM4D................ U 17 42 County/Local.
BM4E................ O 124 306 Federal, County/Local.
BM4F................ U 5 13 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM4G................ O 6 15 Private/Other.
BM4H................ U 7 17 County/Local.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 395 975 .......................................................
BM5.............................. BM5A................ O 25 62 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM5B................ U 6 14 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM5C................ U 4 10 County/Local.
BM5D................ O 3 8 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM5E................ U 22 53 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM5F................ U 3 7 County/Local.
BM5G................ U 4 10 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM5H................ U 9 22 State, County/Local.
BM5I................ U 6 14 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM5J................ U 13 31 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM5K................ U 3 6 Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 96 238 .......................................................
BM6.............................. BM6A................ U 38 93 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6B................ U 14 35 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6C................ U 5 12 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6D................ U 4 10 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
[[Page 49858]]
BM6E................ O 13 32 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6F................ O 7 17 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6G................ O 1 3 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6H................ O 1 4 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6I................ U 6 15 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6J................ U 11 28 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6K................ U 7 16 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM6L................ O 5 12 County/Local, Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 112 276 .......................................................
BM7.............................. BM7A................ U 11 27 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM7B................ U 10 24 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM7C................ U 8 20 State, County/Local.
BM7D................ U 7 18 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM7E................ U 16 39 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM7F................ O 133 330 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
BM7G................ U 11 27 County/Local, Private/Other.
BM7H................ U 11 26 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 206 510 .......................................................
CH Total................. .................... ............ 1,062 2,624 .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ Ownership information is based on Miami-Dade County parcel data (July 2013) and FNAI's Florida Managed Lands data (March 2014).
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri, below.
Unit BM1: Trinity Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Unit BM1 consists of 18 ha (43 ac) in Miami-Dade County. Within
Unit BM1, there are two subunits--BM1A (County-owned) and BM1B
(combination of State, County, and privately owned lands). The unit is
comprised of State lands within Trinity Pineland County Park (4 ha (10
ac)); County lands primarily within A. D. ``Doug'' Barnes Park (6 ha
(14 ac)); and parcels in private ownership (8 ha (19 ac)). This unit is
bordered on the north by SW 24 Street, on the south by the Snapper
Creek Expressway (State Road (SR) 878), on the east by SW 67 Avenue,
and on the west by SW 87 Avenue. The unit is within the historical
range of Brickellia mosieri, although data are lacking regarding
historical occupancy of the specific critical habitat patches in the
unit. This unit includes the only remaining pine rockland habitat in
this northern portion of the Miami Rock Ridge.
This unit was not occupied by Brickellia mosieri at the time of
listing but is essential to the conservation of the species because it
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish
wild populations within the historical ranges of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the historical distribution of the
species in Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in
the case of stochastic events, should B. mosieri be extirpated from one
of its current locations.
Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida
Unit BM2 consists of approximately 108 ha (267 ac) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM2, there are seven subunits (BM2A-
BM2G) comprising primarily conservation lands and including four larger
areas plus three smaller areas. The unit is comprised of State lands
within Camp Matecumbe, Tamiami Pineland Complex Addition, and Rockdale
Pineland (49 ha (121 ac)); County/local lands primarily within Nixon
Smiley Pineland Preserve, Tamiami #8 (Nixon Smiley Addition) Pineland,
Pine Shore Pineland Preserve, Ron Ehman Park, and Rockdale Pineland
Addition (59 ha (146 ac)); and small portions of parcels in private or
other ownership (less than 1 ha (less than 1 ac)). This unit is
bordered on the north by SW 104 Street, on the south by SW 152 Street
(Coral Reef Drive), on the east by U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on
the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri (three
occurrences; approximately 21 ha (52 ac)) at the time of listing. This
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes,
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs
in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of habitat fragmentation; inadequate fire
management; competition with nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level
rise. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or coordinated
with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions.
Some of the unoccupied habitat within this unit was historically
occupied by Brickellia mosieri, although it was not occupied by the
species at the time of listing. This unoccupied habitat is essential to
the conservation of B. mosieri because it serves to protect habitat
needed to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout
the historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It
also provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.
[[Page 49859]]
Unit BM3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit BM3 consists of approximately 127 ha (315 ac) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM3, there are eight subunits (BM3A-
BM3H), including two larger areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Subtropical Horticultural Research Station, and Deering Estate
at Cutler) plus six smaller areas surrounding these. The unit is
comprised of Federal lands within the USDA Subtropical Horticultural
Research Station (59 ha (145 ac)); State lands within the R. Hardy
Matheson Preserve, Ludlam Pineland, Deering Estate at Cutler, and
Deering Estate South Addition (45 ha (112 ac)); County/local lands
within Coral Reef Park, Ned Glenn Nature Preserve, and Bill Sadowski
Park (15 ha (38 ac)); and parcels in private ownership (8 ha (19 ac)).
This unit is bordered on the north by SW 112 Street, on the south by
the intersection of Old Cutler Road and Franjo Road (County Road (CR)
977), on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by U.S. 1
(South Dixie Highway). The unit is within the historical range of
Brickellia mosieri, although data are lacking regarding historical
occupancy of the specific critical habitat patches in the unit.
This unit was unoccupied by Brickellia mosieri at the time of
listing but is essential to the conservation of the species because it
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish
wild populations within the historical ranges of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the historical distribution of the
species in Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in
the case of stochastic events, should B. mosieri be extirpated from one
of its current locations.
Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Unit BM4 consists of approximately 395 ha (975 ac) in Miami-Dade
County. Within Unit BM4, there are eight subunits (BM4A-BM4H), most
within the Richmond Pinelands complex (made up of Federal and County-
owned lands, as well as land owned by the University of Miami). The
unit is comprised of Federal lands owned by the USCG (Homeland
Security), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE; Department of Defense),
U.S. Prison Bureau (Department of Justice), and the U.S. Department of
Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (75 ha
(185 ac)); County/local lands within and adjacent to Larry and Penny
Thompson Park, Martinez Pineland, Zoo Miami, and Eachus Pineland (239
ha (590 ac)); and parcels in private or other ownership (81 ha (200
ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by SW 152 Street (Coral Reef
Drive), on the south by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/SR 994), on the east by
U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome
Avenue).
This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri
(approximately 267 ha (660 ac)) at the time of listing. All occupied
habitat occurs within the Richmond Pinelands, which together compose
the largest remaining group of contiguous fragments of pine rockland
habitat outside of ENP. This occupied habitat contains all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable
vegetation composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance
regimes, and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability.
The PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation;
inadequate fire management; competition with nonnative, invasive
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases, these threats are being
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.
Some of the unoccupied habitat within this unit was historically
occupied by Brickellia mosieri, although it was not occupied by the
species at the time of listing. This unoccupied habitat is essential to
the conservation of B. mosieri because it serves to protect habitat
needed to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout
the historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It
also provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.
Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit BM5 consists of approximately 96 ha (238 ac) in Miami-Dade
County. Within Unit BM5, there are 11 subunits (BM5A-BM5K), including 4
larger areas plus 7 smaller areas surrounding these. The unit is
comprised of State lands within Quail Roost Pineland, Goulds Pineland
and Addition, and Silver Palm Groves Pineland (39 ha (97 ac)); County/
local lands including Black Creek Forest, Rock Pit #46, and lands owned
by the School Board of Miami-Dade County (15 ha (37 ac)); and parcels
in private ownership (42 ha (104 ac)), including Porter-Russell
Pineland owned by the Tropical Audubon Society. This unit is bordered
on the north by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/SR 994), on the south by SW 248
Street, on the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on the west by SW 194
Avenue.
This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri (two
occurrences; approximately 28 ha (70 ac)) at the time of listing. This
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes,
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs
in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of habitat fragmentation; inadequate fire
management; competition with nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level
rise. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or coordinated
with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions.
Unoccupied habitat in the unit is essential to the conservation of
Brickellia mosieri because it serves to protect habitat needed to
recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the historical
ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout the
historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It also
provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, should
B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.
Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Unit BM6 consists of approximately 112 ha (276 ac) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM6, there are 12 subunits (BM6A-BM6L),
composed of 1 larger area (Camp Owaissa Bauer and its addition) and 11
smaller areas to the south. The unit is comprised of State lands within
Owaissa Bauer Pineland Addition, Ingram Pineland, West Biscayne
Pineland, and Fuchs Hammock Addition (20 ha (50 ac)); County/local
lands including Camp Owaissa Bauer, Pine Island Lake Park, Seminole
Wayside Park, and Northrop Pineland
[[Page 49860]]
(63 ha (156 ac)); and parcels in private ownership (28 ha (70 ac)),
including the private conservation area, Pine Ridge Sanctuary. This
unit is bordered on the north by SW 248 Street, on the south by SW 312
Street, on the east by SW 112 Avenue, and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri (five
occurrences; approximately 27 ha (67 ac)) at the time of listing. This
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes,
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs
in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation;
inadequate fire management; competition with nonnative, invasive
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases, these threats are being
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.
Some of the unoccupied habitat within this unit was historically
occupied by Brickellia mosieri. Although it was unoccupied by the
species at the time of listing, this habitat is essential to the
conservation of B. mosieri because it serves to protect habitat needed
to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout
the historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It
also provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.
Unit BM7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida
Unit BM7 consists of approximately 206 ha (510 ac) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM7, there are eight subunits (BM7A-
BM7H), including one larger area (Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) and
seven smaller outlying areas. The unit is comprised of State lands
within Palm Drive Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland #39, Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve (portion), and Florida City Pineland (53 ha (132
ac)); County/local lands including primarily Sunny Palms Pineland and
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (portion) (125 ha (309 ac)); and parcels
in private ownership (28 ha (68 ac)). This unit is bordered on the
north by SW 320 Street, on the south by SW 368 Street, on the east by
U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat in the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri (one occurrence;
approximately 134 ha (330 ac)) at the time of listing. This occurrence
is on Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, which is one of the largest
remaining areas of pine rockland habitats outside of ENP. This occupied
habitat contains all of the PCEs, including pine rockland habitat,
oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation composition and
structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, and habitat
connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs in this unit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat fragmentation; inadequate fire management;
competition with nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level rise.
However, in Navy Wells, most of these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed
actions.
Some of the unoccupied habitat within this unit was historically
occupied by Brickellia mosieri. Although it was unoccupied by the
species at the time of listing, this habitat is essential to the
conservation of B. mosieri because it serves to protect habitat needed
to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout
the historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It
also provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events,
should B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.
Linum carteri var. carteri
The seven units (all located in Miami-Dade County, Florida) we are
designating as critical habitat for Linum carteri var. carteri are: (1)
Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas; (2) Unit LCC2: Nixon
Smiley Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas; (3) Unit LCC3: USDA
Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and surrounding areas; (4)
Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding areas; (5) Unit LCC5:
Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas; (6) Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa
Bauer and surrounding areas; and (7) Unit LCC7: Navy Wells Pineland
Preserve and surrounding areas. Because of the highly fragmented nature
of the remaining pine rockland habitat, these large overall unit
boundaries encompass multiple, small designations (i.e., subunits)
within each unit; only these subunits within the unit boundaries are
designated as critical habitat. Subunit designations identify
individual habitat patches, or multiple habitat patches having the same
occupancy status that are only separated by a road. Table 2 shows
occupancy, area, and land ownership for each subunit within the
critical habitat designation for L. c. var. carteri.
Table 2--Occupancy (O = occupied, U = unoccupied), Area, and Land Ownership of Designated Critical Habitat Subunits for Linum carteri var. carteri. Area
Estimates Reflect All Land Within Critical Habitat Unit/Subunit Boundaries. Substantial Overlap Exists With Areas Being Designated for Brickellia
mosieri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Subunit Occupancy Hectares Acres Land ownership by type \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCC1............................. LCC1A............... U 5 13 County/Local.
LCC1B............... U 2 4 County/Local.
LCC1C............... U 12 30 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 19 48 .......................................................
LCC2............................. LCC2A............... U 32 78 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC2B............... U 47 115 County/Local.
LCC2C............... U 12 30 State, County/Local.
LCC2D............... U 3 8 County/Local.
LCC2E............... U 3 7 County/Local.
LCC2F............... O 16 39 State, County/Local.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 113 278 .......................................................
LCC3............................. LCC3A............... O 2 6 State.
LCC3B............... O 1 2 County/Local, Private/Other.
[[Page 49861]]
LCC3C............... O 59 146 Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC3D............... U 11 28 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC3E............... U 3 6 County/Local.
LCC3F............... U 34 84 State, County/Local.
LCC3G............... U 6 15 State, County/Local.
LCC3H............... U 5 11 County/Local.
LCC3I............... U 8 19 County/Local, Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 128 316 .......................................................
LCC4............................. LCC4A............... U 236 582 Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC4B............... U 142 350 Federal, County/Local.
LCC4C............... U 1 3 Private/Other.
LCC4D............... U 7 17 County/Local.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 386 952 .......................................................
LCC5............................. LCC5A............... U 25 62 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC5B............... U 2 4 County/Local.
LCC5C............... U 7 18 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC5D............... U 4 10 County/Local.
LCC5E............... U 3 8 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC5F............... U 29 71 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC5G............... U 4 10 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC5H............... U 9 22 State, County/Local.
LCC5I............... U 13 31 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC5J............... U 3 6 Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 98 242 .......................................................
LCC6............................. LCC6A............... U 1 3 Private/Other.
LCC6B............... U 1 1 Private/Other.
LCC6C............... U 1 3 State, Private/Other.
LCC6D............... O 8 19 State, County/Local.
LCC6E............... U 30 74 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6F............... U 1 2 Private/Other.
LCC6G............... U 4 9 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6H............... U 5 13 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6I............... U <1 1 Private/Other.
LCC6J............... O 2 4 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6K............... U 14 35 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6L............... U 5 12 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6M............... U 4 10 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6N............... U 13 32 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6O............... U 7 17 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6P............... U 1 3 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6Q............... U 1 4 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6R............... U 6 15 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6S............... U 11 28 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6T............... U 7 16 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC6U............... U 6 15 County/Local, Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 128 315 .......................................................
LCC7............................. LCC7A............... U 11 27 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC7B............... U 4 9 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC7C............... U 8 20 State, County/Local.
LCC7D............... U 7 18 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC7E............... U 16 39 County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC7F............... U 145 359 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
LCC7G............... U 11 26 State, County/Local, Private/Other.
--------------------------
Unit Total................... .................... ............ 201 497 .......................................................
Total CH................. .................... ............ 1,072 2,649 .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ Ownership information based on Miami-Dade County parcel data (July 2013) and FNAI's Florida Managed Lands data (March 2014).
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Linum carteri var. carteri,
below.
Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Unit LCC1 consists of 19 ac (48 ha) in Miami-Dade County. Within
Unit LCC1, there are three subunits--LCC1A and LCC1B (primarily County-
owned), and LCC1C (combination of State lands and private ownership).
The unit is comprised of State lands within Trinity Pineland County
Park (4 ac (10 ha)); County lands primarily within Tropical Park and A.
D. ``Doug'' Barnes Park (7 ha (18 ac)); and parcels in private
ownership (8 ha (19 ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by SW 24
Street, on the south by the Snapper Creek Expressway (State Road (SR)
878), on the east by SW 67 Avenue, and on the west by SW 87 Avenue. The
unit is within the historical range of Linum carteri var. carteri,
although data are lacking regarding historical occupancy of the
specific critical habitat patches in the unit. This unit includes the
only
[[Page 49862]]
remaining pine rockland habitat in this northern portion of the Miami
Rock Ridge.
This unit was unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time
of listing but is essential to the conservation of the plant because it
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild
populations within the plant's historical range, and maintain
populations throughout the plant's historical distribution in Miami-
Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated from one of
its current locations.
Unit LCC2: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida
Unit LCC2 consists of approximately 113 ha (278 ac) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC2, there are six subunits (LCC2A-
LCC2F) comprising primarily conservation lands and including four
larger areas plus two smaller areas. The unit is comprised of State
lands within Camp Matecumbe, Tamiami Pineland Complex Addition, and
Rockdale Pineland (53 ha (131 ac); County/local lands within Nixon
Smiley Pineland Preserve, Tamiami #8 (Nixon Smiley Addition) Pineland,
Pine Shore Pineland Preserve, Ron Ehman Park, and Rockdale Pineland
Addition (59 ha (147 ac)); and parcels in private or other ownership
(<1 ha (<1 ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by SW 104 Street,
on the south by SW 152 Street (Coral Reef Drive), on the east by U.S. 1
(South Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by Linum carteri var. carteri (one
occurrence; approximately 16 ha (39 ac)) at the time of listing. This
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes,
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs
in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of habitat fragmentation; inadequate fire
management; competition with nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level
rise. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or coordinated
with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions.
Unoccupied habitat within the unit is essential to the conservation
of Linum carteri var. carteri because it serves to protect habitat
needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild populations within the
plant's historical range, and maintain populations throughout the
plant's historical distribution in Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, should L. c.
var. carteri be extirpated from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit LCC3 consists of approximately 128 ha (316 ac) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC3, there are nine subunits (LCC3A-
LCC3I), including two larger areas (USDA and Deering Estate at Cutler)
plus seven smaller areas surrounding these. The unit is comprised of
Federal lands within the USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research
Station (59 ha (145 ac)); State lands within the R. Hardy Matheson
Preserve, Ludlam Pineland, Deering Estate at Cutler, and Deering Estate
South Addition (45 ha (112 ac)); County/local lands within Coral Reef
Park, Ned Glenn Nature Preserve, and Bill Sadowski Park (15 ha (38
ac)); and parcels in private ownership (8 ha (21 ac)). This unit is
bordered on the north by SW 112 Street, on the south by the
intersection of Old Cutler Road and Franjo Road (County Road (CR) 977),
on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by U.S. 1 (South
Dixie Highway).
This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by Linum carteri var. carteri
(three occurrences; approximately 62 ha (153 ac)) at the time of
listing. This occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs,
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable
vegetation composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance
regimes, and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability.
The PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation;
inadequate fire management; competition with nonnative, invasive
plants; and sea level rise, including storm surge. In some cases, these
threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed actions.
Unoccupied habitat within the unit is essential to the conservation
of Linum carteri var. carteri because it serves to protect habitat
needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild populations within the
plant's historical range, and maintain populations throughout the
plant's historical distribution in Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, should L. c.
var. carteri be extirpated from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Unit LCC4 consists of approximately 386 ha (952 ac) in Miami-Dade
County. Within Unit LCC4, there are four subunits (LCC4A-LCC4D),
primarily within the Richmond Pinelands complex (made up of Federal and
County-owned lands, as well as land owned by the University of Miami).
The unit is comprised of Federal lands owned by USCG, ACOE, U.S. Prison
Bureau, and NOAA (75 ha (185 ac)); County/local lands within and
adjacent to Larry and Penny Thompson Park, Martinez Pineland, Zoo
Miami, and Eachus Pineland (240 ha (592 ac)); and parcels in private or
other ownership (71 ha (175 ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by
SW 152 Street (Coral Reef Drive), on the south by SW 200 St (Quail
Drive/SR 994), on the east by U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on the
west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
This unit was unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time
of listing but is essential to the conservation of the plant because it
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild
populations within the plant's historical range, and maintain
populations throughout the plant's historical distribution in Miami-
Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated from one of
its current locations.
Unit LCC5: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Unit LCC5 consists of approximately 98 ha (242 ac) in Miami-Dade
County. Within Unit LCC5, there are 10 subunits (LCC5A-LCC5J),
including 4 larger areas plus 6 smaller areas surrounding these. The
unit is comprised of State lands within Quail Roost Pineland, Goulds
Pineland and Addition, and Silver Palm Groves Pineland (39 ha (97 ac));
County/local lands including Medsouth Park, Black Creek Forest, Rock
Pit #46, and lands owned by the School Board of Miami-Dade County (18
ha (44 ac)); and parcels in private ownership (41 ha (101 ac)),
including Porter-Russell Pineland owned by the Tropical Audubon
Society. This unit is bordered on the north by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/
SR 994), on the south by SW 248 Street, on
[[Page 49863]]
the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on the west by SW 194 Avenue.
This unit was unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time
of listing but is essential to the conservation of the plant because it
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild
populations within the plant's historical range, and maintain
populations throughout the plant's historical distribution in Miami-
Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated from one of
its current locations.
Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Unit LCC6 consists of approximately 128 ha (315 ac) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC6, there are 21 subunits (LCC6A-
LCC6U), composed of 1 larger area (Camp Owaissa Bauer and its addition)
and 20 smaller areas surrounding it. The unit is comprised of State
lands within Owaissa Bauer Pineland Addition, Ingram Pineland, West
Biscayne Pineland, and Fuchs Hammock Addition (20 ha (51 ac)); County/
local lands including Camp Owaissa Bauer, Pine Island Lake Park,
Seminole Wayside Park, and Northrop Pineland (63 ha (156 ac)); and
parcels in private ownership (44 ha (109 ac)), including the private
conservation area, Pine Ridge Sanctuary. This unit is bordered on the
north by SW 248 Street, on the south by SW 312 Street, on the east by
SW 112 Avenue, and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some
habitat within the unit was occupied by Linum carteri var. carteri (2
occurrences; approximately 9 ha (23 ac)) at the time of listing. This
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes,
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs
in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation;
inadequate fire management; competition with nonnative, invasive
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases, these threats are being
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.
Unoccupied habitat within the unit is essential to the conservation
of Linum carteri var. carteri because it serves to protect habitat
needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild populations within the
plant's historical range, and maintain populations throughout the
plant's historical distribution in Miami-Dade County. It also provides
habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, should L. c.
var. carteri be extirpated from one of its current locations.
Unit LCC7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida
Unit LCC7 consists of approximately 201 ha (497 ac) of habitat in
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC7, there are seven subunits (LCC7A-
LCC7G), including one larger area (Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) and
six smaller outlying areas. The unit is comprised of State lands within
Palm Drive Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland #39, Navy Wells Pineland
Preserve (portion), and Florida City Pineland (53 ha (132 ac)); County/
local lands including primarily Sunny Palms Pineland and Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve (portion) (125 ha (309 ac)); and parcels in private
ownership (23 ha (56 ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by SW 320
Street, on the south by SW 368 Street, on the east by U.S. 1 (South
Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
This unit was unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time
of listing but is essential to the conservation of the plant because it
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild
populations within the plant's historical range, and maintain
populations throughout the plant's historical distribution in Miami-
Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated from one of
its current locations.
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.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.
2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing
whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
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
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) 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:
[[Page 49864]]
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(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 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 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat
is to support life-history needs of the 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 destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri.
These activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the pine rockland
ecosystem, including significant alterations to hydrology or substrate.
Such activities may include, but are not limited to, residential,
commercial, or recreational development, including associated
infrastructure.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition, such as suppression of natural fires or excessive
prescribed burning, or clearing vegetation for construction of
residential, commercial, or recreational development and associated
infrastructure.
(3) Actions that would introduce nonnative plant species that would
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and
commercial development, and associated infrastructure.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that
such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat
is proposed for designation.''
We consulted with the military on the development and
implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We
analyzed INRMPs developed by military installations located within the
range of our proposed critical habitat designation for B. mosieri and
L. c. var. carteri to determine if they met the criteria for exemption
from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We found that
the following areas are Department of Defense lands with completed,
Service-approved INRMPs within the range of the proposed critical
habitat designation.
Homestead Air Reserve Base--Unit LCC6
The Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB) has a current and completed
INRMP, signed in July 2009. This INRMP identifies goals, objectives,
and strategies for the management of HARB's natural resources for a 5-
year period (i.e., through 2014), and provides environmental
stewardship initiatives for the remaining natural communities on HARB,
including pine rocklands, as well as efforts to control invasive and
nonnative animal and plant species. The INRMP (including appendices)
identifies a ``Remnant Pine Rockland'' management unit (2.1 ha (5.1
ac)), which includes the unoccupied habitat patch proposed for critical
habitat designation for Linum carteri var. carteri (subunit LCC6V; 1.0
ha (2.5 ac)) in the revised proposed rule and availability of the draft
economic analysis published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014
(79 FR 41211). The INRMP briefly discusses management recommendations
for this area including mechanical reduction of fuel load, herbicide
treatment of Neyraudia reynaudiana (Burma reed), and potential
reforestation of canopy species. The INRMP identifies one objective for
the remnant pine rockland: To restore and protect the habitat to
support native plant communities and
[[Page 49865]]
associated wildlife, including endangered and threatened species'
habitat. To achieve this objective, the INRMP proposes the development
of a Pine Rockland Restoration and Management Plan (PRRMP) to include
invasive and nonnative species removal.
An updated INRMP has been drafted and is expected to be finalized
by the time this final critical habitat rule publishes in the Federal
Register or shortly thereafter. The revised INRMP incorporates the
PRRMP, which was finalized in September 2012, as well as a Protected
Plant Management Plan (PPMP). The updated INRMP goals include
implementation of both plans, which consist of restoring the pine
rockland management unit to natural conditions by removing invasive and
nonnative plants and animals, reintroducing extirpated native species,
preventing pollution, and conducting various maintenance and monitoring
procedures. The PPMP is used to supplement and update the INRMP, and
currently focuses on measures to manage habitat for Galactia smallii
(Small's milkpea), Linum arenicola (sand flax), and State-protected
plant species occurring on HARB. The PPMP states that if Brickellia
mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri are identified on HARB, the PPMP
will be revised to include these plants and appropriate management and
monitoring activities will be implemented.
The current HARB INRMP benefits Linum carteri var. carteri through
ongoing ecosystem management, which should provide suitable habitat for
this plant. Specifically, the PPMP includes control of woody and
herbaceous invasive pest plants, which would support suitable habitat
for L. c. var. carteri by helping ensure a more open canopy. In
addition, the INRMP includes continued mowing and ``weed whacking,''
which function as a surrogate for periodic fires by reducing
competition with weedy species and helping to maintain an open canopy.
While these activities are proposed to continue at the current
frequencies, weed whacking would be raised to 15 cm (6 in) above the
ground to avoid cutting L. arenicola too low--this would also benefit
L. c. var. carteri, which has a similar life history and response to
mowing, if it were to occur there. (For an indepth discussion related
to the effects of invasive, nonnative plants and mowing on L. c. var.
carteri, see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species in our proposed
listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78
FR 61273), and as updated in our final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567)).
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the HARB INRMP and that conservation efforts identified
in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Linum carteri var. carteri.
Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 1.0 ha (2.5 ac) of habitat in this final
critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Special Operations Command South Headquarters--Units BM6 and LCC6
The U.S. Special Operations Command South Headquarters (SOCSO) has
an INRMP that was finalized in December 2014. SOCSO is a 34.1-ha (84.2-
ac) property that was formerly part of HARB and is now leased by SOCSO
from Miami-Dade County. The SOCSO INRMP provides natural resource
management for portions of this property for a 5-year period (2012-
2017), focusing on the management of Galactia smallii and Linum
arenicola. In part, the INRMP designates two pine rockland management
areas, totaling approximately 7.2 ha (17.9 ac), that will be conserved
and managed, including permanent fencing of the areas, invasive plant
control, mowing, and prescribed burning. These designated management
areas include the unoccupied habitat patches proposed for critical
habitat designation for Brickellia mosieri (subunit BM6M; 5.2 ha (12.9
ac)) and Linum carteri var. carteri (subunit LCC6W; totaling 6.0 ha
(14.8 ac)) in the revised proposed rule and availability of the draft
economic analysis published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014
(79 FR 41211).
The SOCSO INRMP benefits Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var.
carteri through ongoing ecosystem management, which should provide
suitable habitat for these plants. Although conservation benefits and
management for Galactia smallii and Linum arenicola are the focus of
the INRMP, some protection and conservation for other native pine
rockland plant species (including B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri, if
they were to occur there) will be provided by the use of prescribed
fire and invasive species control including herbicide treatments used
to benefit G. smallii and L. arenicola. Prescribed fire is proposed in
the management areas on a 4- to 7-year interval, the year following the
herbicide treatment if weather conditions permit. In addition, proposed
protocols for mowing of the inside perimeter of the management areas
would benefit L. c. var. carteri. Where G. smallii and L. arenicola
occur within the fenced perimeter, winter mowing (mid-January to mid-
February) would avoid primary seed set by these species and L. c. var.
carteri, if it were to occur there. In addition, where invasive and
nonnative species occur in the mowed area, a broadcast herbicide would
be applied to the areas with exotic species approximately 1 month after
mowing, further reducing competition and helping to ensure an open
canopy.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the SOCSO INRMP and that conservation efforts identified
in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri. Therefore, lands within this installation are
exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act. We are not including approximately 6.0 ha (14.8 ac) of habitat in
this final critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless she determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, 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.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider the economic
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order
to consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis (Industrial Economics,
Incorporated, 2014) which together with our narrative and
interpretation of effects constitute our draft economic analysis (DEA)
of the critical habitat designation and related factors. This analysis
was made available for public review from July 15, 2014, through August
14, 2014. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and
evaluated all
[[Page 49866]]
information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. This information is summarized below and
available in the screening analysis for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri (Industrial Economics, Incorporated, 2014),
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
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 Brickellia
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri's critical habitat. Because the
designations of critical habitat for B. mosieri and L.c. var. carteri
were proposed concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience
that it is more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are
attributable to the species being listed and those which will result
solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, the following
specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1)
The PBFs identified for critical habitat are the same features
essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions
that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute
jeopardy to B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri would also likely
adversely affect the essential physical and biological features of
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of the
designation of critical habitat.
In occupied areas, the economic impacts of implementing the rule
through section 7 of the Act will most likely be limited to additional
administrative effort to consider adverse modification. This finding is
based on the following factors:
Any activities with a Federal nexus occurring within
occupied habitat will be subject to section 7 consultation requirements
regardless of critical habitat designation, due to the presence of the
listed species; and
In most cases, project modifications requested to avoid
adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid
jeopardy in occupied habitat.
In unoccupied areas, incremental section 7 costs will include both
the administrative costs of consultation and the costs of developing
and implementing conservation measures needed to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat. Therefore, this analysis focuses on
the likely impacts to activities occurring in unoccupied areas of the
critical habitat designation.
This analysis forecasts the total number and administrative cost of
future consultations likely to occur for transportation and land
management activities undertaken by or funded by Federal agencies
within unoccupied habitat. In addition, the analysis forecasts costs
associated with conservation efforts that may be recommended in
consultation for those activities occurring in unoccupied areas. The
total incremental section 7 costs associated with the designation are
estimated to be $120,000 (2013 dollars) in a single year for both
administrative and conservation effort costs.
The designation of critical habitat is unlikely to trigger
additional requirements under State or local regulations. This
assumption is based on the protective status currently afforded pine
rocklands habitat. Additionally, the designation of critical habitat
may cause developers to perceive that private lands will be subject to
use restrictions, resulting in perceptional effects. Such costs, if
they occur, are unlikely to result in costs reaching $100 million in
any one year.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from
this designation of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri based on economic impacts.
A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting documents
may be obtained by contacting the South Florida Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security
Impacts
As discussed above, we have already exempted from the designation
of critical habitat under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act those Department
of Defense lands with completed INRMPs determined to provide a benefit
to Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are other lands where a
national security or homeland security impact might exist. In preparing
this final rule, we have determined that additional lands within the
proposed designation are owned or managed by the Department of Defense
and the Department of Homeland Security. However, we anticipate that
designation of these additional lands will have no impact on national
security or homeland security. Consequently, the Secretary is not
intending to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from this
final designation based on impacts on national security or homeland
security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other
relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We
consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have
developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether
there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we
look at any tribal issues and consider the government-to-government
relationship of the United States with tribal entities.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no permitted HCPs or other approved management plans for
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, and the final
designation does not include any tribal lands or tribal trust
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or
HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary
is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final
designation based on other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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
[[Page 49867]]
on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must
allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have
developed this 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 this
designation 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.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required 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 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 will be directly regulated by this designation. There
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a
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. Following our evaluation of the probable incremental
economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, we affirm the
information in our proposed rule concerning E.O. 13211. Specifically,
the designation of critical habitat is not expected to 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 findings:
(1) This rule will 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 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 will significantly or uniquely
affect
[[Page 49868]]
small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate of $100
million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The
economic analysis concludes that incremental impacts may primarily
occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for
transportation and land management projects; however, these are not
expected to significantly affect small governments. Incremental impacts
stemming from various species conservation and development control
activities are expected to be borne by the Federal Government, State of
Florida, and Miami-Dade County, which are not considered small
governments. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat
designation will significantly or uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri
var. carteri in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above,
the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions.
Although private parties that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
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. The economic
analysis found that no significant economic impacts are likely to
result from the designation of critical habitat for B. mosieri and L.
c. var. carteri. Because the Act's critical habitat protection
requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts
between critical habitat and private property rights should result from
this designation. Based on the best available information, the takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri does not pose significant
takings implications.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this 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 this critical habitat designation with,
appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. We did not receive
comments from the State of Florida. We note, however, that one peer
reviewer was from the Florida Forest Service, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, and we have addressed those comments
in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section of this rule.
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 rule
does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The designation 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 and biological features of the habitat necessary to the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in
long-range planning (because these local governments no longer have to
wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal 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.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of these
plants, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of Brickellia mosieri and Linum
carteri var. carteri. The designated areas of critical habitat are
presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the
interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if
desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that
[[Page 49869]]
tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public
lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information
available to tribes.
We have determined that there are no tribal lands occupied by
Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of listing
that contain the physical or biological features essential to
conservation of the species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by B.
mosieri or L. c. var. carteri that are essential for the conservation
of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for
B. mosieri or L. c. var. carteri on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the South
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the
South Florida Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by revising the entries for ``Brickellia
mosieri'' and ``Linum carteri var. carteri'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in
the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Brickellia mosieri............... Florida brickell- U.S.A. (FL)........ Asteraceae......... E 844 17.96(a) NA
bush.
* * * * * * *
Linum carteri var. carteri....... Carter's small- U.S.A. (FL)........ Linaceae........... E 844 17.96(a) NA
flowered flax.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) as follows:
0
a. By adding an entry for ``Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-
bush)'' in alphabetical order under the family Asteraceae;
0
b. By adding Family Linaceae in alphabetical order to the list of
families; and
0
c. By adding an entry for ``Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-
flowered flax)'' in alphabetical order under the family Linaceae.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Asteraceae: Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-bush)
(1) Critical habitat units for Brickellia mosieri are depicted for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Brickellia mosieri are:
(i) Areas of pine rockland habitat that contain:
(A) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
(B) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
(C) A plant community of predominately native vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to:
(1) Canopy vegetation dominated by Pinus elliottii var. densa
(South Florida slash pine);
(2) Subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to,
Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm),
Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle),
Myrsine floridana (myrsine), Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima
lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra
(rough velvetseed), Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry), Psidium
longipes (mangroveberry), Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow bustic), and
Rhus copallinum (winged sumac);
(3) Short-statured shrubs that may include, but are not limited to,
Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata (white indigoberry),
Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda royoc (redgal),
and Chiococca alba (snowberry); and
(4) Understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to:
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn);
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora floridensis (Florida white-top sedge);
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn); Echites umbellata (devil's
potato); Croton linearis (pineland croton); Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats);
Chamaecrista deeringiania (partridge pea); Zamia integrifolia
(coontie); and Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair pineland fern).
(ii) A disturbance regime that naturally or artificially duplicates
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or other weather
events) and that maintains the pine rockland habitat described in
paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
(iii) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain
viable populations of Brickellia mosieri in the pine rockland habitat
described in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located exists within the legal boundaries on
September 16, 2015.
[[Page 49870]]
(5) Critical habitat map units. Unit maps were developed using ESRI
ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS
was also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection
used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the
units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the
public at the Service's Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/,
at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108), and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.002
[[Page 49871]]
(6) Unit BM1: Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.003
[[Page 49872]]
(7) Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas,
Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.004
[[Page 49873]]
(8) Unit BM3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.005
[[Page 49874]]
(9) Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.006
[[Page 49875]]
(10) Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.007
[[Page 49876]]
(11) Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.008
[[Page 49877]]
(12) Unit BM7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas,
Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.009
* * * * *
Family Linaceae: Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-
flowered flax)
(1) Critical habitat units for Linum carteri var. carteri are
depicted for Miami-Dade County, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Linum
carteri var. carteri are:
(i) Areas of pine rockland habitat that contain:
(A) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
(B) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
(C) A plant community of predominately native vegetation that may
include, but is not limited to:
[[Page 49878]]
(1) Canopy vegetation dominated by Pinus elliottii var. densa
(South Florida slash pine);
(2) Subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to,
Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm),
Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle),
Myrsine floridana (myrsine), Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima
lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra
(rough velvetseed), Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry), Psidium
longipes (mangroveberry), Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow bustic), and
Rhus copallinum (winged sumac);
(3) Short-statured shrubs that may include, but are not limited to,
Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata (white indigoberry),
Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda royoc (redgal),
and Chiococca alba (snowberry); and
(4) Understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to:
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn);
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora floridensis (Florida white-top sedge);
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn); Echites umbellata (devil's
potato); Croton linearis (pineland croton); Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats);
Chamaecrista deeringiania (partridge pea); Zamia integrifolia
(coontie); and Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair pineland fern).
(ii) A disturbance regime that naturally or artificially duplicates
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or other weather
events) and that maintains the pine rockland habitat described in
paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
(iii) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain
viable populations of Linum carteri var. carteri in the pine rockland
habitat described in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located exists within the legal boundaries on
September 16, 2015.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Unit maps were developed using ESRI
ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS
was also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection
used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the
units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the
public at the Service's Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/,
at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108), and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
[[Page 49879]]
(5) Index map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.010
[[Page 49880]]
(6) Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.011
[[Page 49881]]
(7) Unit LCC2: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve and surrounding
areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.012
[[Page 49882]]
(8) Unit LCC3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC3
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.013
[[Page 49883]]
(9) Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.014
[[Page 49884]]
(10) Unit LCC5: Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.015
[[Page 49885]]
(11) Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.016
[[Page 49886]]
(12) Unit LCC7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas,
Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.017
* * * * *
Dated: July 16, 2015.
Michael Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2015-19533 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P