Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata (Kentucky Glade Cress), 31479-31498 [2013-12102]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31479-31498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12102]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ47


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata (Kentucky 
Glade Cress)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate 
critical habitat for Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata (Kentucky 
glade cress). The effect of these regulations, if finalized, would be 
to protect Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata's critical habitat under 
the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 
23, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests 
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES 
section by July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a 
comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

[[Page 31480]]

    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 
J.C. Watts Federal Building, 330 W. Broadway Rm. 265, Frankfort, KY 
40601, by telephone 502-695-0468 or by facsimile 502-695-1024. 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, if we intend to list 
a species as endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in 
the Federal Register and make a determination on our proposal within 1 
year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. Designations and 
revisions of critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule. 
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we propose to list Leavenworthia 
exigua var. laciniata as a threatened species under the Act.
    This rule consists of: A proposed critical habitat designation for 
Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata under the Act.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we must designate critical habitat for the 
species concurrently with listing the species as endangered or 
threatened. The species is being proposed for listing as threatened, 
and, therefore, we also propose to designate 2,053 acres (830 ha) as 
critical habitat in Bullitt and Jefferson Counties, Kentucky.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our 
analysis of the best available science and its application, and to 
provide any additional scientific information to improve this proposed 
rule. Because we will consider all comments and information received 
during the comment period, our final designation may differ from this 
proposal.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act, including whether 
there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of 
which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether 
that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that 
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Leavenworthia exigua var. 
laciniata and its habitat,
    (b) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the species;
    (c) Where these features are currently found;
    (d) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;
    (e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why; and
    (f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
areas occupied by the species or proposed to be designated as critical 
habitat, and possible impacts of these activities on this species and 
proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on L. exigua var. laciniata and proposed critical 
habitat;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included 
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts 
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas 
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts;
    (6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments;
    (7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if 
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory 
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs that 
designations of critical habitat for a listed species must be made ``on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available and 
after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other 
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov. 
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

[[Page 31481]]

Previous Federal Actions

    All previous Federal actions are described in the proposal to list 
Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata as a threatened species under the 
Act published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly 
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata in this proposed rule. For information related to the listing 
of the species, see the proposed rule to list the species as 
threatened, published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features:
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    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 is listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) 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 essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, 
food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical and 
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. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but 
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the 
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat 
designation. 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 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 ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. 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

[[Page 31482]]

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.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at 
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist:
    (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or
    (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species.
    There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to 
collection or vandalism under Factor B (see Factor B: Overutilization 
for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes of 
our proposed listing rule published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register) for this species, and identification and mapping of critical 
habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In the absence of 
a finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase 
threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat 
designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. Here, the potential 
benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under 
section 7 of the Act in new areas for actions in which there may be a 
Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, 
it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) 
focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and 
areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county 
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing 
inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined 
that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the 
degree of threat to the species and may provide some measure of 
benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for L. 
exigua var. laciniata.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for L. exigua 
var. laciniata is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) 
state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist:
    (i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species 
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific 
data available and lead us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for L. exigua var. laciniata.

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 
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. 
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, germination or seed dispersal; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical and biological features required 
for L. exigua var. laciniata from studies of this species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that 
the following physical and biological features are essential for L. 
exigua var. laciniata:

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    L. exigua var. laciniata is typically found in cedar glades (Baskin 
and Baskin 1981, p. 243), which are described by Baskin and Baskin 
(1999, p. 206) as ``open areas of rock pavement, gravel, flagstone, 
and/or shallow soil in which occur natural, long-persisting (edaphic 
climax) plant communities dominated by angiosperms and/or cryptogams.'' 
L. exigua var. laciniata is also known from gladelike areas such as 
overgrazed pastures, eroded shallow soil areas with exposed bedrock, 
and areas where the soil has been scraped off the underlying bedrock 
(Evans and Hannan 1990, p. 8). These disturbed areas are gladelike in 
the shallowness or near-absence of their soils, saturation, and/or 
inundation during the wet periods of late fall, winter, and early 
spring and then frequently dry below the permanent wilting point during 
the summer (Baskin and Baskin 2003, p. 101). These conditions likely 
prevent species that would shade or compete with L. exigua var. 
laciniata from establishing in these areas.
    While the individual rock exposure or outcrop areas will vary in 
size and may be small and scattered throughout the glade(s) or 
gladelike areas, they will ideally occur in groups to comprise a glade 
(or gladelike) complex. Habitat destruction, modification and 
fragmentation within the narrow range of L. exigua var. laciniata make 
it difficult to determine the optimal size or density of glade habitats 
needed to support the long-term survival of the species. Pine Creek 
Barrens Preserve (owned by The Nature Conservancy) contains the only 
remaining A-ranked population of L. exigua var. laciniata, described as 
having thousands of plants scattered over 25-30 acres. Similarly, the 
B-ranked Rocky Run was described in 1990 as containing thousands of 
plants scattered over 2 miles. Many of the poor (D) ranked populations 
occur within areas as small as a few square meters (KSNPC 2012, pp. 1-
108). While the long-term viability of these populations is considered 
poor, monitoring efforts have shown that for the short term, some L. 
exigua var. laciniata populations are able to persist (i.e., grow and 
reproduce) on these small and fragmented sites.
    Based on the information above, we identify cedar glades and 
gladelike areas underlain by Silurian dolomite or dolomitic limestone 
as an essential physical or biological feature for the species.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

    The specific water needs of L. exigua var. laciniata are unknown; 
however, the sites it occupies are extremely wet

[[Page 31483]]

from late winter to early spring and quickly become dry in late May and 
June. This hydrologic regime is critical for the plant's survival in 
that it provides sufficient moisture for the taxon's life cycle 
(germination in fall, plant growth from fall to early spring, and seed 
production in the spring). Additionally, the droughty conditions during 
the typical growing season prevent the establishment of plants that 
could shade or outcompete L. exigua var. laciniata.
    L. exigua var. laciniata is shade intolerant. Open glade habitats 
appear to provide the most favorable conditions for this species (Evans 
and Hannan 1990, p. 14). Baskin and Baskin (1988, p. 834) noted that 
most endemics occurring on rock outcrops (such as L. exigua var. 
laciniata) are restricted to the open and well-lighted areas of the 
outcrops as opposed to similar but more shaded areas near the 
surrounding forest.
    L. exigua var. laciniata seems more dependent upon the lack of soil 
and the proximity of rock near or at the surface rather than a specific 
type of soil (Evans and Hannan 1990, p. 8). It occurs primarily in 
open, gravelly soils around rock outcrops in an area of the Caneyville-
Crider soil association (Whitaker and Waters 1986, p. 16). Baskin and 
Baskin (1981, p. 245) identified shallow soils (1-5 cm) over limestone 
or dolomite to be characteristic habitat of L. exigua var. laciniata.
    Based on this information, we identify unshaded and shallow soils 
that are extremely wet from late winter to early spring and quickly 
become dry in late May and June to be an essential physical or 
biological feature for this species.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring, Germination, or Seed Dispersal

    Like all annuals, L. exigua var. laciniata reproduces sexually 
through seed production. Successful reproduction of L. exigua var. 
laciniata requires sufficient moisture for germination, growth, 
flowering, and seed production. Pollination of L. exigua var. laciniata 
can be by insects or self-pollination (Rollins 1963, p. 47). Seeds may 
fall to the ground, be transported by animals, or carried by 
precipitation sheet flow to new sites.
    The seeds of L. exigua var. laciniata germinate in the fall, with 
plants surviving through the winter as rosettes that flower in early 
spring. Seeds are typically dispersed in mid- to late-May (Evans and 
Hannan 1990, p. 11). After the seeds ripen, the silique (pod) soon 
splits open. Seeds may immediately fall out or remain on the plant for 
several days. The extent to which this plant can expand to new sites is 
unknown.
    Lloyd (1965, p. 92) noted that seeds from Leavenworthia lack 
adaptations that would allow for dispersal by wind or animals. Sheet 
flow likely provides local dispersion for seeds lying on the ground 
(Lloyd 1965, pp. 92-93; Evans and Hannan 1990, p. 11). In reviewing 
aerial photography and topographic mapping of known L. exigua var. 
laciniata occurrences, it appears that populations often follow 
suitable habitat as it extends along topographic contours or within 
drainage patterns. Areas of bare ground are essential in the dispersal 
and germination of seeds. The cyclical moisture availability on the 
thin soils of glades and other habitats acts to limit the number of 
plant species that can tolerate these extremes (Evans and Hannan 1990, 
pp. 9-10).
    L. exigua var. laciniata seeds have been shown to retain viability 
for at least 3 years under greenhouse conditions (Baskin and Baskin 
1981, p. 247). A strong seed bank is expected to be important for the 
continued existence of L. exigua var. laciniata, especially following a 
year when conditions are unfavorable for reproduction (e.g., damage 
(natural or manmade) to plants prior to seed set). Accordingly, L. 
exigua var. laciniata habitat must be protected from activities that 
would damage or destroy the seed bank.
    Based on the information above, we identify glade and gladelike 
habitats with intact hydrology and an undisturbed seed bank to be a 
physical or biological feature for L. exigua var. laciniata essential 
to the conservation of this species. These areas are critical for seed 
dispersal and germination.

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distribution of the Species

    Disturbance in the form of development (and associated 
infrastructure) is a major factor in the loss and degradation of 
habitat for L. exigua var. laciniata. Development can directly 
eliminate or fragment essential habitat and indirectly cause changes to 
the habitat (e.g., through erosion, shading, introduction of invasive 
plants--all of which may cause declines in distribution or in numbers 
of plants per occurrence). Protected habitats are, therefore, of 
crucial importance for the growth and dispersal of L. exigua var. 
laciniata. These areas are critical to protecting L. exigua var. 
laciniata populations and habitat from impacts such as sedimentation, 
erosion, and competition from nonnative or invasive plants.
    The natural areas supporting L. exigua var. laciniata are cedar 
glades, which Baskin and Baskin (2003, p. 101) describe as flat to 
gently sloping, open areas of shallow soils and/or calcareous rock 
(pavement, gravel, flagstone) that support an edaphic climax plant 
community dominated by nonwoody species. These areas are often 
associated with eastern red-cedar thickets (Jones 2005, p. 33) and/or 
scrubby red-cedar-hardwood forests (Baskin and Baskin 1999, p. 102). 
These associated areas and other, adjacent, undeveloped ground provide 
important buffer protection from disturbance.
    Leavenworthia spp. has a patchy distribution within the exposed 
rock outcrops and shallow soil areas of cedar glade habitats and 
gladelike areas (Lloyd 1965, p. 87). L. exigua var. laciniata is an 
endemic species restricted to a very specific habitat type with a 
patchy distribution across the landscape separated by large areas of 
habitat unsuitable for L. exigua var. laciniata. Although these cedar 
glades also contain areas of deeper soil where other, associated 
vegetation grows, these areas of deeper soil are essential components 
of the glade and critical for maintaining habitat suitable for 
occupation by L. exigua var. laciniata.
    Based on a review of aerial imagery, habitat areas that appear to 
provide sufficient protection generally have the hillside (creek to 
topographic break) and adjacent contour surrounding the glade areas in 
vegetated (primarily wooded) habitat. Buffer areas of this magnitude 
protect L. exigua var. laciniata populations and habitat from adjacent 
development and habitat change. Although these areas are not directly 
occupied by L. exigua var. laciniata, they are essential to the growth 
and dispersal of the species within areas of suitable habitat.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify vegetated 
areas surrounding glades and gladelike habitats that protect the 
hydrology, soils, and seed bank to be a physical or biological feature 
for this species.
Primary Constituent Elements for L. exigua var. laciniata
    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of L. exigua var. laciniata in areas occupied at the time 
of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We 
consider primary constituent elements to be the specific elements of 
physical or biological features that, when laid out

[[Page 31484]]

in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a 
species' life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of 
the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determined that the primary constituent 
elements specific to L. exigua var. laciniata are:
    (1) Cedar glades and gladelike areas within the range of L. exigua 
var. laciniata which include:
    (a) Areas of rock outcrop, gravel, flagstone of Silurian dolomite 
or dolomitic limestone, and/or shallow (1-5 cm), calcareous soils;
    (b) Intact cyclic hydrologic regime involving saturation and/or 
inundation of the area in winter and early spring, then drying quickly 
in the summer;
    (c) Full or nearly full sunlight; and
    (d) An undisturbed seed bank.
    (2) Vegetated land around glades and gladelike areas that extends 
up and down slope and ends at natural (e.g., stream, topographic 
contours) or manmade breaks (e.g. roads).

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assessed whether the specific 
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the 
species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. We believe each area included in these designations 
requires special management and protections as described in our unit 
descriptions.
    We need to consider special management considerations or protection 
for the features essential to the conservation of the species within 
each critical habitat area. The special management considerations or 
protections will depend on threats to the essential features of the 
critical habitat area. For example, major threats to the PCEs in the 
areas identified as proposed critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata include: Residential and commercial development on private 
land; construction and maintenance of roads and utility lines, 
incompatible agricultural or grazing practices; off-road vehicle (ORV) 
or horseback riding; encroachment by nonnative plants or forage 
species; and forest encroachment due to fire suppression. These threats 
are in addition to random effects of droughts, floods, or other natural 
phenomena.
    Management activities that could address these threats include (but 
are not limited to): (1) Avoiding cedar glades (or suitable gladelike 
habitats) when planning the location of buildings, lawns, roads 
(including horse or ORV trails), or utilities; (2) avoiding aboveground 
construction and/or excavations in locations that would interfere with 
natural water movement to suitable habitat sites; (3) protecting and 
restoring as many glade complexes as possible; (4) research supporting 
the development of management recommendations for grazing and other 
agricultural practices; (5) technical or financial assistance to 
landowners that may help in the design and implementation of management 
actions that protect the plant and its habitat; (6) avoiding lawn grass 
or tree plantings near glades; and (7) habitat management, such as 
brush removal, prescribed fire, and/or eradication of lawn grasses to 
maintain an intact native glade vegetation community.

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. We reviewed 
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the 
species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 
50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas 
outside of those currently occupied is necessary to ensure the 
conservation of the species. Currently, we are not proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species 
because occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the 
species, and we have no evidence that this taxon ever existed beyond 
its current range.
    Sites were considered occupied if the Kentucky State Nature 
Preserves Commission (KSNPC) Element Occurrence Report (KSNPC 2012, pp. 
1-108) considered an element occurrence to be an extant population at 
the time of the proposed listing rule.
    We also reviewed available information that pertains to habitat 
requirements of Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata. The sources of 
information include, but are not limited to:
    1. Data used to prepare the proposed listing package;
    2. Peer-reviewed articles, various agency reports, and the Kentucky 
State Nature Preserves Natural Heritage Program database;
    3. Information from species experts;
    4. Regional Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as 
species occurrence data, topography, aerial imagery, and land ownership 
maps) for area calculations and mapping.
    Areas proposed for critical habitat designation were selected based 
on the quality of the element occurrence(s), condition of the habitat, 
and distribution within the species' range. Typically, selected areas 
contain good quality or better occurrences (A, B, or C-ranked) and 
natural habitat, as identified by KSNPC in the Natural Heritage Report 
(2012, pp. 1-108). However, some lower quality occurrences, with 
restoration potential, are included to ensure that critical habitat is 
being designated across the species' range and to avoid a potential 
reduction of the distribution of L. exigua var. laciniata. The glade 
habitat upon which the species depends is often easily viewed using 
aerial photography. Additionally, aerial photography provides an 
overview of the land use surrounding the glades. Topographic maps 
provide contours and drainage patterns that were used to help identify 
potential areas for growth and expansion of the species. A combination 
of these tools, in a GIS interface, allowed for the determination of 
the critical habitat boundaries.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical or biological features for Leavenworthia exigua var. 
laciniata. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.

Summary

    In conclusion, we are proposing for designation as critical habitat 
specific areas that we have determined are occupied at the time of 
listing and contain sufficient elements of the physical or biological 
features essential for the conservation of L. exigua var. laciniata. We 
determined that no additional areas are considered essential

[[Page 31485]]

for the conservation of the species because the proposed occupied areas 
provide sufficient habitat to conserve the species. The proposed units 
contained all of the identified elements of physical or biological 
features and support multiple life-history processes.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing the following six units, consisting of 18 
subunits, as critical habitat for L. exigua var. laciniata: (1) Unit 1: 
McNeely Lake, (2) Unit 2: Old Mans Run, (3) Unit 3: Mount Washington, 
(4) Unit 4: Cedar Creek, (5) Unit 5: Cox Creek, (6) Unit 6: Rocky Run. 
All units and subunits are currently occupied. They constitute our best 
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for L. 
exigua var. laciniata under the Act. These subunits represent 18 of the 
61 extant occurrences of L. exigua var. laciniata. Each unit contains 
all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the Kentucky glade cress. 
Table 1 includes the ownership information and size of unit/subunits we 
are proposing as critical habitat.

 Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for L. exigua var. laciniata. [Area estimates reflect all land within
                                        critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Size of unit  in acres
       Critical habitat unit            Sub unit           Land ownership by type                (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................                 Louisville/Jefferson County Metro     18 (7)
                                                     Government.
2..................................  2A             Private.............................  102 (41)
2..................................  2B             Private.............................  870 (352)
2..................................  2C             Private.............................  42 (17)
3..................................  3A             Private.............................  25 (10)
3..................................  3B             Private.............................  7 (3)
3..................................  3C             Private.............................  10 (4)
4..................................  4A             Private.............................  91 (37)
4..................................  4B             KSNPC; Private; Private with KSNPC    69 (28)
                                                     easement.
4..................................  4C             Private.............................  83 (34)
4..................................  4D             Private.............................  46 (19)
4..................................  4E             Private.............................  102 (41)
4..................................  4F             Private.............................  120 (49)
4..................................  4G             Private.............................  20 (8)
4..................................  4H             Private.............................  16 (6)
5..................................  5A             Private.............................  8 (3)
5..................................  5B             Private.............................  50 (20)
6..................................  .............  Private.............................  374 (151)
                                                                                         -----------------------
    Total..........................  .............  ....................................  2,053 (830)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    Below, we present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why 
they meet the definition of critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata.

Unit 1: McNeely Lake, Jefferson and Bullitt Counties, Kentucky

    Unit 1 consists of 18 ac (7 ha) within McNeely Lake Park in 
Jefferson County, Kentucky. This critical habitat unit is under county 
government ownership. This critical habitat unit occurs at the 
northwestern edge of the species' range where there is little remaining 
habitat and few occurrences and is important to the distribution of the 
species. Habitat degradation (e.g., erosion, invasive species) is 
impacting the species' ability to persist within this unit; however, 
the landowner has received funding and is working with the Service and 
KSPNC to develop a management plan for the site and to implement 
habitat improvement practices. These planned activities are expected to 
improve population numbers and viability at this important site. This 
unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and 
provides opportunity for population growth. Within proposed Unit 1, the 
Kentucky glade cress and its habitat may require special management 
considerations or protection to address potential adverse effects 
associated with encroachment by nonnative plants or forage species, and 
forest encroachment due to fire suppression.

Unit 2, Subunits A, B, and C: Old Mans Run, Jefferson and Bullitt 
Counties, Kentucky

    Unit 2 consists of three subunits totaling 1,014 ac (410 ha) in 
Bullitt and Jefferson Counties, Kentucky. It is located just south of 
the Jefferson/Bullitt County line and extends north of Old Mans Run. 
This critical habitat unit includes four element occurrences. Subunit B 
represents the best remaining populations and habitat for L. exigua 
var. laciniata in Jefferson County. Subunits A and C are important 
areas at the northern extent of the species' range. These three 
subunits represent the northeastern extent of the population's range 
and increase population redundancy within the species' range. Within 
proposed Unit 2, L. exigua var. laciniata and its habitat may require 
special management considerations or protection to address potential 
adverse effects associated with development on private land, 
incompatible agricultural or grazing practices, ORV or horseback 
riding, competition from lawn grasses, and forest encroachment.
    Subunit 2A is 102 ac (41 ha) in size and is located west of US 150 
and northwest of Floyds Fork. It is in private ownership. While all 
PCEs are present within this subunit, it contains few native plant 
associates for L. exigua var. laciniata, and the increased competition 
from lawn grasses may decrease the ability of L. exigua var. laciniata 
to persist. This area is important for maintaining the northern 
distribution of L. exigua var. laciniata.
    Subunit 2B is 870 ac (352 ha) in size and is located east of US 150 
and extends north and south of Old Mans Run. It is in private 
ownership. This is the largest of the proposed subunits and contains 
the two highest ranked (1-B and 1-C) occurrences in Jefferson County. 
It represents the best remaining habitat in this portion of the range 
and

[[Page 31486]]

may contain more than half of the total L. exigua var. laciniata 
population based on a 2011 survey by KSNPC, which estimated more than 
20,000 individuals at 4 sites within this subunit. At this site, 
competition from lawn grasses impacts L. exigua var. laciniata and may 
decrease its ability to persist.
    Subunit 2C is 42 ac (17 ha) in size and is located west of US 150 
and east of Floyds Fork, extending into both Bullitt and Jefferson 
Counties. It is in private ownership. This subunit is primarily 
pasture, and habitat for L. exigua var. laciniata is impacted by 
competition from lawn grasses. Restoration of this area to improve 
habitat for L. exigua var. laciniata is important for maintaining the 
northern distribution of the species.

Unit 3, Subunits A, B and C: Mount Washington, Bullitt County, Kentucky

    Unit 3 consists of 42 ac (17 ha) and includes three subunits in 
Bullitt County, Kentucky, primarily within or adjacent to the city 
limits of Mount Washington. This critical habitat unit includes three 
element occurrences and provides an important link between the northern 
and southern portions of the species' range. Within proposed Unit 3, 
the Kentucky glade cress and its habitat may require special management 
considerations or protection to address potential adverse effects 
associated with development on private land, incompatible agricultural 
or grazing practices, ORV or horseback riding, competition from lawn 
grasses, and forest encroachment due to fire suppression.
    Subunit 3A is 25 ac (10 ha) in size and is located northeast of 
Mount Washington. It is in private ownership. Habitat for L. exigua 
var. laciniata within this subunit is degraded and would improve with 
management. It represents important habitat on the eastern extent of 
the species' range. At this subunit, habitat conversion and off-road 
vehicle usage impact L. exigua var. laciniata habitat and may decrease 
the species' ability to persist at this site.
    Subunit 3B is 7 ac (3 ha) in size and is located east of Hubbard 
Lane and south of Keeneland Drive. It is in private ownership. The 
glade habitat has been degraded by adjacent land use and would benefit 
from improved management. The site represents an important link between 
other proposed subunits.
    Subunit 3C is 10 ac (4 ha) in size and is located east of US 150 
and south of Highway 44E. It is in private ownership. The site 
represents an important and high quality cedar glade in an area of 
ongoing, intensive development. Land use surrounding the glade remnant 
appears stable and the glade contains several native plant species 
associated with L. exigua var. laciniata.

Unit 4, Subunits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H: Cedar Creek, Bullitt 
County, Kentucky

    Unit 4 consists of 547 ac (221 ha) and includes eight subunits, all 
in Bullitt County, Kentucky. This proposed unit is located south of the 
Salt River and northeast of Cedar Grove and seems to represent the core 
of the remaining high-quality habitat for L. exigua var. laciniata. It 
includes eight element occurrences. In addition to being a stronghold 
for the species, these subunits are generally within close proximity 
(less than 0.5 miles (0.8 km)) to each other and represent the best 
opportunity for genetic exchange between occurrences.
    Within Unit 4, L. exigua var. laciniata and its habitat may require 
special management considerations or protection to address potential 
adverse effects associated with development on private land, 
incompatible agricultural or grazing practices, ORV or horseback 
riding, competition from lawn grasses, and forest encroachment due to 
fire suppression.
    Subunit 4A is 91 ac (37 ha) in size and is located south of Cedar 
Creek and west of Pine Creek Trail. This subunit is owned by The Nature 
Conservancy and encompasses most of the Pine Creek Barrens Preserve. 
This excellent-quality glade represents the only remaining ``A'' rank 
occurrence for L. exigua var. laciniata.
    Subunit 4B is 69 ac (28 ha) in size and is located along an unnamed 
tributary to Cedar Creek, and south of KY 1442. This good-quality glade 
includes the Apple Valley Glade State Nature Preserve (SNP), owned by 
KSNPC (approximately 30 percent of subunit), as well as private land, 
including some under permanent conservation easement (approximately 41 
percent of subunit) to protect L. exigua var. laciniata. Approximately 
29 percent of this subunit is under private ownership without any 
protections for L. exigua var. laciniata.
    Subunit 4C is 82 ac (33 ha) in size and located north of Cedar 
Creek and south of Apple Valley SNP. It is in private ownership. This 
subunit contains high-quality glades with a community of native plants 
present.
    Subunit 4D is 46 ac (18 ha) in size and is located north of Cedar 
Creek and south of Victory Church. It is in private ownership. This 
site has been degraded and would benefit from improved management. 
Native plants associated with L. exigua var. laciniata occur within 
this subunit, but competition from lawn grasses, as well as forest 
encroachment due to fire suppression, impacts L. exigua var. laciniata 
and may decrease its ability to persist.
    Subunit 4E is 102 ac (41 ha) in size and is located southeast of 
Subunit D and across Cedar Creek. It is in private ownership. It 
contains a large number of L. exigua var. laciniata (several thousand), 
but the habitat has been degraded by adjacent land use and would 
benefit from improved management. Competition from lawn grasses, as 
well as forest encroachment due to fire suppression, affects L. exigua 
var. laciniata and may decrease its ability to persist.
    Subunit 4F is 120 ac (49 ha) in size and is south of the confluence 
of Cedar Creek and Greens Branch. It is in private ownership. This is a 
degraded glade that still contains native plants associated with L. 
exigua var. laciniata. The site is disturbed by existing and 
surrounding land uses as well as utility line maintenance, and ORV use, 
which may decrease the species' ability to persist.
    Subunit 4G is 20 ac (8 ha) in size and is located along either site 
of KY 480 near White Run Road. It is in private ownership. This site 
contains a large number of plants; however, improved habitat conditions 
are needed for long-term viability of the L. exigua var. laciniata 
occurrence. Impacts to L. exigua var. laciniata, which may decrease its 
ability to persist at this site, include: Incompatible agricultural or 
grazing practices, ORV riding, competition from lawn grasses, as well 
as forest encroachment due to fire suppression.
    Subunit 4H is 16 ac (6 ha) in size and is located 0.95 miles 
southeast of the KY 480/KY 1604 intersection. It is in private 
ownership. Within this subunit, several patches of good habitat for L. 
exigua var. laciniata remain as well as a good diversity of native 
plant associates. However, competition from lawn grasses, as well as 
forest encroachment due to fire suppression, affects L. exigua var. 
laciniata and may decrease its ability to persist.

Unit 5, Subunits A and B: Cox Creek, Bullitt County, Kentucky

    Unit 5 consists of 58 ac (23 ha) and includes two subunits, both in 
Bullitt County, Kentucky. It includes two element occurrences, 
representing the most easterly occurrences south of the Salt River. 
These subunits are important for maintaining the distribution and 
genetic diversity of the species.
    Within proposed Unit 5, L. exigua var. laciniata and its habitat 
may require special management considerations or

[[Page 31487]]

protection to address potential adverse effects associated with illegal 
waste dumps, development on private land, incompatible agricultural or 
grazing practices, ORV or horseback riding, competition from lawn 
grasses, and forest encroachment due to fire suppression.
    Subunit 5A is 8 ac (3 ha) in size and is located east of Cox Creek 
and west of KY 1442. It is in private ownership. This site is 
threatened by ORV use and would benefit from improved management and 
habitat restoration.
    Subunit 5B is 50 ac (20 ha) in size and is located west of Cox 
Creek near the Bullitt/Spencer County line. It is in private ownership. 
Incompatible agricultural practices and ORV use impacts L. exigua var. 
laciniata and may decrease its ability to persist. The native flora is 
mostly intact, and L. exigua var. laciniata would benefit from improved 
management and habitat restoration.

Unit 6: Rocky Run, Bullitt County, Kentucky

    Unit 6 consists of 374 ac (151 ha) in Bullitt County, Kentucky. 
This critical habitat unit includes habitat that is under private 
ownership, including one 16-acre Registered Natural Area. It includes 
one element occurrence. This unit appears to represent the largest 
intact glade habitat remaining within the range of the species. Within 
proposed Unit 6, L. exigua var. laciniata and its habitat may require 
special management considerations or protection to address potential 
adverse effects associated with development on private land, 
incompatible agricultural or grazing practices, competition from lawn 
grasses, and forest encroachment due to fire suppression.

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 Appeals 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, 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 
United States 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, or 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action;
    (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 Leavenworthia exigua var. 
laciniata. 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.

[[Page 31488]]

    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for L. exigua var. laciniata. These activities include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions within or near critical habitat that would result in 
the loss of bare or open ground. Such activities could include, but are 
not limited to: development; road maintenance, widening or 
construction; and utility line construction or maintenance. These 
activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for growth, 
reproduction, and/or expansion of L. exigua var. laciniata.
    (2) Actions within or near critical habitat that would modify the 
hydrologic regime that allows for the shallow soils to be very wet in 
late winter to early spring and dry quickly. Such activities could 
include, but are not limited to: development; road maintenance, 
widening, or construction; and utility line construction or 
maintenance. These activities could alter habitat conditions to the 
point of eliminating the site conditions required for growth, 
reproduction, and/or expansion of L. exigua var. laciniata.
    (3) Actions within or near critical habitat that would remove or 
alter vegetation and allow erosion, sedimentation, shading or the 
introduction or expansion of invasive species. Such activities could 
include, but are not limited to: land clearing; silviculture; 
fertilizer, herbicide, or insecticide applications; development; road 
maintenance, widening, or construction; and utility line construction 
or maintenance. These activities could alter habitat conditions to the 
point of eliminating the site conditions required for growth, 
reproduction, and/or expansion of L. exigua var. laciniata.

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 geographic areas owned 
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, 
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan 
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.''
    There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP 
within the proposed critical habitat designation.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he 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.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify 
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the 
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate 
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. 
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to 
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.
Economic Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors.
    We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as 
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and 
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be 
available for downloading from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Kentucky Ecological Services 
Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 
During the development of a final designation, we will consider 
economic impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas 
may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19.
National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national 
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have 
determined that no lands within the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for L. exigua var. laciniata are owned or managed by the 
Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on 
national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not propose to 
exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation 
based on impacts on national security.
Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and

[[Page 31489]]

impacts on national security. 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. We also consider any social impacts that might 
occur because of the designation.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for L. exigua var. 
laciniata, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal 
lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, 
partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. 
Accordingly, the Secretary does not propose to exercise his discretion 
to exclude any areas from the final designation based on other relevant 
impacts.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers 
to comment during this public comment period on our specific 
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical 
habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during this 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the 
ADDRESSES section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, 
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of 
those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in 
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing.

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 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 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must 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 (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 such businesses as 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 forestry and logging 
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than 
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we 
will consider 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.
    Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both 
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under 
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are 
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify. 
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be 
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial, 
the Service may also certify.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, 
Federal agencies are required only to evaluate the potential 
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated 
by the rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly 
affected entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Agency is not 
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal 
action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory 
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by 
critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our 
position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated 
by this designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small 
entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical habitat 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents 
of

[[Page 31490]]

the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a 
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe 
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data 
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this 
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation does 
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we 
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third 
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to 
ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects of this 
proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
    In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of 
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this 
designation of critical habitat will directly regulate only Federal 
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. 
Therefore, we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of 
critical habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. However, though not 
necessarily required by the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for 
this proposal we will consider and evaluate the potential effects to 
third parties that may be involved with consultations with Federal 
action agencies related to this action.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed 
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use because these areas are not presently used for energy 
production, and we are not aware of any future plans in this regard. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and 
revise this assessment as warranted.

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 small governments because the designation of critical habitat 
imposes no obligations on State or local governments. Therefore, a 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and 
revise this assessment if appropriate.

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 L. exigua var. laciniata in a takings implications 
assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner 
actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it 
preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of 
incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal 
funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment 
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata does not pose significant takings implications for lands 
within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this 
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A 
Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of 
the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested 
information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed 
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies 
in Kentucky. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently 
occupied by the L. exigua var. laciniata may impose nominal additional 
regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, may 
have little incremental impact on State and local governments and their 
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments 
because the areas that contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, 
and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the 
conservation of

[[Page 31491]]

the species are specifically identified. This information does not 
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, 
it may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than 
having them 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 requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This 
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the 
elements of physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of L. exigua var. laciniata within the designated areas to 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.

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 (NEPA) 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 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 determined that there are no tribal 
lands that were occupied by L. exigua var. laciniata at the time of 
listing that contain the features essential for conservation of the 
species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by L. exigua var. laciniata 
that are essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we 
are not proposing to designate critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata on tribal lands.

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office. (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the 
Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to 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. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for 
``Leavenworthia exigua var. lacinata (Kentucky glade cress),'' in 
alphabetical order under Family Brassicaceae to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Brassicaceae: Leavenworthia exigua var. lacinata (Kentucky glade 
cress)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bullitt and Jefferson 
Counties, Kentucky, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of L. 
exigua var. laciniata consist of these components:
    (i) Cedar glades and gladelike areas within the range of L. exigua 
var. laciniata that include:
    (A) Areas of rock outcrop, gravel, flagstone of Silurian dolomite 
or dolomitic limestone, and/or shallow (1-5 cm), calcareous soils;
    (B) Intact cyclic hydrologic regime involving saturation and/or 
inundation of the area in winter and early spring, then drying quickly 
in the summer;

[[Page 31492]]

    (C) Full or nearly full sunlight; and
    (D) An undisturbed seed bank.
    (ii) Vegetated land around glades and gladelike areas that extends 
up and down slope and ends at natural (e.g., stream, topographic 
contours) or manmade breaks (e.g., roads).
    (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 existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using a base of aerial photographs (USDA National Agricultural 
Imagery Program; NAIP 2010), and USA Topo Maps (National Geographic 
Society 2011). Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 16 North American Datum (NAD) 1983 
coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY13.000

    (6) Unit 1, McNeely Lake: Critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 1 includes 18 ac (7 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 1 follows:

[[Page 31493]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY13.001

    (7) Unit 2, Old Mans Run: Critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 2 includes 1,014 ac (410 ha): Subunit A includes 102 acres 
(41 ha); Subunit B includes 870 acres (352 ha); Subunit C includes 42 
ac (17 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 31494]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY13.002

    (8) Unit 3: Mount Washington: Critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata, Bullitt County, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 3 contains 130 ac (53 ha): Subunit A contains 25 ac (10 
ha); Subunit B contains 7 ac (3 ha); Subunit C contains 10 ac (4 ha);.
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 3 follows:

[[Page 31495]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY13.003

    (9) Unit 4 Cedar Creek: Critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata, Bullitt County, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 4 contains 546 ac (221 ha): Subunit A contains 91 ac (37 
ha); Subunit B contains 69 ac (28 ha); Subunit C contains 83 ac (33 
ha); Subunit D contains 46 ac (18 ha); Subunit E contains 102 ac (41 
ha); Subunit F contains 120 ac (49 ha); Subunit G contains 20 ac (8 
ha); Subunit H contains 16 ac (6 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 4 follows:

[[Page 31496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY13.004

    (10) Unit 5, Cox Creek: Critical habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata, Bullitt County, Kentucky.
    (i) Subunit 5 contains 58 ac (23 ha): Subunit A contains 8 ac (3 
ha); Subunit B contains 50 ac (20 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 5 follows:

[[Page 31497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY13.005

    (11) Unit 6, Rocky Run: Critical Habitat for L. exigua var. 
laciniata, Bullitt County, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 6 contains 374 ac (151 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 6 follows:

[[Page 31498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY13.006


    Dated: May 14, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-12102 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C