Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable Thoroughwort), 1551-1590 [2013-31576]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1551-1590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31576]



[[Page 1551]]

Vol. 79

Wednesday,

No. 5

January 8, 2014

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable Thoroughwort); Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 1552]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ51


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable Thoroughwort)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable 
thoroughwort) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). In total, approximately 10,968 acres (4,439 hectares) in Miami-
Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the 
critical habitat designation. The effect of this regulation is to 
designate critical habitat for this species under the Act for the 
conservation of the species.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation used in 
preparation of this rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation 
that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, 
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
South Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, 
FL 32960; by telephone 772-562-3909; or by facsimile 772-562-4288.
    The coordinates, plot points, or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at https://www.regulations.gov, 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029, and at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office at https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any 
additional tools or supporting information that we developed for this 
critical habitat designation will also be available at the Fish and 
Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and may also 
be included in the preamble of this rule and at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 
1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; telephone 772-562-3909; or 
facsimile 772-562-4288. If you use a use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 
at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under section 4(a)(3) of the 
Endangered Species Act (Act), when we determine that a species is 
endangered or threatened, we are required to designate critical 
habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designations 
of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
    We published our determination for Chromolaena frustrata as an 
endangered species on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63796). On October 11, 
2012 (77 FR 61836), we published in the Federal Register a proposed 
critical habitat designation for C. frustrata.
    The areas we are designating in this rule constitute our current 
best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for Chromolaena frustrata. In total, we are designating 
approximately 10,968 acres (4,439 hectares), in nine units, as critical 
habitat for C. frustrata.
    We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of 
critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary 
shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific 
data, after taking into consideration the economic impact, national 
security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular areas as critical habitat. In accordance with section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, we have prepared an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the critical habitat designation and related factors. We 
announced the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) in the 
Federal Register on July 8, 2013 (78 FR 40669), and sought comments 
from the public. We have incorporated the comments and have completed 
the final economic analysis (FEA) concurrently with this final 
designation.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from seven 
independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We obtained 
review from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise 
to review our technical assumptions and analysis, and to determine 
whether or not we had used the best available information. These peer 
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and 
they provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions 
to improve this final rule. Information we received from peer review is 
incorporated in this final designation. We considered all comments and 
information we received from the public during the comment periods.

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list 
Chromolaena frustrata under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and 
designate critical habitat for C. frustrata (77 FR 61836). All Federal 
actions related to protection under the Act for this species, prior to 
October 11, 2012, are outlined in the preamble to the proposed rule. On 
July 8, 2013 (78 FR 40669), we reopened the comment period on the 
proposed rule and announced the availability of the draft economic 
analysis for the proposed critical habitat designation.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested that the public submit written comments on the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata 
during two comment periods. The first comment period opened with the 
publication of the proposed rule on October 11, 2012, and closed on 
December 10, 2012 (77 FR 61836). The second comment period opened with 
the document published on July 8, 2013 (78 FR 40669), that made 
available and requested public comments on the draft economic analysis 
of the proposed critical habitat designation and that reopened the 
public comment period on the proposed listing and critical habitat 
designation. For that second comment period, we accepted public 
comments from July 8, 2013, through August 7, 2013 (78 FR 40669). We 
also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; 
scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them 
to comment on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis during 
these comment periods. In addition, in October 2012, we published a 
total of six legal public notices on the proposed rule in the areas of 
south Florida affected by the designation. We did not receive any 
requests for a public hearing during either comment period.

[[Page 1553]]

    The October 11, 2012, proposed rule contained both the proposed 
listing of Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia 
aboriginum, as well as the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Chromolaena frustrata. Therefore, we received combined comments from 
the public on both actions. However, in this final rule, we address 
only those comments that apply to the designation of critical habitat 
for Chromolaena frustrata. During the first comment period, we received 
one letter directly commenting on the proposed critical habitat 
designation for Chromolaena frustrata. During the second comment 
period, we received one letter commenting on the proposed critical 
habitat designation.
    All substantive information provided during the comment periods 
specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for 
Chromolaena frustrata is addressed in the following summary and 
incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from seven knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. Of those, three reviewers were experts 
on Chromolaena frustrata. We received responses from six of the peer 
reviewers including the experts on C. frustrata.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for 
Chromolaena frustrata. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our 
methods and conclusions and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final critical habitat 
rule. Two peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary 
and incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that rockland hammock does 
not occur in the coastal area of Everglades National Park (ENP). 
Instead, the commenter indicated the habitat in ENP where Chromolaena 
frustrata occurs should be classified as coastal hardwood hammock.
    Our Response: Unit 1 (ENP) includes the areas and habitats referred 
to by the peer reviewer. The Service misapplied the name rockland 
hammock to the coastal hardwood hammock habitat (sensu Rutchey et al. 
2006, p. 21) present within this unit. While similar in overall 
vegetation structure and disturbance regime, coastal hardwood hammock 
differs from rockland hammock in that it develops on elevated marl 
ridges with a thin layer of organic matter, as opposed to exposed 
limestone. The plant species composition of coastal hardwood hammock 
also differs somewhat from rockland hammock. These clarifications have 
been incorporated in the ``Habitat'' and ``Distribution and Range'' 
sections; and the Physical or Biological Features and Primary 
Constituent Elements for Chromolaena frustrata sections of this final 
rule. No changes were made to the unit boundaries because of this 
change in classification of the habitat.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that coastal berm does not 
occur within the critical habitat proposed in ENP.
    Our Response: The Service incorrectly thought that coastal berm 
habitat was present in Unit 1 (ENP). ENP staff confirmed that this is 
not the case. We removed references to coastal berm in Unit 1 in the 
unit description.

Comments From States

    The proposed designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena 
frustrata occurs only in the State of Florida. The Florida Department 
of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), Florida Forest Service, 
an agency that administers a grant program for imperiled plant species 
in Florida, provided only peer review comments on the proposed rule. 
The FDACS, Division of Plant Industry, the agency responsible for 
permits for collecting or harvesting State-protected plants in Florida, 
was notified by Service staff of the reopening of the comment period 
and notice of availability of the economic analysis, and that Division 
provided official comments supporting the designation of critical 
habitat for the plant.

Public Comments

    (3) Comment: One commenter indicated that critical habitat 
designation for Chromolaena frustrata should explicitly include both 
occupied and unoccupied habitat areas that will buffer this species 
from climate change, and the Service should explain how these areas 
will be sufficient to ensure the species' persistence in the face of 
ongoing sea-level rise.
    Our Response: The sea-level rise projections discussed under Factor 
E (see the proposed listing rule, 77 FR 61836) suggest that much of the 
proposed critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata could be lost to 
sea-level rise by 2100 if high-end projections approaching 6.6 feet 
(ft) (2 meters (m)) become a reality. This critical habitat designation 
for C. frustrata includes both occupied and unoccupied habitat at the 
highest elevation areas available within the species' historical range 
in the Florida Keys, so as to provide suitable upland habitat for the 
longest possible time before these areas are lost to sea-level rise. 
The highest sea-level rise of 5.9 ft (1.8 m) forecast for this area 
based on inundation modeling indicates the higher elevation areas of 
Key Largo, Upper Matecumbe, and Lignumvitae Key will continue to 
support upland habitats to at least 2100. However, all other areas in 
the Florida Keys and areas that currently support C. frustrata in ENP 
may be lost to sea-level rise by 2100.
    In the next 50 to 100 years, in order for Chromolaena frustrata to 
survive, reintroduction to suitable higher elevation sites outside of 
its historical range may be the only available option. However, the 
best available science is not able to project future locations of 
suitable habitat for C. frustrata on the Florida mainland, which will 
also be affected by sea-level rise within and outside the historical 
range of the plant. The range of sea-level rise projections coupled 
with the lack of models specific to the areas and habitats does not 
support identification of unoccupied areas of critical habitat for this 
species solely on the basis of the effects of climate change on the 
Florida mainland at this time.
    (4) Comment: One commenter indicated there are ample precedent, 
legal authority, and conservation imperatives for the Service to 
identify and designate unoccupied inland habitat for the plant to 
buffer it from the effects of sea-level rise and increasing storm 
surge.
    Our Response: As stated in the response to Comment 3, above, we 
agree that considerations should include whether unoccupied areas 
(including areas outside the historical range) are essential to the 
conservation of the species, including areas less vulnerable to sea-
level rise and storm surge impacts in the future. We have endeavored to 
designate areas of habitat to serve these functions for Chromolaena 
frustrata, within the bounds of the best available science. We selected 
areas of higher elevation within suitable habitat on each of the 
Florida Keys within the species' historical range with the expectation 
that these areas will be less vulnerable to storm surge and will retain 
the physical and biological features that support Chromolaena frustrata 
for a longer duration than

[[Page 1554]]

many of the sites where the species exists currently. However, the best 
available science is not able to project future locations of suitable 
habitat for the species on the Florida mainland. Therefore, we did not 
designate unoccupied critical habitat solely on the basis of the 
effects of climate change.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    Based on information we received in comments regarding the habitats 
that support Chromolaena frustrata, we refined our description of the 
primary constituent elements to more accurately reflect the habitat 
needs of the species. Specifically, habitats in ENP previously 
identified as rockland hammock were reclassified as coastal hardwood 
hammock to account for the different substrate on which these 
communities develop and subtle differences in species composition. No 
adjustments to the unit boundaries were needed as a result of this 
change. A change, made throughout the final rule, was the clarification 
that plant species in each habitat community may be present, but are 
not limited to those native species listed in the vegetation 
description.
    We corrected errors in the critical habitat unit acreage that were 
due to rounding errors. These rounding errors resulted in changes of no 
more than 1 to 3 ac (0 to 1 ha) in any given unit. We also corrected a 
calculation error in the acreage of Unit 1 (ENP). This error was due to 
a miscalculation of the unit size. In the proposed rule, we reported 
the area of Unit 1 as 3,768 ac (1,525 ha). In the final rule, we report 
the correct area, which is 6,166 ac (2,495 ha). The Service coordinated 
this change with ENP, who expressed no concern with the change, as 
their review focused on the mapped boundaries in the proposed rule, 
which correctly represented the proposed designated habitat. No 
adjustments to the unit boundaries were needed as a result of this 
change. This change does not affect the outcome of economic analysis 
for the proposed unit designations concerning the projection of 
incremental effects, as it is based on the consultation history in the 
mapped area, not the acres. The rounding error corrections and the unit 
1 acreage correction results in the total acreage of designated 
critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata to be 10,968 ac (4,439 ha).

Summary of Biological Status for Chromolaena frustrata

    For more information on Chromolaena frustrata's taxonomy, life 
history, habitat, population descriptions, and factors affecting the 
species, refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register 
on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836).
    We have evaluated the biological status of this species and threats 
affecting its continued existence. Our assessment, as summarized 
immediately below, is based upon the best available scientific and 
commercial data and the opinion of the species experts.
    Chromolaena frustrata (Family: Asteraceae) is a perennial 
herbaceous plant. Mature plants are 5.9 to 9.8 inches (in) (15 to 25 
centimeters (cm)) tall with erect stems. The blue to lavender flowers 
are borne in heads, usually in clusters of two to six. Flowers are 
produced mostly in the fall, though sometimes year round (Nesom 2006, 
pp. 544-545).
Taxonomy
    Chromolaena frustrata was first reported by Chapman, from the 
Florida Keys in 1886, naming it Eupatorium heteroclinium (Chapman 1889, 
p. 626). Synonyms include Eupatorium frustratum B.L. Robinson and Osmia 
frustrata (B.L. Robinson) Small.
Climate
    The climate of south Florida where Chromolaena frustrata occurs is 
classified as tropical savanna and is characterized by distinct wet and 
dry seasons, a monthly mean temperature above 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) (18 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) in every month of the year, and 
annual rainfall averaging 30 to 60 in (75 to 150 cm) (Gabler et al. 
1994, p. 211).
Habitat
    Chromolaena frustrata grows in open canopy habitats in coastal 
berms and coastal rock barrens, and in semi-open to closed canopy 
habitats, including buttonwood forests, coastal hardwood hammocks, and 
rockland hammocks. C. frustrata is often found in the shade of 
associated canopy and subcanopy plant species; these canopies buffer C. 
frustrata from full exposure to the sun (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 37).
    Detailed descriptions of coastal berm, coastal rock barren, 
rockland hammock, and buttonwood forest are presented in the proposed 
listing rule for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and 
Harrisia aboriginum (77 FR 61836; October 11, 2012). Peer reviewers 
provided new information identifying coastal hardwood hammock as the 
community type supporting Chromolaena frustrata in ENP and identified 
associated species found in buttonwood forest in ENP. We include a full 
description of the coastal hardwood hammock and a revised description 
of the buttonwood forest communities below.

Coastal Hardwood Hammock

    Coastal hardwood hammock that supports Chromolaena frustrata in ENP 
is a species-rich, tropical hardwood forest. Though similar to rockland 
hammock in most characteristics, coastal hardwood hammock develops on a 
substrate consisting of elevated marl ridges with a very thin organic 
layer (Sadle 2012a, pers. comm.). Marl is an unconsolidated sedimentary 
rock or soil consisting of clay and lime. The plant species composition 
of coastal hardwood hammocks also differs somewhat from that of 
rockland hammock. Typical tree and shrub species may include, but are 
not limited to, Capparis flexuosa (bayleaf capertree), Coccoloba 
diversifolia (pigeon plum), Piscidia piscipula (Jamaican dogwood), 
Sideroxylon foetidissimum (false mastic), Eugenia foetida (Spanish 
stopper), Swietenia mahagoni (West Indies mahogany), Ficus aurea 
(strangler fig), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm), Eugenia axillaris 
(white stopper), Zanthoxylum fagara (wild lime), Sideroxylon 
celastrinum (saffron plum), and Colubrina arborescens (greenheart) 
(Rutchey et al. 2006, p. 21). Herbaceous species in coastal hardwood 
forest may include, but are not limited to, Acanthocereus tetragonus 
(barbed wire or triangle cactus), Alternanthera flavescens (yellow 
joyweed), Batis maritima (saltwort or turtleweed), Borrichia 
arborescens (tree seaside oxeye), Borrichia frutescens (bushy seaside 
oxeye), Caesalpinia bonduc (grey nicker), Capsicum annuum (bird 
pepper), Galactia striata (Florida hammock milkpea), Heliotropium 
angiospermum (scorpion's tail), Passiflora suberosa (corkystem 
passionflower), Rivina humilis (pigeonberry), Salicornia perennis 
(perennial glasswort), Sesuvium portulacastrum (seapurslane), and 
Suaeda linearis (sea blite). Ground cover is often limited in closed 
canopy areas and abundant in areas where canopy disturbance has 
occurred or where this community intergrades with buttonwood forest 
(Sadle 2012a, pers. comm.).
    The sparsely vegetated edges or interior portions of rockland and 
coastal hardwood hammock where the canopy is open are the areas that 
have light levels sufficient to support Chromolaena frustrata. However, 
the dynamic nature of the habitat means that areas not currently open 
may become open in the future as a result of canopy disruption from 
hurricanes,

[[Page 1555]]

while areas currently open may develop more dense canopy over time, 
eventually rendering that portion of the hammock unsuitable for C. 
frustrata.

Buttonwood Forest

    Forests dominated by buttonwood often exist in upper tidal areas, 
especially where mangrove swamp transitions to rockland or coastal 
hardwood hammock. These buttonwood forests have canopy dominated by 
Conocarpus erectus (buttonwood) and often have an understory dominated 
by Borrichia frutescens, Lycium carolinianum (Christmasberry), and 
Limonium carolinianum (sea lavender) (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 
(FNAI) 2010d, p. 4). In ENP, the species most frequently observed in 
association with Chromolaena frustrata are Capparis flexuosa, Borrichia 
frutescens, Alternanthera flavescens, Rivina humilis, Sideroxylon 
celastrinum, Heliotropium angiospermum, Eugenia foetida, Batis 
maritima, Acanthocereus tetragonus, and Sesuvium portulacastrum (Sadle 
2012a, pers. comm.).
    Temperature, salinity, tidal fluctuation, substrate, and wave 
energy influence the size and extent of buttonwood forests (FNAI 2010e, 
p. 3). Buttonwood forests often grade into salt marsh, coastal berm, 
rockland hammock, coastal hardwood hammock, and coastal rock barren 
(FNAI 2010d, p. 5).
Distribution and Range
    Chromolaena frustrata is endemic to the southern tip of Florida and 
the Florida Keys. It occurs within coastal berm, coastal rock barrens, 
coastal hardwood hammock, rockland hammock, and buttonwood forest 
habitat. The estimated rangewide population was 6,500 to 7,500 plants 
when the eight known populations were last surveyed (Bradley and Gann 
2004, pp. 3-6; Sadle 2012a, pers. comm.; Duquesnel 2012, pers. comm.). 
Four of eight extant C. frustrata populations consist of fewer than 100 
individuals. These populations may not be viable in the long term due 
to their small number of individuals.
    Chromolaena frustrata was historically known from Monroe County, 
both on the Florida mainland and the Florida Keys, and in Miami-Dade 
County along Florida Bay in ENP (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 36). In the 
Florida Keys, C. frustrata was observed historically on Big Pine Key, 
Boca Grande Key, Fiesta Key, Key Largo, Key West, Knight's Key, 
Lignumvitae Key, Long Key, Upper Matecumbe Key, and Lower Matecumbe Key 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 36; Bradley and Gann 2004, pp. 4-7). 
Chromolaena frustrata has been extirpated from half of the islands 
where it occurred in the Florida Keys, but appears to occupy its 
historical distribution in ENP. Although remaining C. frustrata 
populations occur mostly within public conservation lands, threats to 
the species from a wide array of natural and anthropogenic sources 
still remain. Habitat loss and modification, recreation impacts, and 
competition from nonnative plant species still exist in all remaining 
populations. Additionally, much of the species' habitat is projected to 
be lost to sea-level rise over the next century.
    In ENP, 11 Chromolaena frustrata subpopulations supporting 
approximately 1,600 to 2,600 plants occur in buttonwood forests and 
coastal hardwood hammocks from the Coastal Prairie Trail near the 
southern tip of Cape Sable to Madeira Bay (Sadle 2007 and 2012b, pers. 
comm.).
    In the Florida Keys, Chromolaena frustrata is now known only from 
Upper Matecumbe Key, Lower Matecumbe Key, Lignumvitae Key, Long Key, 
Big Munson Island, and Boca Grande Key (Bradley and Gann 2004, pp. 3-
4). It no longer exists on Key Largo, Big Pine Key, Fiesta Key, 
Knight's Key, or Key West (Bradley and Gann 2004, pp. 4-6).
Reproductive Biology and Genetics
    The reproductive biology and genetics of Chromolaena frustrata have 
received little study. Fresh C. frustrata seeds show a germination rate 
of 65 percent, but germination rates decrease to 27 percent after the 
seeds are subjected to freezing, suggesting that long-term seed storage 
may present difficulties (Kennedy et al. 2012, pp. 40, 50-51). While 
there have been no studies on the reproductive biology of C. frustrata, 
we can draw some generalizations from other species of Chromolaena, 
which reproduce sexually. New plants originate from seeds. Pollinators 
are likely to be generalists, such as butterflies, bees, flies, and 
beetles. Seed dispersal is largely by wind (Lakshmi et al. 2011, p. 1).
Population Demographics
    Chromolaena frustrata is relatively a short-lived plant; therefore 
it must successfully reproduce more often than a long-lived species to 
maintain populations. C. frustrata populations are demographically 
unstable, experiencing sudden steep declines due to the effects of 
hurricanes and storm surges. However, the species appears to be able to 
rebound at affected sites within a few years (Bradley 2009, pers. 
comm.). The large population observed at Big Munson Island in 2003 
likely resulted from thinning of the rockland hammock canopy caused by 
Hurricane Georges in 1998 (Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 4). Populations 
that are subject to wide demographic fluctuations are generally more 
vulnerable to random extinction events and negative consequences 
arising from small populations, such as genetic bottlenecks.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (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-

[[Page 1556]]

Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding 
or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or 
critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse 
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and 
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to 
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those 
specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide 
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. 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 and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may 
require special management considerations or protection. These include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derived the specific physical or biological features essential 
for Chromolaena frustrata from studies of this species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section 
of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the 
Federal Register on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), and in the 
information presented below. We have determined that physical or 
biological features presented below are required for the conservation 
of C. frustrata. One change to these features in this final 
determination from the proposed rule is a result of the peer review 
process: coastal hardwood hammock has been added to the plant 
communities known for C. frustrata because it describes the plant 
community more accurately in ENP (Sadle 2012a, pers. comm.). We also 
include new information about reproductive patterns in the genus 
Chromolaena.
Space for Individual and Population Growth
    Plant Community and Competitive Ability. Chromolaena frustrata 
occurs in communities classified as coastal berms, coastal rock 
barrens, buttonwood forests, coastal hardwood hammocks, and rockland 
hammocks restricted to tropical south Florida and the Florida

[[Page 1557]]

Keys. These communities and their associated native plant species are 
provided in the Status Assessment for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea 
corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum section of the proposed rule (77 
FR 61836) and the newly added information on coastal hardwood hammocks 
and buttonwood forests in this final rule. Therefore, we identify 
upland habitats consisting of coastal berms, coastal rock barrens, 
buttonwood forests, coastal hardwood hammocks, and rockland hammocks 
restricted to tropical south Florida and the Florida Keys to be a 
physical or biological feature for Chromolaena frustrata.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Climate (temperature and precipitation). The climate of south 
Florida where Chromolaena frustrata occurs is characterized by distinct 
wet and dry seasons, a monthly mean temperature above 64.4 [deg]F (18 
[deg]C) in every month of the year, and annual rainfall averaging 30 to 
60 in (75 to 150 cm) (Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). Freezes can occur in 
the winter months, but are very infrequent at this latitude in Florida.
    Soils. Substrates supporting Chromolaena frustrata for anchoring or 
nutrient absorption vary depending on the habitat and location and 
include marl (an unconsolidated sedimentary rock or soil consisting of 
clay and lime) (Sadle 2008 and 2012a, pers. comm.); soils consisting of 
covering limestone; exposed bare limestone rock or with a thin layer of 
leaf litter or highly organic soil (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 37; FNAI 
2010d, p. 1); or loose sediment formed by a mixture of coarse sand, 
shell fragments, pieces of coralline algae, and other coastal debris 
(FNAI 2010a, p. 1). The natural process giving rise to coastal rock 
barren is not known, but as it occurs on sites where the thin layer of 
organic soil over limestone bedrock is missing, coastal rock barren may 
have formed by soil erosion following destruction of the plant cover by 
fire or storm surge (FNAI 2010c, p. 2). Therefore, we identify 
substrates derived from calcareous sand, limestone, or marl that 
provide anchoring and nutritional requirements to be a physical or 
biological feature for Chromolaena frustrata.
    Hydrology. The species requires coastal berms and coastal rock 
barrens habitats that occur above the daily tidal range, but are 
subject to flooding by seawater during extreme tides and storm surge. 
Rockland hammock and coastal hardwood hammock occur on high ground that 
does not regularly flood, but they are often dependent upon a high 
water table to keep humidity levels high, and they can be inundated 
during storm surges (FNAI 2010d, p. 1). Therefore, we identify habitats 
inundated by storm surge or tidal events at a frequency needed to limit 
plant species competition while not creating too high of a saline 
condition to be a physical or biological feature for Chromolaena 
frustrata.
Cover or Shelter
    Chromolaena frustrata occurs in open canopy and semi-open to closed 
canopy habitats and thrives in areas of moderate sun exposure (Bradley 
and Gann 1999, p. 37). The amount and frequency of such microsites 
varies by habitat type and time elapsed since the last disturbance. In 
rockland and coastal hardwood hammocks, suitable microsites will often 
be found near the hammock edge where the canopy is most open. However, 
the species has been observed to spread into the hammocks when canopy 
cover is reduced by hurricane damage to canopy trees. More open 
communities (e.g., coastal berm, buttonwood, and salt marsh ecotone) 
provide more abundant and temporally consistent suitable habitat than 
communities capable of establishing a dense canopy (e.g., rockland and 
coastal hardwood hammock). Therefore, we identify habitats that have a 
vegetation composition and structure that allows for adequate sunlight 
and space for individual growth and population expansion to be a 
physical or biological feature for Chromolaena frustrata.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    While there have been no studies on the reproductive biology of 
Chromolaena frustrata, we can draw some generalizations from other 
species of Chromolaena, which reproduce sexually. Pollinators are 
likely to be generalists, such as butterflies, bees, flies, and 
beetles. New plants originate from seeds and seeds dispersal is largely 
by wind (Lakshmi et al. 2011, p. 1).
    The sparsely vegetated edges or interior portions opened by canopy 
disruption are the areas of rockland and coastal hardwood hammock that 
have light levels sufficient to support Chromolaena frustrata. However, 
the dynamic nature of the habitat means that areas not currently open 
may become open in the future as a result of canopy disruption from 
hurricanes, while areas currently open may develop more dense canopy 
over time, eventually rendering that portion of the hammock unsuitable 
for C. frustrata. Therefore, we identify habitats that have disturbance 
regimes, including hurricanes, and infrequent inundation events that 
saturate the substrate and maintain the habitat suitability to be 
physical or biological features for Chromolaena frustrata.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
    Chromolaena frustrata continues to occur in habitats that are 
protected from human-generated disturbances and are representative of 
the species' historical, geographical, and ecological distribution 
although its range has been reduced. The species is still found in all 
of its representative plant communities: rock barrens, coastal berms, 
buttonwood forest, coastal hardwood hammocks, and rockland hammocks. In 
addition, representative communities are located on Federal, State, 
local, and private conservation lands that implement conservation 
measures benefitting the species. The species requires habitat of 
sufficient size and connectivity that can support species growth, 
distribution and population expansion.

Primary Constituent Elements for Chromolaena frustrata

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Chromolaena frustrata in areas occupied at the time of 
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements (PCEs). 
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.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the PCEs specific to 
Chromolaena frustrata are:
    (1) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, coastal 
rock barren, coastal hardwood hammock, rockland hammocks, and 
buttonwood forest.
    (a) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
    (i) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
    (ii) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, storm-deposited sediment.
    (b) Coastal rock barren (Keys cactus barren, Keys tidal rock 
barren) habitat that contains:
    (i) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
    (ii) Limestone rock substrate.

[[Page 1558]]

    (c) Coastal hardwood hammock habitat occurring in Everglades 
National Park that contains:
    (i) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory; and
    (ii) Substrate of marl covered with a thin layer of highly organic 
soil.
    (d) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
    (i) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory; and
    (ii) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil, marl, 
humus, or leaf litter on top of the underlying limestone.
    (e) Buttonwood forest habitat that contains:
    (i) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
    (ii) Substrate with calcareous marl muds, calcareous sands, or 
limestone rock.
    (2) Plant communities of predominately native vegetation with 
either no invasive, nonnative species or with low enough quantities of 
nonnative, invasive plant species to have minimal effect on the 
survival of Chromolaena frustrata.
    (3) A disturbance regime, due to the effects of strong winds or 
saltwater inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation, 
that creates canopy openings in coastal berm, coastal rock barren, 
coastal hardwood hammock, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
    (4) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain 
viable populations in coastal berm, coastal rock barren, coastal 
hardwood hammock, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    Special management considerations or protection are necessary 
throughout the critical habitat areas to avoid further degradation or 
destruction of the habitat that contains those features essential for 
the conservation of the species. The primary threats to the physical or 
biological features that Chromolaena frustrata depends on include: (1) 
Habitat destruction and modification by development; (2) competition 
with nonnative, invasive plant species that changes the habitat 
composition and structure; (3) wildfire that destroys habitat; (4) 
hurricanes and storm surge, if too frequent or severe destroy or modify 
habitat making it unsuitable; and (5) sea-level rise that changes the 
habitat to a more saline environment. Some of these threats can be 
addressed by special management considerations or protection while 
others (e.g., sea-level rise, hurricanes) are beyond the control of 
landowners and managers. However, while landowners or land managers may 
not be able to control all the threats, they may be able to address the 
results of the threats to the habitats.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include 
the monitoring and minimizing recreational activities impacts, 
nonnative species control, and protection from development. Precautions 
are needed to avoid the inadvertent trampling of Chromolaena frustrata 
in the course of management activities and public use. Development of 
recreation facilities or programs should avoid impacting these habitats 
directly or indirectly. Ditching and filling should be avoided because 
they alter the hydrology and species composition of these habitats. 
Sites that have shown increasing encroachment of woody species over 
time may require efforts to maintain the open nature of the habitat, 
which favors these species. Nonnative species control programs are 
needed to reduce competition and prevent habitat degradation. The 
reduction of these threats will require the implementation of special 
management actions within each of the critical habitat areas identified 
in this rule. All critical habitat requires active management to 
address the ongoing threats listed.
    In summary, we find that each of the areas we are designating as 
critical habitat contain features essential to the conservation of 
Chromolaena frustrata that may require special management 
considerations or protection to ensure conservation of the species. 
These special management considerations and protections are required to 
preserve and maintain the essential features provided to C. frustrata 
by the ecosystems upon which it depends. A more detailed discussion of 
these threats is presented in the proposed rule under ``Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species'' (77 FR 61836; October 11, 2012).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If 
after identifying currently occupied areas, we determine that those 
areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, in 
accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied--are essential for the conservation of 
the species. In this rule, we are designating critical habitat in areas 
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing in 2013. We also are designating specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that 
were historically occupied, because we have determined that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species. Sources of data for 
this analysis included the following:
    (1) Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) population records and 
ArcGIS geographic information system (GIS) software to spatially depict 
the location and extent of documented populations of Chromolaena 
frustrata (FNAI 2012, pp. 1-17);
    (2) Reports prepared by botanists with the Institute for Regional 
Conservation (IRC), National Park Service (NPS), and Florida Department 
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Some of these were funded by the 
Service, others were requested or volunteered by biologists with the 
NPS or FDEP;
    (3) Historical records found in reports and associated voucher 
specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are also referenced in the 
above mentioned reports from the IRC and FNAI;
    (4) Digitally produced habitat maps provided by NPS and Monroe 
County; and
    (5) Aerial images of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The presence 
of PCEs was determined through the use of GIS spatial data depicting 
the current habitat status. This habitat data for the Florida Keys were 
developed by Monroe County from 2006 aerial images, and ground 
conditions for many areas were checked in 2009. Habitat data for ENP 
were provided by the NPS. The areas that contain PCEs follow 
predictable landscape patterns and have a recognizable signature in the 
aerial photographs.
    Four of the eight extant Chromolaena frustrata populations consist 
of fewer than 100 individuals; two others have fewer than 250 
individuals. Small populations such as these populations that have 
limited distributions, are

[[Page 1559]]

vulnerable to relatively minor environmental disturbances (Given 1994, 
pp. 66-76; Frankham 2005, pp. 135-136), and are subject to the loss of 
genetic diversity from genetic drift, the random loss of genes, and 
inbreeding (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217-237; Leimu et al. 2006, 
pp. 942-952). Plant populations with lowered genetic diversity are more 
prone to local extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28). Smaller 
plant populations generally have lower genetic diversity, and lower 
genetic diversity may in turn lead to even smaller populations by 
decreasing the species' ability to adapt, thereby increasing the 
probability of population extinction (Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360; 
Palstra and Ruzzante 2008, pp. 3428-3447). Because of the risks 
associated with small populations or limited distributions, the 
recovery of many rare plant species includes the creation of new sites 
or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects.
    The current distribution of the Chromolaena frustrata is much 
reduced from its historical distribution. We anticipate that recovery 
will require continued protection of existing populations and habitat, 
as well as establishing populations in additional locations that more 
closely approximate its historical distribution in order to ensure 
there is adequate number of C. frustrata stable populations and that 
these populations occur over a wide geographic area within the species' 
historical range. This will help to ensure that catastrophic events, 
such as hurricanes or wildfire, would not simultaneously affect all 
known populations.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
    For the purpose of designating critical habitat for Chromolaena 
frustrata, we defined the geographical area currently occupied by the 
species as required by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. The occupied 
critical habitat units were delineated around documented extant 
populations. These units include the mapped extent of the population 
that contain one or more of the elements of the physical or biological 
features. We considered the following when identifying occupied areas 
of critical habitat:
    (1) Space to allow for the successional nature of the occupied 
habitats (i.e., gain and loss of areas with sufficient light 
availability due to disturbance of the tree canopy driven by natural 
events such as inundation and hurricanes), and habitat transition or 
loss due to sea-level rise. In ENP, the distribution of Chromolaena 
frustrata is across a larger area than at any other single location. In 
the Florida Keys, the same criteria were used, but the size of the 
units is limited by the size of individual islands.
    (2) Some areas will require special management to maintain 
connectivity of occupied habitat to allow for population expansion and 
connection with other populations. Isolation of populations can result 
in localized extinctions.
    (3) Some areas will require special management to be able to 
support a higher density of the plant within the occupied space. These 
areas generally are habitats where some of the primary constituent 
elements have been lost through natural or human causes. These areas 
would help to off-set the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat 
occurring or expected from the effects of climate change (such as sea-
level rise) or due to development.
    After following the above criteria, we determined that occupied 
areas were not sufficient for the conservation of the species for the 
following reasons: (1) Restoring the species to its historical range 
and reducing its vulnerability to stochastic events such as hurricanes 
and storm surge requires reintroduction to areas where it occurred in 
the past but has since been extirpated; (2) providing increased 
connectivity for populations and areas for small populations to expand 
requires currently unoccupied habitat; and (3) reintroduction or 
assisted migration to reduce the vulnerability of the species to sea-
level rise and storm surge requires higher elevation sites that 
currently are unoccupied by Chromolaena frustrata. Therefore, we looked 
to unoccupied areas that may be essential for the conservation of the 
species.
Areas Outside the Geographic Area Occupied at the Time of Listing
    When designating critical habitat, we consider future recovery 
efforts and conservation of the species. Realizing that the current 
occupied habitat is not enough for the conservation and recovery of 
Chromolaena frustrata, we used habitat and historical occurrence data 
to identify unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the 
species as described below.
    The unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species because they:
    (1) Represent the historical range of Chromolaena frustrata. C. 
frustrata has been extirpated from several locations where it was 
previously recorded. Of those areas found in reports, we are 
designating critical habitat only where there are well documented 
historical occurrences (i.e., Big Pine Key and Key Largo (Bradley and 
Gann 2004, pp. 4-6)). These areas still retain some or all the elements 
of the physical or biological features. Areas such as Fiesta Key and 
Knight's Key, which once supported populations of C. frustrata but no 
longer contain any PCEs and cannot be restored, are not included.
    (2) Provide areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem processes 
for populations of Chromolaena frustrata. These areas are essential for 
the conservation of the species because they will provide areas for 
population expansion and growth. Large contiguous parcels of habitat 
are more likely to be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance 
and succession, and support viable populations of C. frustrata. The 
unoccupied areas selected were at least 30 ac (12.1 ha) or greater in 
size.
    The amount and distribution of designated critical habitat will 
allow Chromoleana frustrata to:
    (1) Maintain its existing distribution;
    (2) Expand its distribution into historically occupied areas 
(needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
    (3) Use habitat depending on habitat availability (respond to 
changing nature of coastal habitat including occurring sea-level rise) 
and support genetic diversity;
    (4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the 
threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties 
are diminished; and
    (5) Maintain its ability to withstand local or unit level 
environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as 
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such 
lands lack physical or biological features for Chromolaena frustrata. 
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication 
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of 
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been 
excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical 
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not 
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would 
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical 
habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of

[[Page 1560]]

this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2013-0029, on our Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, and 
at the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating nine units as critical habitat for Chromolaena 
frustrata. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our 
best assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for C. frustrata. The nine units are: (1) Everglades 
National Park (ENP); (2) Key Largo; (3) Upper Matecumbe Key; (4) 
Lignumvitae Key; (5) Lower Matecumbe Key; (6) Long Key; (7) Big Pine 
Key; (8) Big Munson Island; and (9) Boca Grande Key. Land ownership 
within the critical habitat consists of Federal (70 percent), State (23 
percent), and private and other (6 percent). Table 1 summarizes these 
units.

                                                  TABLE 1--Chromolaena frustrata Critical Habitat Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Unit No.                     Unit Name              Ownership            Percent          Acres         Hectares            Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................  Everglades National    Federal..............             100           6,166           2,495  yes.
                                      Park.
                                                            Total................             100           6,166           2,495
2..................................  Key Largo............  Federal..............              23             804             325  no.
                                                            State................              63           2,170             878
                                                            Private..............              13             457             185
                                                            Total................             100           3,431           1,388
3..................................  Upper Matecumbe Key..  State................              34              24              10  yes.
                                                            Private..............              66              45              18
                                                            Total................             100              69              28
4..................................  Lignumvitae Key......  State................             100             180              73  yes.
                                                            Total................             100             180              73
5..................................  Lower Matecumbe Key..  State................              49              22               9  yes.
                                                            Private..............              51              22               9
                                                            Total................             100              44              18
6..................................  Long Key.............  State................              73             151              61  yes.
                                                            Private..............              27              57              23
                                                            Total................             100             208              84
7..................................  Big Pine Key.........  Federal..............              88             686             278  no.
                                                            Private..............              12              94              38
                                                            Total................             100             780             316
8..................................  Big Munson Island....  Private..............             100              28              11  yes.
                                                            Total................             100              28              11
9..................................  Boca Grande Key......  Federal..............             100              62              25  yes.
                                                            Total................             100              62              25
    Total All Units                                         Federal..............              70           7,718           3,123
                                                            State................              23           2,547           1,031
                                                            Private and Other....               6             703             284
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            All..................                          10,968           4,439
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata, 
below.

Unit 1: Everglades National Park, Monroe County and Miami-Dade County

    Unit 1 consists of a total of 6,166 ac (2,495 ha) in Monroe and 
Miami-Dade Counties. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal 
ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the Everglades 
National Park along the southern coast of Florida from Cape Sable to 
Trout Cove, located between the mean high water line to approximately 
2.5 mi (4.02 km) inland. This unit is currently occupied and contains 
all the physical or biological features required by the species. The 
unit contains coastal hardwood hammock and buttonwood forest primary 
constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
threats of nonnative plant species and sea-level rise. The National 
Park Service conducts nonnative species control and monitors 
Chromolaena frustrata occurrences in ENP.

Unit 2: Key Largo, Monroe County

    Unit 2 consists of a total of 3,431 ac (1,388 ha) in Monroe County. 
This unit is composed of Federal lands within Crocodile Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (804 ac (325 ha)); State lands within Dagny 
Johnson Botanical State Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and 
the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area (2,170 ac (878 ha)); 
and parcels in private ownership (457 ac (185 ha)).
    This unit extends from near the northern tip of Key Largo, along 
the length of Key Largo, beginning at the south shore of Ocean Reef 
Harbor near South Marina Drive and the intersection of County Road (CR) 
905 and Clubhouse Road on the west side of CR 905, and between CR 905 
and Old State Road 905, then extending to the shoreline south of South 
Harbor Drive. The unit then continues on both sides of CR 905 through 
the Crocodile Lake NWR, Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State 
Park, and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. The unit then 
terminates near the junction of U.S. 1 and CR 905 and Garden Cove 
Drive. The unit resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 from South Andros 
Road to Key Largo Elementary School; then from intersection of Taylor 
Drive and Pamela

[[Page 1561]]

Street to Avenue A; then from Sound Drive to the intersection of Old 
Road and Valencia Road; then resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 from 
Hibiscus Lane and Ocean Drive. The unit continues south near the Port 
Largo Airport from Poisonwood Road to Bo Peep Boulevard. The unit 
resumes on the west side of U.S. 1 from the intersection of South Drive 
and Meridian Avenue to Casa Court Drive. The unit then continues on the 
west side of U.S. 1 from the point on the coast directly west of Peace 
Avenue south to Caribbean Avenue. The unit also includes a portion of 
El Radabob Key.
    This unit is not currently occupied but is essential for the 
conservation of the species because it serves to protect habitat needed 
to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the 
historical range of the species, and maintain populations throughout 
the historical distribution of the species in the Florida Keys. It also 
provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events that 
otherwise would eliminate the species from the one or more locations it 
is presently found. The Service conducts nonnative species control 
efforts at Crocodile Lake NWR, and FDACS conducts nonnative species 
control efforts at Dagny Johnson Botanical State Park, John Pennekamp 
Coral Reef State Park, and the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental 
Area.

Unit 3: Upper Matecumbe Key, Monroe County

    Unit 3 consists of a total of 69 ac (28 ha) in Monroe County. This 
unit is composed of State lands within Lignumvitae Key State Botanical 
Park, Indian Key Historical State Park (24 ac (10 ha)); City of 
Islamorada lands within the Key Tree Cactus Preserve and Green Turtle 
Hammock Park and parcels in private ownership (45 ac (18 ha)).
    This unit extends from Matecumbe Avenue south to Seashore Avenue 
along either side of U.S. 1. The unit then continues along the west 
side of U.S. 1, including the Green Turtle Hammock Park and a nature 
preserve owned by the City of Islamorada; straddles U.S. 1 in the 
vicinity of Indian Key Historical Park; and continues for 0.5 mi (0.8 
km) to near the southern tip of Key Largo on the west side of U.S. 1. 
This unit is currently occupied and contains all the physical or 
biological features essential for the conservation of the species. It 
contains the primary constituent elements of coastal berm, coastal rock 
barren, and rockland hammock.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats of 
small population size, nonnative species, and sea-level rise. FDACS 
conducts nonnative species control efforts in Lignumvitae Key State 
Botanical Park and Indian Key Historical State Park.

Unit 4: Lignumvitae Key, Monroe County

    Unit 4 consists of a total of 180 ac (73 ha) in Monroe County. This 
unit is composed entirely of lands in State ownership, 100 percent of 
which are located within the Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park 
(LKBSP) on Lignumvitae Key in the Florida Keys. This unit includes the 
entire upland area of Lignumvitae Key.
    This unit is currently occupied and contains all the physical or 
biological features essential for the conservation of the species. This 
unit includes all the primary constituent of rockland hammock and 
buttonwood forest habitat that occur within LKBSP on Lignumvitae Key. 
The physical or biological features in this unit may require special 
management considerations or protection to address threats of small 
population size, nonnative species, and sea-level rise. FDACS conducts 
nonnative species control efforts at LKBSP.

Unit 5: Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County

    Unit 5 consists of a total of 44 ac (18 ha) in Monroe County. The 
unit is composed of State lands within Lignumvitae Key Botanical State 
Park and parcels owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (22 
ac (9 ha)); and parcels in private ownership (22 ac (9 ha)). This unit 
extends from the east side of U.S. 1 from 0.14 mi (0.2 km) from the 
north edge of Lower Matecumbe Key, situated across U.S. 1 from Davis 
Lane and Tiki Lane. The unit continues on either side of U.S. 1 
approximately 0.4 mi (0.6 km) from the north edge of Lower Matecumbe 
Key for approximately 0.6 mi (0.9 km).
    This unit is currently occupied and contains all the physical or 
biological features essential for the conservation of the species. The 
physical or biological features in this unit may require special 
management considerations or protection to address threats of small 
population size, nonnative species, and sea-level rise. FDACS conducts 
nonnative species control efforts at Lignumvitae Key Botanical State 
Park.

Unit 6: Long Key, Monroe County

    Unit 6 consists of a total of 208 ac (84 ha) in Monroe County. This 
unit is composed of State lands within Long Key State Park (151 ac (61 
ha)) and parcels in private ownership (57 ac (23 ha)). The unit extends 
from the southwestern tip of Long Key along the island's west and south 
shores.
    The unit is currently occupied and contains all the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. It 
contains the PCEs of coastal berm, coastal rock barren, rockland 
hammock, and buttonwood forest. The physical or biological features in 
this unit may require special management considerations or protection 
to address threats of development, small population size, nonnative 
species, and sea-level rise. FDACS conducts nonnative species control 
efforts at Long Key State Park.

Unit 7: Big Pine Key, Monroe County

    Unit 7 consists of a total of 780 ac (316 ha) in Monroe County. 
This unit is composed of Federal land within the National Key Deer 
Refuge (NKDR) (686 ac (278 ha)) and parcels in private ownership (94 ac 
(38 ha)). This unit extends from near the northern tip of Big Pine Key 
along the eastern shore to the vicinity of Hellenga Drive and Watson 
Road; from Gulf Boulevard south to West Shore Drive; extending from the 
southwest tip of Big Pine Key, bordered by Big Pine Avenue and Elma 
Avenues on the east, Coral and Yacht Club Road, and U.S. 1 on the 
north, and Industrial Avenue on the east; along Long Beach Drive; and 
from the southeastern tip of Big Pine Key to Avenue A.
    This unit is not currently occupied but is essential for the 
conservation of the species because it serves to protect habitat needed 
to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the 
historical range of the species, and maintain populations throughout 
the historical distribution of the species in the Florida Keys. It also 
provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events that 
otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the species from the one or 
more locations where it is presently found. The Service conducts 
nonnative species control at the National Key Deer Refuge.

Unit 8: Big Munson Island, Monroe County

    Unit 8 consists of a total of 28 ac (11 ha) in Monroe County. This 
unit is composed entirely of lands in private ownership, owned by the 
Boy Scouts of America. This unit is occupied and contains all the 
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the 
species. It includes all the PCEs of coastal berm, rockland hammock, 
and buttonwood forest habitat that occur on Big Munson Island.

[[Page 1562]]

    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats of 
development, recreation, nonnative species, and sea-level rise. No 
conservation actions are known.

Unit 9: Boca Grande Key, Monroe County

    Unit 9 consists of a total of 62 ac (25 ha) in Monroe County. This 
unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of 
which is located within the Key West National Wildlife Refuge. This 
unit is occupied and contains all the physical or biological features 
essential for the conservation of the species. This unit includes all 
the primary constituent elements of coastal berm, rockland hammock, and 
buttonwood forest habitat on the island, comprising the entirety of 
Boca Grande Key.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats of 
small population size, nonnative species, and sea-level rise. The 
Service conducts nonnative species control at the Key West Refuge.
    Unit 9 of the critical habitat units for Chromolaena frustrata is 
currently designated as critical habitat under the Act for the 
wintering piping plover (Charadrius melodus, 50 CFR 17.95(b)), and 
Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are designated for the American crocodile 
(Crocodylus acutus, 50 CFR 17.95(c)).

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 et al., 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 
2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing 
whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. Under the provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or 
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of 
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would 
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (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 Chromolaena frustrata. As 
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for Chromolaena frustrata. These activities include, but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology or 
substrate, such as

[[Page 1563]]

ditching or filling. Such activities may include, but are not limited 
to, road construction or maintenance, and residential, commercial, or 
recreational development.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or 
composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of 
residences, facilities, trails, and roads.
    (3) Actions that would introduce nonnative species that would 
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such 
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and 
commercial development, and road construction.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat 
any lands or other 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 (INRMP) prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no 
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed 
critical habitat designation. Therefore, we are not exempting any lands 
from this final designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena 
frustrata pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

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 she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history, is 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, the Secretary 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 her discretion to 
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis of the 
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (Loomis et 
al. 2013a, entire). The draft analysis, dated April 2013, was made 
available for public review from July 8, 2013, through August 7, 2013 
(78 FR 40669). Following the close of the comment period, a final 
analysis of the potential economic effects of the proposed designation 
was developed taking into consideration the public comments and any new 
information (Loomis et al. 2013b, entire).
    The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Chromolaena 
frustrata; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of 
whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact 
of the critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios 
both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The 
``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the 
analysis, considering protections already in place for the species 
(e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local 
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with 
critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts 
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for 
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated 
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs 
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat 
above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in 
the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks 
retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was 
listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to 
occur with the designation of critical habitat.
    The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to 
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group 
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at costs 
that occurred between the publication of the final listing rule and the 
final rule designating critical habitat, and considers those costs that 
may occur in the 20 years following the designation of critical 
habitat, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis 
because limited planning information was available for most activities 
to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. 
The FEA quantifies economic impacts of Chromolaena frustrata 
conservation efforts associated with the following categories of 
activity: (1) Commercial, residential and recreational development; (2) 
Federal land management; and (3) restoration and conservation.
    Based on the best available information, including extensive 
discussions with stakeholders, we estimate the critical habitat 
designation will result in direct incremental costs of approximately 
between $578,000 (at a 7 percent discount rate), $764,000 (at a 3 
percent discount rate), and $982,000 (not discounted) over the next 20 
years, or $38,000 to $49,000 on an annual basis depending on the 
discount rate. We estimate 93 percent of the costs are attributable to 
Federal land management and restoration and conservation activities, 
and the remaining costs are attributable to with development in the 
area. The majority of these costs is administrative and is borne by 
Federal and State agencies; however, some costs may be incurred by 
local governments and businesses. These costs stem from

[[Page 1564]]

the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with the Service 
regarding the impacts of their actions, or those that they fund or 
authorize, on critical habitat.
    Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs 
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the 
Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from 
this designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata based on 
economic impacts.
    A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by 
contacting the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES) 
or by downloading from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions Based on 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 final rule, we have 
determined that no lands within the designation of critical habitat for 
Chromolaena frustrata are owned or managed by the Department of 
Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. 
Consequently, the Secretary is not exerting her discretion to exclude 
any areas from this final designation based on impacts on national 
security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. 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 final rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for Chromolaena frustrata, 
and the final designation does not include any tribal lands or trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or 
HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary 
is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final 
designation based on other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is 
not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based 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 an 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. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical 
habitat designation for Chromolaena frustrata will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The following discussion explains our rationale.
    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; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include 
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, 
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and 
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general 
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in 
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual 
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts on 
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of 
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as 
well as the 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 a regulatory flexibility 
analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are affected by the 
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.
    The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that 
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential impacts of 
rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking; 
therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to 
those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical 
habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory 
effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action 
that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these 
circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by 
the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current 
interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its 
evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal 
action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement 
under the RFA

[[Page 1565]]

to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated, 
such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
direct Federal agencies to assess costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and 
qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the current practice of the 
Service to assess to the extent practicable these potential impacts if 
sufficient data are available, whether or not this analysis is believed 
by the Service to be strictly required by the RFA. In other words, 
while the effects analysis required under the RFA is limited to 
entities directly regulated by the rulemaking, the effects analysis 
under the Act, consistent with the E.O.s' regulatory analysis 
requirements, can take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable.
    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 only directly regulate Federal 
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. 
Accordingly, we certify that this designation of critical habitat will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
business entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. However, in our final economic analysis for this rule, we 
considered and evaluated the potential effects to third parties that 
may be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies related 
to this action.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized, 
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities 
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be 
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is 
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
that may affect the Chromolaena frustrata. Federal agencies also must 
consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat. 
Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an 
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to 
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application 
of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
    In our FEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the 
listing of the Chromolaena frustrata and the designation of critical 
habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated with 
the rulemaking as described in Chapters 4 through 5 and Appendices A 
and B of the analysis and evaluates the potential for economic impacts 
related to: (1) Federal land management; (2) commercial, residential, 
and recreational development; and (3) restoration and conservation.
    The threshold for a small governmental jurisdiction is a city, 
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000. The village of Islamorada, which manages conservation 
areas within the Upper Matecumbe Key habitat unit, qualifies as a small 
entity under this definition. Based on communication with the village 
of Islamorada (2013), current management of these areas, including 
control of invasive species, is consistent with management expected 
following the listing and designation of critical habitat for 
Chromolaena frustrata. No incremental impacts are expected to the 
village of Islamorada.
    There is the potential that project proponents for commercial, 
residential, and recreational development could be small businesses. As 
discussed in section 4.2 of the FEA, we do not estimate any incremental 
administrative time or project modifications above existing permitting 
requirements and restrictions on land clearing associated with 
development.
    In summary, we considered whether this designation will result in a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we 
concluded that this rule will not result in a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are 
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena 
frustrata will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this 
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory 
action under consideration.
    Appendix A of the economic analysis discusses the potential for 
critical habitat to affect energy supply, distribution, or use through 
the additional cost of considering adverse modification in section 7 
consultation. The economic analysis finds that none of the seven 
outcomes relative to significant adverse effect thresholds set forth by 
the Office of Management and Budget are relevant to this analysis. 
Thus, based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related 
impacts associated with Chromolaena frustrata conservation activities 
within critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of 
critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector

[[Page 1566]]

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 it will not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that any 
programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities 
must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the critical 
habitat. The final economic analysis concludes incremental impacts may 
occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for 
activities related to commercial, residential, and recreational 
development and associated actions; however, these are not expected to 
significantly affect small government entities. Consequently, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), 
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating 
critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata in a takings implications 
assessment. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat 
affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive 
Federal funding or assistance, or that require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. The takings implications 
assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for 
Chromolaena frustrata 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 rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary 
impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the 
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we request information 
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation 
with appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have 
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that 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 physical and biological features of the habitat necessary to the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur. However, it may assist 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 applicable 
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are 
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the 
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the 
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of Chromolaena frustrata. The 
designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the 
rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more 
detailed location information, if desired.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 
1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and

[[Page 1567]]

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 occupied by 
Chromolaena frustrata at the time of listing that contain the features 
essential to conservation of the species, and no tribal lands 
unoccupied by C. frustrata that are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for C. 
frustrata on tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited is available on the 
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services 
Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by revising the entry for Chromolaena frustrata 
under Flowering Plants in the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Chromolaena frustrata............  Cape Sable            U.S.A. (FL)........  Asteraceae.........  E                       826     17.96(a)           NA
                                    thoroughwort.
                                   U.S.A. (FL).........  NA.................  ...................  E               ...........     17.96(h)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



0
3. Amend Sec.  17.96(a) by adding an entry for ``Chromolaena frustrata 
(Cape Sable thoroughwort)'' in alphabetical order under the family 
Asteraceae, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Asteraceae: Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable thoroughwort)
    (1) Critical habitat units for Chromolaena frustrata are depicted 
for Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
Chromolaena frustrata consist of four components:
    (i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, coastal 
rock barren, coastal hardwood hammock, rockland hammocks, and 
buttonwood forest.
    (A) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
    (1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
    (2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, storm-deposited sediment.
    (B) Coastal rock barren (Keys cactus barren, Keys tidal rock 
barren) habitat that contains:
    (1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
    (2) Limestone rock substrate.
    (C) Coastal hardwood hammock habitat occurring in Everglades 
National Park that contains:
    (1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory; and
    (2) Substrate of marl covered with a thin layer of highly organic 
soil.
    (D) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
    (1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory; and
    (2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil, marl, 
humus, or leaf litter on top of the underlying limestone.
    (E) Buttonwood forest habitat that contains:
    (1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
    (2) Substrate with calcareous marl muds, calcareous sands, or 
limestone rock.
    (ii) Plant communities of predominately native vegetation with 
either no invasive, nonnative species or with low enough quantities of 
nonnative, invasive plant species to have minimal effect on the 
survival of Chromolaena frustrata.
    (iii) A disturbance regime, due to the effects of strong winds or 
saltwater inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation, 
that creates canopy openings in coastal berm, coastal rock barren, 
coastal hardwood hammock, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
    (iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain 
viable populations in coastal berm, coastal rock barren, coastal 
hardwood hammock, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located exists within the legal boundaries on 
February 7, 2014.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Unit maps were developed using ESRI

[[Page 1568]]

ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS 
was also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection 
used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the 
units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in 
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish 
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or 
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the 
public at the Service's Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, 
on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029, and at the field office responsible for 
this designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map of all critical habitat units for Chromolaena 
frustrata follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.006


[[Page 1569]]


    (6) Unit 1: Everglades National Park, Monroe and Miami-Dade 
Counties, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 1 consists of a total of 6,166 acres 
(2,495 hectares) in Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties. This unit is 
composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which 
are located within the Everglades National Park.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.007
    
    (7) Unit 2: Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 2 consists of a total of 3,431 acres 
(1,388 hectares) in Monroe County. This unit is composed of Federal 
lands within Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (804 acres 
(325 hectares)); State lands within Dagny Johnson Botanical State Park, 
John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and the Florida Keys Wildlife and 
Environmental Area (2,170 acres (878 hectares)); and parcels in private 
ownership (457 acres (185 hectares)).
    (ii) Index map of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 1570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.008

    (iii) Map A of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 1571]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.009

    (iv) Map B of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 1572]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.010

    (v) Map C of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 1573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.011

    (vi) Map D of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 1574]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.012

    (vii) Map E of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 1575]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.013

    (viii) Map F of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 1576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.014

    (8) Unit 3: Upper Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 3 consists of 69 acres (28 hectares) 
in Monroe County. This unit is comprised of State lands within 
Lignumvitae Key State Botanical Park, Indian Key Historical State Park 
(24 acres (10 hectares)); City of Islamorada lands within the Key Tree 
Cactus Preserve and Green Turtle Hammock Park and parcels in private 
ownership (45 acres (18 hectares)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

[[Page 1577]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.015

    (9) Unit 4: Lignumvitae Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 4 consists of a total of 180 acres 
(73 hectares) in Monroe County. This unit is composed entirely of lands 
in State ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the 
Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park on Lignumvitae Key in the Florida 
Keys. This unit includes the entire upland area of Lignumvitae Key.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

[[Page 1578]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.016

    (10) Unit 5: Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 5 consists of a total of 44 acres (18 
hectares) in Monroe County. The unit is composed of State lands within 
Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park and parcels owned by the Florida 
Department of Transportation (22 acres (9 hectares)), and parcels in 
private ownership (22 acres (9 hectares)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

[[Page 1579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.017

    (11) Unit 6: Long Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 6 consists of a total of 208 acres 
(84 hectares) in Monroe County. This unit is composed of State lands 
within Long Key State Park (151 acres (61 hectares)) and parcels in 
private ownership (57 acres (23 hectares)).
    (ii) Index map of Unit 6 follows:

[[Page 1580]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.018

    (iii) Map A of Unit 6 follows:

[[Page 1581]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.019

    (iv) Map B of Unit 6 follows:

[[Page 1582]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.020

    (12) Unit 7: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 7 consists of a total of 780 acres 
(316 hectares) in Monroe County. This unit is composed of Federal land 
within the National Key Deer Refuge (686 acres (278 hectares)) and 
parcels in private ownership (94 acres (38 hectares)).
    (ii) Index map of Unit 7 follows:

[[Page 1583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.021

    (iii) Map A of Unit 7 follows:

[[Page 1584]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.022

    (iv) Map B of Unit 7 follows:

[[Page 1585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.023

    (v) Map C of Unit 7 follows:

[[Page 1586]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.024

    (vi) Map D of Unit 7 follows:

[[Page 1587]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.025

    (vii) Map E of Unit 7 follows:

[[Page 1588]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.026

    (13) Unit 8: Big Munson Island, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 8 consists of a total of 28 acres (11 
hectares) in Monroe County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in 
private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:

[[Page 1589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.027

    (14) Unit 9: Boca Grande Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) General Description: Unit 9 consists of a total of 62 acres (25 
hectares) in Monroe County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in 
Federal ownership, 100 percent of which is located within the Key West 
National Wildlife Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:

[[Page 1590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA14.028

* * * * *

    Dated: December 20, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-31576 Filed 1-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C