Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies, 47179-47220 [2014-18611]

Download as PDF Vol. 79 Tuesday, No. 155 August 12, 2014 Part II Department of the Interior emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 47180 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0031; 4500030114] RIN 1018–AZ59 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Executive Summary We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical habitat for the Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak (Strymon acis bartrami) butterflies under the Endangered Species Act. In total, approximately 4,273 hectares (10,561 acres) in MiamiDade and Monroe Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation for the Florida leafwing butterfly, and approximately 4,670 hectares (11,539 acres) in MiamiDade and Monroe Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. DATES: This rule is effective on September 11, 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: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; telephone 772–562–3909; 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.fws.gov/ verobeach/, at https:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0031, and at the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we develop for this critical habitat designation will SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 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: Craig Aubrey, 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. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines 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. Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, we list the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies as endangered species. Basis for our action. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The areas we are designating in this rule constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterflies. In total, we are designating approximately 4,273 hectares (ha) (10,561 acres (ac)) in four units as critical habitat for the Florida leafwing butterfly and approximately 4,670 ha (11,539 ac) in seven units as critical habitat for the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterfly. We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of critical habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation and related factors. We announced the availability of the draft economic analysis in the Federal Register on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26392), allowing the public to provide comments. We have incorporated the comments and have completed the analysis concurrently with this final designation. Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent experts to ensure that our designation is PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 based on scientifically sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions 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 provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. We also considered all comments and information we received from the public during the comment periods. Information we received during the comment period is incorporated in this final designation as appropriate. Previous Federal Actions On August 15, 2013, we published proposed rules to list the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies as endangered species (78 FR 49878) and to designate their critical habitat (78 FR 49832), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). All Federal actions related to protection under the Act for these subspecies prior to August 15, 2013, are outlined in the preamble to the proposed listing rule (78 FR 49878). On May 8, 2014, we announced the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) for the proposed critical habitat designation, as well as revisions to the proposed rule, and we reopened the comment period on the proposed rule for 30 days (79 FR 26392). Summary of Comments and Recommendations We requested written comments from the public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies during two comment periods. The first comment period opened with the publication of the proposed rule on August 15, 2013, and closed on October 15, 2013 (78 FR 49832). The second comment period, during which we requested comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and associated DEA, opened May 8, 2014, and closed on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 26392). We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties, and we invited them to comment on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis during these comment periods. Although the proposed listing rule and proposed critical habitat rule were published in separate Federal Register notices, we received combined comments from the public on both E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 actions. However, in this final rule we address only those comments that apply to the designation of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies. Comments on the proposed listing are addressed in the final listing rule, which is published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. During the first comment period, we received two State agency comments and one letter from a member of the public directly commenting on the proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. During the second comment period, we received two letters from members of the public on the proposed critical habitat designation. While both of these letters expressed support for the proposed designation, neither provided substantive comments or information requiring response. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing during either comment period. All substantive information provided during the comment periods specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak is addressed in the following summary and incorporated into this final rule as appropriate. Peer Review In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with at least one of the two subspecies, the geographic region in which these subspecies occur, and conservation biology principles. Of those reviewers, three were experts on the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak or the butterflies of southern Florida. We received responses from seven of the peer reviewers including all three experts on the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrubhairstreak. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into this final rule as appropriate. Peer Reviewer Comments (1) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that existing data do not support the necessity of including a VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 specified return interval for disturbance (i.e., 3- to 5-year return interval for fire), as indicated under the fourth primary constituent element (PCE) for occupied critical habitat. The commenter indicated that the butterflies have been observed at varying densities within pine rocklands that have burned at intervals of up to 10 years. Our Response: We agree. While the literature (FNAI 2010, p. 3) indicates a fire return interval of approximately 3 to 7 years is appropriate for maintaining the pine rockland ecosystem, there is considerable variability in population numbers of the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak from year-toyear. Observations of the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak within portions of Long Pine Key that have experienced fire or other disturbance regimes at intervals of up to 10 years (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010b, p. 154; Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.) suggest further studies are required on the influence of these factors on butterfly ecologies. We have modified this PCE for both butterflies to reflect a more variable return interval for dynamic natural or artificial disturbances. (2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the physical or biological features (PBFs) be modified to mention both fire and storms as disturbance regimes. Our Response: We appreciate the information provided and have revised the PBFs appropriately below. (3) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat in units FLB1 and BSHB1 did not accurately represent those of pine rockland habitat within Everglades National Park (ENP). In addition, several areas with a substantial number of Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak sightings, in areas with host plants, were not included within the proposed critical habitat boundaries. Our Response: Based on the information provided by this peer reviewer and in coordination with ENP, we revised the proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak when we announced the availability of the DEA, and we reopened the comment period on our proposal (79 FR 26392; May 8, 2014). The proposed revisions increased the size of the ‘‘Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida’’ Units of both butterflies (FLB1 and BSHB1) from 2,313 ha (5,716 ac) to 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) to incorporate the additional pine rockland and associated habitats within the Long Pine Key region of ENP where additional recent PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47181 sightings have been documented. This expansion will ensure connectivity between viable populations within Long Pine Key. (4) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that a few parcels (Rockland Pineland and Gould’s Pineland Preserve) that meet the criteria for inclusion in the proposed critical habitat for the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak were not included in BSHB4. Our Response: We appreciate the information and acknowledge that a few parcels within the proposed critical habitat units in Miami-Dade County, which meet the minimum size requirement (7 ha (18 ac) or above) or other criteria, were not included within the units. We attempted to select an appropriate network of pine rockland parcels to serve as stepping stones between units BSHB3 and BSHB4, to aide in the dispersal and conservation of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. However, in order to streamline the corridor of stepping stones within and between units BSHB3 and BSHB4, some parcels at the periphery (such as Rockland Pineland and Gould’s Pineland Preserve) were not selected. It was not our intent to indicate that all parcels within these units meeting the criteria of 7 ha (18 ac) are to be included in the designation, and we have modified language in this final rule to reflect this under Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Bartram’s Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly. Comments From States Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act requires the Secretary, not less than 90 days before the effective date of a final rule, give actual notice of the rule to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comment of such agency on the proposal. The two subspecies only occur in Florida, and we received comments from two entities from the State of Florida regarding the proposed critical habitat designation. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) found the document to comprehensive, with conclusions that are well-documented and justified, but otherwise did not provide substantive comments requiring a response. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) neither supported nor opposed the proposed critical habitat designation, but indicated its intent to work with the Service and other stakeholders in protecting imperiled species, as well as determining ways to mitigate potential risks of pesticide use and mosquito control towards imperiled species in Florida. E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 47182 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations (5) Comment: FDACS indicated that given the current stakeholder cooperation, any future considerations concerning research addressing potential for and magnitude of impact of mosquito control practices on imperiled butterflies, including the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, should continue to be discussed in this forum where stakeholders can actively participate. Our Response: We agree and appreciate stakeholder cooperation and willingness to help support and direct research to minimize potential pesticide impacts on imperiled butterflies. Previously, the Service has worked proactively with mosquito control districts within habitat of the endangered Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides (=Papilio) aristodemus ponceanus) (Hennessey et al. 1992, p. 715; Salvato 2001, p. 8) in order to coordinate mosquito control activities in such a way that public health is adequately protected while still promoting conservation and recovery of the species. In addition, the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District has coordinated with the Service and multiple partners to study and measure the potential influence of pesticide applications on the endangered Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) on northern Key Largo (Zhong et al. 2010, pp. 1961–1972). emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Public Comments (6) Comment: Lee County stated that the data presented in the document do not support the designation of mosquito control activities as a PBF. The County states that the cited reports of Pierce (2009, 2011) do not directly indicate effects on any butterflies or other insects. Our Response: The objective of the Pierce (2009, 2011) study was to document and quantify the deposition of mosquito control chemicals in and around National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) following application events. Examining effects on biota was not an objective of the studies. No impacts to invertebrate species were noted because quantifying such effects were not part of the study plans and were not examined. Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule Based on information we received in comments, we make the following changes: (1) We adopt our proposed revision to our critical habitat designation for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterflies (see 79 FR 26392; May 8, 2014) by increasing the size of the ‘‘Everglades National Park, Miami- VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 Dade County, Florida’’ Units of both butterflies (FLB1 and BSHB1) from 2,313 ha (5,716 ac) to 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) to incorporate the additional pine rockland and associated habitats within the Long Pine Key region of ENP where additional recent sightings have been documented. (2) Based on the revision described in (1), above, the total amount of critical habitat we are designating in this rule increased from 3,351 ha (8,283 ac) to 4,273 ha (10,561 ac) for the Florida leafwing, and from 3,748 ha (9,261 ac) to 4,670 ha (11,539 ac) for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. (3) Based on the revision described in (1), above, the overall percentage of ownerships of designated critical habitat changed from 81 percent to 85 percent for Federal lands, 4 percent to 3 percent for State lands, and 15 percent to 12 percent for private and other lands for the Florida leafwing, and from 75 percent to 80 percent for Federal lands, and 20 percent to 15 percent for private and other lands for the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak. (4) Based on the revision described in (1), above, we also revise our discussion regarding overlap of the critical habitat we are designating for both butterflies within ENP (FLB1 and BSHB1) with that already designated for other currently listed species. (5) We include hydric pine flatwoods, when interspersed within pine rockland habitat, as a plant community used by the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. (6) We modify the PCE of natural disturbance regimes, for both butterflies, to reflect a more variable fire-return interval and to specify both fire and storms as disturbance regimes. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking. Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Under the first prong of the Act’s definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species, and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific 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 PBFs within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (PCEs such as E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. PCEs are the specific elements of PBFs 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 for 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 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, would continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) 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 these subspecies. 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 PBFs that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; 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 PBFs essential for the Florida leafwing and PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47183 Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies from studies of both of the butterflies’ habitat, ecology, and life histories as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49832), and in the information presented below. We have determined that PBFs presented below are required for the conservation of the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies. One change to these features in this final determination from the proposed rule is a result of the peer review process: Hydric pine flatwoods is added to the plant communities known for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterflies to describe the plant community more accurately in ENP (Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.). We also specify the disturbance regime of storms as a PBF for both butterflies. We clarify the criteria for inclusion of parcels within critical habitat for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. We also modify the fourth PCE for both butterflies, to reflect a more variable return interval for dynamic natural or artificial disturbances. Physical or Biological Features for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly Space for Individual and Population Growth The Florida leafwing butterfly occurs within pine rockland habitat, and occasionally associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwoods interspersed in these pinelands, throughout its entire lifecycle. Description of these communities and associated native plant species are provided in the Status Assessment for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram’s Scrub-hairstreak Butterflies section in the final listing rule published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register and in the information on hydric pine flatwoods in this final rule. The lifecycle of the Florida leafwing occurs entirely within the pine rockland habitat, and in some instances, associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods (Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 246; 2010a, p. 96; Minno 2009, pers. comm.; Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.). At present, the Florida leafwing is extant within ENP and, until 2006, had occurred on Big Pine Key in the Florida Keys and historically in pineland fragments on mainland MiamiDade County (Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139), the smallest viable population being Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (120 ha (296 ac)). The Florida leafwing E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 47184 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 was only sporadic in occurrence north of Miami-Dade County (Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and Hennessey 2003, p. 243). Studies indicate butterflies are capable of dispersing throughout the landscape, sometimes as far as 5 kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi)), utilizing high-quality habitat patches (Davis et al. 2007, p. 1351; Bergman et al. 2004, p. 625). The Florida leafwing, with its strong flight abilities, can disperse to make use of appropriate habitat in ENP (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 95). At present, ongoing surveys suggest the Florida leafwing actively disperses throughout the Long Pine Key region of ENP (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139). However, once locally common at Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the Richmond Pine Rocklands (which occur approximately 8 and 27 km (5 and 17 mi) to the northeast of ENP, respectively), Florida leafwings are not known to have bred at either location in over 25 years (Salvato and Hennessey 2003, p. 243; Salvato 2012, pers. comm.). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rockland habitats and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwoods that are at least 120 ha (296 ac) in size to be a PBF for this butterfly. Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements The Florida leafwing is dependent on pine rocklands that retain the butterfly’s sole hostplant, pineland croton (Croton linearis) (Hennessey and Habeck 1991, pp. 13–17; Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Worth et al. 1996, pp. 64–65). The immature stages of this butterfly feed on the croton for development (Worth et al. 1996, pp. 64–65; Minno et al. 2005, p. 115). Adult Florida leafwings will feed on tree sap, take minerals from mud, and occasionally visit flowers within the pine rockland (Lenczewski 1980, p. 17; Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 326; Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rockland and associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods (specifically those containing pineland croton and other herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant communities that fulfill the larval development and adult dietary requirements of the Florida leafwing) to be a PBF for the Florida leafwing. Cover or Shelter Immature stages of the Florida leafwing occur entirely on the hostplant, pineland croton. Adult Florida leafwing disperse and roost within the pine rockland canopy, and also in associated VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood vegetation interspersed within these pinelands. Because of their use of the croton and their choice of roosting sites, the former Florida leafwing population on Big Pine Key may have been deleteriously impacted by exposure to seasonal pesticide applications designed to control mosquitoes. The potential for mosquito control chemicals to drift into nontarget areas on the island and to persist for varying periods of time has been well documented (Hennessey and Habeck 1989, pp. 1–22; 1991, pp. 1–68; Hennessey et al. 1992, pp. 715–721; Pierce 2009, pp. 1–17). If exposed, studies have indicated that both immature and adult butterflies could be affected (Zhong et al. 2010, pp. 1961– 1972; Bargar 2012, pp. 1–7). Truckapplied pesticides were found to drift considerable distances from target areas with residues that persisted for weeks on the hostplant (Pierce 2009, pp. 1–17), possibly threatening larvae. Salvato (2001, p. 13) suggested that adult Florida leafwings were particularly vulnerable to aerial applications based on their tendency to roost within the pineland canopy, an area with maximal exposure to such treatments. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rocklands, and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood communities with pineland croton for larval development and ample roosting sites for adults and limited or restricted pesticide application, to be a PBF for this subspecies. Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring The Florida leafwing, with its strong flight abilities, can disperse to make use of appropriate habitat in ENP (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 95). Reproduction and larval development occur entirely within the pine rocklands. The Florida leafwing is multivoltine (i.e., produces multiple generations per year), with an entire life cycle of about 2 to 3 months (Hennessey and Habeck 1991, p. 17) and maintains continuous broods throughout the year (Baggett 1982, pp. 78–79; Salvato 1999, p. 121). Natural history studies by Salvato and Salvato (2012, p. 1) indicate that the extant Florida leafwing population within Long Pine Key experiences up to 80 percent mortality amongst immature larval stages from parasites. All parasitic mortality noted for the Florida leafwing by Salvato and Salvato (2012, pp. 1–3) has been from native species; however, mortality from both native and nonnative predators has been observed. Therefore, based on the information PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 above, we identify pine rockland and associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods (specifically those containing pineland croton and other herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant communities, with limited nonnative predation, that fulfill the larval development and adult reproductive requirements of the Florida leafwing) to be a PBF for this subspecies. Pine rockland native vegetation includes, but is not limited to, canopy vegetation dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa); subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), silver palm (Coccothrinax argentata), brittle thatch palm (Thrinax morrisii), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), myrsine (Rapanea punctata), poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum), locustberry (Byrsonima lucida), varnishleaf (Dodonaea viscosa), tetrazygia (Tetrazygia bicolor), rough velvetseed (Guettarda scabra), marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides), mangrove berry (Psidium longipes), willow bustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium), and winged sumac (Rhus copallinum); shortstatured shrubs that may include, but are not limited to, a subcanopy with running oak (Quercus elliottii), white indigoberry (Randia aculeata), Christmas berry (Crossopetalum ilicifolium), redgal (Morinda royoc), and snowberry (Chiococca alba); and understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, bluestem (Andropogon spp., Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S. sanguineum), arrowleaf threeawn (Aristida purpurascens), lopsided indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum), hairawn muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris), Florida white-top sedge (Rhynchospora floridensis), pineland noseburn (Tragia saxicola), devil’s potato (Echites umbellata), pineland croton, several species of sandmats (Chamaesyce spp.), partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), coontie (Zamia pumila), and maidenhair pineland fern (Anemia adiantifolia). Rockland hammock native vegetation includes, but is not limited to, a canopy vegetated by gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), false tamarind (Lysiloma latisiliquum), paradisetree (Simarouba glauca), black ironwood (Krugiodendron ferreum), lancewood (Ocotea coriacea), Jamaican dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), West Indies mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni), willow bustic, inkwood (Exothea paniculata), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), pigeon plum (Coccoloba diversifolia), poisonwood , buttonwood E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations (Conocarpus erectus), blolly (Guapira discolor), and devil’s claw (Pisonia spp.); subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, Spanish stopper (Eugenia foetida), Thrinax, torchwood (Amyris elemifera), marlberry, wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), Sabal, gumbo limbo, lignumvitae (Guaiacum sanctum), hog plum (Ximenia americana), and Colubrina; and understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, coonti, barbed-wire cactus (Acanthocereus tetragonus), and basket grass (Oplismenus hirtellus). Hydric pine flatwoods vegetation includes, but is not limited to, canopy consisting of slash pine; subcanopy vegetation, if present, of scattered sweetbay, swamp bay, loblolly bay, pond cypress, dahoon, titi, and/or wax myrtle; shrubs, commonly including large gallberry, fetterbush, titi, black titi, sweet pepperbush, red chokeberry, azaleas, saw palmetto, gallberry, and cabbage palm, both in the subcanopy and shrub layers; and herbs, including wiregrass, blue maidencane, and/or hydrophytic species such as toothache grass, cutover muhly, coastalplain yellow-eyed grass, Carolina redroot, beaksedges, and pitcherplants, among others. emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Subspecies The Florida leafwing continues to occur in habitats that are protected from human-generated disturbances and are only partially representative of the butterfly’s historical, geographical, and ecological distribution because its range within these habitats has been reduced. The subspecies is still found in its representative plant communities of pine rocklands and associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. Representative plant communities are located on Federal, State, local, and private conservation lands that implement conservation measures benefitting the butterfly. Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of disturbance, most importantly from natural or prescribed burns (Loope and Dunevitz 1981, p. 5; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4; Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169–184; Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2010, p. 1). These fires are a vital component in maintaining native vegetation, such as croton, within this ecosystem. Without fire, successional climax from tropical pineland to rockland hammock is too rapid, and displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often occurs. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 The Florida leafwing, as with other subtropical butterflies, has adapted over time to the influence of tropical storms and other forms of adverse weather conditions (Minno and Emmel 1994, p. 671; Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes and other significant weather events create openings in the pine rockland habitat (FNAI 2010, p. 3). However, given the substantial reduction in the historical range of the butterfly in the past 50 years, the threat and impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on its remaining populations is much greater than when its distribution was more widespread (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010c, p. 139). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify disturbance regimes natural or prescribed to mimic natural disturbances, such as fire and storms, to be a PBF for this subspecies. Primary Constituent Elements for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the PBFs essential to the conservation of the Florida leafwing in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features’ PCEs. PCEs are those specific elements of the PBFs that provide for a species’ life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species. Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and habitat characteristics required to sustain the butterfly’s lifehistory processes, we determine that the PCEs for the Florida leafwing butterfly are: (1) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations, associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. (a) Pine rockland habitat contains: (i) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory; (ii) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and (iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (b) Rockland hammock habitat associated with pine rocklands contains: (i) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; (ii) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone rock; and (iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (c) Hydric pine flatwood habitat associated with pine rocklands contains: (i) Open canopy with a sparse or absent subcanopy, and dense understory; PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47185 (ii) Substrate with a thin layer of poorly drained sands and organic materials that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone or calcareous rock; and (iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (2) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of the Florida leafwing butterfly. (3) The presence of the butterfly’s hostplant, pineland croton, in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food resources, and for adult butterfly roosting habitat and reproduction. (4) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or other weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities. (5) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities that are sufficient in size to sustain viable Florida leafwing populations. (6) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its ability to occupy the habitat. Special Management Considerations or Protection for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographic areas 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 protections. The features essential to the conservation of this subspecies may require special management considerations or protection to reduce the following threats: Habitat Destruction and Modification by Development—The Florida leafwing butterfly has experienced substantial destruction, modification, and curtailment of its habitat and range. The pine rockland community of south Florida, on which both the butterfly and its hostplant depend, is critically imperiled globally (FNAI 2012, p. 27). Destruction of the pinelands for economic development has reduced this habitat community by 90 percent on mainland south Florida (O’Brien 1998, p. 208). All known mainland populations of the Florida leafwing E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 47186 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations occur on publicly owned land that is managed for conservation, ameliorating some of the threat. However, any unknown extant populations of the butterfly or suitable habitat that may occur on private land or nonconservation public land are vulnerable to habitat loss. In Miami-Dade County, occupied Florida leafwing habitat occurs in the Long Pine Key region of ENP and is actively managed by the National Park Service (NPS) for the Florida leafwing and the pine rockland ecosystem, in general. Sea Level Rise—Various model scenarios developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have projected possible trajectories of future transformation of the south Florida landscape by 2060 based upon four main drivers: Climate change, shifts in planning approaches and regulations, human population change, and variations in financial resources for conservation (VargasMoreno and Flaxman 2010, pp. 1–6). The Service used various MIT scenarios in combination with extant and historical Florida leafwing occurrences and remaining hostplant-bearing pine rocklands to predict climate change impacts to the butterfly and its habitat. In the best case scenario, which assumes low sea level rise, high financial resources, proactive planning, and only trending human population growth, analyses suggest that the extant Florida leafwing population within ENP is susceptible to future losses, with losses attributed to increases in sea level and human population. In the worst case scenario, which assumes high sea level rise, low financial resources, a ‘‘business as usual’’ approach to planning, and a doubling of human population, the habitat at Long Pine Key may be lost, resulting in the complete extirpation of the Florida leafwing. Actual impacts may be greater or less than anticipated based upon high variability of factors involved (e.g., sea level rise, human population growth) and assumptions made. Being proactive to address sea level rise may be beyond the feasibility of land owners or managers. However, while land owners or land managers may not be able to be proactive in preventing these events, they may be able to respond with management or protection. Management actions or activities that could ameliorate sea level rise include providing protection of suitable habitats unaffected or less affected by sea level rise. Lack of Natural or Prescribed Burns— The threat of habitat destruction or modification is further exacerbated by a lack of adequate fire management VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139). Historically, lightninginduced fires were a vital component in maintaining native vegetation, including pineland croton, within the pine rockland ecosystem (Loope and Dunevitz 1981, p. 5; Slocum et al. 2003, p. 93; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 154). Resprouting after burns is the primary mechanism allowing for the persistence of perennial shrubs, including pineland croton, in pine habitat (Olson and Platt 1995, p. 101). Without fire, perennial native vegetation can be displaced by invasive, nonnative plants. In recent years, ENP has used partial and systematic prescribed burns to treat the Long Pine Key pine rocklands in their entirety over a 3-year window (NPS 2005, p. 27). These methods attempt to burn adjacent pine rockland habitats alternately. In addition, refugia (i.e., unburned areas of croton hostplant) have been included as part of burns conducted within occupied butterfly habitat, wherever possible (Anderson 2011, pers. comm.). Providing refugia directly within (as well as adjacent to) the treatment area during prescribed burn activities may substantially increase the potential for the Florida leafwing to recolonize recently burned areas and to remain within or near the fire-treated pineland. Outside of ENP, Miami-Dade County has implemented various conservation measures, such as burning in a mosaic pattern and on a small scale, during prescribed burns to protect the butterfly (Maguire 2010, pers. comm.). Fire management of pine rocklands in NKDR is hampered by the pattern of land ownership and development; residential and commercial properties are embedded within or in close proximity to pineland habitat (Snyder et al. 2005, p. 2; Anderson 2012, pers. comm.). Ongoing management activities designed to ameliorate this threat include the use of small-scale prescribed burns or mechanical clearing to maintain the native vegetative structure in the pine rockland required by the subspecies. Hurricanes and Storm Surge—The Florida leafwing, as with other subtropical butterflies, have adapted over time to the influence of tropical storms and other forms of adverse weather conditions (Minno and Emmel 1994, p. 671; Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes and other significant weather events create openings in the pine rockland habitat (FNAI 2010, p. 3). However, given the substantial reduction in the historical range of the butterfly in the past 50 years, the threat and impact of tropical storms and PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 hurricanes on its remaining populations are much greater than when its distribution was more widespread (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010c, p. 139). While land owners or land managers may not be able to be proactive in preventing these events, they may be able to respond with management or protection resulting from these threats. Management actions or activities that could enhance pine rockland recovery following tropical storms include hand removal of damaged vegetation, as well as by other mechanical means or prescribed burns. Mosquito Control Pesticide Applications—Efforts to control salt marsh mosquitoes (Aedes taeniorhynchus, among others) have increased as human activity and population have increased in south Florida. To control mosquito populations, second-generation organophosphate (naled) and pyrethroid (permethrin) adulticides are applied by mosquito control districts throughout south Florida. The use of such pesticides (applied using both aerial and ground-based methods) for mosquito control presents a potential risk to nontarget species, such as the Florida leafwing butterfly. Mosquito control pesticides use within Miami-Dade County’s pine rockland areas is limited (approximately two to four times per year, and only within a portion of critical habitat) (Vasquez 2013, pers. comm.), and no spraying is conducted in Long Pine Key within ENP. Pesticide spraying practices by the Mosquito Control District at NKDR have changed to reduce pesticide use over the years. Since 2003, expanded larvicide treatments to surrounding islands have significantly reduced adulticide use on Big Pine Key, No Name Key, and the Torch Keys. In addition, the number of aerially applied naled treatments allowed on NKDR has been limited since 2008 (Florida Key Mosquito Control District 2012, pp. 10–11). No spray zones that include the core habitat used by pine rockland butterflies and several linear miles of pine rockland habitat within the Refuge-neighborhood interface were excluded from truck spray applications (Anderson 2012, pers. comm.; Service 2012, p. 32). These exclusions and buffer zones encompass over 95 percent of extant croton distribution on Big Pine Key, and include the majority of known recent and historical Florida leafwing population centers on the island (Salvato 2012, pers. comm.). However, some areas of pine rocklands within NKDR are still sprayed with naled (aerially applied adulticide), and buffer zones remain at risk from drift; E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 additionally, private residential areas and roadsides across Big Pine Key are treated with permethrin (ground-based applied adulticide) (Salvato 2001, p. 10). Therefore, if extant, the leafwing and their habitat on Big Pine Key may be directly or indirectly (via drift) exposed to adulticides used for mosquito control at some unknown level. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If after identifying 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. We are designating critical habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing in 2014. As described below, we also are designating specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that were historically occupied, but are presently unoccupied, because we have determined that such areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies. To determine the location and boundaries of critical habitat, the Service used the following sources of information and considerations: (1) Historical and current records of Florida leafwing occurrence and distribution found in publications, reports, and associated voucher specimens housed at museums and private collections. (2) Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC) and Fairchild Tropical Gardens (FTG) geographic information system (GIS) data showing the location and extent of documented occurrences of the pine rockland habitat with pineland croton. (3) Reports prepared by ecologists, biologists, and botanists with the IRC, ENP, FTG, and Service assessing the current and historical distribution of pine rockland habitat and pineland croton. Some of these were funded by the Service; others were requested or VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 volunteered by biologists with the Service, NPS, or IRC. (4) Historical records of pineland croton found in publications, reports and associated voucher specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are also referenced in the above mentioned reports from the IRC and cited publications. Small butterfly populations with limited, fragmented distributions, such as the Florida leafwing, are highly vulnerable to localized extirpations (Schultz and Hammond 2003, pp. 1377, 1379; Frankham 2005, pp. 135–136). Historical populations of endangered south Florida butterflies such as the Miami blue (Saarinen 2009, p. 79) and Schaus swallowtail (Daniels and Minno 2012, p. 2), once linked, now are subject to the loss of genetic diversity from genetic drift, the random loss of genes, and inbreeding. In general, isolation, whether caused by geographic distance, ecological factors, or reproductive strategy, will likely prevent the influx of new genetic material and can result in a highly inbred population with low viability and/or fecundity (Chesser 1983, p. 68). Fleishman et al. (2002, pp. 706–716) indicated that factors such as habitat quality may influence metapopulation dynamics of butterflies, driving extinction and colonization processes, especially in systems that experience substantial natural and anthropogenic environmental variability. In addition, natural fluctuations in rainfall, hostplant vigor, or butterfly predators may weaken a population to such an extent that recovery to a viable level would be impossible. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization from other sites and result in extinction. Because of the dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new sites or reintroductions within the historical range to ameliorate these effects. When designating critical habitat, we consider future recovery efforts and conservation of the species. We have determined that all currently known occupied habitat should be designated as critical habitat. However, realizing that the current occupied habitat is not adequate for the conservation of the Florida leafwing, we used habitat and historical occurrence data to identify unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies. Only one extant Florida leafwing population remains (Salvato and Salvato 2010c, p. 139). Population estimates for the Florida leafwing are estimated to be only several hundred or fewer at any given time. Although this population PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47187 occurs on conservation lands, management and law enforcement are limited. We believe it is necessary for conservation that additional populations of the Florida leafwing be established within the subspecies’ historical range. Therefore, we are designating three unoccupied areas as critical habitat, one on Big Pine Key within the Florida Keys, and two others on the mainland within Miami-Dade County, where the Florida leafwing was historically recorded, but has since been extirpated. The critical habitat areas in MiamiDade County are large pine rockland fragments (Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) or contiguous fragments (Richmond Pine Rocklands), which we believe provide the minimal habitat size (at least 120 ha (296 ac)) required for the subspecies to persist. The Florida leafwing was known to occur at Navy Wells Pineland Preserve within the past 25 years (Smith et al. 1994, p. 67). Although causes for the Florida leafwing’s subsequent disappearance from Navy Wells are unknown, we believe that, with proper management and restoration efforts (consistent prescribed burns and habitat enhancement) and given its strong flight abilities, the leafwing will be able to recolonize both this and the Richmond Pine Rockland area. The critical habitat unit on Big Pine Key in the Florida Keys is a former stronghold for the subspecies (Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and Salvato 2010c, p. 39), where appropriate hostplant-bearing habitat was historically recorded, but has since become degraded and unsuitable for butterfly use. Here also, we believe that, following habitat restoration activities (vegetation and fire management), the Florida leafwing will be able to be reestablished on this site, thereby returning a vital population of the subspecies to the Florida Keys. The current distribution of the Florida leafwing is much reduced (90 percent) from its historical distribution. We anticipate that recovery will require continued protection of the remaining extant population and habitat, as well as establishing populations in additional areas that more closely approximate its historical distribution in order to ensure there are adequate numbers of butterflies in stable populations and that these populations occur over a wide geographic area. This will help to ensure that catastrophic events, such as storms, cannot simultaneously affect all known populations. Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing For the purpose of designating critical habitat for the Florida leafwing, we E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 47188 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations defined the geographical area currently occupied by the subspecies as required by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. The occupied critical habitat unit was delineated around the one documented extant population. This unit included the mapped extent of the population that contains one or more of the elements of the PBFs. We considered the following when identifying occupied areas of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing: (1) Space to allow for the successional nature of the occupied pine rockland habitat. While suitable, only a portion of this habitat is optimal for the Florida leafwing at any one time, and the size and location of optimal areas is successional over time, being largely driven by the frequency and scale of natural or prescribed burns or other disturbances such as storms. Correspondingly the abundance and distribution of pineland croton within the pine rockland habitat varies greatly from time to time depending on habitat changes because of these events. Although prescribed burns are administered on the conservation land that retains the Florida leafwing population, fire return intervals and scope are inconsistent. As a result, areas within the pine rockland habitat supporting the subspecies may not always provide optimal habitat for the butterfly in the future as a lack of adequate fire management or other disturbances removes or fragments hostplant distribution. Conversely, changes in hostplant distribution over time following fires or other disturbances may allow the butterfly to return, expand, and colonize areas with shifting hostplant populations. (2) Space to plan for the persistence of the current Florida leafwing population in the face of imminent effects on habitats as a result of sea level rise. Although currently occupied and containing the elements of PBFs, this area may be altered, as a result of vegetation shifts or salt water intrusion, to an extent to which cannot be predicted at this time. Units are designated based on sufficient elements of PBFs being present to support Florida leafwing life processes. Some units contain all of the identified elements of PBFs and support multiple life processes. Some segments contain only some elements of the PBFs necessary to support the Florida leafwing’s particular use of that habitat. Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing After following the above criteria, we determined that occupied areas are not VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 sufficient for the conservation of the subspecies for the following reasons: (1) Restoring the subspecies to its historical range and reducing its vulnerability to stochastic events, such as hurricanes and storm surge, require reintroduction to areas where the subspecies 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 subspecies to sea level rise and storm surge requires higher elevation sites that currently are unoccupied by the Florida leafwing. Therefore, we looked to unoccupied areas that may be essential for the conservation of the subspecies. We used habitat and historical occurrence data to identify unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies. The unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies because they: (1) Represent areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem processes for populations of the Florida leafwing. The historical distribution of the Florida leafwing appeared limited to large pine rocklands parcels 120 ha (296 ac) or greater. For many years the leafwing persisted at Navy Wells, which has an area of 120 ha (296 ac), long after being extirpated from everywhere else in Miami-Dade County that was smaller in area. The only other leafwing populations that occurred outside of the Everglades in the past 25 years were those in the Richmond Pine Rocklands and Big Pine Key, which have approximately 364 and 567 ha (900 and 1,400 ac) of pine rocklands, respectively. We believe appropriately sized units should be, at a minimum, the size of Navy Wells (i.e., 120 ha (296 ac)). Large contiguous parcels of habitat are more likely to be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance and succession, and support viable populations of the Florida leafwing. The unoccupied areas selected were at least 120 ha (296 ac) or greater in size. (2) Provide areas to maintain connectivity of habitat to allow for population expansion. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization of the Florida leafwing and result in extinction. Because of the dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new sites or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (3) Provide areas that, once restored, will allow the Florida leafwing to disperse and recolonize, and in some instances may be able to support expansion and a larger number of the subspecies either through reintroduction or expansion from areas already occupied by the butterfly. These areas generally are habitats within or adjacent to pine rocklands that have been affected by natural or anthropogenic impacts but retain areas that are still suitable for the butterfly or that could be restored. These areas would help to offset the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat occurring or expected from the effects of climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to development. 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 PBFs for the Florida leafwing. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat. The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates, 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–2013–0031, 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 for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly We are designating four units as critical habitat for the Florida leafwing. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 47189 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Florida leafwing. The four units we are designating as critical habitat are: (1) FLB1 Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida; (2) FLB2 Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida; (3) FLB3 Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and (4) FLB4 Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Land ownership within the designated critical habitat consists of Federal (85 percent), State (3 percent), and private and other (12 percent). Table 1 shows the land ownership, area, and occupancy by unit. TABLE 1—FLORIDA LEAFWING BUTTERFLY CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS Hectares (acres) Unit No. Unit name Ownership FLB1 ...................................... Everglades National Park ..... Federal .................................. 100 3,235 (7,994) Total ............................... 100 3,235 (7,994) State ...................................... 29 35 (85) Private-Other ......................... 71 85 (211) Total ............................... 100 120 (296) Federal .................................. Private-Other ......................... 14 86 50 (122) 309 (767) Total ............................... 100 359 (889) Federal .................................. State ...................................... Private-Other ......................... 65 16 19 365 (901) 90 (223) 104 (258) Total ............................... 100 559 (1,382) Federal .................................. State ...................................... Private-Other ......................... All .......................................... 85 3 12 100 3,650 (9,017) 125 (308) 498 (1,236) 4,273 (10,561) FLB2 ...................................... FLB3 ...................................... FLB4 ...................................... Total All Units ................ Navy Wells Pineland Preserve. Richmond Pine Rocklands .... Big Pine Key ......................... ............................................... Percent Occupied yes. no. no. no. Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing, below. Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida Unit FLB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the Long Pine Key region of ENP. This unit is currently occupied and contains all the PBFs required by the subspecies, and contains the PCE of pine rockland. The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of a lack of adequate fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated with the ENP to implement needed actions. For instance, ENP is currently in the process of updating its fire management plan (FMP) and environmental assessment which will assess the impacts of fire on various environmental factors, including listed, proposed, and candidate species (Land 2011, pers. comm.; Sadle 2013a, pers. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:00 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 comm.). ENP is actively coordinating with the Service, as well as other members of the Imperiled Butterfly Working Group (IBWG), to review and adjust the prescribed burn practices outlined in the FMP to help maintain or increase Florida leafwing population sizes, protect pine rocklands, expand or restore remnant patches of hostplants, and ensure that short-term negative effects from fire (i.e., loss of hostplants, loss of eggs and larvae) can be avoided or minimized. Unit FLB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida Unit FLB2 consists of 120 ha (296 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This unit is comprised entirely of conservation lands located within the Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, which is jointly owned by Miami-Dade County (85 ha (211 ac)) and the State (35 ha (85 ac)). State lands are interspersed within Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department lands, which are managed for conservation. This unit is bounded on the north by SW 348 Street, on the south by SW 360 Street, on the east by State Road 9336, and on the west by the vicinity of SW 202 Avenue. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The unit was occupied historically by the Florida leafwing and includes some of the largest remaining contiguous fragments of pine rockland habitats outside of ENP. This unit is not currently occupied but is essential for the conservation of the butterfly because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish wild populations within the historical range of the subspecies, and maintain populations throughout the historic distribution of the subspecies in MiamiDade County, and it provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events if the butterfly is extirpated from the one location where it is presently found. Unit FLB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida Unit FLB3 consists of 359 ha (889 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This unit is comprised of lands in Federal (U.S. Coast Guard (Homeland Security) (29 ha (72 ac)), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense (DoD) (8 ha (20 ac)), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (4 ha (9 ac)), Federal Bureau of Prisons (Department of Justice (DoJ) (9 ha (21 ac))), and private or other (309 ha (767 ac)) ownership. This unit is bordered on the E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 47190 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations north by Coral Reef Drive, on the south by SW 168 Street, on the east by SW 117 Avenue, and on the west by SW 137 Avenue; then is bordered on the north by SW 168 Street, on the south by SW 184 Street, on the east by SW 122 Avenue, and on the west by SW 137 Avenue. emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida Unit FLB4 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in Monroe County. This unit includes Federal lands within NKDR (365 ha (901 ac)), State lands (90 ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other ownership (104 ha (258 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge. The unit begins on northern Big Pine Key on the southern side of Gulf Boulevard, and continues south on both sides of Key Deer Boulevard (County Road 940 (CR 940)) to the vicinity of Osprey Lane on the western side of CR 940 and Tea Lane to the east of CR 940; then resumes on both sides of CR 940 from Osprey Lane south of the vicinity of Driftwood Lane; then resumes south of Osceola Street, between Fern Avenue to the west and Baba Lane to the east; then resumes north of Watson Boulevard in the vicinity of Avenue C; then continues south on both sides of Avenue C to South Street; then resumes on both sides of CR 940 south to U.S. 1 between Ships Way to the west and Sands Street to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 from Newfound Boulevard to the west and Deer Run Trail to the east; and then resumes south of U.S. 1 from Palomino Horse Trail to the west and Industrial Road to the east. This unit was historically occupied by the Florida leafwing. This unit is not currently occupied but is essential for the conservation of the Florida leafwing because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish wild populations within the historical range of the subspecies, and maintain populations throughout the historic distribution of the subspecies in the Lower Florida Keys, and it provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events if the butterfly is extirpated from the one location where it is presently found. In the Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), management objective number 11 provides specifically for maintaining and restoring butterfly populations of special conservation concern, including the Florida leafwing butterfly. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 Physical or Biological Features for the Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly’s entire lifecycle occurs within pine rockland habitat and occasionally associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwoods interspersed in these pinelands. A description of these communities and associated native plant species are provided in the Status Assessment for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram’s Scrub-hairstreak Butterflies section in the final listing rule published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register and in the information on hydric pine flatwoods in this rule. At present, the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterfly is extant on Big Pine Key, within ENP, and several pineland fragments on mainland Miami-Dade County (Smith et al. 1994, p. 118; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 154), the smallest being Navy Wells Pineland Preserve outparcel number 39 (7 ha (18 ac)), which represents the minimum known extant sustained population size. The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak was historically less common and sporadic in occurrence north of Miami-Dade County (Smith et al. 1994, pp. 118; Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 223). Studies indicate butterflies are capable of dispersing throughout the landscape, sometimes as far as 5 km (3 mi), and utilizing high-quality habitat patches (Davis et al. 2007, p. 1351; Bergman et al. 2004, p. 625). Stepping stones may be particularly useful to the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, which exhibits low vagility (movement), rarely venturing from the pine rockland habitat or away from large areas of contiguous patches of hostplant. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rockland habitats and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwoods that are at least 7 ha (18 ac) in size and are located no more than 5 km (3 miles) apart to allow for habitat connectivity to be a PBF for this butterfly. Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly is dependent on pine rocklands that retain the butterfly’s sole hostplant, pineland croton. The immature stages of this butterfly feed on the croton for development (Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 129; Worth et al. 1996, p. 62). Adult Bartram’s scrub-hairstreaks actively visit flowers for nectar (Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 129; Worth et al. 1996, p. 65; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 14; PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 226; Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 324) within open pine areas and edges and openings within associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rockland and associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods (specifically those containing pineland croton and other herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant communities that fulfill the larval development and adult dietary requirements) to be PBFs for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. Cover or Shelter Immature stages of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly occur entirely on the hostplant, pineland croton. Adult Bartram’s scrub-hairstreaks prefer more open pine areas, at the edges and openings of associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak population on Big Pine Key may be deleteriously impacted by exposure to seasonal pesticide applications designed to control mosquitoes because of where the butterflies congregate in the vegetation. Salvato (2001, p. 13) suggested that the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak is particularly vulnerable to truck-based applications based on the fact that the subspecies commonly aggregates on low-lying shrubs occurring along frequently treated roadsides. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the absence of pesticide in the pine rocklands and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood communities, or pesticides in low enough quantities that they are not detrimental to the butterfly, to be a PBF for this subspecies. Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly’s reproduction and larval development occur entirely within the pine rocklands. The butterfly has been observed during every month throughout its range; however the exact number of broods appears to be sporadic from year to year, with varying peaks in seasonal abundance (Baggett 1982, p. 81; Hennessey and Habeck 1991, pp. 17–19; Emmel et al. 1995, pp. 14–15; Minno and Minno 2009, pp. 70–76; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 156; Anderson 2012, pers. comm.; Sadle 2013b, pers. comm.). The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak retains breeding populations within pine rocklands on Big Pine Key and Long Pine Key in ENP, and within a number of pine rockland fragments adjacent to ENP (Salvato and E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Salvato 2010b, p. 154). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rockland and associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods (specifically those containing pineland croton and other herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant communities that fulfill the larval development and adult reproductive requirements of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak) to be a PBF for this subspecies. For a detailed description of pine rockland native vegetation, see Physical or Biological Features for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly, above. Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Subspecies The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly continues to occur in habitats that are protected from humangenerated disturbances and are representative of the butterfly’s historical, geographical, and ecological distribution, although its range has been reduced. The subspecies is still found in its representative plant communities of pine rocklands. Representative communities are located on Federal, State, local, and private conservation lands that implement conservation measures benefitting the butterfly. Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of disturbance, most importantly from natural or prescribed burns (Loope and Dunevitz 1981, p. 5; Carlson et al. 1993, p. 914; Slocum et al. 2003, p. 93; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4; Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169–184; FNAI 2010, p. 1). These fires are a vital component in maintaining native vegetation, such as pineland croton, within this ecosystem. Without fire, successional climax from tropical pineland to rockland hammock is too rapid, and displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often occurs. The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly, as with other subtropical butterflies, have adapted over time to the influence of tropical storms and other forms of adverse weather conditions (Minno and Emmel 1994, p. 671; Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes and other significant weather events create openings in the pine rockland habitat (FNAI 2010, p. 3). However, given the substantial reduction in the historical range of the butterfly in the past 50 years, the threat and impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on their remaining populations is much greater than when their distribution was more widespread (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010c, p. 139). Therefore, based on the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 information above, we identify disturbance regimes natural or prescribed to mimic natural disturbances, such as fire and storms, to be a PBF for this subspecies. Primary Constituent Elements for the Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and habitat characteristics required to sustain the butterfly’s lifehistory processes, we determine that the PCEs for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak are: (1) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations, associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. For a detailed description of this PCE, see the discussion of PCE 1 for the Florida leafwing in Primary Constituent Elements for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly, above. (2) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. (3) The presence of the butterfly’s hostplant, pineland croton, in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food resources, and for adult butterfly nectar source and reproduction. (4) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or other weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities. (5) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities that allow for connectivity and are sufficient in size to sustain viable populations of the Bartram’s scrub hairstreak butterfly. (6) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its ability to occupy the habitat. Special Management Considerations or Protection for Bartram’s ScrubHairstreak Butterfly The special management considerations or protections for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, and the primary threats to the PBFs on which the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak depends, are the same as those described for the Florida leafwing above, except where noted below. Habitat Destruction and Modification by Development—The majority of known mainland populations of the PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47191 Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly occur on publicly owned lands that are managed for conservation. In MiamiDade County, occupied Bartram’s scrubhairstreak habitat occurs in the Long Pine Key region of ENP and is actively managed by the NPS for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak and the pine rockland ecosystem, in general. Outside of the ENP, extant occupied habitat for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak occurs on lands owned by Miami-Dade County, University of Miami, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which are managed for the conservation of the pine rockland ecosystem ameliorating some of the threat. Sea Level Rise—Based on modeling using best case scenario, which assumes low sea level rise, high financial resources, proactive planning, and only trending population growth, analyses suggest that the Big Pine Key population of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak may be lost or greatly reduced. Based upon the above assumptions, extant Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak populations on Big Pine Key and Long Pine Key appear to be most susceptible to future losses attributed to increases in sea level and human population. In the worst case scenario, which assumes high sea level rise, low financial resources, a ‘‘business as usual’’ approach to planning, and a doubling of human population, the habitat at Big Pine Key and Long Pine Key may be lost. Under the worst case scenario, pine rockland habitat would remain within Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the Richmond Pine Rocklands, both of which currently retain Bartram’s scrubhairstreak populations. Proactively addressing sea level rise may be beyond the feasibility of land owners or managers. However, while land owners or land managers may not be able to be proactive in preventing these events, they may be able to respond with management or protection. Management actions or activities that could ameliorate sea level rise include providing protection of suitable habitats unaffected or less affected by sea level rise. Lack of Natural or Prescribed Burns— For a detailed description of this special management considerations or protection, see the discussion of Special Management Considerations or Protection for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly. Mosquito Control Pesticide Applications—For a detailed description of this special management consideration or protection, see the discussion of Special Management Considerations or Protection for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly. E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 47192 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Bartram’s ScrubHairstreak Butterfly The criteria used to identify critical habitat for the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak are the same as those discussed above for the Florida leafwing, except where noted below. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization of Bartram’s scrubhairstreak from other sites and result in extinction. Because of the dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new sites or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects. In addition, establishing corridors or employing small patches (stepping stones) of similar habitats have been shown to facilitate dispersal, reduce extinction rates, and increase gene flow of imperiled butterflies (Schultz 1998, p. 291; Haddad 2000, pp. 739; 744; Haddad et al. 2003, p. 614; Wells et al. 2009, p. 709). Leidner and Haddad (2010, pp. 2318–2319) suggest that small natural areas within the urban landscape may serve an important role in promoting butterfly dispersal and gene flow in fragmented landscapes. Davis et al. (2007, p. 1351) and Bergman et al. (2004, p. 625) indicate butterflies are capable of dispersing throughout the landscape, sometimes as far as 5 km (3 miles), and utilizing high-quality habitat patches. Stepping stones may be particularly useful to the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, which like most lycaenids, exhibits low vagility, rarely venturing from the pine rockland habitat or away from large areas of contiguous patches of hostplant. Accordingly, realizing that the current occupied habitat is not adequate for the conservation of Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterfly, we used habitat and historical occurrence data to identify unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies. Only five extant Bartram’s scrubhairstreak populations remain within the subspecies’ historical range. Total population estimates for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak are estimated to be only several hundred or fewer at any given time. Although these populations occur on conservation lands, management and law enforcement are limited. We believe it is necessary for conservation and recovery that additional populations of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak be established within the subspecies’ historical range. Therefore, as described below, we are designating two critical habitat units in the Florida Keys where appropriate hostplant-bearing habitat was historically recorded, which has VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 since been degraded and became unsuitable for butterfly use. We believe that, given proper management and restoration efforts, the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak may be able to be established on these units, thereby providing an essential fortification of the subspecies’ population in the Florida Keys. Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing We considered the following when identifying occupied areas of critical habitat for the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterfly: (1) Space to allow for population growth and expansion. In ENP, the distribution of the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak is across a larger area than at any other single location. Outside of ENP, units are limited to three units composed of pine rockland fragments within the current distribution of the subspecies that contain the elements of the PBFs. These units retain extant, localized Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak populations. The units include only pine rocklands fragments that are at least 7 ha (18 ac) in size (which represents the minimum known extant population size) and are currently occupied. On Big Pine Key, the distribution of the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak is across all extant pine rocklands on the island that contain the elements of the PBFs. (2) Space to plan for the persistence of the current Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak populations in the face of imminent effects on habitats as a result of sea level rise. Under the worst case scenario for sea level rise (as discussed above in Special Management Considerations or Protection), pine rockland habitat would remain at both Navy Wells, Camp Owaissa Bauer, and the Richmond Pine Rocklands, each of which retain Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak populations. However, even in these areas, pine rocklands may be altered as a result of vegetation shifts or salt water intrusion, at an extent to which cannot be predicted at this time. Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing After following the above criteria, we determined that occupied areas were not sufficient for the conservation of the subspecies for the following reasons: (1) Restoring the subspecies 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 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 populations to expand requires currently unoccupied habitat. (3) Reintroduction or assisted migration to reduce the vulnerability of the subspecies to sea-level rise and storm surge requires higher elevation sites that currently are unoccupied by the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. Therefore, we looked to unoccupied areas that may be essential for the conservation of the subspecies. We used habitat and historical occurrence data to identify unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies as described below. The unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies because they: (1) Represent large contiguous parcels of habitat that are more likely to be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance and succession, and support viable populations of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. However, in Miami-Dade County, the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak is extant on parcels as small as 7 ha (18 ac), which lay adjacent to larger pine rocklands. Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak populations may be able to utilize these smaller fragments while dispersing between units. Therefore, pine rockland fragments, at least 7 ha (18 ac) in size, that are currently unoccupied and within 5 km (3 miles) of an extant Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak population within Miami-Dade County, were identified as critical habitat for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. (2) Provide areas needed to maintain connectivity of habitat and aid butterfly dispersal within and between occupied units (i.e., stepping stones for dispersal). These areas maintain connectivity within and between populations and allow for population expansion within the butterfly’s historical range. (3) Provide areas that are needed to allow the dynamic ecological nature of the pine rockland habitat to continue. The abundance and distribution of pineland croton within the pine rockland habitat varies greatly throughout the range of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. At any one time, only a portion of this habitat is optimally suitable for the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak and the size and location of suitable areas is dynamic over time, being largely driven by the frequency and scale of natural or prescribed burns. Historically, lighting-induced fires maintained native vegetation within the pine rockland ecosystem, including pineland croton. Although prescribed burns are administered on the majority of conservation lands that retain Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak populations, E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 47193 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations fire return intervals and scope are inconsistent. In addition, little or no fire management occurs on private lands. Thus, areas of pine rockland that now support the subspecies may not provide as optimal habitat in the future as a lack of adequate fire management removes or fragments hostplant distribution. Conversely, hostplants may return or increase in areas following prescribed burns, allowing the butterflies to expand or colonize within them in the future. 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 PBFs for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. 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 PBFs in the adjacent critical habitat. The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates, 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–2013–0031, 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 for the Bartram’s Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly We are designating seven units as critical habitat for the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. The seven areas we are designating as critical habitat are: (1) BSHB1 Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida; (2) BSHB2 Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida; (3) BSHB3 Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida; (4) BSHB4 Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida; (5) BSHB5 Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida; (6) BSHB6 No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida; and (7) BSHB7 Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Land ownership within the designated critical habitat consists of Federal (80 percent), State (5 percent), and private and other (15 percent). Table 2 summarizes these units. Designated critical habitat for the Florida leafwing butterfly occurs entirely within Bartram’s scrub- hairstreak units BSHB1, BSHB2, BSHB4, and BSHB5. TABLE 2—BARTRAM’S SCRUB-HAIRSTREAK CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS Hectares (acres) Unit No. Unit name Ownership BSHB1 ............................................. Everglades National Park ............... Federal ............... 100 3,235 (7,994) Total ................... 100 3,235 (7,994) State ................... Private-Other ...... 30 70 62 (153) 141 (349) Total ................... 100 203 (502) State ................... Private-Other ...... 20 80 29 (71) 117 (288) Total ................... 100 146 (359) Federal ............... State ................... Private-Other ...... 11 7 82 50 (122) 32 (79) 356 (881) Total ................... 100 438 (1,082) Federal ............... State ................... Private-Other ...... 65 16 19 365 (901) 90 (223) 104 (258) Total ................... 100 559 (1,382) Federal ............... State ................... Private-Other ...... 75 18 7 30 (75) 9 (22) 11 (26) Total ................... 100 50 (123) Federal ............... 100 39 (97) Total ................... 100 39 (97) BSHB2 ............................................. BSHB3 ............................................. BSHB4 ............................................. BSHB5 ............................................. emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 BSHB6 ............................................. BSHB7 ............................................. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Navy Wells Pineland Preserve ....... Camp Owaissa Bauer ..................... Richmond Pine Rocklands ............. Big Pine Key ................................... No Name Key ................................. Little Pine Key ................................. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Percent E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Occupied yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. no. no. 47194 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2—BARTRAM’S SCRUB-HAIRSTREAK CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS—Continued Unit No. Hectares (acres) Unit name ......................................................... Federal ............... State ................... Private-Other ...... 80 5 15 3,719 (9,189) 222 (548) 729 (1,802) All ....................... Total All Units ........................... Ownership Percent 100 Occupied 4,670 (11,539) 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 the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly, below. emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida Unit BSHB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the Lone Pine Key region of ENP. This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak and contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat (pine rockland habitat of sufficient size), hostplant presence, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, low levels of nonnative vegetation and larval parasitism, and restriction of pesticides, and the unit contains the PCE of pine rockland. The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of a lack of adequate fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated with the NPS to implement needed actions. ENP is currently in the process of updating its FMP and environmental assessment, which will assess the impacts of fire on various environmental factors, including listed, proposed, and candidate species (Land 2011, pers. comm.; Sadle 2013a, pers. comm.). ENP is actively coordinating with the Service, as well as other members of the IBWG, to review and adjust the prescribed burn practices outlined in the FMP to help maintain or increase Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak population sizes, protect pine rocklands, expand or restore remnant patches of hostplants, and ensure that short-term negative effects from fire (i.e., loss of hostplants, loss of eggs and larvae) can be avoided or minimized. Unit BSHB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida Unit BSHB2 consists of 203 ha (502 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This unit is VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 comprised of lands in State (62 ha (153 ac)) and private or other (141 ha (349 ac)) ownership. The 120-ha (296-ac) Navy Wells Pineland Preserve is jointly owned by Miami-Dade County (85 ha (211 ac)) and the State (35 ha (85 ac)). State lands are interspersed within Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department lands, which are managed for conservation. This unit begins in Homestead, Florida, on SW 304 Street, between SW 198 Avenue to SW 204 Avenue; then resumes between SW 340 Street and SW 344 Street, between SW 213 Avenue and SW 214 Avenue; then resumes between SW 344 Street and SW 360 Street on SW 209 Avenue; then resumes along SW 268 Street, between SW 202 Avenue and SW 205 Avenue; then resumes along SW 360 Street, between SW 202 Avenue and SW 188 Avenue; then resumes between SW 7 Street and SW 158 Street, in the vicinity of SW 180 Avenue; then resumes along Palm Drive and SW 3 Terrace, between SW 6 Avenue and SW 8 Avenue. This unit is occupied by the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly and contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and restriction of pesticides, and the unit contains pine rockland and rockland hammock PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of a lack of adequate fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions. Unit BSHB3: Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida Unit BSHB3 consists of 146 ha (359 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This unit is comprised of lands in State (29 ha (71 ac)) and private or other (117 ha (288 ac)) ownership, of which one large fragment (40 ha (99 ac)) is owned by Miami-Dade County-Camp Owaissa Bauer. State lands are interspersed within Miami-Dade County Parks and PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Recreation Department lands, which are managed for conservation. This unit begins in Homestead, Florida, on SW 147 Ave, between SW 216 Street and SW 200 Street; then resumes on both sides of SW 157 Avenue, between SW 216 Street and SW 228 Street; then resumes along SW 232 Street, between SW 142 Avenue and SW 144 Avenue; then continues south of SW 232 Street along both sides of SW 142 Ave to SW 248 Street; then resumes along SW 248 Street, south to SW 256 Street, between SW 144 Avenue and the vicinity of SW 157 Avenue; then resumes along SW 240 Street, north to the vicinity of SW 238 Street, between SW 152 Avenue and SW 147 Avenue; then resumes between SW 264 Street and SW 272 Street, along both sides of SW 155 Avenue; then resumes along both sides of SW 264 Street in the vicinity of SW 162 Avenue. This unit is occupied by the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly and contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and restriction of pesticides required by the subspecies, and the unit contains the pine rockland and rockland hammock PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of a lack of adequate fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions. Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida Unit BSHB4 consists of 438 ha (1,082 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This unit comprises lands in both Federal (U.S. Coast Guard (Homeland Security) (29 ha (72 ac)), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (DoD) (8 ha (20 ac)), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (4 ha (9 ac)), Federal Bureau of Prisons (DoJ) (9 ha (21 ac))), State (32 ha (79 ac)), and private or other (356 ha (881 ac)) ownership. The unit includes some of the largest remaining contiguous E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 fragments of pine rockland habitats outside of ENP known to be occupied by the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. This unit begins in Miami, Florida, at SW 120 Street, north to SW 112 Street, between SW 142 Avenue and the vicinity of SW 137 Avenue; then resumes along SW 124 Street south to SW 128 Street, between SW127 Avenue and the vicinity of SW 137 Avenue; then resumes in the vicinity of SW 136 Street and SW 122 Avenue; then resumes on Coral Reef Drive (State Road 992) south to SW 168 Street, between U.S. 1 and SW 117 Avenue; then resumes from Coral Reef Drive south to SW 184 Street, between FL–832 and SW 137 Avenue. This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly and contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and restriction of pesticides, and the unit contains the pine rockland and rockland hammock PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of a lack of adequate fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lands do not have an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) or other natural resource management plan. Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida Unit BSHB5 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in Monroe County. This unit includes Federal lands within NKDR (365 ha (901 ac)), State lands (90 ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other ownership (104 ha (258 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge. The unit begins on northern Big Pine Key on the southern side of Gulf Boulevard, continues south on both sides of Key Deer Boulevard (CR 940) to the vicinity of Osprey Lane on the western side of CR 940 and Tea Lane to the east of CR 940; then resumes on both sides of CR 940 from Osprey Lane to rest south of the vicinity of Driftwood Lane; then resumes south of Osceola Street, between Fern Avenue to the west and Baba Lane to the east; then resumes north of Watson Boulevard in the vicinity of Avenue C; then continues south on both sides of Avenue C to South Street; then resumes on both sides of CR 940 south to U.S. 1 between Ships Way to the west and Sands Street to the east; then resumes south of U.S. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 1 from Newfound Boulevard to the west and Deer Run Trail to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 from Palomino Horse Trail to the west and Industrial Road to the east. This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. This unit contains several of the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult food sources, and breeding sites required by the subspecies, and it contains the pine rockland and rockland hammock PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of disturbance regimes (fire) and pesticide applications, as well as habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions. Unit BSHB6: No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida Unit BSHB6 consists of 50 ha (123 ac) in Monroe County. This unit includes Federal lands within NKDR (30 ha (75 ac)), State lands (9 ha (22 ac)), and property in private or other ownership (11 ha (26 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge. The unit extends from Watson Road entirely on National Key Deer Refuge lands just south of the vicinity of Spanish Channel Drive eastward to the vicinity of Paradise Drive, then resumes north of Watson Road from No Name Drive east to Paradise Lane. This unit is not currently occupied by the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly but is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish wild populations within the historical range of the subspecies, and maintain populations throughout the historical distribution of the subspecies in the Florida Keys, and the unit provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events that otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the subspecies from the one or more locations where it is presently found. The Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge’s CCP management objective number 11 provides specifically for maintaining and restoring butterfly populations of special conservation concern, including the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. Unit BSHB7: Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida Unit BSHB7 consists of 39 ha (97 ac) in Monroe County. This unit comprises entirely lands in Federal ownership, 100 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47195 percent of which are located within NKDR. This unit is not currently occupied by the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterfly but is essential to the conservation of the subspecies because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish wild populations within the historical range of the subspecies, and maintain populations throughout the historical distribution of the subspecies in the Florida Keys, and it provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events that otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the subspecies from one or more locations where it is presently found. The Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge’s CCP management objective number 11 provides specifically for maintaining and restoring butterfly populations of special conservation concern, including the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. Unit BSHB7–Little Pine Key is designated critical habitat for the silver rice rat (Oryzomys palustris natator; 50 CFR 17.95(a)). 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 that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the effected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 47196 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 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 the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support lifehistory needs of these butterflies and provide for the conservation of these subspecies. 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 the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies. These activities include, but are not limited to: (1) Actions that would significantly alter the pine rockland and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood habitats. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, residential, commercial, or recreational development, including associated infrastructure. (2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of residential, PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 commercial, or recreational development; and associated infrastructure. (3) Actions that would introduce nonnative plant species that would significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and commercial development and associated infrastructure. (4) Actions that would introduce nonnative arthropod species that would significantly influence the natural histories of the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies. Such activities may include release of parasitic or predator species (flies or wasps) for use in agriculture-based biological control programs. (5) Actions that would introduce chemical pesticides into the pine rockland and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood habitats in a manner that impacts the butterflies. Such activities may include use of adulticides for control of mosquitos or agricultural-related pests. 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 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 DoD lands within the critical habitat designation area; however, none of these lands is covered by an INRMP. Accordingly, no lands that otherwise meet the definition of critical habitat are exempt under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from 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 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor. Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis, which together with our narrative interpretation of effects, constituted our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (Service 2013, entire; IEc 2014, entire). The DEA was made available for public review from May 8, 2014, through June 9, 2014 (79 FR 26392). Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on the analysis, the Service anticipates no more than eight to nine consultations per year in the critical habitat units. The analysis concluded the economic impacts of the designation are likely to range from $400 to $9,000 per consultation resulting in approximately $72,000 (2013 dollars) in a given year. Critical habitat is not likely to generate additional consultations, and in circumstances where consultation does occur, additional project modifications are unlikely. Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designations for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterflies are summarized in the DEA (IEc 2014, entire), available at https://www.regulations.gov. In summary, our 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 the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak based on economic impacts. 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 DoD where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 determined that some lands within the designation of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrubhairstreak are owned or managed by the DoD and the Department of Homeland Security. However, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not intending to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on impacts on national security. Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. 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 permitted HCPs or other management plans for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. An HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys in Monroe County, Florida, which was implemented in 2006, did not address the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. However, in order to fulfill the HCP’s mitigation requirements, Monroe County has been actively acquiring parcels of highquality habitats, including pine rocklands, and placing them into conservation. Natural lands acquired under the HCP will be managed for conservation, in perpetuity, either by the County or through agreements with the State or Service. These conservation actions have benefited the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak by protecting habitat. However, we anticipate no impact on the HCP from this final critical habitat designation. Furthermore, the final designation does not include any tribal lands or additional trust resources, so we anticipate no impact on tribal lands or partnerships from this final critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on other relevant impacts. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47197 Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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. Executive Order 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 of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 47198 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under these designations as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term ‘‘significant economic impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical small business firm’s business operations. The Service’s current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by these designations. There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. During the development of this final rule we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our certification that this final critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 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. The Office of Management and Budget (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 FEA 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 FEA finds that none of the outcomes relative to significant adverse effect thresholds set forth by OMB are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the FEA, energy-related impacts associated with Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak 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 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 authority,’’ if the provision would ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government’s responsibility to provide funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ includes a regulation that ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.’’ The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments. (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect 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 FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for activities related to commercial, residential, and recreational development and E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations associated actions; however, these are not expected to significantly affect small government entities. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat designation will significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 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 the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies 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. Based on the best available information, the takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak does not pose significant takings implications. 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 requested information from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. We received comments from FWC and FDACS and have addressed them in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section of this rule. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The designation may have some benefit to these VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 governments because the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the PBFs of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (because these governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur). Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988 In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, the rule identifies the elements of PBFs essential to the conservation of the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47199 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) It is our position that we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes In accordance with the President’s memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. As discussed above, we determined that there are no tribal lands that are currently occupied by the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflies that contain the features essential for conservation of these subspecies, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the Florida leafwing and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak that are essential for the conservation of these subspecies. References Cited A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Authors The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office. E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 47200 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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] 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. 2. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by: a. Adding an entry for ‘‘Bartram’s Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (Strymon acis bartrami)’’ immediately following the entry for ‘‘Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) California. Sacramento County’’ and ■ b. Adding an entry for ‘‘Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis)’’ immediately following the entry for ‘‘Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi)’’. The additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. * * * (i) Insects. * * * * * * * emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly (Strymon Acis Bartrami) (1) Critical habitat units 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 the Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterfly are: (i) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations, associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 (A) Pine rockland habitat contains: (1) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory. (2) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock. (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (B) Rockland hammock habitat associated with the pine rocklands contains: (1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory. (2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone rock. (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (C) Hydric pine flatwood habitat associated with the pine rocklands contains: (1) Open canopy with a sparse or absent subcanopy, and dense understory. (2) Substrate with a thin layer of poorly drained sands and organic materials that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone or calcareous rock. (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (ii) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly. (iii) The presence of the butterfly’s hostplant, pineland croton, in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food resources, and for adult butterfly nectar source and reproduction; (iv) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g. fire, hurricanes or other weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities. (v) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 hydric pine flatwood plant communities that allow for connectivity and are sufficient in size to sustain viable populations of Bartram’s scrub hairstreak butterfly. (vi) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its ability to occupy the habitat. (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on September 11, 2014. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS was also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is based are available to the public at the Service’s Internet site (https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/), the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0031), 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 the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly follows: BILLING CODE 4310–55–P E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47201 Index Map of All Critical Habitat Units for Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (strymon acis battrami) MIAMI-DADE MONROE BSHB1 Gulf of Mex.tco a Atlantic Ocean ~Critical Habita1 (6) Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit BSHB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) in Miami- VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 Dade County and is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Long Pine Key region of Everglades National Park. (ii) Map of Unit BSHB1 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.000</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 c:=J Critical Habitat Unit 47202 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (strymon acis bartrami) Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park. Miami-Dade County. Florida Everglades National Park Everglades National Park (7) Unit BSHB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit BSHB2 consists of 203 ha (502 ac) in Miami- VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 Dade County and is composed of lands in State (62 ha (153 ac)), and private or other ownership (141 ha (349 ac)), PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 including the County and State-owned Navy Wells Pineland Preserve. (ii) Map of Unit BSHB2 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.001</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 ~ Critical Habitat 47203 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly(strymon acis badra.mi) Unit BSHB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve. Miami-Dade County. Florida --il ~ ~~ pvtj_ 304th s ~-L- I ~ f- '-------1 1---' I ~ I I ~L~ l-== -- '-- I I l t ~ ~ SW3 4thl: - I - ~ ~ ~ ~r--sw ~OthSt ~ "'": ~~ ~ ~ .j_/:E ~ ,~ r 1'---- f--l-j 11::-r- \\,-- ~~~[ rr; ~ -~~- ~€36 __, ~ I \~ ~ _1::: - r:::rr rs:l ==~ h - f-- rill -q ~ r---lr-~;: _r-\\lunJ ~ :-1\ t.. f--- ~ t--~7 ,_j__ n+-- 0 ...., l I--Ir- f-- .. --,---- 0- / f--- - u 1- 1~ - r- r-- _EI\ ~ f-.--- I I I -'::- ~~ f- f--1- ___.,... M~ ~ 1-r- \T: U-i ~ I I f--- (- ~ H - Ul ff I \\ 1--- tt= == I r-L-- L= c:::::::4. I I ~ 1-L..c-1 I ~~ ----D ~ ttJ -r- (I}- ~[Ls) r-- IilL I I § T I ~ \ tz \ ~ l:::;:::: "...£: I - r - ~~ -n ~( 1-- )--J \ ~ ~ Critical Habitat I ~ A ~n .:- Elo l:!i ~ ~~~~ ~ "0 - 0 ~ 11.5 1 1;.5 I •• \ • I I I I emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 (8) Unit BSHB3: Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit BSHB3 consists of 146 ha (359 ac) in Miami- VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 I I 0 0 11.5 1 Dade County and is comprised of lands in State (29 ha (71 ac)) and private or other ownership (117 ha (288 ac)), PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 2 t<illlmeters I I 1.§ I 2Miles including 40 ha (99 ac) of Miami-Dade County-owned Camp Owaissa Bauer. (ii) Map of Unit BSHB3 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.002</GPH> D 47204 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (strymon acis battrami) Unit BSHB3: Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida ~ Oitical Habitat emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0 (9) Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit BSHB4 consists of 438 ha (1,082 ac) in Miami- VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 0.5 0.5 Dade County and is composed of lands in Federal (U. S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (50 ha PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 1 1 1.5 2 Killlmeb!ls 1.5 2Miles (122 ac)), State (32 ha (79 ac)) and private or other (356 ha (881 ac)) ownership. (ii) Index map of Unit BSHB4 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.003</GPH> 0 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47205 Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (strymon acis bartrami) Index Map of Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County. Florida ~ Oilical Habitat 0.5 1 'L5 2 Kilometers (A) Map A of Unit BSHB4 follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.004</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0 47206 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (strymon acis bartrami) Map A of Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida ~ Critical Habitat 0.25 0.5 1 Kilometers 0.15 1 Miles (B) Map B of Unit BSHB4 follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.005</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0.5 0.15 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47207 Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butte my (strymon acis bartram1) Map B of Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County. Florida ~ Critical Habitat (10) Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit BSHB5 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in Monroe VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 County and is composed of lands in National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) (365 ha (901 ac)), State ownership (90 ha (223 ac)), and private or other PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 1 1.5Miles ownership (104 ha (258 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge. (ii) Index map of Unit BSHB5 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.006</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 as 47208 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical. Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (strymon acis bartrami) Index Map of Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida MapA ~ Critical Habitat 1 1.5 2 Kilometers (A) Map A of Unit BSHB5 follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.007</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0.5 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47209 Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly(strymon acis barlram1) Map A of Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida ~ Critical Habitat .. 0.5 D 1 1 1.5Miles (B) Map B of Unit BSHB5 follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.008</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0.5 1.5 Killlmeters 47210 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (strymon acis bartrami) Map B of Unit BSHBS: Big Pine Key. Monroe County. Florida () ~ Qitical Habitat (11) Unit BSHB6: No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit BSHB6 consists of 50 ha (123 ac) in Monroe VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 0.2 County and is composed of lands in National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) (30 ha (75 ac)), State ownership (9 ha (22 ac)), and private or other ownership (11 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 0.4 0.6 0.3Miles ha (26 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge. (ii) Map of Unit BSHB6 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.009</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47211 Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly(strymon acis bartram1) Unit BSHB6: No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida ~ Critical Habitat 11.25 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0.25 (12) Unit BSHB 7: Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit BSHB7 consists of 39 ha (97 ac) in Monroe VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 11.5 11.5 11.1'5 1 Kilometers 11.15 Hiles percent of which are located within National Key Deer Refuge. (ii) Map of Unit BSHB7 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.010</GPH> D 47212 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (strymon acis bartram1) Unit BSHB7: little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida Johnson Keys ~ Qitical Habitat 8.25 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 11.25 BILLING CODE 4310–55–C * * * * Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) * (1) Critical habitat units 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 11.5 8.5 1 Killlmeters 8.75 fl. 75 1flfiiles biological features essential to the conservation of the Florida leafwing butterfly consist of six components: (i) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations, associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. (A) Pine rockland habitat contains: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.011</GPH> D Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 (1) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory. (2) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock. (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (B) Rockland hammock habitat associated with pine rocklands contains: (1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory. (2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone rock. (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (C) Hydric pine flatwood habitat associated with pine rocklands contains: (1) Open canopy with a sparse or absent subcanopy, and dense understory. (2) Substrate with a thin layer of poorly drained sands and organic materials that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone or calcareous rock. (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation. (ii) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of the Florida leafwing butterfly. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 (iii) The presence of the butterfly’s hostplant, pineland croton, in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food resources, and for adult butterfly roosting habitat and reproduction. (iv) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes or other weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities. (v) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities sufficient in size to sustain viable Florida leafwing populations. (vi) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its ability to occupy the habitat. (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on September 11, 2014. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 47213 (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS was also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is based are available to the public at the Service’s Internet site (https://www.fws.gov/verobeach), the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0031), 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 the Florida leafwing butterfly follows: BILLING CODE 4310–55–P E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 47214 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Index Map of All Critical Habitat Units for the Florida Leafwing Butterfty (Anaea trogloctyta .floridafis} [I] Unit MIAMt-DADE MONROE Gulf of UnltFLB1 Mexico Atlantic OCean Marathon ~ Critical Habitat (6) Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit FLB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) composed VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which are located within PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the Long Pine Key region of Everglades National Park. (ii) Map of Unit FLB1 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.012</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 c:=:J Critical Habitat Unit Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47215 Critical Habitat for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) Unit FLB1: Everglades National Pari<, Miami-Dade County, Florida Everglades National Park Everglades National Park ~ Critical Habitat emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0 (7) Unit FLB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 1 1 (i) General description: Unit FLB2 consists of 120 ha (296 ac) in MiamiDade County and is composed of lands PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 2 3 Kilometers 2 liMes in State (35 ha (85 ac)), and private or other ownership (85 ha (211 ac)). (ii) Map of Unit FLB2 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.013</GPH> 0 47216 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floriclalis) Unit FLB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida SW344thst ~ ""' ______,a ""' 0 i SW366thst ~ Critical Habitat emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0 (8) Unit FLB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit FLB3 consists of 359 ha (889 ac) in Miami- VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 11.2 6.25 Dade County composed of lands in Federal (U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (50 ha PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 6.4 11.6 11.5 11.8 Kilometefs 11.15 1 Miles (122 ac)) and private or other (309 ha (767 ac)) ownership. (ii) Map of Unit FLB3 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.014</GPH> 0 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47217 Critical Habitat for the Florida leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) Unit FLB3: Richmond Pine Rock1ands, Miami-Dade County, Florida ~ Critical Habitat 1 (9) Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. (i) General description: Unit FLB4 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in Monroe VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 County composed of National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) (365 ha (901 ac)), State lands (90 ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other ownership (104 ha (258 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 1.5Miles ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge. (ii) Index map of Unit FLB4 follows: E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.015</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0.5 47218 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis} Index Map of Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida MapA ~ Qitical Habitat 1 1.5 2 Kiklmeters (A) Map A of Unit FLB4 follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.016</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0.5 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47219 Critical Habitat for the Florida leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta florida/is) Map A of Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida ~ Critical Habitat .. 1.5 Kilometers 0.5 1 1.5Milles (B) Map B of Unit FLB4 follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.017</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0 47220 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Critical Habitat for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta florida/is) Map B of Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County. Florida Big Pine Key () ~ Qitical Habitat * * * * 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.3Miles Dated: July 23, 2014. Rachel Jacobson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. * [FR Doc. 2014–18611 Filed 8–11–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Aug 11, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12AUR2.SGM 12AUR2 ER12AU14.018</GPH> emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 0

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47179-47220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18611]

[[Page 47179]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 155

August 12, 2014

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
Butterflies; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 47180]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AZ59

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
Butterflies

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical
habitat for the Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak (Strymon acis bartrami) butterflies under
the Endangered Species Act. In total, approximately 4,273 hectares
(10,561 acres) in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, fall within
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation for the Florida
leafwing butterfly, and approximately 4,670 hectares (11,539 acres) in
Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of
the critical habitat designation for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 11, 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: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South
Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL
32960; telephone 772-562-3909; 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.fws.gov/verobeach/,
at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031, and at
the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we develop 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: Craig Aubrey, 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. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act,
when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines 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. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we list the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies as endangered
species.
Basis for our action. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The areas we are designating in this rule constitute our current
best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterflies. In total, we are designating approximately 4,273 hectares
(ha) (10,561 acres (ac)) in four units as critical habitat for the
Florida leafwing butterfly and approximately 4,670 ha (11,539 ac) in
seven units as critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly.
We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts
of the critical habitat designation and related factors. We announced
the availability of the draft economic analysis in the Federal Register
on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26392), allowing the public to provide comments.
We have incorporated the comments and have completed the analysis
concurrently with this final designation.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
experts to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound
data and analyses. We obtained opinions from seven knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical
assumptions 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 provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. We also
considered all comments and information we received from the public
during the comment periods. Information we received during the comment
period is incorporated in this final designation as appropriate.

Previous Federal Actions

On August 15, 2013, we published proposed rules to list the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies as endangered
species (78 FR 49878) and to designate their critical habitat (78 FR
49832), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). All Federal actions related to protection under
the Act for these subspecies prior to August 15, 2013, are outlined in
the preamble to the proposed listing rule (78 FR 49878). On May 8,
2014, we announced the availability of the draft economic analysis
(DEA) for the proposed critical habitat designation, as well as
revisions to the proposed rule, and we reopened the comment period on
the proposed rule for 30 days (79 FR 26392).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Florida leafwing and Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak butterflies during two comment periods. The first
comment period opened with the publication of the proposed rule on
August 15, 2013, and closed on October 15, 2013 (78 FR 49832). The
second comment period, during which we requested comments on the
proposed critical habitat designation and associated DEA, opened May 8,
2014, and closed on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 26392). We also contacted
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific
organizations; and other interested parties, and we invited them to
comment on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis during these
comment periods.
Although the proposed listing rule and proposed critical habitat
rule were published in separate Federal Register notices, we received
combined comments from the public on both

[[Page 47181]]

actions. However, in this final rule we address only those comments
that apply to the designation of critical habitat for the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies. Comments on the
proposed listing are addressed in the final listing rule, which is
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
During the first comment period, we received two State agency
comments and one letter from a member of the public directly commenting
on the proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida leafwing
and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. During the second comment period, we
received two letters from members of the public on the proposed
critical habitat designation. While both of these letters expressed
support for the proposed designation, neither provided substantive
comments or information requiring response. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing during either comment period. All
substantive information provided during the comment periods
specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for
the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is addressed in the
following summary and incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with at
least one of the two subspecies, the geographic region in which these
subspecies occur, and conservation biology principles. Of those
reviewers, three were experts on the Florida leafwing and Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak or the butterflies of southern Florida. We received
responses from seven of the peer reviewers including all three experts
on the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the Florida leafwing
and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. The peer reviewers generally concurred
with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final critical habitat
rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that existing data do not
support the necessity of including a specified return interval for
disturbance (i.e., 3- to 5-year return interval for fire), as indicated
under the fourth primary constituent element (PCE) for occupied
critical habitat. The commenter indicated that the butterflies have
been observed at varying densities within pine rocklands that have
burned at intervals of up to 10 years.
Our Response: We agree. While the literature (FNAI 2010, p. 3)
indicates a fire return interval of approximately 3 to 7 years is
appropriate for maintaining the pine rockland ecosystem, there is
considerable variability in population numbers of the Florida leafwing
and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak from year-to-year. Observations of the
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak within portions of Long
Pine Key that have experienced fire or other disturbance regimes at
intervals of up to 10 years (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010b,
p. 154; Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.) suggest further studies are required
on the influence of these factors on butterfly ecologies. We have
modified this PCE for both butterflies to reflect a more variable
return interval for dynamic natural or artificial disturbances.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the physical or
biological features (PBFs) be modified to mention both fire and storms
as disturbance regimes.
Our Response: We appreciate the information provided and have
revised the PBFs appropriately below.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat in units FLB1 and BSHB1 did not accurately
represent those of pine rockland habitat within Everglades National
Park (ENP). In addition, several areas with a substantial number of
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak sightings, in areas
with host plants, were not included within the proposed critical
habitat boundaries.
Our Response: Based on the information provided by this peer
reviewer and in coordination with ENP, we revised the proposed critical
habitat designation for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak when we announced the availability of the DEA, and we
reopened the comment period on our proposal (79 FR 26392; May 8, 2014).
The proposed revisions increased the size of the ``Everglades National
Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida'' Units of both butterflies (FLB1 and
BSHB1) from 2,313 ha (5,716 ac) to 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) to incorporate
the additional pine rockland and associated habitats within the Long
Pine Key region of ENP where additional recent sightings have been
documented. This expansion will ensure connectivity between viable
populations within Long Pine Key.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that a few parcels
(Rockland Pineland and Gould's Pineland Preserve) that meet the
criteria for inclusion in the proposed critical habitat for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak were not included in BSHB4.
Our Response: We appreciate the information and acknowledge that a
few parcels within the proposed critical habitat units in Miami-Dade
County, which meet the minimum size requirement (7 ha (18 ac) or above)
or other criteria, were not included within the units. We attempted to
select an appropriate network of pine rockland parcels to serve as
stepping stones between units BSHB3 and BSHB4, to aide in the dispersal
and conservation of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. However, in order
to streamline the corridor of stepping stones within and between units
BSHB3 and BSHB4, some parcels at the periphery (such as Rockland
Pineland and Gould's Pineland Preserve) were not selected. It was not
our intent to indicate that all parcels within these units meeting the
criteria of 7 ha (18 ac) are to be included in the designation, and we
have modified language in this final rule to reflect this under
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-
hairstreak Butterfly.

Comments From States

Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act requires the Secretary, not less
than 90 days before the effective date of a final rule, give actual
notice of the rule to the State agency in each State in which the
species is believed to occur, and invite the comment of such agency on
the proposal. The two subspecies only occur in Florida, and we received
comments from two entities from the State of Florida regarding the
proposed critical habitat designation. The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC) found the document to comprehensive, with
conclusions that are well-documented and justified, but otherwise did
not provide substantive comments requiring a response. The Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) neither
supported nor opposed the proposed critical habitat designation, but
indicated its intent to work with the Service and other stakeholders in
protecting imperiled species, as well as determining ways to mitigate
potential risks of pesticide use and mosquito control towards imperiled
species in Florida.

[[Page 47182]]

(5) Comment: FDACS indicated that given the current stakeholder
cooperation, any future considerations concerning research addressing
potential for and magnitude of impact of mosquito control practices on
imperiled butterflies, including the Florida leafwing and Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak, should continue to be discussed in this forum where
stakeholders can actively participate.
Our Response: We agree and appreciate stakeholder cooperation and
willingness to help support and direct research to minimize potential
pesticide impacts on imperiled butterflies. Previously, the Service has
worked proactively with mosquito control districts within habitat of
the endangered Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides (=Papilio)
aristodemus ponceanus) (Hennessey et al. 1992, p. 715; Salvato 2001, p.
8) in order to coordinate mosquito control activities in such a way
that public health is adequately protected while still promoting
conservation and recovery of the species. In addition, the Florida Keys
Mosquito Control District has coordinated with the Service and multiple
partners to study and measure the potential influence of pesticide
applications on the endangered Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi
bethunebakeri) on northern Key Largo (Zhong et al. 2010, pp. 1961-
1972).

Public Comments

(6) Comment: Lee County stated that the data presented in the
document do not support the designation of mosquito control activities
as a PBF. The County states that the cited reports of Pierce (2009,
2011) do not directly indicate effects on any butterflies or other
insects.
Our Response: The objective of the Pierce (2009, 2011) study was to
document and quantify the deposition of mosquito control chemicals in
and around National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) following application
events. Examining effects on biota was not an objective of the studies.
No impacts to invertebrate species were noted because quantifying such
effects were not part of the study plans and were not examined.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

Based on information we received in comments, we make the following
changes:
(1) We adopt our proposed revision to our critical habitat
designation for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterflies (see 79 FR 26392; May 8, 2014) by increasing the size of
the ``Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida'' Units of
both butterflies (FLB1 and BSHB1) from 2,313 ha (5,716 ac) to 3,235 ha
(7,994 ac) to incorporate the additional pine rockland and associated
habitats within the Long Pine Key region of ENP where additional recent
sightings have been documented.
(2) Based on the revision described in (1), above, the total amount
of critical habitat we are designating in this rule increased from
3,351 ha (8,283 ac) to 4,273 ha (10,561 ac) for the Florida leafwing,
and from 3,748 ha (9,261 ac) to 4,670 ha (11,539 ac) for the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak.
(3) Based on the revision described in (1), above, the overall
percentage of ownerships of designated critical habitat changed from 81
percent to 85 percent for Federal lands, 4 percent to 3 percent for
State lands, and 15 percent to 12 percent for private and other lands
for the Florida leafwing, and from 75 percent to 80 percent for Federal
lands, and 20 percent to 15 percent for private and other lands for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
(4) Based on the revision described in (1), above, we also revise
our discussion regarding overlap of the critical habitat we are
designating for both butterflies within ENP (FLB1 and BSHB1) with that
already designated for other currently listed species.
(5) We include hydric pine flatwoods, when interspersed within pine
rockland habitat, as a plant community used by the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
(6) We modify the PCE of natural disturbance regimes, for both
butterflies, to reflect a more variable fire-return interval and to
specify both fire and storms as disturbance regimes.

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-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 PBFs
within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical
constituent elements (PCEs such as

[[Page 47183]]

roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide,
soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. PCEs
are the specific elements of PBFs 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 for 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, would continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) 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 these
subspecies. 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 PBFs that are essential
to the conservation of the species and which may require special
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; 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 PBFs essential for the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies from studies of both of the
butterflies' habitat, ecology, and life histories as described in the
Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2013 (78 FR
49832), and in the information presented below.
We have determined that PBFs presented below are required for the
conservation of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterflies. One change to these features in this final determination
from the proposed rule is a result of the peer review process: Hydric
pine flatwoods is added to the plant communities known for the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies to describe the
plant community more accurately in ENP (Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.). We
also specify the disturbance regime of storms as a PBF for both
butterflies. We clarify the criteria for inclusion of parcels within
critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. We also
modify the fourth PCE for both butterflies, to reflect a more variable
return interval for dynamic natural or artificial disturbances.

Physical or Biological Features for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly

Space for Individual and Population Growth
The Florida leafwing butterfly occurs within pine rockland habitat,
and occasionally associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwoods
interspersed in these pinelands, throughout its entire lifecycle.
Description of these communities and associated native plant species
are provided in the Status Assessment for the Florida Leafwing and
Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterflies section in the final listing
rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register and in the
information on hydric pine flatwoods in this final rule. The lifecycle
of the Florida leafwing occurs entirely within the pine rockland
habitat, and in some instances, associated rockland hammocks and hydric
pine flatwoods (Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 246; 2010a, p. 96; Minno
2009, pers. comm.; Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.). At present, the Florida
leafwing is extant within ENP and, until 2006, had occurred on Big Pine
Key in the Florida Keys and historically in pineland fragments on
mainland Miami-Dade County (Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and
Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139), the smallest viable population
being Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (120 ha (296 ac)). The Florida
leafwing

[[Page 47184]]

was only sporadic in occurrence north of Miami-Dade County (Smith et
al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and Hennessey 2003, p. 243). Studies indicate
butterflies are capable of dispersing throughout the landscape,
sometimes as far as 5 kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi)), utilizing high-
quality habitat patches (Davis et al. 2007, p. 1351; Bergman et al.
2004, p. 625). The Florida leafwing, with its strong flight abilities,
can disperse to make use of appropriate habitat in ENP (Salvato and
Salvato 2010a, p. 95). At present, ongoing surveys suggest the Florida
leafwing actively disperses throughout the Long Pine Key region of ENP
(Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139). However, once
locally common at Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the Richmond Pine
Rocklands (which occur approximately 8 and 27 km (5 and 17 mi) to the
northeast of ENP, respectively), Florida leafwings are not known to
have bred at either location in over 25 years (Salvato and Hennessey
2003, p. 243; Salvato 2012, pers. comm.). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify pine rockland habitats and associated
rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwoods that are at least 120 ha
(296 ac) in size to be a PBF for this butterfly.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The Florida leafwing is dependent on pine rocklands that retain the
butterfly's sole hostplant, pineland croton (Croton linearis)
(Hennessey and Habeck 1991, pp. 13-17; Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Worth
et al. 1996, pp. 64-65). The immature stages of this butterfly feed on
the croton for development (Worth et al. 1996, pp. 64-65; Minno et al.
2005, p. 115). Adult Florida leafwings will feed on tree sap, take
minerals from mud, and occasionally visit flowers within the pine
rockland (Lenczewski 1980, p. 17; Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 326;
Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96). Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify pine rockland and associated rockland hammocks and
hydric pine flatwoods (specifically those containing pineland croton
and other herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant communities that
fulfill the larval development and adult dietary requirements of the
Florida leafwing) to be a PBF for the Florida leafwing.
Cover or Shelter
Immature stages of the Florida leafwing occur entirely on the
hostplant, pineland croton. Adult Florida leafwing disperse and roost
within the pine rockland canopy, and also in associated rockland
hammock and hydric pine flatwood vegetation interspersed within these
pinelands. Because of their use of the croton and their choice of
roosting sites, the former Florida leafwing population on Big Pine Key
may have been deleteriously impacted by exposure to seasonal pesticide
applications designed to control mosquitoes. The potential for mosquito
control chemicals to drift into nontarget areas on the island and to
persist for varying periods of time has been well documented (Hennessey
and Habeck 1989, pp. 1-22; 1991, pp. 1-68; Hennessey et al. 1992, pp.
715-721; Pierce 2009, pp. 1-17). If exposed, studies have indicated
that both immature and adult butterflies could be affected (Zhong et
al. 2010, pp. 1961-1972; Bargar 2012, pp. 1-7). Truck-applied
pesticides were found to drift considerable distances from target areas
with residues that persisted for weeks on the hostplant (Pierce 2009,
pp. 1-17), possibly threatening larvae. Salvato (2001, p. 13) suggested
that adult Florida leafwings were particularly vulnerable to aerial
applications based on their tendency to roost within the pineland
canopy, an area with maximal exposure to such treatments. Therefore,
based on the information above, we identify pine rocklands, and
associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood communities with
pineland croton for larval development and ample roosting sites for
adults and limited or restricted pesticide application, to be a PBF for
this subspecies.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The Florida leafwing, with its strong flight abilities, can
disperse to make use of appropriate habitat in ENP (Salvato and Salvato
2010a, p. 95). Reproduction and larval development occur entirely
within the pine rocklands. The Florida leafwing is multivoltine (i.e.,
produces multiple generations per year), with an entire life cycle of
about 2 to 3 months (Hennessey and Habeck 1991, p. 17) and maintains
continuous broods throughout the year (Baggett 1982, pp. 78-79; Salvato
1999, p. 121). Natural history studies by Salvato and Salvato (2012, p.
1) indicate that the extant Florida leafwing population within Long
Pine Key experiences up to 80 percent mortality amongst immature larval
stages from parasites. All parasitic mortality noted for the Florida
leafwing by Salvato and Salvato (2012, pp. 1-3) has been from native
species; however, mortality from both native and nonnative predators
has been observed. Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify pine rockland and associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine
flatwoods (specifically those containing pineland croton and other
herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant communities, with limited
nonnative predation, that fulfill the larval development and adult
reproductive requirements of the Florida leafwing) to be a PBF for this
subspecies.
Pine rockland native vegetation includes, but is not limited to,
canopy vegetation dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa);
subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), silver palm
(Coccothrinax argentata), brittle thatch palm (Thrinax morrisii), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), myrsine (Rapanea punctata), poisonwood
(Metopium toxiferum), locustberry (Byrsonima lucida), varnishleaf
(Dodonaea viscosa), tetrazygia (Tetrazygia bicolor), rough velvetseed
(Guettarda scabra), marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides), mangrove berry
(Psidium longipes), willow bustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium), and
winged sumac (Rhus copallinum); short-statured shrubs that may include,
but are not limited to, a subcanopy with running oak (Quercus
elliottii), white indigoberry (Randia aculeata), Christmas berry
(Crossopetalum ilicifolium), redgal (Morinda royoc), and snowberry
(Chiococca alba); and understory vegetation that may include, but is
not limited to, bluestem (Andropogon spp., Schizachyrium gracile, S.
rhizomatum, and S. sanguineum), arrowleaf threeawn (Aristida
purpurascens), lopsided indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum), hairawn
muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris), Florida white-top sedge (Rhynchospora
floridensis), pineland noseburn (Tragia saxicola), devil's potato
(Echites umbellata), pineland croton, several species of sandmats
(Chamaesyce spp.), partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), coontie
(Zamia pumila), and maidenhair pineland fern (Anemia adiantifolia).
Rockland hammock native vegetation includes, but is not limited to, a
canopy vegetated by gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), false tamarind
(Lysiloma latisiliquum), paradisetree (Simarouba glauca), black
ironwood (Krugiodendron ferreum), lancewood (Ocotea coriacea), Jamaican
dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), West Indies mahogany (Swietenia
mahagoni), willow bustic, inkwood (Exothea paniculata), strangler fig
(Ficus aurea), pigeon plum (Coccoloba diversifolia), poisonwood ,
buttonwood

[[Page 47185]]

(Conocarpus erectus), blolly (Guapira discolor), and devil's claw
(Pisonia spp.); subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not
limited to, Spanish stopper (Eugenia foetida), Thrinax, torchwood
(Amyris elemifera), marlberry, wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), Sabal,
gumbo limbo, lignumvitae (Guaiacum sanctum), hog plum (Ximenia
americana), and Colubrina; and understory vegetation that may include,
but is not limited to, coonti, barbed-wire cactus (Acanthocereus
tetragonus), and basket grass (Oplismenus hirtellus). Hydric pine
flatwoods vegetation includes, but is not limited to, canopy consisting
of slash pine; subcanopy vegetation, if present, of scattered sweetbay,
swamp bay, loblolly bay, pond cypress, dahoon, titi, and/or wax myrtle;
shrubs, commonly including large gallberry, fetterbush, titi, black
titi, sweet pepperbush, red chokeberry, azaleas, saw palmetto,
gallberry, and cabbage palm, both in the subcanopy and shrub layers;
and herbs, including wiregrass, blue maidencane, and/or hydrophytic
species such as toothache grass, cutover muhly, coastalplain yellow-
eyed grass, Carolina redroot, beaksedges, and pitcherplants, among
others.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Subspecies
The Florida leafwing continues to occur in habitats that are
protected from human-generated disturbances and are only partially
representative of the butterfly's historical, geographical, and
ecological distribution because its range within these habitats has
been reduced. The subspecies is still found in its representative plant
communities of pine rocklands and associated rockland hammocks and
hydric pine flatwoods. Representative plant communities are located on
Federal, State, local, and private conservation lands that implement
conservation measures benefitting the butterfly.
Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of disturbance, most
importantly from natural or prescribed burns (Loope and Dunevitz 1981,
p. 5; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4; Saha et
al. 2011, pp. 169-184; Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2010, p.
1). These fires are a vital component in maintaining native vegetation,
such as croton, within this ecosystem. Without fire, successional
climax from tropical pineland to rockland hammock is too rapid, and
displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often
occurs.
The Florida leafwing, as with other subtropical butterflies, has
adapted over time to the influence of tropical storms and other forms
of adverse weather conditions (Minno and Emmel 1994, p. 671; Salvato
and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes and other significant weather
events create openings in the pine rockland habitat (FNAI 2010, p. 3).
However, given the substantial reduction in the historical range of the
butterfly in the past 50 years, the threat and impact of tropical
storms and hurricanes on its remaining populations is much greater than
when its distribution was more widespread (Salvato and Salvato 2010a,
p. 96; 2010c, p. 139). Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify disturbance regimes natural or prescribed to mimic natural
disturbances, such as fire and storms, to be a PBF for this subspecies.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the PBFs essential to the conservation of the Florida leafwing
in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features'
PCEs. PCEs are those specific elements of the PBFs that provide for a
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation
of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and habitat
characteristics required to sustain the butterfly's life-history
processes, we determine that the PCEs for the Florida leafwing
butterfly are:
(1) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations,
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods.
(a) Pine rockland habitat contains:
(i) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
(ii) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
(iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(b) Rockland hammock habitat associated with pine rocklands
contains:
(i) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory;
(ii) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone rock; and
(iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(c) Hydric pine flatwood habitat associated with pine rocklands
contains:
(i) Open canopy with a sparse or absent subcanopy, and dense
understory;
(ii) Substrate with a thin layer of poorly drained sands and
organic materials that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone
or calcareous rock; and
(iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(2) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough to
have minimal effect on survival of the Florida leafwing butterfly.
(3) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton, in
sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food
resources, and for adult butterfly roosting habitat and reproduction.
(4) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or
other weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine
rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine
flatwood plant communities.
(5) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and
hydric pine flatwood plant communities that are sufficient in size to
sustain viable Florida leafwing populations.
(6) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and
hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low
enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its
ability to occupy the habitat.

Special Management Considerations or Protection for the Florida
Leafwing Butterfly

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic areas 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
protections. The features essential to the conservation of this
subspecies may require special management considerations or protection
to reduce the following threats:
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Development--The Florida
leafwing butterfly has experienced substantial destruction,
modification, and curtailment of its habitat and range. The pine
rockland community of south Florida, on which both the butterfly and
its hostplant depend, is critically imperiled globally (FNAI 2012, p.
27). Destruction of the pinelands for economic development has reduced
this habitat community by 90 percent on mainland south Florida (O'Brien
1998, p. 208). All known mainland populations of the Florida leafwing

[[Page 47186]]

occur on publicly owned land that is managed for conservation,
ameliorating some of the threat. However, any unknown extant
populations of the butterfly or suitable habitat that may occur on
private land or non-conservation public land are vulnerable to habitat
loss. In Miami-Dade County, occupied Florida leafwing habitat occurs in
the Long Pine Key region of ENP and is actively managed by the National
Park Service (NPS) for the Florida leafwing and the pine rockland
ecosystem, in general.
Sea Level Rise--Various model scenarios developed at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have projected possible
trajectories of future transformation of the south Florida landscape by
2060 based upon four main drivers: Climate change, shifts in planning
approaches and regulations, human population change, and variations in
financial resources for conservation (Vargas-Moreno and Flaxman 2010,
pp. 1-6). The Service used various MIT scenarios in combination with
extant and historical Florida leafwing occurrences and remaining
hostplant-bearing pine rocklands to predict climate change impacts to
the butterfly and its habitat.
In the best case scenario, which assumes low sea level rise, high
financial resources, proactive planning, and only trending human
population growth, analyses suggest that the extant Florida leafwing
population within ENP is susceptible to future losses, with losses
attributed to increases in sea level and human population. In the worst
case scenario, which assumes high sea level rise, low financial
resources, a ``business as usual'' approach to planning, and a doubling
of human population, the habitat at Long Pine Key may be lost,
resulting in the complete extirpation of the Florida leafwing. Actual
impacts may be greater or less than anticipated based upon high
variability of factors involved (e.g., sea level rise, human population
growth) and assumptions made. Being proactive to address sea level rise
may be beyond the feasibility of land owners or managers. However,
while land owners or land managers may not be able to be proactive in
preventing these events, they may be able to respond with management or
protection. Management actions or activities that could ameliorate sea
level rise include providing protection of suitable habitats unaffected
or less affected by sea level rise.
Lack of Natural or Prescribed Burns--The threat of habitat
destruction or modification is further exacerbated by a lack of
adequate fire management (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p.
139). Historically, lightning-induced fires were a vital component in
maintaining native vegetation, including pineland croton, within the
pine rockland ecosystem (Loope and Dunevitz 1981, p. 5; Slocum et al.
2003, p. 93; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p.
154). Resprouting after burns is the primary mechanism allowing for the
persistence of perennial shrubs, including pineland croton, in pine
habitat (Olson and Platt 1995, p. 101). Without fire, perennial native
vegetation can be displaced by invasive, nonnative plants.
In recent years, ENP has used partial and systematic prescribed
burns to treat the Long Pine Key pine rocklands in their entirety over
a 3-year window (NPS 2005, p. 27). These methods attempt to burn
adjacent pine rockland habitats alternately. In addition, refugia
(i.e., unburned areas of croton hostplant) have been included as part
of burns conducted within occupied butterfly habitat, wherever possible
(Anderson 2011, pers. comm.). Providing refugia directly within (as
well as adjacent to) the treatment area during prescribed burn
activities may substantially increase the potential for the Florida
leafwing to recolonize recently burned areas and to remain within or
near the fire-treated pineland. Outside of ENP, Miami-Dade County has
implemented various conservation measures, such as burning in a mosaic
pattern and on a small scale, during prescribed burns to protect the
butterfly (Maguire 2010, pers. comm.).
Fire management of pine rocklands in NKDR is hampered by the
pattern of land ownership and development; residential and commercial
properties are embedded within or in close proximity to pineland
habitat (Snyder et al. 2005, p. 2; Anderson 2012, pers. comm.). Ongoing
management activities designed to ameliorate this threat include the
use of small-scale prescribed burns or mechanical clearing to maintain
the native vegetative structure in the pine rockland required by the
subspecies.
Hurricanes and Storm Surge--The Florida leafwing, as with other
subtropical butterflies, have adapted over time to the influence of
tropical storms and other forms of adverse weather conditions (Minno
and Emmel 1994, p. 671; Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes
and other significant weather events create openings in the pine
rockland habitat (FNAI 2010, p. 3). However, given the substantial
reduction in the historical range of the butterfly in the past 50
years, the threat and impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on its
remaining populations are much greater than when its distribution was
more widespread (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010c, p. 139).
While land owners or land managers may not be able to be proactive in
preventing these events, they may be able to respond with management or
protection resulting from these threats. Management actions or
activities that could enhance pine rockland recovery following tropical
storms include hand removal of damaged vegetation, as well as by other
mechanical means or prescribed burns.
Mosquito Control Pesticide Applications--Efforts to control salt
marsh mosquitoes (Aedes taeniorhynchus, among others) have increased as
human activity and population have increased in south Florida. To
control mosquito populations, second-generation organophosphate (naled)
and pyrethroid (permethrin) adulticides are applied by mosquito control
districts throughout south Florida. The use of such pesticides (applied
using both aerial and ground-based methods) for mosquito control
presents a potential risk to nontarget species, such as the Florida
leafwing butterfly. Mosquito control pesticides use within Miami-Dade
County's pine rockland areas is limited (approximately two to four
times per year, and only within a portion of critical habitat) (Vasquez
2013, pers. comm.), and no spraying is conducted in Long Pine Key
within ENP.
Pesticide spraying practices by the Mosquito Control District at
NKDR have changed to reduce pesticide use over the years. Since 2003,
expanded larvicide treatments to surrounding islands have significantly
reduced adulticide use on Big Pine Key, No Name Key, and the Torch
Keys. In addition, the number of aerially applied naled treatments
allowed on NKDR has been limited since 2008 (Florida Key Mosquito
Control District 2012, pp. 10-11). No spray zones that include the core
habitat used by pine rockland butterflies and several linear miles of
pine rockland habitat within the Refuge-neighborhood interface were
excluded from truck spray applications (Anderson 2012, pers. comm.;
Service 2012, p. 32). These exclusions and buffer zones encompass over
95 percent of extant croton distribution on Big Pine Key, and include
the majority of known recent and historical Florida leafwing population
centers on the island (Salvato 2012, pers. comm.). However, some areas
of pine rocklands within NKDR are still sprayed with naled (aerially
applied adulticide), and buffer zones remain at risk from drift;

[[Page 47187]]

additionally, private residential areas and roadsides across Big Pine
Key are treated with permethrin (ground-based applied adulticide)
(Salvato 2001, p. 10). Therefore, if extant, the leafwing and their
habitat on Big Pine Key may be directly or indirectly (via drift)
exposed to adulticides used for mosquito control at some unknown level.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Florida Leafwing
Butterfly

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If
after identifying 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. We are designating critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing in
2014. As described below, we also are designating specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing that were historically occupied, but are presently unoccupied,
because we have determined that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies.
To determine the location and boundaries of critical habitat, the
Service used the following sources of information and considerations:
(1) Historical and current records of Florida leafwing occurrence
and distribution found in publications, reports, and associated voucher
specimens housed at museums and private collections.
(2) Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC) and Fairchild
Tropical Gardens (FTG) geographic information system (GIS) data showing
the location and extent of documented occurrences of the pine rockland
habitat with pineland croton.
(3) Reports prepared by ecologists, biologists, and botanists with
the IRC, ENP, FTG, and Service assessing the current and historical
distribution of pine rockland habitat and pineland croton. Some of
these were funded by the Service; others were requested or volunteered
by biologists with the Service, NPS, or IRC.
(4) Historical records of pineland croton found in publications,
reports and associated voucher specimens housed at herbaria, all of
which are also referenced in the above mentioned reports from the IRC
and cited publications.
Small butterfly populations with limited, fragmented distributions,
such as the Florida leafwing, are highly vulnerable to localized
extirpations (Schultz and Hammond 2003, pp. 1377, 1379; Frankham 2005,
pp. 135-136). Historical populations of endangered south Florida
butterflies such as the Miami blue (Saarinen 2009, p. 79) and Schaus
swallowtail (Daniels and Minno 2012, p. 2), once linked, now are
subject to the loss of genetic diversity from genetic drift, the random
loss of genes, and inbreeding. In general, isolation, whether caused by
geographic distance, ecological factors, or reproductive strategy, will
likely prevent the influx of new genetic material and can result in a
highly inbred population with low viability and/or fecundity (Chesser
1983, p. 68). Fleishman et al. (2002, pp. 706-716) indicated that
factors such as habitat quality may influence metapopulation dynamics
of butterflies, driving extinction and colonization processes,
especially in systems that experience substantial natural and
anthropogenic environmental variability. In addition, natural
fluctuations in rainfall, hostplant vigor, or butterfly predators may
weaken a population to such an extent that recovery to a viable level
would be impossible. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization
from other sites and result in extinction. Because of the dangers
associated with small populations or limited distributions, the
recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new
sites or reintroductions within the historical range to ameliorate
these effects.
When designating critical habitat, we consider future recovery
efforts and conservation of the species. We have determined that all
currently known occupied habitat should be designated as critical
habitat. However, realizing that the current occupied habitat is not
adequate for the conservation of the Florida leafwing, we used habitat
and historical occurrence data to identify unoccupied habitat essential
for the conservation of the subspecies.
Only one extant Florida leafwing population remains (Salvato and
Salvato 2010c, p. 139). Population estimates for the Florida leafwing
are estimated to be only several hundred or fewer at any given time.
Although this population occurs on conservation lands, management and
law enforcement are limited. We believe it is necessary for
conservation that additional populations of the Florida leafwing be
established within the subspecies' historical range. Therefore, we are
designating three unoccupied areas as critical habitat, one on Big Pine
Key within the Florida Keys, and two others on the mainland within
Miami-Dade County, where the Florida leafwing was historically
recorded, but has since been extirpated.
The critical habitat areas in Miami-Dade County are large pine
rockland fragments (Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) or contiguous
fragments (Richmond Pine Rocklands), which we believe provide the
minimal habitat size (at least 120 ha (296 ac)) required for the
subspecies to persist. The Florida leafwing was known to occur at Navy
Wells Pineland Preserve within the past 25 years (Smith et al. 1994, p.
67). Although causes for the Florida leafwing's subsequent
disappearance from Navy Wells are unknown, we believe that, with proper
management and restoration efforts (consistent prescribed burns and
habitat enhancement) and given its strong flight abilities, the
leafwing will be able to recolonize both this and the Richmond Pine
Rockland area. The critical habitat unit on Big Pine Key in the Florida
Keys is a former stronghold for the subspecies (Smith et al. 1994, p.
67; Salvato and Salvato 2010c, p. 39), where appropriate hostplant-
bearing habitat was historically recorded, but has since become
degraded and unsuitable for butterfly use. Here also, we believe that,
following habitat restoration activities (vegetation and fire
management), the Florida leafwing will be able to be reestablished on
this site, thereby returning a vital population of the subspecies to
the Florida Keys.
The current distribution of the Florida leafwing is much reduced
(90 percent) from its historical distribution. We anticipate that
recovery will require continued protection of the remaining extant
population and habitat, as well as establishing populations in
additional areas that more closely approximate its historical
distribution in order to ensure there are adequate numbers of
butterflies in stable populations and that these populations occur over
a wide geographic area. This will help to ensure that catastrophic
events, such as storms, cannot simultaneously affect all known
populations.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

For the purpose of designating critical habitat for the Florida
leafwing, we

[[Page 47188]]

defined the geographical area currently occupied by the subspecies as
required by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. The occupied critical
habitat unit was delineated around the one documented extant
population. This unit included the mapped extent of the population that
contains one or more of the elements of the PBFs.
We considered the following when identifying occupied areas of
critical habitat for the Florida leafwing:
(1) Space to allow for the successional nature of the occupied pine
rockland habitat. While suitable, only a portion of this habitat is
optimal for the Florida leafwing at any one time, and the size and
location of optimal areas is successional over time, being largely
driven by the frequency and scale of natural or prescribed burns or
other disturbances such as storms. Correspondingly the abundance and
distribution of pineland croton within the pine rockland habitat varies
greatly from time to time depending on habitat changes because of these
events. Although prescribed burns are administered on the conservation
land that retains the Florida leafwing population, fire return
intervals and scope are inconsistent. As a result, areas within the
pine rockland habitat supporting the subspecies may not always provide
optimal habitat for the butterfly in the future as a lack of adequate
fire management or other disturbances removes or fragments hostplant
distribution. Conversely, changes in hostplant distribution over time
following fires or other disturbances may allow the butterfly to
return, expand, and colonize areas with shifting hostplant populations.
(2) Space to plan for the persistence of the current Florida
leafwing population in the face of imminent effects on habitats as a
result of sea level rise. Although currently occupied and containing
the elements of PBFs, this area may be altered, as a result of
vegetation shifts or salt water intrusion, to an extent to which cannot
be predicted at this time.
Units are designated based on sufficient elements of PBFs being
present to support Florida leafwing life processes. Some units contain
all of the identified elements of PBFs and support multiple life
processes. Some segments contain only some elements of the PBFs
necessary to support the Florida leafwing's particular use of that
habitat.

Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing

After following the above criteria, we determined that occupied
areas are not sufficient for the conservation of the subspecies for the
following reasons:
(1) Restoring the subspecies to its historical range and reducing
its vulnerability to stochastic events, such as hurricanes and storm
surge, require reintroduction to areas where the subspecies 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 subspecies to sea level rise and storm surge
requires higher elevation sites that currently are unoccupied by the
Florida leafwing.
Therefore, we looked to unoccupied areas that may be essential for
the conservation of the subspecies.
We used habitat and historical occurrence data to identify
unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies.
The unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the
subspecies because they:
(1) Represent areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem
processes for populations of the Florida leafwing. The historical
distribution of the Florida leafwing appeared limited to large pine
rocklands parcels 120 ha (296 ac) or greater. For many years the
leafwing persisted at Navy Wells, which has an area of 120 ha (296 ac),
long after being extirpated from everywhere else in Miami-Dade County
that was smaller in area. The only other leafwing populations that
occurred outside of the Everglades in the past 25 years were those in
the Richmond Pine Rocklands and Big Pine Key, which have approximately
364 and 567 ha (900 and 1,400 ac) of pine rocklands, respectively. We
believe appropriately sized units should be, at a minimum, the size of
Navy Wells (i.e., 120 ha (296 ac)). Large contiguous parcels of habitat
are more likely to be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance
and succession, and support viable populations of the Florida leafwing.
The unoccupied areas selected were at least 120 ha (296 ac) or greater
in size.
(2) Provide areas to maintain connectivity of habitat to allow for
population expansion. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization
of the Florida leafwing and result in extinction. Because of the
dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the
recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new
sites or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects.
(3) Provide areas that, once restored, will allow the Florida
leafwing to disperse and recolonize, and in some instances may be able
to support expansion and a larger number of the subspecies either
through reintroduction or expansion from areas already occupied by the
butterfly. These areas generally are habitats within or adjacent to
pine rocklands that have been affected by natural or anthropogenic
impacts but retain areas that are still suitable for the butterfly or
that could be restored. These areas would help to offset the
anticipated loss and degradation of habitat occurring or expected from
the effects of climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to
development.
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 PBFs for the Florida leafwing. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been excluded by
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore,
a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no
adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates, 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-
2013-0031, 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 for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly

We are designating four units as critical habitat for the Florida
leafwing. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our
best assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for the

[[Page 47189]]

Florida leafwing. The four units we are designating as critical habitat
are:
(1) FLB1 Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(2) FLB2 Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(3) FLB3 Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
(4) FLB4 Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
Land ownership within the designated critical habitat consists of
Federal (85 percent), State (3 percent), and private and other (12
percent). Table 1 shows the land ownership, area, and occupancy by
unit.

Table 1--Florida Leafwing Butterfly Critical Habitat Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hectares
Unit No. Unit name Ownership Percent (acres) Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB1.................................. Everglades National Park. Federal.................. 100 3,235 (7,994) yes.
------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 100 3,235 (7,994)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB2.................................. Navy Wells Pineland State.................... 29 35 (85) no.
Preserve.
Private-Other............ 71 85 (211)
------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 100 120 (296)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB3.................................. Richmond Pine Rocklands.. Federal.................. 14 50 (122) no.
Private-Other............ 86 309 (767)
------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 100 359 (889)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB4.................................. Big Pine Key............. Federal.................. 65 365 (901) no.
State.................... 16 90 (223)
Private-Other............ 19 104 (258)
------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 100 559 (1,382)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Units................... ......................... Federal.................. 85 3,650 (9,017)
State.................... 3 125 (308)
Private-Other............ 12 498 (1,236)
All...................... 100 4,273 (10,561)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Florida leafwing,
below.
Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit FLB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) in Miami-Dade County.
This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100
percent of which are located within the Long Pine Key region of ENP.
This unit is currently occupied and contains all the PBFs required by
the subspecies, and contains the PCE of pine rockland. The PBFs in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats of a lack of adequate fire management, habitat
fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with the ENP to
implement needed actions.
For instance, ENP is currently in the process of updating its fire
management plan (FMP) and environmental assessment which will assess
the impacts of fire on various environmental factors, including listed,
proposed, and candidate species (Land 2011, pers. comm.; Sadle 2013a,
pers. comm.). ENP is actively coordinating with the Service, as well as
other members of the Imperiled Butterfly Working Group (IBWG), to
review and adjust the prescribed burn practices outlined in the FMP to
help maintain or increase Florida leafwing population sizes, protect
pine rocklands, expand or restore remnant patches of hostplants, and
ensure that short-term negative effects from fire (i.e., loss of
hostplants, loss of eggs and larvae) can be avoided or minimized.
Unit FLB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit FLB2 consists of 120 ha (296 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit is comprised entirely of conservation lands located within the
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, which is jointly owned by Miami-Dade
County (85 ha (211 ac)) and the State (35 ha (85 ac)). State lands are
interspersed within Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department
lands, which are managed for conservation. This unit is bounded on the
north by SW 348 Street, on the south by SW 360 Street, on the east by
State Road 9336, and on the west by the vicinity of SW 202 Avenue.
The unit was occupied historically by the Florida leafwing and
includes some of the largest remaining contiguous fragments of pine
rockland habitats outside of ENP. This unit is not currently occupied
but is essential for the conservation of the butterfly because it
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish
wild populations within the historical range of the subspecies, and
maintain populations throughout the historic distribution of the
subspecies in Miami-Dade County, and it provides habitat for recovery
in the case of stochastic events if the butterfly is extirpated from
the one location where it is presently found.
Unit FLB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit FLB3 consists of 359 ha (889 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit is comprised of lands in Federal (U.S. Coast Guard (Homeland
Security) (29 ha (72 ac)), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department of
Defense (DoD) (8 ha (20 ac)), National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) (4 ha (9 ac)), Federal Bureau of Prisons
(Department of Justice (DoJ) (9 ha (21 ac))), and private or other (309
ha (767 ac)) ownership. This unit is bordered on the

[[Page 47190]]

north by Coral Reef Drive, on the south by SW 168 Street, on the east
by SW 117 Avenue, and on the west by SW 137 Avenue; then is bordered on
the north by SW 168 Street, on the south by SW 184 Street, on the east
by SW 122 Avenue, and on the west by SW 137 Avenue.
Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit FLB4 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in Monroe County. This unit
includes Federal lands within NKDR (365 ha (901 ac)), State lands (90
ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other ownership (104 ha (258
ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as
part of the Refuge. The unit begins on northern Big Pine Key on the
southern side of Gulf Boulevard, and continues south on both sides of
Key Deer Boulevard (County Road 940 (CR 940)) to the vicinity of Osprey
Lane on the western side of CR 940 and Tea Lane to the east of CR 940;
then resumes on both sides of CR 940 from Osprey Lane south of the
vicinity of Driftwood Lane; then resumes south of Osceola Street,
between Fern Avenue to the west and Baba Lane to the east; then resumes
north of Watson Boulevard in the vicinity of Avenue C; then continues
south on both sides of Avenue C to South Street; then resumes on both
sides of CR 940 south to U.S. 1 between Ships Way to the west and Sands
Street to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 from Newfound
Boulevard to the west and Deer Run Trail to the east; and then resumes
south of U.S. 1 from Palomino Horse Trail to the west and Industrial
Road to the east.
This unit was historically occupied by the Florida leafwing. This
unit is not currently occupied but is essential for the conservation of
the Florida leafwing because it serves to protect habitat needed to
recover the subspecies, reestablish wild populations within the
historical range of the subspecies, and maintain populations throughout
the historic distribution of the subspecies in the Lower Florida Keys,
and it provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events if
the butterfly is extirpated from the one location where it is presently
found. In the Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge's
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), management objective number 11
provides specifically for maintaining and restoring butterfly
populations of special conservation concern, including the Florida
leafwing butterfly.

Physical or Biological Features for the Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
Butterfly

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly's entire lifecycle occurs
within pine rockland habitat and occasionally associated rockland
hammock and hydric pine flatwoods interspersed in these pinelands. A
description of these communities and associated native plant species
are provided in the Status Assessment for the Florida Leafwing and
Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterflies section in the final listing
rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register and in the
information on hydric pine flatwoods in this rule.
At present, the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly is extant on
Big Pine Key, within ENP, and several pineland fragments on mainland
Miami-Dade County (Smith et al. 1994, p. 118; Salvato and Salvato
2010b, p. 154), the smallest being Navy Wells Pineland Preserve
outparcel number 39 (7 ha (18 ac)), which represents the minimum known
extant sustained population size. The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak was
historically less common and sporadic in occurrence north of Miami-Dade
County (Smith et al. 1994, pp. 118; Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p.
223). Studies indicate butterflies are capable of dispersing throughout
the landscape, sometimes as far as 5 km (3 mi), and utilizing high-
quality habitat patches (Davis et al. 2007, p. 1351; Bergman et al.
2004, p. 625). Stepping stones may be particularly useful to the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, which exhibits low vagility (movement),
rarely venturing from the pine rockland habitat or away from large
areas of contiguous patches of hostplant. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify pine rockland habitats and associated
rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwoods that are at least 7 ha (18
ac) in size and are located no more than 5 km (3 miles) apart to allow
for habitat connectivity to be a PBF for this butterfly.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly is dependent on pine
rocklands that retain the butterfly's sole hostplant, pineland croton.
The immature stages of this butterfly feed on the croton for
development (Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 129; Worth et al. 1996, p. 62).
Adult Bartram's scrub-hairstreaks actively visit flowers for nectar
(Minno and Emmel 1993, p. 129; Worth et al. 1996, p. 65; Calhoun et al.
2002, p. 14; Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 226; Salvato and Salvato
2008, p. 324) within open pine areas and edges and openings within
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. Therefore,
based on the information above, we identify pine rockland and
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods (specifically
those containing pineland croton and other herbaceous vegetation
typical of these plant communities that fulfill the larval development
and adult dietary requirements) to be PBFs for the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterfly.
Cover or Shelter
Immature stages of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly occur
entirely on the hostplant, pineland croton. Adult Bartram's scrub-
hairstreaks prefer more open pine areas, at the edges and openings of
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. The Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak population on Big Pine Key may be deleteriously
impacted by exposure to seasonal pesticide applications designed to
control mosquitoes because of where the butterflies congregate in the
vegetation. Salvato (2001, p. 13) suggested that the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak is particularly vulnerable to truck-based applications based
on the fact that the subspecies commonly aggregates on low-lying shrubs
occurring along frequently treated roadsides. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify the absence of pesticide in the pine
rocklands and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood
communities, or pesticides in low enough quantities that they are not
detrimental to the butterfly, to be a PBF for this subspecies.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly's reproduction and larval
development occur entirely within the pine rocklands. The butterfly has
been observed during every month throughout its range; however the
exact number of broods appears to be sporadic from year to year, with
varying peaks in seasonal abundance (Baggett 1982, p. 81; Hennessey and
Habeck 1991, pp. 17-19; Emmel et al. 1995, pp. 14-15; Minno and Minno
2009, pp. 70-76; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 156; Anderson 2012,
pers. comm.; Sadle 2013b, pers. comm.). The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
retains breeding populations within pine rocklands on Big Pine Key and
Long Pine Key in ENP, and within a number of pine rockland fragments
adjacent to ENP (Salvato and

[[Page 47191]]

Salvato 2010b, p. 154). Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify pine rockland and associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine
flatwoods (specifically those containing pineland croton and other
herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant communities that fulfill
the larval development and adult reproductive requirements of the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak) to be a PBF for this subspecies. For a
detailed description of pine rockland native vegetation, see Physical
or Biological Features for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly, above.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Subspecies
The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly continues to occur in
habitats that are protected from human-generated disturbances and are
representative of the butterfly's historical, geographical, and
ecological distribution, although its range has been reduced. The
subspecies is still found in its representative plant communities of
pine rocklands. Representative communities are located on Federal,
State, local, and private conservation lands that implement
conservation measures benefitting the butterfly.
Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of disturbance, most
importantly from natural or prescribed burns (Loope and Dunevitz 1981,
p. 5; Carlson et al. 1993, p. 914; Slocum et al. 2003, p. 93; Snyder et
al. 2005, p. 1; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4; Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169-
184; FNAI 2010, p. 1). These fires are a vital component in maintaining
native vegetation, such as pineland croton, within this ecosystem.
Without fire, successional climax from tropical pineland to rockland
hammock is too rapid, and displacement of native species by invasive,
nonnative plants often occurs.
The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, as with other subtropical
butterflies, have adapted over time to the influence of tropical storms
and other forms of adverse weather conditions (Minno and Emmel 1994, p.
671; Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes and other
significant weather events create openings in the pine rockland habitat
(FNAI 2010, p. 3). However, given the substantial reduction in the
historical range of the butterfly in the past 50 years, the threat and
impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on their remaining populations
is much greater than when their distribution was more widespread
(Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010c, p. 139). Therefore, based on
the information above, we identify disturbance regimes natural or
prescribed to mimic natural disturbances, such as fire and storms, to
be a PBF for this subspecies.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
Butterfly

Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and habitat
characteristics required to sustain the butterfly's life-history
processes, we determine that the PCEs for the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak are:
(1) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations,
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods. For a detailed
description of this PCE, see the discussion of PCE 1 for the Florida
leafwing in Primary Constituent Elements for the Florida Leafwing
Butterfly, above.
(2) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough to
have minimal effect on survival of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly.
(3) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton, in
sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food
resources, and for adult butterfly nectar source and reproduction.
(4) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or
other weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine
rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine
flatwood plant communities.
(5) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and
hydric pine flatwood plant communities that allow for connectivity and
are sufficient in size to sustain viable populations of the Bartram's
scrub hairstreak butterfly.
(6) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and
hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low
enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its
ability to occupy the habitat.

Special Management Considerations or Protection for Bartram's Scrub-
Hairstreak Butterfly

The special management considerations or protections for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, and the primary threats to the PBFs on
which the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak depends, are the same as those
described for the Florida leafwing above, except where noted below.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Development--The majority
of known mainland populations of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly occur on publicly owned lands that are managed for
conservation. In Miami-Dade County, occupied Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
habitat occurs in the Long Pine Key region of ENP and is actively
managed by the NPS for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and the pine
rockland ecosystem, in general. Outside of the ENP, extant occupied
habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak occurs on lands owned by
Miami-Dade County, University of Miami, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which
are managed for the conservation of the pine rockland ecosystem
ameliorating some of the threat.
Sea Level Rise--Based on modeling using best case scenario, which
assumes low sea level rise, high financial resources, proactive
planning, and only trending population growth, analyses suggest that
the Big Pine Key population of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak may be
lost or greatly reduced. Based upon the above assumptions, extant
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations on Big Pine Key and Long Pine
Key appear to be most susceptible to future losses attributed to
increases in sea level and human population. In the worst case
scenario, which assumes high sea level rise, low financial resources, a
``business as usual'' approach to planning, and a doubling of human
population, the habitat at Big Pine Key and Long Pine Key may be lost.
Under the worst case scenario, pine rockland habitat would remain
within Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the Richmond Pine Rocklands,
both of which currently retain Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations.
Proactively addressing sea level rise may be beyond the feasibility of
land owners or managers. However, while land owners or land managers
may not be able to be proactive in preventing these events, they may be
able to respond with management or protection. Management actions or
activities that could ameliorate sea level rise include providing
protection of suitable habitats unaffected or less affected by sea
level rise.
Lack of Natural or Prescribed Burns--For a detailed description of
this special management considerations or protection, see the
discussion of Special Management Considerations or Protection for the
Florida Leafwing Butterfly.
Mosquito Control Pesticide Applications--For a detailed description
of this special management consideration or protection, see the
discussion of Special Management Considerations or Protection for the
Florida Leafwing Butterfly.

[[Page 47192]]

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-
Hairstreak Butterfly

The criteria used to identify critical habitat for the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak are the same as those discussed above for the Florida
leafwing, except where noted below.
Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization of Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak from other sites and result in extinction. Because of the
dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the
recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new
sites or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects. In addition,
establishing corridors or employing small patches (stepping stones) of
similar habitats have been shown to facilitate dispersal, reduce
extinction rates, and increase gene flow of imperiled butterflies
(Schultz 1998, p. 291; Haddad 2000, pp. 739; 744; Haddad et al. 2003,
p. 614; Wells et al. 2009, p. 709). Leidner and Haddad (2010, pp. 2318-
2319) suggest that small natural areas within the urban landscape may
serve an important role in promoting butterfly dispersal and gene flow
in fragmented landscapes. Davis et al. (2007, p. 1351) and Bergman et
al. (2004, p. 625) indicate butterflies are capable of dispersing
throughout the landscape, sometimes as far as 5 km (3 miles), and
utilizing high-quality habitat patches. Stepping stones may be
particularly useful to the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, which like most
lycaenids, exhibits low vagility, rarely venturing from the pine
rockland habitat or away from large areas of contiguous patches of
hostplant.
Accordingly, realizing that the current occupied habitat is not
adequate for the conservation of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly,
we used habitat and historical occurrence data to identify unoccupied
habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies.
Only five extant Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations remain
within the subspecies' historical range. Total population estimates for
the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak are estimated to be only several hundred
or fewer at any given time. Although these populations occur on
conservation lands, management and law enforcement are limited. We
believe it is necessary for conservation and recovery that additional
populations of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak be established within the
subspecies' historical range. Therefore, as described below, we are
designating two critical habitat units in the Florida Keys where
appropriate hostplant-bearing habitat was historically recorded, which
has since been degraded and became unsuitable for butterfly use. We
believe that, given proper management and restoration efforts, the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak may be able to be established on these
units, thereby providing an essential fortification of the subspecies'
population in the Florida Keys.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

We considered the following when identifying occupied areas of
critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly:
(1) Space to allow for population growth and expansion. In ENP, the
distribution of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is across a larger area
than at any other single location. Outside of ENP, units are limited to
three units composed of pine rockland fragments within the current
distribution of the subspecies that contain the elements of the PBFs.
These units retain extant, localized Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
populations. The units include only pine rocklands fragments that are
at least 7 ha (18 ac) in size (which represents the minimum known
extant population size) and are currently occupied. On Big Pine Key,
the distribution of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is across all extant
pine rocklands on the island that contain the elements of the PBFs.
(2) Space to plan for the persistence of the current Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak populations in the face of imminent effects on
habitats as a result of sea level rise. Under the worst case scenario
for sea level rise (as discussed above in Special Management
Considerations or Protection), pine rockland habitat would remain at
both Navy Wells, Camp Owaissa Bauer, and the Richmond Pine Rocklands,
each of which retain Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations. However,
even in these areas, pine rocklands may be altered as a result of
vegetation shifts or salt water intrusion, at an extent to which cannot
be predicted at this time.

Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing

After following the above criteria, we determined that occupied
areas were not sufficient for the conservation of the subspecies for
the following reasons:
(1) Restoring the subspecies 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.
(3) Reintroduction or assisted migration to reduce the
vulnerability of the subspecies to sea-level rise and storm surge
requires higher elevation sites that currently are unoccupied by the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.

Therefore, we looked to unoccupied areas that may be essential for the
conservation of the subspecies.
We used habitat and historical occurrence data to identify
unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies as
described below.
The unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the
subspecies because they:
(1) Represent large contiguous parcels of habitat that are more
likely to be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance and
succession, and support viable populations of the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterfly. However, in Miami-Dade County, the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak is extant on parcels as small as 7 ha (18 ac), which
lay adjacent to larger pine rocklands. Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
populations may be able to utilize these smaller fragments while
dispersing between units. Therefore, pine rockland fragments, at least
7 ha (18 ac) in size, that are currently unoccupied and within 5 km (3
miles) of an extant Bartram's scrub-hairstreak population within Miami-
Dade County, were identified as critical habitat for the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak.
(2) Provide areas needed to maintain connectivity of habitat and
aid butterfly dispersal within and between occupied units (i.e.,
stepping stones for dispersal). These areas maintain connectivity
within and between populations and allow for population expansion
within the butterfly's historical range.
(3) Provide areas that are needed to allow the dynamic ecological
nature of the pine rockland habitat to continue. The abundance and
distribution of pineland croton within the pine rockland habitat varies
greatly throughout the range of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. At any
one time, only a portion of this habitat is optimally suitable for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and the size and location of suitable areas
is dynamic over time, being largely driven by the frequency and scale
of natural or prescribed burns. Historically, lighting-induced fires
maintained native vegetation within the pine rockland ecosystem,
including pineland croton. Although prescribed burns are administered
on the majority of conservation lands that retain Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak populations,

[[Page 47193]]

fire return intervals and scope are inconsistent. In addition, little
or no fire management occurs on private lands. Thus, areas of pine
rockland that now support the subspecies may not provide as optimal
habitat in the future as a lack of adequate fire management removes or
fragments hostplant distribution. Conversely, hostplants may return or
increase in areas following prescribed burns, allowing the butterflies
to expand or colonize within them in the future.
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 PBFs for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. 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 PBFs in the adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates, 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-
2013-0031, 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 for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak
Butterfly

We are designating seven units as critical habitat for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. The critical habitat areas we describe
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. The
seven areas we are designating as critical habitat are:
(1) BSHB1 Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(2) BSHB2 Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(3) BSHB3 Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(4) BSHB4 Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(5) BSHB5 Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida;
(6) BSHB6 No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida; and
(7) BSHB7 Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.

Land ownership within the designated critical habitat consists of
Federal (80 percent), State (5 percent), and private and other (15
percent). Table 2 summarizes these units. Designated critical habitat
for the Florida leafwing butterfly occurs entirely within Bartram's
scrub- hairstreak units BSHB1, BSHB2, BSHB4, and BSHB5.

TABLE 2--Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Critical Habitat Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hectares
Unit No. Unit name Ownership Percent (acres) Occupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSHB1....................... Everglades Federal........ 100 3,235 (7,994) yes.
National Park.
-------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 100 3,235 (7,994)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSHB2....................... Navy Wells State.......... 30 62 (153) yes.
Pineland
Preserve.
Private-Other.. 70 141 (349)
-------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 100 203 (502)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSHB3....................... Camp Owaissa State.......... 20 29 (71) yes.
Bauer.
Private-Other.. 80 117 (288)
-------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 100 146 (359)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSHB4....................... Richmond Pine Federal........ 11 50 (122) yes.
Rocklands.
State.......... 7 32 (79)
Private-Other.. 82 356 (881)
-------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 100 438 (1,082)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSHB5....................... Big Pine Key... Federal........ 65 365 (901) yes.
State.......... 16 90 (223)
Private-Other.. 19 104 (258)
-------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 100 559 (1,382)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSHB6....................... No Name Key.... Federal........ 75 30 (75) no.
State.......... 18 9 (22)
Private-Other.. 7 11 (26)
-------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 100 50 (123)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSHB7....................... Little Pine Key Federal........ 100 39 (97) no.
-------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 100 39 (97)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47194]]

Total All Units......... ............... Federal........ 80 3,719 (9,189)
State.......... 5 222 (548)
Private-Other.. 15 729 (1,802)
-------------------------------------------------
All............ 100 4,670 (11,539)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterfly, below.
Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit BSHB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) in Miami-Dade County.
This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100
percent of which are located within the Lone Pine Key region of ENP.
This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and
contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat (pine rockland
habitat of sufficient size), hostplant presence, natural or artificial
disturbance regimes, low levels of nonnative vegetation and larval
parasitism, and restriction of pesticides, and the unit contains the
PCE of pine rockland. The PBFs in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats of a lack of
adequate fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea
level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with the NPS to implement needed actions.
ENP is currently in the process of updating its FMP and
environmental assessment, which will assess the impacts of fire on
various environmental factors, including listed, proposed, and
candidate species (Land 2011, pers. comm.; Sadle 2013a, pers. comm.).
ENP is actively coordinating with the Service, as well as other members
of the IBWG, to review and adjust the prescribed burn practices
outlined in the FMP to help maintain or increase Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak population sizes, protect pine rocklands, expand or restore
remnant patches of hostplants, and ensure that short-term negative
effects from fire (i.e., loss of hostplants, loss of eggs and larvae)
can be avoided or minimized.
Unit BSHB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit BSHB2 consists of 203 ha (502 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit is comprised of lands in State (62 ha (153 ac)) and private or
other (141 ha (349 ac)) ownership. The 120-ha (296-ac) Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve is jointly owned by Miami-Dade County (85 ha (211
ac)) and the State (35 ha (85 ac)). State lands are interspersed within
Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department lands, which are
managed for conservation.
This unit begins in Homestead, Florida, on SW 304 Street, between
SW 198 Avenue to SW 204 Avenue; then resumes between SW 340 Street and
SW 344 Street, between SW 213 Avenue and SW 214 Avenue; then resumes
between SW 344 Street and SW 360 Street on SW 209 Avenue; then resumes
along SW 268 Street, between SW 202 Avenue and SW 205 Avenue; then
resumes along SW 360 Street, between SW 202 Avenue and SW 188 Avenue;
then resumes between SW 7 Street and SW 158 Street, in the vicinity of
SW 180 Avenue; then resumes along Palm Drive and SW 3 Terrace, between
SW 6 Avenue and SW 8 Avenue.
This unit is occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly
and contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult
food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and restriction of
pesticides, and the unit contains pine rockland and rockland hammock
PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats of a lack of adequate
fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise.
However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated
with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions.
Unit BSHB3: Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit BSHB3 consists of 146 ha (359 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit is comprised of lands in State (29 ha (71 ac)) and private or
other (117 ha (288 ac)) ownership, of which one large fragment (40 ha
(99 ac)) is owned by Miami-Dade County-Camp Owaissa Bauer. State lands
are interspersed within Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation
Department lands, which are managed for conservation.
This unit begins in Homestead, Florida, on SW 147 Ave, between SW
216 Street and SW 200 Street; then resumes on both sides of SW 157
Avenue, between SW 216 Street and SW 228 Street; then resumes along SW
232 Street, between SW 142 Avenue and SW 144 Avenue; then continues
south of SW 232 Street along both sides of SW 142 Ave to SW 248 Street;
then resumes along SW 248 Street, south to SW 256 Street, between SW
144 Avenue and the vicinity of SW 157 Avenue; then resumes along SW 240
Street, north to the vicinity of SW 238 Street, between SW 152 Avenue
and SW 147 Avenue; then resumes between SW 264 Street and SW 272
Street, along both sides of SW 155 Avenue; then resumes along both
sides of SW 264 Street in the vicinity of SW 162 Avenue.
This unit is occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly
and contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult
food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and restriction of
pesticides required by the subspecies, and the unit contains the pine
rockland and rockland hammock PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats of a
lack of adequate fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and
sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.
Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Unit BSHB4 consists of 438 ha (1,082 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit comprises lands in both Federal (U.S. Coast Guard (Homeland
Security) (29 ha (72 ac)), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (DoD) (8 ha (20
ac)), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (4 ha (9 ac)),
Federal Bureau of Prisons (DoJ) (9 ha (21 ac))), State (32 ha (79 ac)),
and private or other (356 ha (881 ac)) ownership. The unit includes
some of the largest remaining contiguous

[[Page 47195]]

fragments of pine rockland habitats outside of ENP known to be occupied
by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly.
This unit begins in Miami, Florida, at SW 120 Street, north to SW
112 Street, between SW 142 Avenue and the vicinity of SW 137 Avenue;
then resumes along SW 124 Street south to SW 128 Street, between SW127
Avenue and the vicinity of SW 137 Avenue; then resumes in the vicinity
of SW 136 Street and SW 122 Avenue; then resumes on Coral Reef Drive
(State Road 992) south to SW 168 Street, between U.S. 1 and SW 117
Avenue; then resumes from Coral Reef Drive south to SW 184 Street,
between FL-832 and SW 137 Avenue.
This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly and contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat,
hostplant, adult food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and
restriction of pesticides, and the unit contains the pine rockland and
rockland hammock PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats of a lack of
adequate fire management, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea
level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed
actions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lands do not have an
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) or other natural
resource management plan.
Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit BSHB5 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in Monroe County. This
unit includes Federal lands within NKDR (365 ha (901 ac)), State lands
(90 ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other ownership (104 ha
(258 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed
as part of the Refuge.
The unit begins on northern Big Pine Key on the southern side of
Gulf Boulevard, continues south on both sides of Key Deer Boulevard (CR
940) to the vicinity of Osprey Lane on the western side of CR 940 and
Tea Lane to the east of CR 940; then resumes on both sides of CR 940
from Osprey Lane to rest south of the vicinity of Driftwood Lane; then
resumes south of Osceola Street, between Fern Avenue to the west and
Baba Lane to the east; then resumes north of Watson Boulevard in the
vicinity of Avenue C; then continues south on both sides of Avenue C to
South Street; then resumes on both sides of CR 940 south to U.S. 1
between Ships Way to the west and Sands Street to the east; then
resumes south of U.S. 1 from Newfound Boulevard to the west and Deer
Run Trail to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 from Palomino Horse
Trail to the west and Industrial Road to the east.
This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly. This unit contains several of the PBFs, including suitable
habitat, hostplant, adult food sources, and breeding sites required by
the subspecies, and it contains the pine rockland and rockland hammock
PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats of disturbance regimes
(fire) and pesticide applications, as well as habitat fragmentation,
poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are
being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to
implement needed actions.
Unit BSHB6: No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit BSHB6 consists of 50 ha (123 ac) in Monroe County. This unit
includes Federal lands within NKDR (30 ha (75 ac)), State lands (9 ha
(22 ac)), and property in private or other ownership (11 ha (26 ac)).
State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of
the Refuge. The unit extends from Watson Road entirely on National Key
Deer Refuge lands just south of the vicinity of Spanish Channel Drive
eastward to the vicinity of Paradise Drive, then resumes north of
Watson Road from No Name Drive east to Paradise Lane.
This unit is not currently occupied by the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterfly but is essential for the conservation of the
subspecies because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the
subspecies, reestablish wild populations within the historical range of
the subspecies, and maintain populations throughout the historical
distribution of the subspecies in the Florida Keys, and the unit
provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events that
otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the subspecies from the one
or more locations where it is presently found. The Lower Florida Keys
National Wildlife Refuge's CCP management objective number 11 provides
specifically for maintaining and restoring butterfly populations of
special conservation concern, including the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly.
Unit BSHB7: Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
Unit BSHB7 consists of 39 ha (97 ac) in Monroe County. This unit
comprises entirely lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which are
located within NKDR. This unit is not currently occupied by the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly but is essential to the
conservation of the subspecies because it serves to protect habitat
needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish wild populations within
the historical range of the subspecies, and maintain populations
throughout the historical distribution of the subspecies in the Florida
Keys, and it provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic
events that otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the subspecies
from one or more locations where it is presently found. The Lower
Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge's CCP management objective number
11 provides specifically for maintaining and restoring butterfly
populations of special conservation concern, including the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak butterfly.
Unit BSHB7-Little Pine Key is designated critical habitat for the
silver rice rat (Oryzomys palustris natator; 50 CFR 17.95(a)).

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 that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001)),
and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether
an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
Under the provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the effected critical habitat would continue
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.

[[Page 47196]]

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 the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support life-history needs of these butterflies
and provide for the conservation of these subspecies.
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 the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterflies. These activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the pine rockland and
associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood habitats. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential,
commercial, or recreational development, including associated
infrastructure.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of
residential, commercial, or recreational development; and associated
infrastructure.
(3) Actions that would introduce nonnative plant species that would
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and
commercial development and associated infrastructure.
(4) Actions that would introduce nonnative arthropod species that
would significantly influence the natural histories of the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies. Such activities
may include release of parasitic or predator species (flies or wasps)
for use in agriculture-based biological control programs.
(5) Actions that would introduce chemical pesticides into the pine
rockland and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood
habitats in a manner that impacts the butterflies. Such activities may
include use of adulticides for control of mosquitos or agricultural-
related pests.

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 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 DoD lands within the critical habitat
designation area; however, none of these lands is covered by an INRMP.
Accordingly, no lands that otherwise meet the definition of critical
habitat are exempt under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from 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

[[Page 47197]]

data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative
history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis, which together with our
narrative interpretation of effects, constituted our draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors (Service 2013, entire; IEc 2014, entire). The DEA was made
available for public review from May 8, 2014, through June 9, 2014 (79
FR 26392). Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may
pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic
impacts of this critical habitat designation.
Based on the analysis, the Service anticipates no more than eight
to nine consultations per year in the critical habitat units. The
analysis concluded the economic impacts of the designation are likely
to range from $400 to $9,000 per consultation resulting in
approximately $72,000 (2013 dollars) in a given year. Critical habitat
is not likely to generate additional consultations, and in
circumstances where consultation does occur, additional project
modifications are unlikely. Additional information relevant to the
probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designations
for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies are
summarized in the DEA (IEc 2014, entire), available at https://www.regulations.gov.
In summary, our 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 the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak based on economic impacts.

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 DoD where a national security impact
might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have determined that some
lands within the designation of critical habitat for the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak are owned or managed by the DoD
and the Department of Homeland Security. However, we anticipate no
impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not
intending to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from the
final designation based on impacts on national security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other
relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We
consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have
developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether
there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we
look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government
relationship of the United States with tribal entities. 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 permitted HCPs or other management plans for the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. An HCP for Big Pine and No
Name Keys in Monroe County, Florida, which was implemented in 2006, did
not address the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
However, in order to fulfill the HCP's mitigation requirements, Monroe
County has been actively acquiring parcels of high-quality habitats,
including pine rocklands, and placing them into conservation. Natural
lands acquired under the HCP will be managed for conservation, in
perpetuity, either by the County or through agreements with the State
or Service. These conservation actions have benefited the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak by protecting habitat. However,
we anticipate no impact on the HCP from this final critical habitat
designation. Furthermore, the final designation does not include any
tribal lands or additional trust resources, so we anticipate no impact
on tribal lands or partnerships from this final critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from the 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 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. Executive Order 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 of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining

[[Page 47198]]

concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with
fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than
$5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses
with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade
contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To
determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are
significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger
regulatory impacts under these designations as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal
action agencies will be directly regulated by these designations. There
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final rule we reviewed and evaluated
all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to
our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our
certification that this final critical habitat designation 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. The Office of Management and Budget (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 FEA 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
FEA finds that none of the outcomes relative to significant adverse
effect thresholds set forth by OMB are relevant to this analysis. Thus,
based on information in the FEA, energy-related impacts associated with
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 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 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 FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to
administrative costs of section 7 consultations for activities related
to commercial, residential, and recreational development and

[[Page 47199]]

associated actions; however, these are not expected to significantly
affect small government entities. Consequently, we do not believe that
the critical habitat designation will significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterflies 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. Based on the best available information, the takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak does
not pose significant takings implications.

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 requested information
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. We received
comments from FWC and FDACS and have addressed them in the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations section of this rule. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the PBFs of the habitat necessary
to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in
long-range planning (because these governments no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, the rule identifies the elements of PBFs essential to the
conservation of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterflies. 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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
As discussed above, we determined that there are no tribal lands
that are currently occupied by the Florida leafwing and Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak butterflies that contain the features essential for
conservation of these subspecies, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak that are essential for
the conservation of these subspecies.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

[[Page 47200]]

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. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by:
0
a. Adding an entry for ``Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (Strymon
acis bartrami)'' immediately following the entry for ``Valley
Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)
California. Sacramento County'' and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta
floridalis)'' immediately following the entry for ``Fender's Blue
Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi)''.
The additions read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly (Strymon Acis Bartrami)
(1) Critical habitat units 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 the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly are:
(i) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations,
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods.
(A) Pine rockland habitat contains:
(1) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory.
(2) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(B) Rockland hammock habitat associated with the pine rocklands
contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open semi-open canopy, subcanopy,
and understory.
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(C) Hydric pine flatwood habitat associated with the pine rocklands
contains:
(1) Open canopy with a sparse or absent subcanopy, and dense
understory.
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of poorly drained sands and organic
materials that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone or
calcareous rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(ii) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough
to have minimal effect on survival of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly.
(iii) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton,
in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food
resources, and for adult butterfly nectar source and reproduction;
(iv) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g. fire, hurricanes or other
weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine
rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine
flatwood plant communities.
(v) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and
hydric pine flatwood plant communities that allow for connectivity and
are sufficient in size to sustain viable populations of Bartram's scrub
hairstreak butterfly.
(vi) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and
hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low
enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its
ability to occupy the habitat.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
September 11, 2014.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial
data layers. ArcGIS was also used to calculate the size of habitat
areas. The projection used in mapping and calculating distances and
locations within the units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic,
NAD 83. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is
based are available to the public at the Service's Internet site
(https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/), the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031), 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 the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak butterfly follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 47201]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.000

(6) Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac)
in Miami-Dade County and is composed entirely of lands in Federal
ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the Long Pine Key
region of Everglades National Park.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB1 follows:

[[Page 47202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.001

(7) Unit BSHB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB2 consists of 203 ha (502 ac) in
Miami-Dade County and is composed of lands in State (62 ha (153 ac)),
and private or other ownership (141 ha (349 ac)), including the County
and State-owned Navy Wells Pineland Preserve.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB2 follows:

[[Page 47203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.002

(8) Unit BSHB3: Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB3 consists of 146 ha (359 ac) in
Miami-Dade County and is comprised of lands in State (29 ha (71 ac))
and private or other ownership (117 ha (288 ac)), including 40 ha (99
ac) of Miami-Dade County-owned Camp Owaissa Bauer.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB3 follows:

[[Page 47204]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.003

(9) Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB4 consists of 438 ha (1,082 ac)
in Miami-Dade County and is composed of lands in Federal (U. S. Coast
Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (50 ha (122 ac)), State
(32 ha (79 ac)) and private or other (356 ha (881 ac)) ownership.
(ii) Index map of Unit BSHB4 follows:

[[Page 47205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.004

(A) Map A of Unit BSHB4 follows:

[[Page 47206]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.005

(B) Map B of Unit BSHB4 follows:

[[Page 47207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.006

(10) Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB5 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac)
in Monroe County and is composed of lands in National Key Deer Refuge
(NKDR) (365 ha (901 ac)), State ownership (90 ha (223 ac)), and private
or other ownership (104 ha (258 ac)). State lands are interspersed
within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
(ii) Index map of Unit BSHB5 follows:

[[Page 47208]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.007

(A) Map A of Unit BSHB5 follows:

[[Page 47209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.008

(B) Map B of Unit BSHB5 follows:

[[Page 47210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.009

(11) Unit BSHB6: No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB6 consists of 50 ha (123 ac) in
Monroe County and is composed of lands in National Key Deer Refuge
(NKDR) (30 ha (75 ac)), State ownership (9 ha (22 ac)), and private or
other ownership (11 ha (26 ac)). State lands are interspersed within
NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB6 follows:

[[Page 47211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.010

(12) Unit BSHB 7: Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB7 consists of 39 ha (97 ac) in
Monroe County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal
ownership, 100 percent of which are located within National Key Deer
Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB7 follows:

[[Page 47212]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.011

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *
Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis)
(1) Critical habitat units 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 the
Florida leafwing butterfly consist of six components:
(i) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations,
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods.
(A) Pine rockland habitat contains:

[[Page 47213]]

(1) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory.
(2) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(B) Rockland hammock habitat associated with pine rocklands
contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory.
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(C) Hydric pine flatwood habitat associated with pine rocklands
contains:
(1) Open canopy with a sparse or absent subcanopy, and dense
understory.
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of poorly drained sands and organic
materials that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone or
calcareous rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(ii) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough
to have minimal effect on survival of the Florida leafwing butterfly.
(iii) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton,
in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food
resources, and for adult butterfly roosting habitat and reproduction.
(iv) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes or
other weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine
rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine
flatwood plant communities.
(v) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and
hydric pine flatwood plant communities sufficient in size to sustain
viable Florida leafwing populations.
(vi) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and
hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low
enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its
ability to occupy the habitat.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
September 11, 2014.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial
data layers. ArcGIS was also used to calculate the size of habitat
areas. The projection used in mapping and calculating distances and
locations within the units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic,
NAD 83. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is
based are available to the public at the Service's Internet site
(https://www.fws.gov/verobeach), the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031), 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 the Florida
leafwing butterfly follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 47214]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.012

(6) Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General description: Unit FLB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac)
composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which
are located within the Long Pine Key region of Everglades National
Park.
(ii) Map of Unit FLB1 follows:

[[Page 47215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.013

(7) Unit FLB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General description: Unit FLB2 consists of 120 ha (296 ac) in
Miami-Dade County and is composed of lands in State (35 ha (85 ac)),
and private or other ownership (85 ha (211 ac)).
(ii) Map of Unit FLB2 follows:

[[Page 47216]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.014

(8) Unit FLB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) General description: Unit FLB3 consists of 359 ha (889 ac) in
Miami-Dade County composed of lands in Federal (U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (50 ha (122 ac)) and private or
other (309 ha (767 ac)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit FLB3 follows:

[[Page 47217]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.015

(9) Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General description: Unit FLB4 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in
Monroe County composed of National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) (365 ha (901
ac)), State lands (90 ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other
ownership (104 ha (258 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR
lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
(ii) Index map of Unit FLB4 follows:

[[Page 47218]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.016

(A) Map A of Unit FLB4 follows:

[[Page 47219]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.017

(B) Map B of Unit FLB4 follows:

[[Page 47220]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.018

* * * * *

Dated: July 23, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-18611 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.