Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Rim Rock Crowned Snake and Key Ring-Necked Snake and Designation of Critical Habitat, 62614-62674 [2022-21543]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62614-62674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21543]



[[Page 62613]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 198

October 14, 2022

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Rim Rock Crowned Snake and Key Ring-Necked Snake and 
Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 62614]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0022; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE84


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Rim Rock Crowned Snake and Key Ring-Necked Snake and 
Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list two Florida species, the Key ring-necked snake (Diadophis 
punctatus acricus) and the rim rock crowned snake (Tantilla oolitica), 
and propose to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 
12-month finding on the petition to list the Key ring-necked snake and 
the rim rock crowned snake. After a review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing both 
species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list both species as 
endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, 
it would add the species to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to both species. We also 
propose to designate critical habitat for the Key ring-necked snake and 
the rim rock crowned snake under the Act. In total, approximately 2,604 
acres (ac) (1,054) hectares (ha) in Monroe County, Florida, and 
approximately 5,972 ac (2,418 ha) in Miami-Dade County and Monroe 
County, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat designation for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock 
crowned snake, respectively. We announce the availability of a draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
both species.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 13, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2022-0022, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed 
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2022-0022, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: For the proposed critical 
habitat designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which 
the maps are generated are included in the decision file and are 
available at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services and 
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0022. 
Additional supporting information that we developed for this proposed 
rule will be available on the Service's website, at https://www.regulations.gov, or both.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Division Manager, 
Classification and Recovery, Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 
7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; 
[email protected]; telephone 904-731-3134. Individuals in the United 
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech 
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list 
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the 
Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake both meet the 
Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are proposing 
to list them as such and are proposing a designation of critical 
habitat for both species. Both listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species and designating critical habitat can be completed 
only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act 
rulemaking process.
    What this document does. We propose to list both the Key ring-
necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake as endangered species under 
the Act, and we propose to designate critical habitat for both species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the Key ring-necked snake 
and the rim rock crowned snake are facing threats due to development 
(Factor A), fire suppression (Factor A), and effects associated with 
climate change, particularly sea level rise and saltwater intrusion 
(Factor E).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of 
the best scientific data

[[Page 62615]]

available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the 
impact on national security, and any other relevant impacts of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their 
habitats, or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
    (5) Information on the immediacy and magnitude of threats to the 
rim rock crowned snake in the upper and lower Florida Keys.
    (6) Whether we should consider evaluating populations of the rim 
rock crowned snake as distinct population segments.
    (7) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information regarding the following factors that the 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
be not prudent:
    (a) The species are threatened by taking or other human activity 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or
    (b) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    (8) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Key ring-necked snake and rim 
rock crowned snake habitat;
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species 
that should be included in the designation because they (1) are 
occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations, or (2) are unoccupied at 
the time of listing and are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    (c) For areas not occupied at the time of listing that may be 
essential for the conservation of the species, we particularly seek 
comments on whether any additional unoccupied areas should be 
designated for either species. For the rim rock crowned snake, we ask 
for information on areas in the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) 
program in Miami-Dade County that may be essential to the conservation 
of the rim rock crowned snake. For the Key ring-necked snake, we 
request information or additional survey data to determine whether we 
should designate unoccupied critical habitat on Key West for the Key 
ring-necked snake; and
    (d) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change.
    (9) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (10) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (11) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis (DEA) is a reasonable 
estimate of the likely economic impacts and any additional information 
regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
    (12) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Specific information we seek includes the 
effectiveness of the Monroe County habitat conservation plan (HCP) in 
protecting pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitat and in providing 
for conservation of the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned 
snake.
    (13) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. If you 
request exclusion of a particular area or areas from the final 
designation, please provide information regarding the existence of a 
meaningful economic or other relevant impact supporting the benefit of 
exclusion of that particular area.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat 
on the basis of the best scientific data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot

[[Page 62616]]

guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy 
submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that either or both 
species are threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that 
either or both species do not warrant listing as either endangered 
species or threatened species. For critical habitat, our final 
designation may not include all areas proposed, may include some 
additional areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, or may 
exclude some areas if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public 
hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    Both the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake were 
included as Category 2 candidate species in our December 30, 1982 (47 
FR 58454), September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), January 6, 1989 (54 FR 
554), November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 
58982), candidate notices of review (CNORs). Category 2 included taxa 
for which information in our possession indicated that a proposed 
listing rule was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on 
biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a 
proposed rule.
    In the CNOR published on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), we 
announced a revised list of plant and animal taxa that were regarded as 
candidates for possible addition to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The revised candidate list included 
only former Category 1 species. Former Category 2 species were removed 
from the candidate list in order to reduce confusion about the 
conservation status of these species and to clarify that we no longer 
regarded these species as candidates for listing. Since both the Key 
ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake were Category 2 
species, they were no longer recognized as candidate species as of the 
publication of the February 28, 1996, CNOR.
    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and 
amphibians, including the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock 
crowned snake, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical 
habitat be designated under the Act.
    On July 1, 2015, we published a 90-day finding (80 FR 37568) that 
the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for both the Key 
ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake. This proposed rule 
constitutes our 12-month petition finding for both species.

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared SSA reports for 
both the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake (Service 
2021a, entire; Service 2021b, entire). The SSA teams were composed of 
Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA 
reports represent a compilation of the best scientific and commercial 
data available concerning the status of the species, including the 
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and 
beneficial) affecting the species. In accordance with our joint policy 
on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the 
role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sent the Key 
ring-necked snake SSA report to five independent peer reviewers for 
review, including scientists with expertise in wildlife biology, 
herpetology, and conservation biology. We received two responses. We 
sent the rim rock crowned snake SSA report to five independent peer 
reviewers, including scientists with expertise in wildlife biology, 
herpetology, and conservation biology. We received three responses.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

Key Ring-Necked Snake

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Key ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus) is presented in the 
SSA report (version 1.0; Service 2021a, pp. 2-5). The Key ring-necked 
snake is one of 14 distinct subspecies of ring-necked snakes in North 
America, all of which are subspecies of D. punctatus. It is one of the 
smallest subspecies of the Family Dipsadidae; an adult specimen will 
average between 6 and 10 inches (in) (15.2 to 25.4 centimeters (cm)). A 
recent review of phylogenetic data supports the current subspecies 
classification for the Key ring-necked snake (Hoffman 2019, entire).
    This slender snake has a pale grayish-brown head; a grayish-black 
dorsal surface; and a yellow, orange, or bright red abdomen which fades 
to orange/red underneath the tail (Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FWC) 2013, p. 1). The pupil is round, and the 
juvenile color is similar to that of the adult (Ernst and Ernst 2003, 
p. 92; FWC 2013, p. 1). The characteristic neck ring is indistinct or 
virtually absent in both juveniles and adults.
    Little life-history information is available on the Key ring-necked 
snake, especially as it relates to microhabitat, feeding, and 
reproduction. Life-history characteristics are thought to be similar to 
the southern ring-necked snake. In general, mating of ring-necked 
snakes can occur in the spring or fall, delayed fertilization is 
possible, and eggs are laid in June or early July. Females lay 1 to 10 
eggs at a time each year (1 clutch/year) in covered, moist locations 
(Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 95). Juveniles are thought to hatch in August 
and September.
    Suitable habitat appears to consist of pinelands, pine rocklands, 
tropical hammock, rockland hammock, limestone outcroppings, and rocky 
pine scrub areas (McDiarmid 1978, p. 41; Lazell 1989, p. 134; Auth and 
Scott 1996, p. 33; Enge et al. 2003, pp. 26-28). Most of the 
observations in the Florida Keys were from pine rocklands or nearby 
rockland hammocks. This subspecies appears to be restricted to areas 
near permanent freshwater that often occur as small holes in the 
oolitic (a sedimentary rock, usually limestone, composed of minute 
rounded concretions) substrate that underlies pine rocklands and 
rockland hammock habitat (Lazell 1989, pp. 134, 136). All Diadophis 
apparently require moist microhabitats to balance evaporative

[[Page 62617]]

water loss from the body (Myers 1965, p. 4; Clark 1967, pp. 492-494).
    Key ring-necked snakes have been documented on seven lower Florida 
Keys: Key West, Big Pine Key, Little Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, No 
Name Key, Cudjoe Key, and Stock Island (Auth and Scott 1996, p. 33; FWC 
2011, p. 3; 2013, p. 1; Mays and Enge 2016, pp. 11, 13; J. Mays 2020, 
pers. comm.) (see figure 1, below). A unique characteristic of the 
Florida Keys is the thin (<3.94 in (10 cm)) layer of sediment on the 
islands beneath which lies a bed of limestone, and below that a shallow 
layer of freshwater referred to as a freshwater lens (U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) 2019a, p. 1). Because the density of freshwater is less 
than the underlying saltwater, it floats to the top and into the 
limestone rock formations where it becomes available to the island's 
biota. The volume of a freshwater lens fluctuates in response to 
rainfall, evapotranspiration, and human use (local wells).
    Systematic recent surveys have not been conducted for the Key ring-
necked snake across all of the Florida Keys; therefore, the true 
spatial distribution of populations throughout the Florida Keys is 
unclear and our current understanding of the subspecies' distribution 
is primarily based on historical records. Consequently, this subspecies 
may occur on Florida Keys other than those reported.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.050

Figure 1.--Distribution and occurrences of the Key ring-necked snake.

Rim Rock Crowned Snake

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
rim rock crowned snake (Tantilla oolitica) is presented in the SSA 
report (version 1.0; Service 2021b, pp. 10-20). The rim rock crowned 
snake is in the family Colubridae, part of the black-headed, crowned, 
and flat-headed snake genus Tantilla, with 76 currently recognized 
species ranging from the southern United States to northern Argentina 
(Powell et al. 2016, pp. 395-400). The rim rock crowned snake is most 
closely related to the southeastern crowned snake (T. coronata) 
taxonomically, although it is located geographically closer to the 
Florida crowned snake (T. relicta; Ernst and Ernst 2003, pp. 353-355). 
No genetic analysis has been conducted on the rim rock crowned snake.
    Rim rock crowned snakes have a black head (``cap'') that is 
continuous from snout to neck (``collar''), transitioning to tan or 
beige on its back, and a pinkish white to cream belly. There is often a 
pale blotch just behind the eye. Specimens from the Florida Keys may 
have a pale neckband that is not present in mainland specimens, 
separating the black cap from the black collar (Porras and Wilson 1979, 
pp. 218-220). Adults range 7-9 in (18-23 cm) in length. Females reach a 
greater length than do males, but have shorter tails (Ernst and Ernst 
2003, pp. 353-355). Hatchlings range from 3-3.5 in (7.5-9.0 cm) in 
length.
    The reproduction, longevity, and diet of the rim rock crowned snake 
are unknown, but if it is similar to the closely related southeastern 
crowned snake, it probably matures at 2 years old and may live to be at 
least 5 years old in the wild (Todd et al. 2008, p. 392). There may be 
three eggs in a clutch, and they may be able to produce two clutches 
annually (Ernst and Ernst 2003, pp. 353-355). There is no information 
as to whether eggs or juvenile rim rock crowned snakes require 
different habitat than adults. Predators are likely larger snake 
species that inhabit the same areas. It may also be preyed upon by the

[[Page 62618]]

slender brown scorpion (Centruroides gracilis), which is abundant in 
rockland habitat (Porras and Wilson 1979, pp. 218-220).
    The rim rock crowned snake is a mostly fossorial (underground) 
species that inhabits shallow soil over limestone formations, and it 
can sometimes be found in rotten stumps and under anthropogenic surface 
detritus, fallen logs, and rocks (Duellman and Schwarz 1958, p. 306; 
Rochford et al. 2010, p. 99; Yirka et al. 2010, p. 386; FWC 2011, p. 3; 
Hines 2011, p. 353). These snakes are vulnerable to desiccation, so 
they usually occupy moist microhabitats (Powell et al. 2016, pp. 395-
400). Refugia in pine rocklands and rockland hammock are provided by 
holes and crevices in the limestone, piles of rock rubble, pockets of 
organic matter accumulating in solution holes, and shallow depressions 
in the limestone (Enge et al. 2003, pp. 27-28). Rim rock crowned snakes 
likely come to the surface after rains (Porras and Wilson 1979, pp. 
218-220), possibly because of flooding of its underground refugia.
    The rim rock crowned snake has been historically found in the lower 
Florida Keys, in particular Key West and Big Pine Key; the upper 
Florida Keys; and the southeastern Florida peninsula within Miami-Dade 
County, in a variety of locations (see figure 2, below). Within this 
limited range, the rim rock crowned snake is found in pine rocklands 
and rockland hammock, which consist of a limestone substrate and 
outcroppings. Pine rocklands habitat is fire-maintained and dominated 
by pine trees and a diverse understory of grasses and forbs/herbs. In 
contrast, rockland hammock contains more hardwood shrubs and trees due 
to less fire influence. There are also occurrence records from human-
altered habitats such as roadsides, vacant lots, and pastures with 
shrubby growth and slash pines (Pinus elliottii) (Duellman and Schwarz 
1958, p. 306; Hines 2011, pp. 352-356).
    Because of the rim rock crowned snake's cryptic and fossorial 
nature, a method to formally census remaining populations throughout 
its range has not been developed. We do not have any information on the 
current status of the rim rock crowned snake in these areas and based 
our understanding of the species' range on observational records and 
habitat suitability. Limited dispersal is thought to occur between rim 
rock crowned snake populations within the Florida Keys because there is 
no evidence that indicates they readily swim to other islands. 
Additionally, areas in Miami-Dade County where populations may remain 
are likely isolated from others due to physical barriers from a dense 
urban interface.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.051

Figure 2.--Distribution and occurrences of the rim rock crowned snake.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating

[[Page 62619]]

critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. In 2019, 
jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Service issued 
final rules that revised the regulations in 50 CFR parts 17 and 424 
regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify threatened and endangered 
species and the criteria for designating listed species' critical 
habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August 27, 2019). At the same 
time the Service also issued final regulations that, for species listed 
as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the 
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to 
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies 
to endangered species (collectively, the 2019 regulations).
    However, on July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California vacated the 2019 regulations (Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. 
Cal. July 5, 2022) (CBD v. Haaland)), reinstating the regulations that 
were in effect before the effective date of the 2019 regulations as the 
law governing species classification and critical habitat decisions. 
Accordingly, in developing the analysis contained in this proposal, we 
applied the pre-2019 regulations, which may be reviewed in the 2018 
edition of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, 17.71, 
424.02, 424.11(d) and (e), and 424.12(a)(1) and (b)(2)). Because of the 
ongoing litigation regarding the court's vacatur of the 2019 
regulations, and the resulting uncertainty surrounding the legal status 
of the regulations, we also undertook an analysis of whether the 
proposal would be different if we were to apply the 2019 regulations. 
That analysis, which we described in a separate memo in the decisional 
file and posted on https://www.regulations.gov, concluded that we would 
have reached the same proposal if we had applied the 2019 regulations. 
The differences in the 2009 Solicitor's opinion and 2019 regulations do 
not change our determination of what constitutes the foreseeable future 
for the rim rock crowned snake. Under either regulatory scheme we find 
that critical habitat is prudent for the two snakes. For the Key ring-
necked snake, we did not identify any unoccupied areas essential for 
the conservation of the Key ring-necked snake, which is consistent with 
2016 and 2019 regulations. For the rim rock crowned snake, by the year 
2040, all suitable habitat in the lower Florida Keys and up to half of 
suitable habitat in the upper Florida Keys will be affected by sea 
level rise and saltwater intrusion. As such, we are also proposing to 
designate areas not currently occupied by the species, because we 
determined the unoccupied units are essential for the conservation of 
the rim rock crowned snake. It is reasonably certain that the 
unoccupied units will contribute to the conservation of the species by 
providing additional areas for rim rock crowned snake recovery actions, 
including population establishment, and the unoccupied units contain 
all of the physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and it has the abiotic and biotic features 
that currently or periodically contain the resources and conditions 
necessary to support one or more life processes of the rim rock crowned 
snake.
    On September 21, 2022, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit stayed the district court's July 5, 2022, order vacating 
the 2019 regulations until a pending motion for reconsideration before 
the district court is resolved (In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-
70194). The effect of the stay is that the 2019 regulations are 
currently the governing law. Because a court order requires us to 
submit this proposal to the Federal Register by September 30, 2022, it 
is not feasible for us to revise the proposal in response to the Ninth 
Circuit's decision. Instead, we hereby adopt the analysis in the 
separate memo that applied the 2019 regulations as our primary 
justification for the proposal. However, due to the continued 
uncertainty resulting from the ongoing litigation, we also retain the 
analysis in this preamble that applies the pre-2019 regulations and we 
conclude that, for the reasons stated in our separate memo analyzing 
the 2019 regulations, this proposal would have been the same if we had 
applied the pre-2019 regulations.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Because 
the decision in CBD v. Haaland vacated our 2019 regulations with 
respect to our consideration of foreseeable future, we refer to a 2009 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The Meaning 
of `Foreseeable Future' in Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species 
Act'' (M-37021). The Solicitor's opinion

[[Page 62620]]

states that the foreseeable future ``must be rooted in the best 
available data that allow predictions into the future'' and extends as 
far as those predictions are ``sufficiently reliable to provide a 
reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the 
conservation purposes of the Act.'' Id. at 13.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable 
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable 
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and 
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and 
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing 
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA reports document the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the two species, including assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA reports do not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. However, they do provide the 
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve 
the further application of standards within the Act and its 
implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary of 
the key results and conclusions from the SSA reports, which can be 
found at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0022 on https://www.regulations.gov 
and at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services.
    To assess Key ring-necked snake and rim rock crowned snake 
viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 
306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to 
withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet 
or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the 
species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large 
pollution events), and representation supports the ability of the 
species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for 
example, climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant 
a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is 
to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and their resources, and the threats that influence the 
species' current and future conditions, to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.

Key Ring-Necked Snake--Population and Subspecies Needs

    In this discussion, we outline the resource needs of individuals 
and populations of the Key ring-necked snake. As part of the 
assessment, we first identify and describe the four most influential 
factors representing the individual and population needs for the 
subspecies: prey, refugia, water, and available suitable habitat. Due 
to the relative rarity of this subspecies and its secretive nature, 
many aspects of the life history of this taxon as well as information 
on population status and trends are poorly known. We rely upon 
ecologically and genetically similar species to draw inferences when 
data are lacking.
    For prey, the Key ring-necked snake is assumed to be similar to 
other Diadophis species (such as the southern ring-necked snake), which 
prey upon small insects, snakes, lizards (anoles, geckos), slugs, 
amphibians (frogs, tadpoles), and earthworms (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 
96; FWC 2013, p. 2).
    Key ring-necked snakes require refugia to escape and hide from 
predators and to regulate body temperature. Refugia in pine rocklands 
and rockland hammock are likely provided by holes and crevices in the 
limestone, piles of rock rubble, and pockets of organic matter 
accumulating in solution holes and shallow depressions in the oolitic 
limestone (Enge et al. 2003, p. 28). Snakes are ectothermic organisms, 
which require an external heat source to warm their bodies in order to 
increase body function and productivity. Snakes can also become too 
hot, leading to desiccation. Therefore, a warm, moist habitat, 
typically subterranean or shielded from the sun, is likely a preferred 
refugium to escape from predators and to properly maintain homeostasis 
(suitable internal temperature and moisture levels).
    Water is essential for Key ring-necked snake survival. This 
subspecies appears to be restricted to areas near permanent freshwater 
sources that often occur as small holes in the limestone (Lazell 1989, 
pp. 134, 136). The extensive network of holes, tunnels, and cavities in 
the limestone substrate most likely assists in creating more permanent 
water sources. During times of drought, these sources may become scarce 
and the Key ring-necked snakes may need to seek out other freshwater 
sources. Consequently, it is important for the Key ring-necked snake to 
have multiple freshwater sources in case one becomes depleted, 
contaminated, or unavailable. If all local water sources within a 
snake's home range become dry, the snake may need to expend more energy 
and time in search of new water sources.
    The most influential need for population viability is available 
suitable habitat. Home range is defined as the area a snake traverses 
for its normal daily activities (Burt 1943, pp. 350-351; Miller 2008, 
p. 16). The specific acreage associated with the Key ring-necked 
snake's home range is unknown; however, an individual was documented 
traveling 154.2 feet (ft) (47 meters (m)) between coverboards (Lazell 
1989, p. 134). Over 400 mark recapture measurements of ring-necked 
snakes in Kansas indicated a mean travel distance of 262 ft (80m) with 
a maximum distance of 5,577 ft (1,700 m) (Fitch 1975, p. 25). In 
another study, a different ring-neck snake subspecies (Diadophis 
punctatus ) in northern Michigan was documented to travel between 20 ft 
(6 m) and 1 mile (1,609 m) (Blanchard et al. 1979, pp. 382, 385). Thus, 
although ring-necked snakes generally only move within a small home 
range, they will occasionally disperse over longer distances through 
suitable habitat.

[[Page 62621]]

    In regard to population size and distribution of the Key ring-
necked snake, there may be either distinct, non-interbreeding 
populations at each Key, or some occasional but rare level of dispersal 
from rafting (oceanic dispersal whereby a species travels between 
islands on a mass or raft of vegetation) between Keys, providing at 
least a small level of connectivity between individual populations. 
Because the Key ring-necked snake appears to be isolated to the Keys, 
the relatively small, archipelago of islands can each support only a 
small number of individuals (or separate populations).
    Due to the cryptic nature of the Key ring-necked snake and limited 
research, there is virtually no information concerning the population 
structure and demographics exhibited by this subspecies. Additionally, 
no information exists on the abundance (number of individuals) or 
growth rate of these populations. Therefore, we base our assessment of 
the health and resiliency of these populations on the condition of its 
habitat as a proxy. That said, continued occurrence of populations over 
time at known locations suggest some ability to withstand stochastic 
events on the Keys, historically.
    Populations of the Key ring-necked snake are supported by the 
existence of suitable available habitat (pine rocklands and rockland 
hammock) across the subspecies' range. Therefore, a strong correlation 
to habitat availability and Key ring-necked snake populations can be 
assumed but not at a level of certainty in which the presence of 
suitable pine rockland or rockland hammock habitat can be used as a 
surrogate for Key ring-necked snake presence.
    Passive dispersal of individual Key ring-necked snakes among the 
Florida Keys may be occurring on a very limited and random basis. The 
level to which immigration and emigration via dispersal acts as a 
factor towards population resiliency and prevention against extinction 
for this subspecies is unknown. Many of the Florida Keys have yet to be 
surveyed for Key ring-necked snakes, but if occupied, they could act as 
``stepping stones'' in the random dispersal of individual snakes by way 
of swimming or rafting. That said, due to the limited size of the 
Florida Keys, the distance between the Keys, and the fact that swimming 
has not been documented in Key ring-necked snakes, dispersal is not 
likely, and, thus, it has a limited influence on population dynamics. 
Overall, we lack detailed scientific information on the extent of the 
Key ring-necked snake's individual populations and population 
structure. Thus, our understanding of the factors influencing Key ring-
necked snake resiliency is limited.
    Because systematic recent surveys have not been conducted for the 
Key ring-necked snake across all of the Florida Keys, the true spatial 
distribution of populations throughout the Florida Keys is unclear and 
our current understanding of the subspecies' distribution is primarily 
based on historical records.
    As discussed above, widely distributed populations offer better 
redundancy than if the populations all occur in close proximity and are 
vulnerable to similar threats at the same intensity or timing. Because 
of the Key ring-necked snake's limited geographic range, the species is 
exposed to threats concurrently and of similar frequency, intensity, 
and duration across its range. For example, the entire subspecies is 
vulnerable to the effects of a hurricane passing over the Florida Keys. 
Additionally, the extent of suitable habitat is naturally limited in 
the Keys. Consequently, there is little natural redundancy or 
``backup'' for the available habitat, and natural expansion or movement 
of the subspecies to new areas is not probable. The minimum number of 
sufficiently resilient populations necessary to sustain the subspecies 
is unknown. Based on the presence of pine rocklands and rockland 
hammock habitat (total acreage 7,006 ac (2,835 ha)) in the upper 
Florida Keys, redundancy could be higher if discrete populations occur 
across the upper Florida Keys. However, the range of this subspecies 
appears to be restricted to the lower Florida Keys (Mays 2020, pers. 
comm.). Given the low likelihood of dispersal between islands, we 
considered islands in the lower Florida Keys (Key West, Big Pine Key, 
Little Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, No Name Key, Cudjoe Key, and Stock 
Island) as separate Key ring-necked snake populations.
    As currently indicated, the Key ring-necked snake occupies a small 
geographic area, making it vulnerable to large-scale threats (for 
example, storm events/hurricanes, sea level rise) that affect the 
entire Florida Keys archipelago.
    Because of the Key ring-necked snake's narrow geographic and 
ecological range, there is little variation in habitat types occupied. 
Also, the Key ring-necked snake does not occur across different 
ecosystems or have access to different systems in which to adapt. 
Therefore, the Key ring-necked snake has a narrow breadth of genetic 
and environmental diversity within and among populations.

Rim Rock Crowned Snake--Population and Species Needs

    As part of the population needs assessment for the rim rock crowned 
snake, we identified and described the most influential factors 
(available prey, water, refugia, and suitable habitat) representing the 
individual and population needs for the species.
    The diet of rim rock crowned snakes probably consists of 
centipedes, insects, and other small invertebrates, similar to the diet 
of other members of the genus Tantilla. Prey eaten by wild and captive 
T. coronata include tenebrionid beetle larvae, earthworms, snails, 
centipedes, spiders, cutworms, wireworms, and termites and their larvae 
(Ernst and Ernst 2003, pp. 353-355). We do not know what the prey-
related requirements (abundance variety, range, etc.) are to maintain 
viability.
    Water is essential for rim rock crowned snake survival. We have no 
specific information on the amount of water they require; however, 
similar species of Tantilla tend to survive in warm, moist conditions 
where water is intermittently available. Small amounts of water can be 
found in depressions and holes in the limestone substrate, which fill 
from rain fall or overnight dew. The extensive network of holes, 
tunnels, and cavities in the limestone substrate may also lead to more 
permanent water sources. During times of drought, these sources may 
become scarce, and the snake may need to seek out other fresh water 
sources. The rim rock crowned snake must have multiple fresh water 
sources in case one becomes depleted, contaminated, or unavailable. If 
all local water sources within a snake's home range become dry, the 
snake may need to expend more energy and time in search of new water 
sources.
    Rim rock crowned snakes require refugia to escape and hide from 
predators and to regulate body temperature. Refugia in pine rocklands 
and rockland hammock are provided by holes and crevices in the 
limestone, piles of rock rubble, and pockets of organic matter 
accumulating in solution holes and shallow depressions in the limestone 
(Enge et al. 2003, pp. 27-28). Snakes are ectothermic organisms, which 
require an external heat source for homeostasis. Snakes can also become 
too hot, consequently leading to desiccation. Therefore, a warm, moist 
habitat, typically subterranean or shielded from the sun, is likely a 
preferred refugium to escape from

[[Page 62622]]

predators and to properly maintain homeostasis.
    We do not know how much suitable habitat and habitat connectivity 
is required to maintain viability. An observation of a rim rock crowned 
snake was recorded (Hines 2011, pp. 352-356) at the Barnacle Historic 
State Park in Coconut Grove, Miami, Florida, a site that consists of 
only 6 ac (2 ha) of rockland hammock habitat. We do not know if pine 
rocklands or rockland hammocks are more suitable for the rim rock 
crowned snake, as they have been observed in both. Home range is 
defined as the area a snake traverses for its normal daily activities 
(Burt 1943, pp. 350-351; Miller 2008, p. 16). The rim rock crowned 
snake's home range size is unknown.
    Rim rock crowned snake populations need abundant individuals within 
habitat patches of adequate area and quality to maintain survival and 
reproduction despite disturbance. Therefore, a strong correlation to 
habitat availability and rim rock crowned snake populations can be 
assumed, but not at a level of certainty in which the presence of 
suitable pine rockland or rockland hammock habitat can be used as a 
surrogate for rim rock crowned snake presence.
    Despite these uncertainties, data indicate that the limited and 
patchy distribution of occupied suitable habitat is negatively 
affecting population resiliency across the species' range. The majority 
of suitable rim rock crowned snake habitat in southeastern Miami-Dade 
County and the Florida Keys has been developed and is highly impacted 
by human activities. Additionally, the Florida Keys are limited 
naturally in their land area.
    Dispersal of individual snakes among the fragmented suitable 
habitat in Miami-Dade County could occur, but if it does, it is 
expected to be on a limited and random basis. The level to which 
immigration and emigration via dispersal influence population 
resiliency and extinction risk is unknown. Above-ground dispersal may 
not be as effective in a highly urbanized environment. The limited size 
of the suitable habitat and the distance of urban barriers between them 
suggest that dispersal is unlikely to currently influence the 
population dynamics. The extent to which rim rock crowned snakes are 
able to use subterranean cavities of the Miami limestone rock ridge to 
subvert urban barriers is unknown. Because the underlying rock ridge 
throughout Miami-Dade County is porous, there is potential for 
individuals to use it as a means of dispersal to avoid urban barriers. 
If used, it could allow more successful random dispersal of individual 
snakes than above-ground means. However, the extent of influence of 
dispersal remains largely unknown.
    In the Florida Keys, passive dispersal of individual snakes among 
keys may be occurring on a very limited and random basis. The level to 
which immigration and emigration via dispersal acts as a factor towards 
population resiliency and prevention against extinction for this 
species is unknown. Many of the Florida Keys have yet to be searched, 
but if occupied, they could act as ``stepping stones'' in the random 
dispersal of individual snakes. However, the limited size of the 
Florida Keys and the distance between them means that dispersal is not 
likely; thus, it currently has a limited influence on population 
dynamics.
    No recent surveys have been conducted for the rim rock crowned 
snake; therefore, the true spatial distribution of populations 
throughout Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys is unclear, and our 
current image of the species' distribution is primarily based on 
historical records. Consequently, this species may very well occur on 
other areas in Miami-Dade County or the Florida Keys other than those 
reported, and the importance of the other areas (other than those with 
identified populations) to the overall species' resiliency is unclear. 
To date, no genetic analysis has been conducted on the rim rock crowned 
snake. Consequently, it is unknown whether or not genetically discrete 
populations exist in the upper or lower Florida Keys or Miami-Dade 
County where this species has been historically reported. No 
information exists on the abundance or growth rate of these 
populations.
    Having multiple populations distributed across the landscape offers 
better redundancy than if the populations all occur in very close 
proximity and are vulnerable to stressors with the same intensity or 
timing. For example, the entire species is vulnerable to the effects of 
a hurricane passing over south Florida. Limited acreage of suitable 
habitat remains in Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys; 
consequently, there is limited opportunity for natural expansion, and 
movement of the species to new areas is not probable.
    Species redundancy for the rim rock crowned snake is provided by 
individuals being distributed across Miami-Dade County and the upper 
and lower Florida Keys. However, due to the lack of recent surveys 
conducted within Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys, the current 
rim rock crowned snake's range is unknown. Despite a level of 
redundancy provided by the discrete populations and individuals found 
dispersed across Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys, the rim rock 
crowned snake lacks redundancy because of its small endemic range. For 
some large-scale stressors (storm events and hurricanes) that affect 
southeastern Florida and the Florida Keys, the species is vulnerable to 
the timing and intensity of impacts. Overall, the rim rock crowned 
snake needs multiple, interconnected, healthy populations across its 
range.
    Given the low likelihood of dispersal between islands, we 
considered islands in the Florida Keys as separate rim rock crowned 
snake populations. In the upper Keys, north Key Largo, south Key Largo, 
Plantation Key, Upper Matecombe Key, Lower Matecombe Key, and Marathon 
(Grassy and Vaca Keys) are considered separate populations. In the 
lower Keys, Big Pine Key and Key West are considered separate 
populations. Similarly, due to physical barriers (roads, structures, 
canals, etc.), we considered the Miami-Dade County locations as 
distinct populations: Arch Creek Park, Barnacle Historic State Park 
(BHSP), Bill Sadowski Park, Deering Estate/Ludlum Pineland Area/Chapman 
Field (DLC), Ned Glenn Pineland, Rockdale and Richmond Pine Rocklands 
Tract (Zoo Miami).
    With regard to representation, the rim rock crowned snake occurs 
across a narrow geographic and ecological range. Consequently, there is 
no variation across distance or elevation as there is for other wider-
ranging species. The rim rock crowned snake has not been found to occur 
across different ecosystems, and it is not known if it disperses 
farther from the limestone rock ridge in southeastern peninsular 
Florida.
    As mentioned previously, no genetic analyses have been conducted on 
the rim rock crowned snake. Hence, the genetic diversity of this 
species is unknown, and there is little environmental diversity beyond 
the two habitat types where the species is found. Similarly, it is 
unclear if there are morphological or behavioral differences between 
different rim rock crowned snake populations.

Threats Discussion

    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA reports, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the

[[Page 62623]]

species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we 
undertake an iterative analysis that encompasses and incorporates the 
threats individually and then accumulates and evaluates the effects of 
all the factors that may be influencing the species, including threats 
and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just 
the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively 
influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the 
cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative 
effects analysis.
    Following are summary evaluations of six threats analyzed in the 
SSAs for both the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake: 
Development (Factor A), fire suppression (Factor A), sea level rise 
(Factor A), saltwater intrusion (Factor A), shifts in seasonal patterns 
of rainfall and temperature (Factor A), and storm events (Factor A). We 
also evaluate existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and ongoing 
conservation measures.
    In the SSAs, we also considered four additional threats: 
Overutilization due to recreational, educational, and scientific use 
(Factor B); disease (Factor C); predation (Factor C); and invasive 
species (Factor E). We concluded that, as indicated by the best 
available scientific and commercial information, these threats are 
currently having little to no impact on either the Key ring-necked 
snake or the rim rock crowned snake and their habitat, and thus their 
overall effect now and into the future is expected to be minimal. 
Therefore, we will not present summary analyses of those threats in 
this document, but we will consider them in our cumulative assessment 
of impacts to the species. For full descriptions of all threats and how 
they impact the species, please see both SSA reports (Service 2021a, 
pp. 9-21; Service 2021b, pp. 25-40).

Key Ring-Necked Snake--Current Threats and Condition

    We do not have fine-scale information to determine different levels 
of threats within individual populations of the Key ring-necked snake. 
Thus, for this subspecies, we considered threats and population 
resiliency on the scale of individual islands in that area.
Development
    The Key ring-necked snake inhabits a variety of rockland habitat in 
Monroe County that has been and is still desirable for residential and 
commercial development (Service 1999, p. 3-174). Over half of the 
rockland habitat within the Florida Keys has been and continues to be 
altered, degraded, or destroyed for residential and commercial 
development (Hodges and Bradley 2006, pp. 8-9). Urban development and 
historical land use for agriculture have greatly reduced the extent of 
pine rocklands in the Florida Keys. Additionally, the quality of some 
pine rocklands has declined in the Keys because the remaining habitat 
patches are isolated and confined by surrounding urban development. 
Although individual snakes show some tolerance of habitat alteration, 
development and conversion of suitable snake habitat can impact all 
life stages of the Key ring-necked snake. In addition to direct impacts 
from loss of soils for nesting and movement and the loss of shelter and 
shade for adult snakes, ground cover and availability of invertebrate 
food sources can be reduced. Indirectly, connectivity is further 
decreased, hindering the finding of mates and the dispersal to new 
locations by juveniles.
    Currently, total habitat area potentially available to Key ring-
necked snakes in the lower Florida Keys consists of 1,899 ac (769 ha) 
of pine rocklands habitat and 3,806 ac (1,540 ha) of rockland hammock 
habitat (USGS 2019b, p. 4). While the hammock habitats are widespread 
across many islands in various sizes, pine rocklands remain on only 
five islands in the lower Florida Keys. One of these islands, Big Pine 
Key, has 1,480 ac (599 ha) (78 percent) of total pine rocklands area, 
while other Keys (Little Pine Key, No Name Key, Cudjoe Key, and 
Sugarloaf Key) contain only small areas of hardwood-invaded pine 
rocklands. The Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study conducted in 2003 
(Monroe County 2016, entire), concluded that development in the Florida 
Keys has surpassed the carrying capacity of upland habitats to maintain 
their ecological integrity, that any further development in the Florida 
Keys would exacerbate secondary and indirect impacts to remaining 
habitat, and that any further urbanization in areas dominated by native 
vegetation would exacerbate habitat loss and fragmentation.
    Some habitat protections are currently in place for the Key ring-
necked snake. In 2006, Monroe County implemented an HCP for Big Pine 
Key and No Name Key that incorporates guidelines and recommendations 
from the 2003 study. The primary goal of the HCP is to maintain and 
implement a system that directs future growth to meet goals, including 
to protect natural resources and to encourage a compact pattern of 
development. Subsequently, future development on these islands must 
meet the requirements of the HCP. Furthermore, to fulfill the HCP's 
mitigation requirement, Monroe County has been actively acquiring 
parcels of high-quality habitat for listed species and managing them 
for conservation, including pine rocklands habitat on Big Pine Key and 
No Name Key. Although the Key ring-necked snake is not a covered 
species under this HCP, we still expect the habitat protections 
afforded by the HCP to provide the Key ring-necked snake some 
protection from development.
    Suitable habitat for the Key ring-necked snake is protected within 
preserves such as the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 
The complex spans two Key ring-necked snake populations on No Name Key 
and Big Pine Key. Overall, 4,711.36 ac (1,906.62 ha) (82.6 percent) of 
pine rockland and rockland hammock habitats in the lower Keys are 
protected or under conservation (Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 
2019). The remaining suitable habitat for the Key ring-necked snake is 
extremely vulnerable to development. Other than these avenues to 
protect suitable habitat, the existing regulatory mechanisms and 
conservation measures do not address the impacts of development.
    The effects of development have the potential to reduce individual 
survival of Key ring-necked snakes and, therefore, may decrease 
population resiliency. Resiliency may be further reduced due to loss of 
connectivity between populations, both as dispersal within populations 
as they become fragmented and dispersal between occurrences on 
individual islands. Similarly, because the Key ring-necked snake is 
endemic to only a few lower Florida Key islands, losing even a few 
populations to the effects of development would result in a substantial 
reduction in subspecies redundancy. The Monroe County HCP may prevent 
further development of pine rocklands, although population resiliency 
would continue to decline as habitats remain degraded due to impacts 
associated with development.
Fire Suppression
    In addition to historical loss of habitat via urban development and 
agriculture, the quality of pine rocklands has declined due to fire 
suppression. Further, the quality of some pine rocklands has declined 
in the Keys because they are isolated and confined by surrounding urban 
development that restricts the use of prescribed fire, which is the 
principal management tool. Prescribed fire must be periodically

[[Page 62624]]

introduced to sustain the pine rocklands community structure. In the 
absence of fire, pine rocklands are invaded by many of the species 
found in hardwood hammocks, they lose their herbaceous flora, and they 
move along a successional trajectory toward hammock (Service 1999, pp. 
3-173). These rockland hammocks are generally present where pine 
rocklands were not burned for a long period of time, leading to pine 
rocklands fragmentation. This fragmentation in turn increases the risk 
of invasion by exotic vegetation along the interface with disturbed or 
developed areas, further altering, degrading, or destroying suitable 
habitat for the Key ring-necked snake.
    Although Key ring-necked snakes occur in areas where fire has been 
suppressed, pine rocklands habitat quality is reduced by lack of fire. 
Thus, fire suppression has the potential to reduce population 
resiliency through ongoing habitat degradation.
Climate Change
    The predominant threat currently affecting the Key ring-necked 
snake and its habitat is the rapid and intense shifts in climate 
occurring as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The 
entire Florida Keys archipelago is being affected by increases in sea 
level, saltwater intrusion, increases in tide and tidal flooding, and 
shifts in seasonal climate pattern. In the SSA report and this proposed 
rule, we discuss the effects of climate change on the Key ring-necked 
snake in terms of sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, shifts in 
seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature, and storm events 
(Service 2021a, pp. 23-28).
    Sea level rise--The Key ring-necked snake is vulnerable to current 
and predicted sea level rise across its entire range because it is 
located only in the Florida Keys, where the effects of increasing sea 
levels, higher tidal surges, increased coastal and inland flooding, and 
saltwater intrusion are currently being experienced (Benedict et al. 
2018, pp. 9, 13, 31, 7-i; Service 2019, p. 1). The Florida Keys are 
among the most vulnerable areas to the effects of sea level rise due to 
their low mean elevation of less than 4 ft (1.2 m) (Service 2019, p. 
9). Consequently, the lowest parts of the Florida Keys are highly 
susceptible to flooding, with parts of the islands farther upland at 
risk of inundation and saltwater intrusion.
    Global sea level has increased by 8 to 9 in (0.20 to 0.23 m) since 
1880, with the rate of increase doubling over the past 20 years 
(Service 2017, p. 5). From 1913 to 2018, the mean high-water line on 
Key West rose 0.09 in (0.23 cm) per year (National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2019; Service 2021a, Figure 3). On 
Vaca Key, sea levels rose 0.14 in (0.36 cm) per year between 1971 
(start of data collection) and 2018 (NOAA 2019; Service 2021a, Figure 
3).
    Recent analysis is now indicating an accelerated rate of sea level 
rise for the eastern United States above that of the global rate (Park 
and Sweet 2015, entire; Sweet et al. 2017, pp. 39-41, Sweet et al. 
2022, pp. 20-21). The accelerated sea level rise in south Florida is 
being attributed to shifts in the Florida Current due to added ocean 
mass brought on by the melting Antarctic and Greenland ice packs and 
thermal expansion from the warming ocean (Park and Sweet 2015, entire; 
Rahmstorf et al. 2015, entire; Deconto and Pollard 2016, p. 596; Sweet 
et al. 2017, pp. vi, 14, 15, 18, Sweet et al. 2022, pp. 22-23). For 
this reason, adding approximately 15 percent to global mean sea level 
rise projections is recommended for southeast Florida and the Florida 
Keys (Park and Sweet 2015, entire; Southeast Florida Regional Climate 
Change Compact 2012, p. 35). The most recent intermediate sea level 
scenario for the Florida Keys projects a 1.1-1.2 m (3.6-3.9 ft) 
increase by 2100 (Sweet et al. 2022, pp. 20-21).
    Based on a case study of Big Pine Key in the lower Florida Keys, 
saltwater intrusion due to sea level rise will begin to negatively 
affect the root zone of the island's upland vegetation as early as 
2030, and increasing saltwater intrusion of groundwater has already 
been documented (USGS 2019a, pp. 1, 3). As a result, freshwater-
dependent flora and fauna, which comprise much of the island's biota, 
will disappear. By 2040, under intermediate climate scenarios, 
approximately 88 percent of pine rocklands and 96 percent of rockland 
hammock habitat in the lower Florida Keys are expected to be impacted 
by sea level rise (USGS 2019a, entire). By 2040, under extreme climate 
scenarios, approximately 98 percent of pine rocklands and 99 percent of 
rockland hammock habitat in the lower Florida Keys are expected to be 
impacted by sea level rise (USGS 2019a, entire).
    The effects of sea level rise could impact the Key ring-necked 
snake both through loss of individuals during flooding events, and 
alteration of suitable habitat, causing a loss in population 
resiliency. If flooding is severe enough, it could extirpate entire 
populations, leading to a substantial loss of redundancy.
    Saltwater intrusion--Higher tidal surges, coastal and inland 
flooding, and saltwater intrusion due to increasing sea levels are 
currently being experienced in the Florida Keys. In the Florida Keys, 
high tide flooding events primarily affect low-lying coastal areas and 
exposed pine rockland and rockland hammock habitats. With worsening 
storms and extreme tidal events, storm surges along the Florida Keys 
will increase in frequency and severity over time and will impact 
habitats farther inland. Additionally, with continued increase in sea 
level rise, high tide/king tide flood frequencies are also expected to 
rapidly increase, with potentially severe damage to remaining rockland 
habitat. Pine rocklands species, particularly the dominant canopy 
species (slash pine), have little ability to tolerate saltwater (USGS 
2019b, p. 2).
    Salt from ocean water deposited during these high-water events has 
the potential to remain in place in and under the soil for long periods 
of time, which negatively impacts vegetative growth. For pine rockland 
and rockland hammock forests to be sustained in such an ecosystem, 
nutrient cycling must be extremely efficient (that is, there can be 
little leaching of nutrients beyond the root zone). In other instances, 
the effects of more powerful storm surges, rising sea levels, and 
saltwater intrusion of the islands' freshwater lens have contributed to 
the conversion and loss of pine forest habitat in the Florida Keys to 
more halophilic (salt-loving) vegetation such as mangroves and 
buttonwood (Alexander 1976, pp. 219-222; Ross et al. 1994, pp. 151-
154). As discussed above in Background, a unique characteristic of the 
Florida Keys is the existence of a freshwater lens below each island 
that is critically important for humans, flora, fauna, and a variety of 
habitats. Consequently, pine rocklands habitat has already undergone a 
significant reduction in the Florida Keys due to sea level rise (Ross 
et al. 1994, p. 154). Currently, some of these areas are occupied by 
halophytic (salt-tolerant) vegetation such as mangroves and buttonwood 
(Alexander 1976, pp. 219-222) owing to high tide flooding as a result 
of rising sea level but also due to saltwater intrusion of the islands' 
freshwater lens. Over time, further vegetation succession will result 
in halophytic vegetation dominance on the remaining land and more 
expansive estuaries across much of the island.
    Overall, saltwater intrusion from storm surge and flooding causes 
the loss of habitat, habitat conversion, and reduction in the capacity 
of freshwater storage and the freshwater resources relied upon by the 
Key ring-necked snake to maintain its thermoregulatory requirements. 
These effects will

[[Page 62625]]

continue to result in the loss of suitable habitat, displacement 
landward to less suitable habitat, and the loss of individual Key ring-
necked snakes.
    Shifts in seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature--In the 
United States, the average temperatures have increased by 1.3 to 1.9 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (0.77 to 1.1 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) 
since recordkeeping began in 1895 (Service 2017, p. 2). The decade from 
2000 to 2009 is documented as the warmest on record (Service 2017, p. 
2). Since 1991, average temperatures in south Florida have increased 
1.5 [deg]F (0.83 [deg]C) or more (Service 2017, p. 2). Continued 
increases in surface air temperature are expected even if there was an 
immediate and aggressive reduction in human-produced greenhouse gas 
emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2018, pp. 
1-11).
    We presume that the normal range of temperatures in which activity 
occurs for the Key ring-necked snake is consistent with that which it 
has experienced in south Florida. Any continuously higher average 
number of hot days out of the Key ring-necked snake's optimum range or 
a permanent shift in average air temperature out of this range has the 
potential to cause physiological stress. In more extreme cases, once an 
ectothermic organism is exposed to a temperature outside of its 
activity temperature range, it is closer to reaching a critical thermal 
maximum/minimum, in which locomotion becomes uncoordinated and the 
animal loses its ability to escape conditions that will lead to its 
death (Zug et al. 2001, pp. 179-188). Key ring-necked snakes may become 
more vulnerable to situations involving critical thermal maximum when 
habitat loss and fragmentation limit its ability to move or find 
suitable microhabitats. Additionally, ambient temperature out of the 
optimal range will physically influence the environment of nests, which 
may modify incubation periods, embryo temperatures, egg survival, and 
hatching times. Physiological stress can also result in a variety of 
risks including increased predation, reduced reproductive performance, 
and reduced foraging success.
    Precipitation patterns are also changing. Since 1900, annual 
average precipitation in south Florida has increased by 5 to 10 percent 
(Service 2017, p. 4). Shifts in seasonal rainfall events are also 
currently being documented (U.S. Global Change Research Program 
(USGCRP) 2018, pp. 745-808). The south Florida dry season (November 
through April) has become wetter, the rainy season (May through 
October) has become drier, and current projections show that this trend 
will continue. This could have detrimental effects on the Key ring-
necked snake's seasonal feeding, breeding, and sheltering patterns. 
Heavy downpours are currently increasing and have especially increased 
over the last 30 to 50 years. The frequency and intensity of heavy 
downpours in the Florida Keys have increased by 27 percent since the 
1970s (Service 2017, p. 4). Increased inland flooding is predicted 
during heavy rain events in low-lying areas. With worsening storms, 
storm surges along coastlines become stronger and push farther inland. 
Consequently, more powerful storm surges will exacerbate the effects of 
the increased sea level along the Florida Keys' shorelines.
    Currently, the existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation 
measures do not address the impacts of shifting seasonal patterns of 
rainfall and temperature. Although changes in seasonal weather patterns 
in south Florida have been documented (Service 2017, entire), direct 
impacts on the Key ring-necked snake's habitat have not been observed. 
However, with increased flooding events associated with climate change 
and sea level rise, the magnitude of this threat could increase into 
the future, decreasing population resiliency across the range of the 
subspecies.
    Storm events--There has been a substantial increase in Atlantic 
hurricane activity by most measures since the early 1980s, the period 
during which high-quality satellite data first became available. These 
include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the 
number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms (Walsh et al. 2014, p. 
20). Strong rainstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes are all-natural 
parts of a tropical ecosystem. However, although these events are 
common occurrences, the vulnerability of Key ring-necked snake 
populations increases as the quantity and quality of their habitat is 
compromised. This is especially true when the frequency of storm surges 
increases without adequate time for habitats to recover.
    Hurricane activity has been above normal since the Atlantic Multi-
Decadal Oscillation (AMO) (the natural variability of the sea surface 
temperature in the Atlantic Ocean) went into its warm phase around 
1992. While the incidence of tropical storms in southeast Florida 
(including the Keys) is above normal, this frequency is expected to 
decrease with climate change, but the intensity of the storms is 
expected to increase by approximately 20 percent (Service 2017, p. 7). 
This increased intensity results in larger tidal storm surge and 
greater destruction than historically documented. Ecosystem resiliency 
is reduced when impacts by extreme events such as floods or storms 
occur (Service 2017, p. 7). Saltwater intrusion from storm surge and 
flooding results in displacement landward to less suitable habitat and 
the loss of individual Key ring-necked snakes. The limestone substrate, 
on which snakes likely rely for cover, prey, and nesting, will become 
flooded more frequently, resulting in a higher frequency and longevity 
of displacement and stress.
    Information on how strong storms impact this subspecies is lacking. 
However, information does exist on the impacts to habitat from 
hurricanes and other strong storms that have occurred in the region, 
providing some insight of the potential damage and loss to the Key 
ring-necked snake from such storms. These events likely disturb and 
reduce the quantity and quality of their resources (such as food and 
cover) and may do so significantly depending upon the severity and 
proximity of the storm center. This is particularly true when storm 
surges bring in nutrient-rich sediment that exacerbate soil accretion, 
salt deposition, and vegetation loss (Dingler et al. 1995, p. 296; 
Jackson et al. 1995, p. 321).
    Additionally, saltwater surges and short-term flooding of upland 
habitats from strong storms and hurricanes in the Keys have the 
potential to kill some Key ring-necked snakes and their prey. In 2005, 
Hurricane Wilma (Category 3) passed just north of the Florida Keys, 
causing maximum storm tides 5 to 6 ft (1.5 to 1.8 m) above mean sea 
level in Key West and flooding approximately 60 percent of the city. On 
Boca Chica and Big Pine Keys, Hurricane Wilma caused a storm surge of 5 
to 8 ft (1.5 to 2.4 m) (Kasper 2007, pp. 10-16). In 2017, the combined 
effect of storm surge and the tide from Hurricane Irma produced maximum 
inundation levels of 5 to 8 ft (1.5 to 2.4 m) above ground level for 
portions of the lower Florida Keys from Cudjoe Key eastward to Big Pine 
Key and Bahia Honda Key, near and to the east of where Irma's center 
made landfall (Cangialosi et al. 2018, pp. 8-9). A storm surge of 13 ft 
(4 m) would completely submerge Big Pine Key (Lopez et al. 2004, p. 
284).
    Currently, the existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation 
measures do not address the impacts of storm events. The effects of 
storm events have the potential to reduce individual survival, which 
could then lead to a reduction in the snake's resiliency and 
redundancy. While past storms have not resulted in complete inundation 
of

[[Page 62626]]

islands, an increase in the intensity and frequency of storms or a 
direct hit from a strong hurricane could cause significant reductions 
in subspecies numbers, further limiting the subspecies' population 
resiliency and making it even more vulnerable to all other threats.
Summary of Threats
    Multiple threats are currently impacting the Key ring-necked snake 
and its habitat. Although individual populations are no longer likely 
to be lost to development, ongoing habitat degradation associated with 
urbanization of both pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitat and 
fire suppression of pine rocklands are continuing to reduce the 
availability of the features that the Key ring-necked snake needs for 
feeding, breeding, and sheltering, thus decreasing population 
resiliency. Because of the current barriers to dispersal, 
recolonization is unlikely after a population is extirpated.
    Even minor threats that impact just a few individuals in a 
population need to be considered for their additive effects. For 
example, threats like predation and invasive species may have low 
impacts on their own, but combined with impacts of other threats, they 
are further reducing already low numbers of Key ring-necked snakes. 
These minor threats were considered cumulatively for their effects to 
the Key ring-necked snake and, while they may reduce the numbers for 
some individual populations, were currently found not to impose 
negative effects at the population level.
    Additionally, various threats can originate from a similar cause 
but produce interdependent effects on the subspecies. For example, 
greenhouse gas emissions increase the rate and severity of climactic 
changes, which act in combination as threats on the subspecies. These 
include sea level rise, seasonal shifts in timing and amounts of 
precipitation, shifts in temperature patterns, and increased storm 
intensities that affect the subspecies. Sea level rise reduces 
available habitat. Because the average high-water line is now higher 
than historical levels, areas not typically flooded are now flooded on 
a more regular basis. The rate of sea level rise in the Florida Keys--
specifically at NOAA's KYWF1-8724580 Key West ocean data buoy--had been 
an average rate of 0.09 inch/year (2.3 mm/year) prior to the previous 
decade (1990s; NOAA 2016, unpaginated). In the early 2000s, sea level 
rise began to accelerate exponentially and was estimated at 0.3 inch/
year (7.6 mm/year) in 2016 (NOAA 2016, unpaginated).
    The severity of threats may also be exacerbated by the Key ring-
necked snake's limited distribution and small population size. There 
are no records that demonstrate that the Key ring-necked snake was ever 
distributed beyond the lower Florida Keys. Thus, it has, and probably 
has always had, low natural redundancy. Currently, it is found only on 
seven lower Florida Key islands. Rarity is not in itself a threat; 
however, small population size can exacerbate the effects of ongoing 
threats, making the subspecies more vulnerable to extirpation. As 
discussed previously, the Key ring-necked snake is a narrow endemic, 
meaning it has naturally low redundancy to help it buffer against 
stochastic and catastrophic events.
    Currently, the existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation 
measures do not address the impacts of climate change, sea level rise, 
and saltwater intrusion. As mentioned above, sea level has increased 
exponentially since the early 2000s (NOAA 2016, unpaginated). 
Therefore, the effects of saltwater intrusion have likely degraded 
existing habitat that supports the Key ring-necked snake, leading to 
reductions in the features (such as freshwater) that the subspecies 
needs, and thus reducing population resiliency. The effects of 
saltwater intrusion are primarily habitat-based, but some individual 
snakes could also be lost. Signs of saltwater intrusion impacts are 
currently documented on Big Pine Key, where pine trees have been 
replaced by salt-tolerant mangrove. The magnitude of this threat has 
the potential to greatly increase in the future with the projected 
severity of sea level rise.
Current Condition of Populations
    To characterize the current status of Key ring-necked snake 
populations, we assigned each stressor as low, moderate, or high 
impacts to the subspecies based on criteria (see table 1, below); these 
impacts are occurring at the individual (moderate risk) and population 
(high risk) levels. The risk of each threat, using the risk scoring 
criteria in tables 1 and 2, was applied to each population and used to 
assess the overall population condition (see table 3, below). More 
specifically, point values were summed for each threat (listed in table 
1, below) to determine an overall population condition score (scoring 
criteria listed in table 2, below) and summarized to convey the current 
condition of each population of the subspecies (see table 3, below). An 
area with a high risk of threat as described in tables 1 and 2 will 
result in low population condition in table 3, and a low risk of threat 
will result in a high population condition. Each population received 
similar scores, due to limited information for the subspecies and its 
small endemic range. Based on the cumulative risk of threats to each 
population, we then estimated the current condition of each population 
and the likelihood of persistence of each population (Table 2). We 
defined populations in the SSA report and this proposed rule by the 
boundary of each island, as we lack information on possible population 
divisions within each island or about distribution between islands.
    Overall, all populations of the Key ring-necked snake are in low 
condition and reduced from historical condition, with ongoing effects 
from habitat degradation, fire suppression, sea level rise, and 
saltwater intrusion. Though populations are currently extant on all 
known islands throughout the species' range, the species is only found 
on seven islands in a similar ecological setting. Thus, species 
representation and redundancy are low.

                              Table 1--Current Conditions Based on Risk of Threats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Threat                       Low risk (1)          Moderate risk (2)          High risk (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development..........................  Development occurrence   The level of             A significant amount of
                                        protected by land        development would        suitable habitat would
                                        management plan.         affect suitable          be lost due to
                                                                 habitat and displace     development such that
                                                                 some individual          snake populations
                                                                 snakes, but not at an    would be impacted.
                                                                 extent to affect snake
                                                                 populations.
Disease..............................  No impacts.............  Some individual snakes   Disease would be
                                                                 would exhibit signs of   prevalent in
                                                                 disease, but impacts     populations across the
                                                                 would not be             range of the
                                                                 widespread enough in     subspecies, decreasing
                                                                 the snake population     population resiliency.
                                                                 to affect resiliency.

[[Page 62627]]

 
Fire suppression in pine rocklands...  Ongoing, regular fire    The level of fire        A significant amount of
                                        maintenance.             suppression would        suitable habitat would
                                                                 affect some suitable     be lost due to fire
                                                                 habitat and displace     suppression such that
                                                                 some individual          snake population
                                                                 snakes, but not at an    resiliency would be
                                                                 extent to affect         impacted.
                                                                 population resiliency.
Predation............................  No impacts.............  Some individual snakes   Predation would be
                                                                 would be predated, but   prevalent in
                                                                 impacts would not be     populations across the
                                                                 widespread throughout    range of the
                                                                 snake populations.       subspecies, decreasing
                                                                                          population resiliency.
Invasive species.....................  No impacts.............  Invasive plants would    Invasive plants would
                                                                 not outcompete native    outcompete native
                                                                 plants to the extent     plants altering
                                                                 that a significant       habitat so it is no
                                                                 amount of suitable       longer suitable for
                                                                 snake habitat is         the snake. Nonnative
                                                                 altered. Nonnative       fauna may outcompete
                                                                 fauna would outcompete   snakes for food, or
                                                                 some individual snakes   prey on snakes such
                                                                 for food, or prey on     that populations are
                                                                 some snakes, but the     impacted.
                                                                 effects would not be
                                                                 widespread in the
                                                                 snake population.
Sea level rise.......................  No impacts.............  Individual snakes will   The severity of
                                                                 be affected by           increasing sea levels,
                                                                 increasing sea levels,   higher tidal surges,
                                                                 higher tidal surges,     and increased coastal
                                                                 and increased coastal    and inland flooding
                                                                 and inland flooding.     would impact snake
                                                                                          populations and
                                                                                          possibly extirpate
                                                                                          areas.
Saltwater intrusion..................  No impacts.............  Some individual snakes   The frequency and
                                                                 will be displaced by     severity of saltwater
                                                                 the frequency and        intrusion and its
                                                                 severity of saltwater    impact to suitable
                                                                 intrusion and its        snake habitat would
                                                                 impact to suitable       impact snake
                                                                 snake habitat.           populations,
                                                                                          decreasing population
                                                                                          resiliency.
Shifts in seasonal patterns of         No impacts.............  Individual snakes would  The frequency and
 rainfall and temperature.                                       be affected by the       intensity in these
                                                                 frequency and            seasonal patterns
                                                                 intensity in these       changes would impact
                                                                 seasonal patterns        snake populations.
                                                                 changes, but not to
                                                                 the extent that
                                                                 population resiliency
                                                                 would be affected.
Storm events.........................  No impacts.............  The intensity,           The intensity,
                                                                 frequency, and           frequency, and
                                                                 duration of storm        duration of storm
                                                                 events would be at a     events would be at a
                                                                 level in which the       significant level such
                                                                 quantity and quality     that the quantity and
                                                                 of individual snake      quality of snake
                                                                 needs are compromised,   resources were
                                                                 and some snakes would    reduced, and snake
                                                                 be displaced landward    populations would be
                                                                 to less suitable         displaced.
                                                                 habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 2--Risk and Overall Population Condition Scoring Criteria for Current and Future Conditions of Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Probability of
         Overall population condition           Risk of threat   Population persistence over 60     persistence
                                                                              years                     (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High (9-13 points)............................               1  Very Likely.....................          91-100
Moderate (14-18 points).......................               2  Likely..........................           51-90
Low (19-24 points)............................               3  Unlikely to likely as not.......            0-50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Point values for each threat (see table 1, above) were summed 
within an analysis area to determine the overall population condition 
score.

                                                                 Table 3--The Risk of Threats and Their Effect on the Population Condition of the Key Ring-Necked Snake
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                              Shifts in seasonal
                                                       Fire  suppression                                                                                       Saltwater          patterns of                             Population
              Area                    Development     of pine  rocklands        Disease            Predation       Invasive species     Sea level rise         intrusion         rainfall and           Storms             condition
                                                                                                                                                                                  temperature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Pine Key....................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Cudjoe Key......................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Key West........................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Little Torch Key................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Middle Torch Key................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
No Name Key.....................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Stock Island....................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subspecies was analyzed by island. Note that the first nine 
columns rank the condition of threats, while the final column ranks 
population condition. Thus, multiple columns of high threat risk result 
in low population condition.

Rim Rock Crowned Snake--Current Threats and Condition

    We do not have fine-scale information to determine different levels 
of threats within individual populations of the rim rock crowned snake. 
Thus, for this species, we considered threats at a larger scale in 
three general areas: eastern Miami-Dade County, the upper Florida Keys, 
and the lower Florida Keys, and on individual islands where data were 
available. We also considered population resiliency in isolated habitat 
patches in the Miami-Dade area and on individual islands in the Florida 
Keys. We considered North Key Largo and

[[Page 62628]]

Key Largo as two separate populations due to the distances between 
occurrences and due to several barriers to movement.
Development
    The rim rock crowned snake inhabits upland rockland habitat (pine 
rocklands and rockland hammock) that is also desirable for residential 
and commercial development (Service 1999, p. 3-174). Urban development 
and agriculture have greatly reduced the extent of pine rocklands and 
rockland hammock habitat in eastern Miami-Dade County and the Florida 
Keys. Additionally, the quality of some pine rocklands has declined in 
the Keys because the remaining habitat patches are isolated and 
confined by surrounding urban development. Individual rim rock crowned 
snakes are occasionally documented in roadsides, vacant lots, trash 
piles, and pastures with shrubby growth and slash pines (FWC 2011, pp. 
2-3; Hines 2011, pp. 352-356), but it is unknown whether these 
individuals are tolerating urban conditions or have been displaced. 
However, development and conversion of rockland habitat can impact all 
life stages of the rim rock crowned snake due to direct habitat loss 
and mortality. In addition to direct impacts from loss of soils for 
nesting and movement, ground cover and availability of invertebrate 
food sources can be reduced. Loss of habitat reduces shelter and shade 
for adults and decreases connectivity, thereby hindering dispersal by 
juveniles and finding of mates.
    Extensive land clearing for human population growth, development, 
and agriculture in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties has altered, 
degraded, or destroyed thousands of acres of suitable habitat for rim 
rock crowned snakes. Throughout south Florida, development and 
agriculture have reduced pine rocklands habitat to approximately 3 
percent of historical levels. Currently, the total habitat area 
available in Miami-Dade County is approximately 2,275 ac (921 ha) of 
pine rocklands habitat and 609 ac (247 ha) of rockland hammock habitat, 
not including Everglades National Park (where the rim rock crowned 
snake has never been found), or less than 10 percent of the historical 
extent of this habitat. In the lower Florida Keys, the total area of 
pine rocklands habitat is approximately 1,899 ac (769 ha), and the 
total area of rockland hammock habitat is approximately 3,806 ac (1,540 
ha), or less than half of the historical extent of this habitat. While 
the hammock habitats are widespread across many islands in various 
sizes, pine rocklands remain on only five islands in the lower Florida 
Keys and none of the upper Florida Keys. The total area covered by 
rockland hammock in the upper Florida Keys is 7,006 ac (2,835 ha).
    Some habitat protections are currently in place for the rim rock 
crowned snake. Starting in 1990, Miami-Dade County's EEL program began 
acquiring pine rocklands and other natural areas to preserve and 
protect from development. Once acquired, the EEL program funds land 
management to maintain and protect the habitat. Since the program's 
inception, more than 1,500 ac (607 ha) of pine rocklands have become 
EEL preserves (Miami-Dade County 2019). Rim rock crowned snakes have 
been found at four EEL preserves.
    Additionally, Monroe County implemented an HCP for Big Pine and No 
Name Keys starting in 2006. In 2007, a rim rock crowned snake was 
observed on Big Pine Key (Hines 2011, p. 353). Subsequently, 
development on these islands has to meet the requirements of the HCP in 
regard to future development. In order to fulfill the HCP's mitigation 
requirement, Monroe County has been actively acquiring parcels of high-
quality habitat for listed species and managing them for conservation, 
including pine rocklands habitat on Big Pine and No Name Keys. Although 
the rim rock crowned snake is not a covered species under this HCP, we 
still expect the habitat protections afforded by the HCP to provide the 
rim rock crowned snake some protection from development, as the areas 
where the snakes occur will be avoided due to protections for species 
that are covered by the HCP.
    Suitable habitat for the rim rock crowned snake is protected within 
Federal preserves such as Everglades National Park, Crocodile Lake 
National Wildlife Refuge, and the National Key Deer Refuge; however, 
the rim rock crowned snake has only been documented in the National Key 
Deer Wildlife Refuge and Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Most 
of the other records are located on State, local government, or 
privately owned lands, which are all small fragments of suitable 
habitat. Extensive pine rocklands habitat is present in the Long Pine 
Key area of Everglades National Park. However, despite extensive survey 
efforts (Dalrymple et al. 1991, entire), no evidence of the rim rock 
crowned snake has been found in Everglades National Park.
    Over 90 percent of suitable rockland habitat for rim rock crowned 
snakes has been lost due to human development in south Florida 
including the Florida Keys, meaning some populations (and thus 
redundancy) have already been lost. For example, rim rock crowned 
snakes were previously detected at sites in Miami near intersections of 
SW 27 Avenue/SW 24 Street, Old Cutler Road/Red Road, and US 1/SW 154 
Ave. There are also numerous historical records detected at locations 
in the greater Miami metropolitan area (Kendall, Coral Gables, Ludlum, 
Homestead Air Base). However, no rim rock crowned snakes have been 
found at these locations since the 1980s. Furthermore, extensive 
urbanization surrounding these remaining habitats reduces survival, via 
rendering the species less able to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity and disturbances (that is, reduced 
resiliency). Resiliency may be further reduced due to loss of 
connectivity between populations. Because the rim rock crowned snake is 
endemic to only the southeastern part of the Florida peninsula and the 
Florida Keys, losing even a few populations to the effects of 
development would result in a substantial reduction in species 
redundancy. However, most of the remaining habitat patches are 
protected, meaning few additional populations are likely to be 
extirpated due to development, although habitat degradation could 
result in continued decreases in population resiliency as the species' 
needs, such as prey and cover, are lost.
Fire Suppression
    As discussed above under ``Development,'' urban development and 
historical conversion to agriculture has greatly reduced the extent of 
pine rocklands in southeastern Florida and the Florida Keys. The 
quality of remaining pine rocklands has declined because those areas 
are isolated by surrounding urban development that restricts the use of 
prescribed fire, which is the principal management tool for pine 
rocklands. Prescribed fire must be periodically introduced to sustain 
the pine rocklands community structure. In the absence of fire, pine 
rocklands are invaded by many of the species found in hardwood 
hammocks. They lose their herbaceous flora and move along a 
successional trajectory toward hammock (Service 1999, p. 3-173). These 
rockland hammocks are generally present where pine rocklands were not 
burned for a long period of time, creating more pine rocklands 
fragmentation. This fragmentation of pine rocklands in the South 
Florida and the Florida Keys increases the risk of invasion by exotic 
vegetation along the interface with disturbed or developed areas, 
further altering, degrading, or destroying

[[Page 62629]]

suitable habitat for the rim rock crowned snake.
    Although rim rock crowned snakes can still persist in areas where 
fire has been suppressed, habitat quality is reduced by lack of fire. 
Thus, the effects of fire suppression in pine rocklands have the 
potential to reduce population resiliency through ongoing habitat 
degradation that impacts the rim rock crowned snake and its habitat.
Climate Change
    The predominant threat currently affecting the rim rock crowned 
snake and its habitat are the rapid and intense shifts in climate 
occurring as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. South 
Florida and the Florida Keys are being affected by increases in sea 
level, saltwater intrusion, increases in tide and tidal flooding, and 
shifts in seasonal climate pattern. In the SSA report and this proposed 
rule, we discuss the effects of climate change on the rim rock crowned 
snake in terms of sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, shifts in 
seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature, and storm events.
    Sea level rise--The rim rock crowned snake is vulnerable to current 
and predicted sea level rise and saltwater intrusion across its entire 
range because it is located only in south Florida. South Florida, 
including the Florida Keys, are among the most vulnerable areas to the 
effects of sea level rise due to their low mean elevation of less than 
1.2 m (4 ft) (Service 2019, p. 9). Consequently, south Florida is 
highly susceptible to flooding, with lands farther upland at risk of 
inundation and saltwater intrusion. The effects of increasing sea 
levels, higher tidal surges, coastal and inland flooding, and saltwater 
intrusion are currently being experienced in south Florida and the 
Florida Keys (Benedict et al. 2018, pp. 9, 13, 31, 7-i; Service 2019, 
p. 1).
    As discussed above in Key Ring-necked Snake--Current Condition 
under ``Climate Change,'' Sea level rise, the Florida Keys are 
particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, and the Florida Keys and 
South Florida are experiencing higher levels of sea level rise than 
other parts of the globe, as well as higher tidal surges, increased 
coastal and inland flooding, and saltwater intrusion (Benedict et al. 
2018, pp. 9, 13, 31, 7-i; Service 2019, p. 1).
    Consequently, pine rocklands habitat has already undergone a 
significant reduction in the Florida Keys due to sea level rise (Ross 
et al. 1994, p. 154). As mentioned previously, some of these areas are 
currently occupied by halophytic (salt-tolerant) vegetation such as 
mangroves and buttonwood (Alexander 1976, pp. 219-222) owing to high 
tide flooding as a result of rising sea level but also due to saltwater 
intrusion of the islands' freshwater lens.
    The effects of sea level rise could impact the rim rock crowned 
snake by loss of individuals during flooding events, causing a loss in 
population resiliency. If flooding is severe enough, it could extirpate 
entire populations, particularly in the lower Florida Keys, leading to 
a substantial loss of redundancy of the species.
    Saltwater intrusion--Higher tidal surges, coastal and inland 
flooding, and saltwater intrusion due to increasing sea levels are 
currently being experienced in south Florida and the Florida Keys. With 
worsening storms and extreme tidal events, storm surges along south 
Florida and the Keys will increase in frequency and severity over time 
and will impact habitats farther inland. As discussed above in Key 
Ring-necked Snake--Current Condition under ``Climate Change,'' 
Saltwater intrusion, this threat will result in habitat degradation and 
the loss of individual snakes. For the rim rock crowned snake, these 
effects have been primarily felt in populations in the Florida Keys, 
although some coastal populations in eastern Miami-Dade County may also 
experience some small amounts of saltwater intrusion.
    Currently, the existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation 
measures do not address the impacts of saltwater intrusion. As 
mentioned above, sea level has increased exponentially since the early 
2000s (NOAA 2016, unpaginated). The effects of saltwater intrusion have 
likely degraded existing habitat that supports the rim rock crowned 
snake in the Keys, leading to reductions in the features (such as 
freshwater) that the species needs, and thus reducing population 
resiliency. The effects of saltwater intrusion are primarily habitat-
based, but some individual snakes could also be lost. Signs of 
saltwater intrusion impacts have been documented on Big Pine Key, where 
pine trees have been replaced by salt-tolerant mangrove. The magnitude 
of this threat has the potential to greatly increase with the projected 
future severity of sea level rise.
    Shifts in seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature--As 
discussed above in Key Ring-necked Snake--Current Condition under 
``Climate Change,'' Shifts in seasonal patterns of rainfall and 
temperature, rising greenhouse gases are resulting in increasing 
temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns. Like the Key ring-
necked snake, the rim rock crowned snake is a fossorial ectotherm and, 
therefore, dependent on gaining heat from its microhabitat or by coming 
into contact with the undersides of warm surfaces (for example, rocks) 
that are exposed to direct sunlight. As with the Key ring-necked snake, 
increased temperatures could result in a permanent shift in average air 
temperature out of rim rock crowned snake's optimal range, causing 
physiological stress. Physiological stress can manifest into a variety 
of risks including predation, reduced performance, and reduced foraging 
success. Altered precipitation patterns could have detrimental effects 
on the seasonal feeding, breeding, and sheltering patterns for the rim 
rock crowned snake. Increased inland flooding is predicted during heavy 
rain events in low-lying areas. With worsening storms, storm surges 
along coastlines can become stronger and push farther inland. 
Consequently, more powerful storm surges will exacerbate the effects of 
the increased sea level along south Florida and Florida Keys' 
shorelines and could have impacts on rockland habitat.
    Currently, the existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation 
measures do not address the impacts of shifting seasonal patterns of 
rainfall and temperature. Although changes in seasonal weather patterns 
in south Florida have been documented (Service 2017, entire), direct 
impacts on the rim rock crowned snake or its habitat have not been 
observed. However, with increased flooding events associated with sea 
level rise from climate change, the magnitude of this threat could 
increase into the future, particularly for populations in the Florida 
Keys and coastal areas of Miami-Dade County, decreasing population 
resiliency.
    Storm events--Changing patterns in hurricane activity are having 
similar effects to the rim rock crowned snake as to the Key ring-necked 
snake, as discussed above in Key Ring-necked Snake--Current Condition 
under ``Climate Change,'' Storm events. The health of the rim rock 
crowned snake becomes vulnerable when the quantity and quality of their 
resources (for example, food, cover/substrate) are compromised. This 
can particularly happen in the case of storm surges and with an 
increase in the number of incidences (for example, being impacted 
repeatedly without time to recover). Saltwater intrusion from storm 
surge and flooding results in displacement landward to less suitable 
habitat and the loss of individual rim rock crowned snakes. The 
limestone substrate, which rim rock crowned snakes likely rely on for 
cover, prey, and nesting, will become more frequently flooded,

[[Page 62630]]

creating a higher frequency and longevity of displacement and stress. 
Storm events likely disturb and reduce the quantity and quality of the 
resources for the rim rock crowned snake.
    Hurricane Andrew (1992) hit southern Miami-Dade County with 
sustained winds in excess of 145 miles per hour (233 kilometers per 
hour), impacting 99 percent of pine rocklands. Within 1 year of the 
event, many adult trees were dead, outbreaks of Ips beetles (including 
I. calligraphis, I. avulsus, and I. grandicollis) had been reported, 
and two species of weevil (Hylobius pales, Pachylobius picivorus) had 
attacked juvenile trees. The outbreak has been attributed to the 
combination of wind damage and drought following a very dry spring, 
making the trees more susceptible to infestation. In a fall 1993 
follow-up survey of Miami-Dade County pine rocklands, only 2 of 18 
sites had living mature pines. The loss of the pines affected fire fuel 
production and could allow invasive species to further impact pine 
rocklands (Service 1999, p. 3-176).
    Currently, the existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation 
measures do not influence or address the storm events. The effects of 
storm events have the potential to reduce individual survival, which 
could then lead to a reduction in the snake's resiliency and 
redundancy. While past storms have not resulted in complete inundation 
of islands, an increase in the intensity and frequency of storms has 
the potential to produce complete inundation of suitable snake habitat, 
and therefore possible extirpation of the species.
Summary of Threats
    Multiple threats are currently impacting the rim rock crowned snake 
at the individual and population level and its habitat. The risk of 
each threat was based on the scoring criteria in tables 1 and 2, above, 
as applied to each population, and used to assess the overall 
population condition (see table 4, below).
    Although individual populations are less likely to be lost to 
development, ongoing habitat degradation associated with urbanization 
and fire suppression in pine rocklands are continuing to reduce the 
availability of the features that the rim rock crowned snake needs for 
feeding, breeding, and sheltering, thus decreasing population 
resiliency. Additionally, all effects associated with climate change 
are interrelated, with shifts in the magnitude of severe storms 
contributing to increased flooding events that have the potential to 
extirpate entire populations of the rim rock crowned snake. Although a 
severe hurricane is unlikely to flood all populations at once, if a 
hurricane were to extirpate most populations, it would leave the 
remainder of the species significantly more vulnerable to other 
threats. Because of the current barriers to dispersal for populations 
in Miami-Dade County, recolonization is unlikely after a population is 
extirpated. Some populations, for example on Big Pine Key, may be able 
to recolonize extirpated sites because there are fewer barriers to 
dispersal due to less urbanization.
    Even minor threats that impact just a few individuals in a 
population need to be considered for their additive effects. For 
example, threats like predation and invasive species may have low 
impacts on their own, but combined with impacts of other threats, they 
are further reducing already low numbers of rim rock crowned snakes. 
These minor threats were considered cumulatively for their effects to 
the rim rock crowned snake and, while they may reduce the numbers for 
some individual populations, were currently found not to impose 
negative effects at the population level.
    Additionally, various threats can originate from a similar cause 
but produce a set of interdependent effects on the species. For 
example, greenhouse gas emissions increase the rate and severity of 
climactic changes, which act in combination as threats on the species. 
These include sea level rise, seasonal shifts in timing and amounts of 
precipitation, shifts in temperature patterns, and increased storm 
intensities that affect the species. Sea level rise further reduces 
available habitat. Because the average high-water line is now higher 
than historical levels, areas not typically flooded are now flooded on 
a more regular basis.
    The severity of threats may also be exacerbated by the rim rock 
crowned snake's limited distribution and small population size. The rim 
rock crowned snake is not known to have occurred beyond the 
southeastern peninsula of Florida or the Florida Keys. Thus, it has, 
and probably has always had, low representation and redundancy. 
Currently, it is thought to exist in seven small and fragmented parcels 
in eastern Miami-Dade County, six islands in the upper Florida Keys, 
and two lower Florida Key islands. Rarity is not in itself a threat; 
however, small population size can exacerbate the effects of ongoing 
threats, making the species more vulnerable to threats.
Current Condition of Populations
    As with the Key ring-necked snake, to characterize the current 
status of the rim rock crowned snake, we assigned each stressor as low, 
moderate, or high impacts to the subspecies (table 1, table 2). We 
summarize the current condition of rim rock crowned snake populations 
in table 4. Overall, the current condition of populations in the Miami-
Dade area is moderate, and the condition of populations in the Florida 
Keys is low.
    Given the species' limited distribution and limited ecological 
setting, representation is currently low. However, the species has 
moderate redundancy, as it has multiple populations distributed 
throughout the Miami-Dade area and the Upper and Lower Florida Keys.

                                                                 Table 4--The Threat Risk and the Effect on the Current Condition of Rim Rock Crowned Snake Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                              Shifts in seasonal
                                                       Fire suppression                                                                                        Saltwater          patterns of                             Population
           Population                 Development      in pine rocklands        Disease            Predation       Invasive species     Sea level rise         intrusion         rainfall and           Storms             condition
                                                                                                                                                                                  temperature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arch Creek......................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
BHSP............................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
Bill Sadowski...................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
DLC.............................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
Ned Glenn.......................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
Rockdale........................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.

[[Page 62631]]

 
Richmond Pine Rocklands.........  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPPER FLORIDA KEYS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Key Largo.................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
South Key Largo.................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Plantation Key..................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Upper Matecombe Key.............  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Lower Matecombe Key.............  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Marathon........................  Moderate..........  High..............  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOWER FLORIDA KEYS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Pine Key....................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
Key West........................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Low...............  Low...............  Low...............  High..............  High..............  High..............  High..............  Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that the first nine columns rank the condition of threats, 
while the final column ranks population condition. Thus, multiple 
columns of high threat risk result in low population condition.

Future Threats and Condition

    To examine the potential future condition of the snakes, four 
plausible future scenarios were developed. The scenarios focused on a 
range of conditions based on climate change scenarios and projections 
for land development. The range of what is likely to happen in each 
scenario is described based on current condition and how resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy would be expected to change. The levels 
of certainty or uncertainty are addressed in each scenario. Given that 
there is uncertainty as to exact future trends of many threats, these 
future scenarios are meant to explore the range of plausible future 
scenarios and examine the snakes' response across the range of these 
conditions.
    We define viability as the ability to sustain populations over 
time. For this to occur, a species must have a sufficient number and 
distribution of healthy populations to withstand changes in its 
biological (predators, disease) and physical (habitat loss, climate 
change) environment, environmental stochasticity (flooding, storm 
surge), and catastrophic events (hurricanes). In considering the future 
scenarios for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake, 
we analyzed expected changes in development up through 2070 based on 
the timeframe forecast in the urban planning documents (Zwick and Carr 
2006, entire), shifts in seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature 
(up through 2100), and climate change (sea level rise and saltwater 
intrusion) from 2030 to 2100. That said, we focused on changes that are 
expected in the next 20 to 60 years (i.e., by 2040-2080) because 
virtually no habitat is forecasted to be present in the lower Florida 
Keys by 2080. The habitat in Miami-Dade County is forecasted to 
continue on the same trend up to 2100 as predicted from 2040-2080 (USGS 
2019b, d, entire). We do not have any information on future trends of 
other threats (disease, predation, invasive species, and collection).
    We chose four plausible scenarios to examine the potential impacts 
to Key ring-necked snake and rim rock crowned snake populations from 
development, fire suppression of pine rocklands habitat, climate 
impacts (sea level rise and saltwater intrusion), storm events, and 
shifts in seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature. We determined 
the population condition (using criteria described above in table 1) 
given our future projections of threats.
    In order to understand the impacts of sea level rise and associated 
impacts on the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake, we 
contracted a study with the USGS to measure the potential future 
impacts on pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitat in the range of 
the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake (USGS 2019, 
entire). The study calculated the impacts of root zone salinization, 
regional sea level rise, and high tide effects on suitable habitat in 
Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys in 10-year intervals between 
2030 and 2100. In this proposed rule, we present a summary of those 
results. Detailed descriptions of the study and its results are 
available in the SSA reports for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim 
rock crowned snake (Service 2021a, pp. 25-27; Service 2021b, pp. 43-
47).

Key Ring-Necked Snake--Future Threats and Condition

    Because we determined that the current condition of the Key ring-
necked snake is consistent with an endangered species (see 
Determination of Species Status, below), we are not presenting the 
results of the future scenarios in this rule. For more information on 
the future condition, future threats, and future scenarios for the Key 
ring-necked snake, please see the SSA report (Service 2021a, pp. 21-
33).

Rim Rock Crowned Snake--Future Threats and Condition

Development--Future Impacts
    Future development is very likely to continue across the range of 
the rim rock crowned snake. Suitable habitat that is projected to be 
lost in all of these scenarios is privately owned and not currently 
under conservation.
    Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties are not anticipated to undergo 
dramatic land use changes by 2070, because most land in these counties 
is already allocated to development, agriculture, or conservation (Carr 
and Zwick 2016, pp. 20-22). Of remaining pine rocklands

[[Page 62632]]

and rockland hammock habitat, 76 percent in eastern Miami-Dade County, 
79 percent in the upper Florida Keys, and 83 percent in the lower 
Florida Keys are protected or conserved (FNAI 2019). However, because 
such limited habitat area remains, any remaining suitable unprotected 
habitat for the rim rock crowned snake is extremely vulnerable to 
development if left unprotected, and even the loss of one population 
(particularly in the Miami-Dade area) could have a significant effect 
on the species.
    Of the suitable habitat for rim rock crowned snake remaining in 
Miami-Dade County, between 19 and 21 percent is expected to be lost to 
development by 2070 (Carr and Zwick 2016, pp. 20-22). Although the 
expected population growth in Monroe County in the Florida Keys is 
relatively modest, all vacant private lands not protected for 
conservation purposes are projected to be developed, including lands 
currently inaccessible for development, such as islands not attached to 
the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1) (Zwick and Carr 2006, pp. 14-15). This 
development will have the potential to further reduce the amount of 
suitable habitat for the rim rock crowned snake.
Fire Suppression--Future Impacts
    Fire suppression has had considerable negative impacts on pine 
rocklands communities. The condition of some extant pine rocklands has 
declined and become degraded because of inadequate management or 
because they are isolated and confined by surrounding development that 
restricts the use of prescribed fire, which is the primary management 
tool. We do not expect the amount of prescribed burning to increase in 
the future, so we anticipate that existing habitat will continue to 
decline in quality and undergo habitat conversion to hammock habitats, 
particularly in eastern Miami-Dade County.
Climate Change--Future Impacts
    In Florida, sea level is projected to rise between 1 ft (0.4 m) at 
the low end and up to 8.4 ft (3.2 m) at the high end by 2100 (USGS 
2019b, p. 1). Due to sea level rise, low-lying islands and coastal 
areas have increasingly become more vulnerable to high tide flooding, 
which is rapidly increasing in frequency, depth, and extent (Sweet et 
al. 2018, p. 3). In South Florida as well as the Keys, storm surge and 
high tide flooding events primarily affect low-lying coastal areas and 
exposed habitats such as pine rocklands and rockland hammocks. With 
continued increase in sea level rise, high tide/king tide flood 
frequencies are also expected to rapidly increase, with potentially 
severe damage to remaining rockland habitat in the Florida Keys. Pine 
rocklands species, particularly the dominant canopy species (slash 
pine), have little ability to tolerate saltwater (USGS 2019b, p. 2). As 
mentioned above, pine rocklands habitat has already undergone a 
significant reduction in the Florida Keys due to sea level rise (Ross 
et al. 1994, p. 154) and some of these areas are occupied by halophytic 
(salt-tolerant) vegetation such as mangroves and buttonwood (Alexander 
1976, pp. 219-222). As discussed above in Background, a unique 
characteristic of the Florida Keys is the existence of a freshwater 
lens below each island that is critically important for humans, flora, 
fauna, and a variety of habitats.
    In eastern Miami-Dade County, a shallow layer of highly permeable 
limestone forms the unconfined Biscayne aquifer. Because this aquifer 
is unconfined, the top-most layer makes up the water table and directly 
interacts with natural and humanmade bodies of water. The Biscayne 
aquifer merges with the floor of Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, 
making it a coastal aquifer. Being a coastal aquifer, there is a 
potential for contamination from lowered water tables, primarily from 
over-pumping due to residential and commercial use, which could allow 
salt water intrusion and could be exacerbated by sea level rise.
    The anticipated impacts of sea level rise and high tides for the 
rim rock crowned snake for our four future scenarios are shown below in 
tables 5-9. There is no table for pine rocklands habitat change in the 
upper Florida Keys, as there is no pine rocklands habitat there.

  Table 5--Predicted Pine Rocklands Habitat Changes With an Intermediate (I) or Extreme (E) RSLR (Relative Sea
   Level Rise; Sweet et al. 2017, pp. vi, vii, 12, 21) and Moderate High Tide Effect (2.7 ft (0.82 m)), in the
                             Years 2040, 2060 and 2080, in Eastern Miami-Dade County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Area (ac) of     Percent of
                                                                  Current pine    pine rocklands  pine rocklands
       Future scenario           RSLR height        Year       rocklands (ac) in    affected by     affected by
                                     (m)                           Miami-Dade      both RSLR and   both RSLR and
                                                                                     high tide       high tide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................            0.31          2040 I          2,275.02              4.3            0.19
2............................            0.54          2060 I                               13.6            0.60
3............................            0.83          2080 I                               51.5            2.26
4............................            0.60          2040 E                               20.3            0.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 6--Predicted Rockland Hammock Habitat Changes With an Intermediate (I) or Extreme (E) RSLR (Relative Sea
   Level Rise; Sweet et al. 2017, pp. vi, vii, 12, 21) and Moderate High Tide Effect (2.7 ft (0.82 m)), in the
                             Years 2040, 2060 and 2080, in Eastern Miami-Dade County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Area (ac) of     Percent of
                                                                                     rockland        rockland
                                 RSLR height                    Current rockland      hammock         hammock
       Future scenario               (m)            Year        hammock (ac)  in    affected by     affected by
                                                                   Miami-Dade      both RSLR and   both RSLR and
                                                                                     high tide       high tide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................            0.31          2040 I            609.37             58.0            9.51
2............................            0.54          2060 I                               78.9           12.95
3............................            0.83          2080 I                              113.4           18.61
4............................            0.60          2040 E                               85.7           14.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 62633]]


 Table 7--Predicted Rockland Hammock Habitat Changes With an Intermediate (I) or Extreme (E) RSLR (Relative Sea
   Level Rise; Sweet et al. 2017, pp. vi, vii, 12, 21) and Moderate High Tide Effect (2.7 ft (0.82 m)), in the
                              Years 2040, 2060 and 2080, in the Upper Florida Keys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Area (ac) of     Percent of
                                                                                     rockland        rockland
                                 RSLR height                    Current rockland      hammock         hammock
       Future scenario               (m)            Year        hammock (ac) in     affected by     affected by
                                                                   upper Keys      both RSLR and   both RSLR and
                                                                                     high tide       high tide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................            0.31          2040 I          7,005.60          3,273.8           46.73
2............................            0.54          2060 I                            3,930.8           56.11
3............................            0.83          2080 I                            4,686.5           66.90
4............................            0.60          2040 E                            4,097.7           58.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 8--Predicted Pine Rocklands Habitat Changes With an Intermediate (I) or Extreme (E) RSLR (Relative Sea
   Level Rise; Sweet et al. 2017, pp. vi, vii, 12, 21) and Moderate High Tide Effect (2.7 ft (0.82 m)), in the
                              Years 2040, 2060 and 2080, in the Lower Florida Keys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Area (ac) of     Percent of
                                                                  Current pine    pine rocklands  pine rocklands
       Future scenario           RSLR height        Year       rocklands (ac) in    affected by     affected by
                                     (m)                           lower Keys      both RSLR and   both RSLR and
                                                                                     high tide       high tide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................            0.31          2040 I          1,899.35          1,674.4           88.16
2............................            0.54          2060 I                            1,834.9           96.61
3............................            0.83          2080 I                            1,898.9           99.98
4............................            0.60          2040 E                            1,864.9           98.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 9--Predicted Rockland Hammock Habitat Changes With an Intermediate (I) or Extreme (E) RSLR (Relative Sea
   Level Rise; Sweet et al. 2017, pp. vi, vii, 12, 21) and Moderate High Tide Effect (2.7 ft [0.82 m]), in the
                              Years 2040, 2060 and 2080, in the Lower Florida Keys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Area (ac) of     Percent of
                                                                                     rockland        rockland
                                 RSLR height                    Current rockland      hammock         hammock
       Future scenario               (m)            Year        hammock (ac) in     affected by     affected by
                                                                   lower Keys      both RSLR and   both RSLR and
                                                                                     high tide       high tide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................            0.31          2040 I          3,805.60          3,668.3           96.39
2............................            0.54          2060 I                            3,749.5           98.53
3............................            0.83          2080 I                            3,778.4           99.29
4............................            0.60          2040 E                            3,758.2           98.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Extreme weather events are another impact of climate change likely 
to impact pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitat. Plant species 
common to both habitats have little ability to tolerate salt stress due 
to saltwater intrusion or inundation owing to high tide events and sea 
level rise. Although the effects during severe storm events may be 
temporary, high mortality of pine rocklands and rockland hammock plant 
species may occur. Thus, climate change-induced storm events may reduce 
the resiliency of both pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitats.
    Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States is 
projected to rise. Increases of approximately 2.5 [deg]F (1.4 [deg]C) 
are projected for the period 2021-2050 relative to 1976-2005 in all 
representative concentration pathway (RCP) greenhouse gas emission 
scenarios, implying recent record-setting years may be common in the 
next few decades. Much larger increases in temperature are projected by 
late century (2071-2100): 2.8-7.3 [deg]F (1.6-4.1 [deg]C) in RCP 4.5 
and 5.8-11.9 [deg]F (3.2-6.6 [deg]C) in RCP 8.5 (USGCRP 2018, p. 159). 
In addition, extreme heat events in Florida are projected to increase 
relative to 1986-2005 (Service 2017, p. 2). Due to the already 
released, human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases present in the 
environment, another 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) increase in surface air 
temperature would be expected, even if there was a sudden end to all 
human-induced greenhouse gas emissions (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 414-
415). For the State of Florida, this would equate to an increase of 
more than 30 to 40 days of extreme heat events for Florida's coastal 
areas (Service 2017, p. 2). An increase in temperature also causes an 
increase in evapotranspiration in plants, which will change vegetation 
growth and survival, leading to changes in plant communities, which 
could indirectly affect rim rock crowned snakes.
    Extreme rainfall events have increased in frequency and intensity 
in the southeastern United States, and there is high confidence they 
will continue to increase in the future. Both the frequency and 
severity of extreme precipitation events are projected to continue 
increasing in the southeast region (Easterling et al. 2017, p. 223). 
Future projections of average precipitation are uncertain, but an 
increase in intense rainfall is projected. Although average summer 
precipitation may not change, higher temperatures will increase the 
rate of soil moisture loss, and, thereby, droughts will likely be more 
intense (USGCRP 2018, pp. 1004, 1134). Dry consecutive days are 
expected to increase up to 30 percent in south Florida by 2100 (Service 
2017, p. 7). Extreme conditions can be

[[Page 62634]]

detrimental for the rim rock crowned snake. Decreased water 
availability, exacerbated by population growth and land-use change, 
will continue to increase competition for water (USGCRP 2018, p. 1112). 
Increasing drought intensity will likely trigger more frequent wildfire 
events, which may be beneficial to rim rock crowned snake by increasing 
habitat quality. Additionally, greater rainfall rates during hurricanes 
are expected with about a 20 percent increase near the center of 
storms, increasing risks of severe and damaging flooding (Service 2017, 
pp. 4-5). Periods of extreme drought and/or heavy rainfall can cause 
losses and alteration in plant and animal communities, which could 
affect the rim rock crowned snake directly or indirectly. For example, 
with an increase in flooding frequency, rim rock crowned snakes may be 
more frequently displaced from underground refugia, leading to higher 
mortality risk. Alternatively, more periods of extreme drought may 
reduce the abundance of prey, decreasing the ability of rim rock 
crowned snakes to feed. Climate change-induced shifts in seasonal 
patterns of rainfall and temperature may reduce the rim rock crowned 
snake's overall resiliency, especially when extreme events occur within 
areas of multiple populations.
Future Scenarios
    In all four future scenarios, habitat supporting the rim rock 
crowned snake is expected to undergo significant losses due to regional 
sea level rise, particularly in the lower Florida Keys. Populations in 
Miami-Dade County would be the least impacted by regional sea level 
rise and saltwater intrusion. Under the highest climate impacts, by 
2080, 18.6 percent of rockland hammock habitat and only 2.3 percent of 
pine rocklands habitat in Miami-Dade County would be affected by 
regional sea level rise (see tables 5 and 6, above; see also Service 
2021b, table 13). Therefore, no additional mortality in that part of 
the range from regional sea level rise and high tide would be expected 
due to little habitat loss or alteration. However, as discussed 
earlier, land development pressure on remaining undeveloped lands in 
pine rocklands is expected to be high, as is fire suppression. Of the 
2,898 ac (1,173 ha) of suitable habitat in Miami-Dade County, 82.6 
percent is protected; however, these areas will still be affected by 
ongoing habitat degradation. The remaining unprotected habitat (17.4 
percent) will likely be lost or degraded due to high development 
pressure, which could result in total loss, encroachment, or fire 
suppression of the habitat. The result of these impacts is a decrease 
in resiliency for all populations in Miami-Dade County under all future 
scenarios (Table 10).
    Storm events and associated storm surges will be a greater source 
of mortality and habitat alteration throughout the Florida Keys in all 
future scenarios, therefore reducing population resiliency. Projected 
sea level rise will increase the inland penetration and residence time 
of saltwater during storm surge events, and impact the freshwater lens, 
both of which will accelerate habitat modification and loss. 
Additionally, sea level rise in the Florida Keys will increase 
saltwater intrusion and inundation, and root zone salinity over the 
coming decades. This will result in the loss of habitat, changes in 
freshwater-dependent habitat, and loss of individual snakes. In the 
upper Florida Keys, between 46.7 and 58.5 percent of rockland hammock 
habitat could be lost to sea level rise, with the severity and timing 
varying with each climate scenario (see table 7, above). The most 
severe impacts are expected in the lower Florida Keys, with habitat 
losses due to relative sea level rise and high tides of 88.2 and 96.4 
percent of pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitats, respectively 
(see tables 8 and 9, above). Overall, we expect a trend toward a 
reduction of populations in the upper Florida Keys and probable 
extirpation of populations in the lower Florida Keys (table 10).
    The ability of this species to adapt to changing environmental 
conditions is extremely limited. The rim rock crowned snake will not 
survive living in the anticipated more saline or more wet habitat, both 
of which will alter the vegetation community. This reduction in 
suitable habitat will lead to fewer populations and individuals 
occurring in the Keys. Therefore, a reduction in species representation 
in the lower and upper Florida Keys populations is expected. However, a 
reduction in species representation is not expected in the Miami-Dade 
County populations under any future scenario, despite a decline in 
resiliency of these populations.
    Redundancy is currently low for the rim rock crowned snake, and 
with the continued loss or degradation to its habitat in the lower and 
upper Florida Keys as outlined above, we expect loss of populations, 
thereby further reducing the species' ability to withstand catastrophic 
events such as hurricanes. Although the rim rock crowned snake 
populations in Miami-Dade County are largely unaffected in all future 
scenarios in that they are projected to remain extant, the loss of 
populations in the lower (extirpation by 2040) and upper Florida Keys 
leaves the rim rock crowned snake more vulnerable to extinction.

                                        Table 10--Predicted Population Condition of the RRCS Under Four Scenarios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Area                         Current                  2040I                  2060I                  2080I                  2040E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Florida Keys.................  Low...................  Possibly extirpated...  Presumed extirpated..  Presumed extirpated..  Presumed extirpated
Upper Florida Keys.................  Low...................  Low...................  Low..................  Low..................  Low
Miami-Dade County..................  Moderate..............  Low...................  Low..................  Low..................  Low
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species 
or threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
    For both the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake, 
we

[[Page 62635]]

presented summary evaluations of six threats analyzed in the SSAs: 
Development (Factor A), fire suppression (Factor A), sea level rise 
(Factor A), saltwater intrusion (Factor A), shifts in seasonal patterns 
of rainfall and temperature (Factor A), and storm events (Factor A). We 
also evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and ongoing 
conservation measures. In the SSA, we also considered four additional 
potential threats: overutilization due to recreational, educational, 
and scientific use (Factor B); disease (Factor C); predation (Factor 
C), and invasive species (Factor E). We concluded that, as indicated by 
the best available scientific and commercial information, these four 
potential threats are currently having little to no impact on either 
the Key ring-necked snake or the rim rock crowned snake and their 
habitats, and thus their overall effects now and into the future are 
expected to be minimal. However, we consider them in the determination 
for each species, because although these minor threats may have low 
impacts on their own, combined with impacts of other threats, they 
could further reduce the already low number of Key ring-necked snakes 
or rim rock crowned snakes.
    In considering the foreseeable future for the Key ring-necked snake 
and the rim rock crowned snake, we analyzed expected changes in 
development through 2070 based on the available model datasets, shifts 
in seasonal patterns of rainfall and temperature through 2100, and 
climate change (sea level rise and saltwater intrusion) from 2030 to 
2100. That said, we focused on changes that are expected in the next 60 
years because virtually no habitat for either species is forecasted to 
be present in the lower Florida Keys by 2080. We determined that this 
timeframe represents a period of time for which we can reliably predict 
both the threats to the species and the species' response to those 
threats.

Key Ring-Necked Snake: Status Throughout All of Its Range

    The Key ring-necked snake is a narrow endemic that inhabits a 
limited range, with individuals recorded on seven islands. 
Historically, urban development and historical conversion of suitable 
habitat for agriculture greatly reduced the extent of suitable habitat 
for the Key ring-necked snake. Currently, degradation associated with 
urbanization and fire suppression of pine rocklands is decreasing the 
quality of remaining habitat, and thereby decreasing population 
resiliency. Much of the pine rockland habitat where the Key ring-necked 
snake is found is protected; however, the remaining parcels are at very 
high risk of development. Since the Key ring-necked snake's range is so 
limited, any development of habitat that supports the subspecies would 
have a high level of impact on the subspecies, decreasing both 
population resiliency and the already limited redundancy.
    Furthermore, effects associated with climate change and sea level 
rise (that is, higher tidal surges, coastal and inland flooding, 
saltwater intrusion) are already being observed in the Florida Keys. 
Before the effects of inundation due to sea level rise are fully 
realized, vegetation succession to a halophytic dominated habitat 
occurs as pine rockland plant species, particularly the dominant canopy 
species (slash pine), have little ability to tolerate saltwater. Thus, 
saltwater intrusion has resulted in degradation and loss of suitable 
pine rocklands habitat as well as the freshwater sources on which the 
Key ring-necked snake relies. Currently, habitat succession due to 
saltwater intrusion has resulted in conversion of suitable habitat for 
the Key ring-necked snake from rockland or hammock habitat into habitat 
that is unsuitable for the species such as salt-tolerant mangroves. Sea 
level rise is exacerbated by effects from increased rainfall and higher 
than average storm surges from hurricanes and other tropical storms. 
Because of their low mean elevation of less than 4 ft (1.2 m), the 
lowest parts of the Florida Keys are highly susceptible to flooding, 
with parts of the islands farther upland at risk of inundation and 
saltwater intrusion from these storm events. As a result of these 
ongoing impacts and others identified above, the seven known 
populations of the Key ring-necked snake are currently in low 
condition, and the overall viability of the species is likely reduced 
from historical levels.
    The primary threat currently facing the Key ring-necked snake is 
climate change and sea level rise. All effects associated with climate 
change are interrelated, with increases in the magnitude of severe 
storms contributing to increased flooding events that have the 
potential to extirpate populations of the Key ring-necked snake. 
Although a severe hurricane is unlikely to flood all populations at 
once, if a hurricane were to extirpate most populations, it would leave 
the remainder of the subspecies significantly more vulnerable to other 
threats. In addition to effects associated with current rates of sea 
level rise, storms are also becoming more frequent and intense, 
accelerating habitat modification and further reducing population 
resiliency.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that the Key ring-necked snake is currently 
experiencing significant impacts due to development, fire suppression, 
climate change, and sea level rise throughout its very limited range. 
Because the Key ring-necked snake is endemic to only the lower Florida 
Key islands, and all populations for the species are in low condition 
due to impacts of threats (such as ongoing habitat degradation, fire 
suppression, and impacts from saltwater intrusion), we find the species 
is at a high risk of extinction. Thus, after assessing the best 
available information, we conclude that the Key ring-necked snake is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

Key Ring-Necked Snake: Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its 
Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. We have determined that the Key ring-necked snake is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did 
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. 
Because the Key ring-necked snake warrants listing as endangered 
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with 
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. 
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), which vacated the provision of the 
SPR Policy providing that if the Services determine that a species is 
threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze 
whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its 
range.

Key Ring-Necked Snake: Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Key ring-necked snake meets the 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
Key ring-necked snake as an endangered species in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Rim Rock Crowned Snake: Status Throughout All of Its Range

    The rim rock crowned snake is endemic to only the southeastern part 
of the Florida peninsula and the Florida Keys. Currently, the 
resiliency of the seven populations in the Miami-Dade area is moderate, 
and the resiliency of

[[Page 62636]]

the eight populations in the Florida Keys is low. However, the rim rock 
crowned snake is facing a variety of threats across its range. The 
effects of urbanization and degradation are impacting the rim rock 
crowned snake across its range, but the effects are particularly severe 
in eastern Miami-Dade County. Although 75 percent of remaining suitable 
habitat for the rim rock crowned snake in that part of the range is 
protected, the habitat is spread across Miami-Dade County in small, 
isolated fragments. These fragments are undergoing degradation due to 
edge effects, and pine rocklands habitat is being further degraded due 
to fire suppression, which causes it to undergo transition to dense 
canopy that is less suitable for the rim rock crowned snake. Thus, 
although individual populations are currently less likely to be lost to 
new development, ongoing habitat degradation associated with 
urbanization and fire suppression in pine rocklands will continue to 
reduce the availability of features that the rim rock crowned snake 
needs, thus decreasing population resiliency. Although several 
populations in this part of the species' range are extant, we expect 
the effects of habitat degradation will increase in magnitude into the 
future, particularly in pine rocklands habitat where prescribed burning 
does not occur, further reducing resiliency.
    Rangewide, the rim rock crowned snake is also facing threats due to 
the ongoing occurrence of more severe storms and the increased 
incidence and intensity of storm surge that accompanies these storms. 
Increased rainfall, along with the threats of sea level rise and higher 
than average storm surges, is already reducing the amount of available 
habitat due to inundation, particularly within the Florida Keys. 
Because of their low mean elevation of less than 4 ft (1.2 m), the 
lowest parts of the Florida Keys are highly susceptible to flooding, 
with parts of the islands farther upland at risk of inundation and 
saltwater intrusion from these storm events. Saltwater intrusion has 
resulted in degradation and loss of suitable pine rocklands and 
rockland hammock habitats--through vegetation shifting to halophytic 
species--in the Florida Keys as well as the freshwater sources on which 
the rim rock crowned snake relies. All of this, in turn, negatively 
affects snake movement, reproduction, and food availability. Succession 
to more halophytic vegetation has likely altered the density and type 
of prey available to the rim rock crowned snake in these areas, 
decreasing population resiliency. In addition, the underground spaces, 
such as the limestone substrate that the rim rock crowned snake 
inhabits, are vulnerable to sea level rise, and increased frequency in 
flooding of underground areas increases the amount of time that species 
are displaced from refugia. This displacement makes them more 
vulnerable to predation, and combined with losses of foraging and 
breeding opportunities (reproduction), this further decreases 
population resiliency. Although a severe hurricane would be unlikely to 
flood all populations across the species' range at once, if a hurricane 
were to extirpate multiple populations, it would leave the remainder of 
the species significantly more vulnerable to other threats, including 
threats that currently only have a minor impact on the species.
    Given the species' limited distribution and limited ecological 
setting, species representation is currently low. However, the species 
has moderate redundancy, as it has multiple populations distributed 
throughout the Miami-Dade area (7 populations in moderate condition) 
and the Upper and Lower Florida Keys (8 populations in low condition). 
Thus, although these threats may cause the species to become endangered 
in the foreseeable future, we do not find that threats at their current 
magnitude are reducing resiliency and redundancy such that the species 
is in danger of extinction now across the species' range.
    In the foreseeable future, we anticipate that threats associated 
with climate change, including the effects of storm events (for 
example, storm surges, high tide), saltwater intrusion, and sea level 
rise, will continue to increase in magnitude and have the greatest 
influence on population resiliency, particularly in the Florida Keys. 
Tropical storms will continue to become more frequent and intense, 
accelerating habitat modification and reducing population resiliency. 
Additionally, the Florida Keys will continue to face increased 
saltwater intrusion and sea level rise, which will continue to cause 
habitat alteration and loss. Acting together, these threats will cause 
irreversible habitat modification and loss that will be further 
exacerbated by ongoing and increasing levels of inundation. Populations 
of the rim rock crowned snake in the lower and upper Florida Keys may 
begin experiencing significant losses in the next 10-20 years. By 2040, 
the upper Keys populations will experience loss of nearly half of its 
current habitat and the lower Keys populations may potentially be 
extirpated.
    In Miami-Dade County, the effects of storm events (for example, 
storm surges, high tide), saltwater intrusion, and sea level rise would 
not exert much influence on population resiliency in the foreseeable 
future. However, given that there is a relatively low amount of 
suitable habitat to begin with (2,898 ac (1,172.8 ha)) when compared to 
the Florida Keys (12,711 ac (5,144 ha)), additional threats may exert 
pressure, which in combination, could stress the resiliency of the 
Miami-Dade populations, and further reduce species redundancy as a 
whole in the future. Dispersal of individual snakes to other 
populations is unlikely and would only occur in isolated, random 
circumstances.
    The urban environment of metropolitan Miami presents many 
challenges for dispersing snakes, including roads, highways, commercial 
and residential development, canals, and vast storm water retention 
areas. Encroachment and degradation are likely to increase in magnitude 
in the foreseeable future for most remaining habitat, and risk of 
development of the 25 percent of unprotected suitable habitat in Miami-
Dade County is high. As the urban interface of metropolitan Miami 
increases in density, the likelihood of prescribed burning decreases, 
which in turn decreases remaining habitat quality. If the habitat in 
Miami-Dade County is the only remaining habitat within the rim rock 
crowned snake's range due to the effects of climate change discussed 
above in the Florida Keys, extinction may occur much more quickly due 
to the small amount of suitable habitat left on the mainland, which 
will likely degrade in quality, with populations becoming increasingly 
isolated from one another.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that the rim rock crowned snake is facing threats 
across its range due to development, fragmentation, and effects 
associated with climate change. However, the species currently 
maintains enough population resiliency and species redundancy that it 
is not in danger of extinction now. Within the foreseeable future, 
unprotected habitat in eastern Miami-Dade County will continue to be 
lost due to development, and protected habitat will continue to undergo 
degradation due to edge effects and fire suppression. In the Florida 
Keys, up to half of available habitat in the upper Keys and nearly all 
habitat in the lower Keys could be lost by 2040. Thus, after assessing 
the best available information, we conclude that the rim rock crowned

[[Page 62637]]

snake is not currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become 
in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of 
its range.

Rim Rock Crowned Snake: Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its 
Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. The court in Everson vacated the aspect of the Final Policy 
on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that 
provided that the Service does not undertake an analysis of significant 
portions of a species' range if the species warrants listing as 
threatened throughout all of its range. Therefore, we proceed to 
evaluating whether the species is endangered in a significant portion 
of its range--that is, whether there is any portion of the species' 
range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the 
species is in danger of extinction in that portion. Depending on the 
case, it might be more efficient for us to address the ``significance'' 
question or the ``status'' question first. We can choose to address 
either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, 
if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that 
we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that 
portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether 
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the 
species is in danger of extinction now (that is, endangered). In 
undertaking this analysis for the rim rock crowned snake, we choose to 
address the status question first--we consider information pertaining 
to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that 
the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the 
species is endangered.
    For the rim rock crowned snake, we considered whether there are any 
portions of the species' current range that may have a different 
status. We identified the Florida Keys portion of the species' range 
because all eight populations are currently in low condition. Within 
the Florida Keys, the effects associated with climate change and sea 
level rise (that is, higher tidal surges, coastal and inland flooding, 
saltwater intrusion) are already being observed. Before the effects of 
inundation due to sea level rise are fully realized, vegetation 
succession to a halophytic dominated habitat occurs as pine rockland 
species, particularly the dominant canopy species (slash pine), have 
little ability to tolerate saltwater. Thus, saltwater intrusion has 
resulted in degradation and loss of suitable pine rocklands habitat as 
well as the freshwater sources on which the rim rock crowned snake 
relies. Currently, habitat succession due to saltwater intrusion has 
resulted in conversion of suitable habitat for the rim rock crowned 
snake from rockland or hammock habitat into habitat that is unsuitable 
for the species, such as salt-tolerant mangroves. Succession to more 
halophytic vegetation has likely altered the density and type of prey 
available to the rim rock crowned snake in these areas, decreasing 
population resiliency.
    Sea level rise is exacerbated by effects from increased rainfall 
and higher than average storm surges from hurricanes and other tropical 
storms. Underground spaces, such as the limestone substrate that the 
rim rock crowned snake inhabits, are vulnerable to sea level rise. 
Increased frequency in flooding of subterranean areas increases the 
amount of time that species are displaced from refugia, making them 
more vulnerable to predation and extreme temperatures. This, combined 
with losses of foraging and breeding opportunities, further decreases 
population resiliency.
    As mentioned above, within the Florida Keys portion, the eight 
populations currently have low resiliency. Given the species' current 
condition within the Keys and ongoing impacts from climate change and 
sea level rise which are already being realized, we find that the 
Florida Keys portion of the rim rock crowned snake is in danger of 
extinction.
    We then proceeded to the significance question, asking whether this 
portion of the range (i.e., the Florida Keys portion of the rim rock 
crowned snake) is significant. The Service's most recent definition of 
``significant'' within agency policy guidance has been invalidated by 
court order (see Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 
321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). In undertaking this 
analysis for the rim rock crowned snake, we considered whether the 
Florida Keys portion of the species' range may be significant based on 
its biological importance to the overall viability of the rim rocked 
crown snake. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, when 
considering whether this portion is significant, we considered whether 
the portion may (1) occur in a unique habitat or ecoregion for the 
species, (2) contain high quality or high value habitat relative to the 
remaining portions of the range, for the species' continued viability 
in light of the existing threats, (3) contain habitat that is essential 
to a specific life-history function for the species and that is not 
found in the other portions (for example, the principal breeding ground 
for the species) or (4) contain a large geographic portion of the 
suitable habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range for 
the species.
    The Florida Keys portion of the range contains the largest patches 
of intact pine rockland and rockland hammock habitats within the rim 
rock crowned snake's range. Currently, the Florida Keys accounts for 
roughly 82 percent (12,711 of 15,595 ac (5,144 of 6,311 ha)) of 
suitable pine rockland and rockland hammock habitat and 53 percent (8 
of 15) of extant populations within the range of the rim rock crowned 
snake. In the lower Florida Keys, the total area of pine rocklands 
habitat is approximately 1,899 ac (769 ha), and the total area of 
rockland hammock habitat is approximately 3,806 ac (1,540 ha). While 
the hammock habitats are widespread across many islands in various 
sizes, pine rocklands remain on only five islands in the lower Florida 
Keys and none of the upper Florida Keys. The total area covered by 
rockland hammock in the upper Florida Keys is 7,006 ac (2,835 ha). The 
Florida Keys portion constitutes a large geographic area relative to 
the remaining portions of the range, as this area encompasses 82 
percent of the rangewide suitable habitat for the rim rock crowned 
snake. Therefore, having assessed the Florida Keys portion's biological 
significance in terms of the above habitat considerations, we find the 
information substantially indicates this portion is significant to the 
rim rock crowned snake.
    Accordingly, having determined that the Florida Keys portion of the 
species' range (1) is significant, and (2) is currently in danger of 
extinction, we find the rim rock crowned snake meets the definition of 
an endangered species. This is consistent with the courts' holdings in 
Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 
(N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 
Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017)

Rim Rock Crowned Snake: Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the rim rock crowned snake meets the Act's 
definition of an

[[Page 62638]]

endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the rim rock crowned 
snake as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 
4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, 
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities 
are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), 
or from our Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (for example, restoration of native vegetation), research, 
captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. Additionally, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Key ring-necked snake and the rim 
rock crowned snake. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Although the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake 
are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us 
know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for 
these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new 
information on these species whenever it becomes available and any 
information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) 
of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any 
action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed 
subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy 
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
    For the Key ring-necked snake, Federal agency actions within the 
species' habitat that may require conference, consultation, or both, 
with the Service as described in the preceding paragraph could include 
management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands 
administered by the administered by the Service (National Key Deer 
Refuge); issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; construction and 
management of pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission; construction and maintenance of roads, 
bridges, or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    For the rim rock crowned snake, Federal agency actions within the 
species' habitat that may require conferencing with the Service as 
described in the preceding paragraph could include management and any 
other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by 
the administered by the Service (National Key Deer Refuge, Crocodile 
Lake National Wildlife Refuge); issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
construction and management of pipeline and power line rights-of-way by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; construction and maintenance 
of roads, bridges, or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot,

[[Page 62639]]

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) 
endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In 
addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of 
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is also 
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 
employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other 
Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to 
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information, 
the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section 
9 for the Key ring-necked snake or the rim rock crowned snake, if these 
activities are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and 
permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Recreational use with minimal ground disturbance (for example, 
hiking, walking); and
    (2) Herbicide and pesticide use that is carried out in accordance 
with any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best 
management practices.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act for the 
Key ring-necked snake or rim rock crowned snake if they are not 
authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not 
comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
    (2) Sale or purchase of specimens, except for properly documented 
antique specimens of this taxon at least 100 years old, as defined by 
section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
    (3) Activities resulting in ground disturbance in occupied Key 
ring-necked snake or rim rock crowned snake habitat (for example, 
plowing, mowing, burning, land leveling or clearing, grading, disking, 
soil compaction, soil removal, dredging, excavation, deposition of 
dredged or fill material, erosion and deposition of sediment/soil);
    (4) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the Key ring-necked snake or rim rock crowned snakes.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat for the Key Ring-Necked Snake and the Rim Rock 
Crowned Snake

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.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (that is, 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the 
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not 
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, 
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, 
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon 
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, 
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can

[[Page 62640]]

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. As 
discussed above, the court in CBD v. Haaland vacated the 2019 
regulations which modified the criteria for designating critical 
habitat, including designating critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species. Therefore, the regulations 
that now govern designations of critical habitat, are those regulations 
that published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7438).
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report and information developed during the 
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of these species. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time 
of those planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that a designation 
of critical habitat is not prudent when any of the following situations 
exist:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or
    (ii) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial 
to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    As discussed earlier in this document, there is currently no 
imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B 
for this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is 
not expected to initiate any such threat. In our SSAs and proposed 
listing determinations for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock 
crowned snake, we determined that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a 
threat to both species. Accordingly, critical habitat is likely to be 
beneficial for the species. Therefore, because none of the 
circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have 
been met and because the Secretary has not determined that designation 
of critical habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific 
data available, we have determined that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for both the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock 
crowned snake.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the Key 
ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake is determinable. Our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not 
determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the 
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is 
located. This and other information representing the best scientific 
data available led us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock 
crowned snake.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features'' 
as the features that support the life-history needs of the species, 
including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, 
geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or 
other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a 
more complex

[[Page 62641]]

combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat 
characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. 
Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of 
conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and 
connectivity. For example, physical features essential to the 
conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular size 
required for spawning, alkaline soil for seed germination, protective 
cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that 
maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. 
Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses, 
specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic 
fungi, or absence of a particular level of nonnative species consistent 
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be 
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the 
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a 
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the 
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or 
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    The Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake are 
endemic to, and occur exclusively within, pine rocklands and rockland 
hammock habitat; the Key ring-necked snake occurs only in the lower 
Florida Keys, and the rim rock crowned snake occurs in Miami-Dade 
County and throughout the Florida Keys. Pine rocklands are a fire-
adapted/maintained ecosystem characterized by an open canopy (sparsely 
spaced pine trees) and understory (grasses and forbs/herbs) and a 
limestone substrate (often exposed) with sparse soils on top. This 
combination of ecosystem characteristics (open canopy and limestone 
substrate) occurs only in the pine rocklands habitat of south Florida.
    Pine rocklands habitat that supports the rim rock crowned snake is 
characterized by an open canopy of south Florida slash pine. Subcanopy 
development is rare in well-maintained pine rocklands with only 
occasional hardwoods such as wild tamarind (Lysiloma bahamensis) and 
live oak (Quercus virginiana). The shrub/understory layer is also 
characteristically open, although the height and density of the shrub 
layer varies based on fire frequency, with understory plants growing 
taller and denser as the time between fires increases.
    While the amount of pine rocklands and/or rockland hammock habitat 
necessary to support Key ring-necked snake and rim rock crowned snake 
individual and population growth and normal behavior is unknown, 
preservation of these features is essential for the species.

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

    The Key ring-necked snake diet is assumed to be similar to other 
Diadophis species (for example, the southern ring-necked snake), which 
prey upon small insects, snakes, lizards, slugs, amphibians, and 
earthworms (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 96; FWC 2013, p. 2). The rim rock 
crowned snake diet is assumed to be similar to other Tantilla species 
(for example, the southeastern crowned snake), which prey upon 
centipedes, insects, and other small invertebrates such as tenebrionid 
beetle larvae, earthworms, snails, centipedes, spiders, cutworms, 
wireworms, and termites and their larvae (Ernst and Ernst 2003, pp. 
353-355). The prey-related requirements (abundance, diversity, range, 
etc.) for a population of either species to maintain viability is 
unknown.
    Water is essential for survival of the Key ring-necked snake and 
rim rock crowned snake. We have no specific information on the amount 
of water they require; however, the Key ring-necked snake and species 
of crowned snake similar to the rim rock crowned snake appear to be 
restricted to areas near permanent freshwater sources that often occur 
as small holes in the limestone (Lazell 1989, pp. 134, 136). Small 
amounts of water can be found in depressions and holes in the limestone 
substrate of pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitat, which fill 
from rain or overnight dew fall. The extensive network of holes, 
tunnels, and cavities in the limestone substrate most likely assists in 
creating more permanent water sources. During time of drought, these 
sources may become scarce and the Key ring-necked snake and the rim 
rock crowned snake may need to seek out other fresh water sources. 
Consequently, it is important for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim 
rock crowned snake to have multiple freshwater sources in case one 
becomes depleted, contaminated, or unavailable. If all local water 
sources within a snake's home range become dry, the snake may need to 
expend more energy and time in search of new water sources (Zug et al. 
2001, p. 208).

Cover or Shelter

    Key ring-necked snakes and rim rock crowned snakes require refugia 
to escape and hide from predators and regulate body temperature. 
Currently, there is no specific information on the exact requirement 
for suitable refugia. The Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock 
crowned snake are mostly fossorial species that likely inhabit holes 
and crevices in the limestone, piles of rock rubble, and pockets of 
organic matter accumulating in solution holes and shallow depressions 
in the oolitic limestone (Enge et al. 2003, pp. 27-28). Snakes are 
ectothermic organisms which require an external heat source to warm 
their bodies in order to increase body function and productivity. 
Snakes can also become too hot, leading to desiccation. Therefore, a 
warm, moist microhabitat, typically subterranean or shielded from the 
sun, is likely preferred refugia to escape from predators and to 
properly maintain suitable internal temperature and moisture levels.

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

    Life-history characteristics of the Key ring-necked snake are 
thought to be similar to the southern ring-necked snake. In general, 
mating of ring-necked snakes can occur in the spring or fall, delayed 
fertilization is possible, and females lay 1 to 10 eggs (1 clutch per 
year) in covered, moist locations in June or early July (Ernst and 
Ernst 2003, p. 95). Juveniles are thought to hatch in August and 
September. For the rim rock crowned snake, life-history characteristics 
are thought to be similar to the southeastern crowned snake. In 
general, females may lay up to three eggs in a clutch and may be able 
to produce two clutches annually (Ernst and Ernst 2003, pp. 353-355).
    Based on their small size and limited range, eggs, juveniles, and 
adults likely are found in the same habitat.

[[Page 62642]]

Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance or Are Representative of 
the Historic Geographical and Ecological Distributions of a Species

    Pine rocklands habitat is currently listed as critically imperiled 
globally (FNAI 2010, p. 3). Urban development and agriculture has 
greatly reduced the extent of pine rocklands in eastern Miami-Dade 
County and the Florida Keys. Within this range, the quality of 
remaining pine rocklands has declined because they are isolated and 
confined by surrounding urban development, which restricts the use of 
prescribed fire that is the principal management tool. Prescribed fire 
must be periodically introduced to sustain a proper community 
structure. In general, pine rocklands depend on a fire regime composed 
of a surface fire of low or mixed intensity, and a 5-7 year fire return 
interval.
    In the absence of fire, pine rocklands are invaded by many of the 
species found in hardwood hammocks, they lose their herbaceous flora, 
and they move along a successional trajectory toward hammock (Service 
1999, p. 3-173). These rockland hammocks are generally present where 
pine rocklands were not burned for a long period of time, creating more 
pine rocklands fragmentation. Rockland hammock consists of a more 
closed canopy containing more hardwood shrubs and trees due to a rare 
or infrequent fire regime. Rockland hammock is a hardwood forest that 
represents an advanced successional stage of pine rocklands that 
results from the absence of fire.
    This fragmentation of pine rocklands and rockland hammock in 
eastern Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys increases the risk of 
invasion by exotic vegetation along the interface with disturbed or 
developed areas, further altering, degrading, or destroying suitable 
habitat for the Key ring-necked snake and rim rock crowned snake.
    Because the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake 
have been documented in both habitat types, it is not clear if one or 
the other is more suitable for either species. Populations of the Key 
ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake are supported by the 
existence of suitable available habitat across their ranges. Therefore, 
a strong correlation to habitat availability and populations of these 
snakes can be assumed, but not at a level of certainty in which the 
presence of rockland hammock or pine rockland habitat can be used as a 
surrogate for presence. We do not know how much suitable habitat and 
habitat connectivity is required for populations of either the Key 
ring-necked snake or the rim rock crowned snake to maintain viability. 
That said, the most influential need at a population level for both 
species is available suitable habitat. There may be distinct, non-
interbreeding populations at each island or isolated parcel, or there 
may be some rare dispersal between some parcels or from rafting between 
some islands providing at least a low level of connectivity between 
individual populations. Because the Key ring-necked snake appears to be 
isolated to the lower Florida Keys and the rim rock crowned snake 
appears restricted to the Florida Keys and eastern Miami-Dade County, 
the relatively small, patchily distributed islands or parcels can each 
support only a small number of individuals or separate populations. The 
distribution and quantity of available suitable habitat across the 
range necessary to support populations of either the Key ring-necked 
snake or the rim rock crowned snake are unknown.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned 
snake from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history 
as described above. Additional information can be found in the SSA 
reports (Service 2021a, entire; Service 2021b, entire), both of which 
are available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2022-0022. We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of the Key ring-
necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake:
    (1) Pine rocklands habitat that contains:
    (a) Refugia consisting of a limestone rock substrate with holes, 
crevices, and shallow depressions; piles of rock rubble; and pockets of 
organic matter accumulating in solution holes;
    (b) Suitable prey;
    (c) Warm, moist microhabitats to maintain homeostasis; and
    (d) A natural or prescribed fire regime at 5- to 7-year intervals 
that maintains the pine rocklands habitat and associated plant 
community.
    (2) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
    (a) Refugia consisting of a limestone rock substrate with holes, 
crevices, and shallow depressions; piles of rock rubble; and pockets of 
organic matter accumulating in solution holes;
    (b) Suitable prey;
    (c) Warm, moist microhabitats to maintain homeostasis; and
    (d) Little or no fire maintenance.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Key ring-
necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake may require special 
management considerations or protection to reduce threats posed by: 
Land use conversion, primarily due to urban, agricultural, and 
recreational use; encroachment of invasive species; activities that 
cause surface or subsurface disturbance; fire suppression and low fire 
frequencies (pine rocklands); destructive fires in rockland hammock; 
random effects of drought or floods; and fragmentation from new roads 
or development. Management activities that could ameliorate these 
threats include (but are not limited to): Maintaining suitable pine 
rocklands and rockland hammock habitats in areas with existing 
populations through prescribed fire, mechanical treatments (that is, 
brush clearing, herbicide treatment), and invasive species control; 
restoring historical habitat and establishing new populations in the 
lower, middle, and upper Florida Keys or Miami-Dade County (rim rock 
crowned snake only); controlling exotic and invasive plant management 
plan; prohibiting management activities that could cause surface or 
subsurface disturbance unless carried out in accordance with a habitat 
management plan developed by a Federal, State, or County entity that 
identifies those areas where pine rocklands habitat is succeeding to 
hardwood-dominant habitat based on fire suppression, or to halophilic 
vegetation due to sea level rise; establishing and enhancing 
connectivity between currently occupied populations and adjacent 
suitable habitat; facilitating habitat restoration through the use of 
prescribed fire every 5 to 7 years for pine rocklands habitat; and 
implementing habitat management plans based on site-specific conditions 
for rockland hammock habitat.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR

[[Page 62643]]

424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat 
requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and 
any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species to be considered for designation as critical habitat.
    For the Key ring-necked snake, we are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    For the rim rock crowned snake, we are proposing to designate 
critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing because we have determined that those 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We have 
determined that the unoccupied areas contain one or more of the 
physical or biological features essential to the species and are 
essential because by the year 2040, all suitable habitat for rim rock 
crowned snake in the lower Florida Keys and up to half of suitable 
habitat in the upper Florida Keys will be affected by sea level rise 
and saltwater intrusion. Therefore, we identified suitable habitat in 
Miami-Dade County that is essential to provide for species redundancy 
into the foreseeable future.
    Sources of data for these two species and their habitat 
requirements include multiple databases maintained by museums, 
universities, and State agencies in Florida; papers by researchers 
involved in wildlife biology and conservation activities; peer-reviewed 
articles on these species and/or their relatives; State agency reports; 
and numerous survey reports for projects throughout the species' 
ranges.
    For areas within the geographic area occupied by the Key ring-
necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake at the time of listing, we 
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries using the following 
criteria:
    (1) We determined occupied areas for each species by reviewing the 
best available scientific and commercial data on occurrence records. 
The range of survey records was selected due to scarcity of records 
throughout the range of each species. As discussed in Background, both 
species are extremely cryptic and spend most of their time underground. 
Because of their cryptic nature, we determined that if suitable habitat 
containing the physical or biological features was still present in an 
area where a Key ring-necked snake or a rim rock crowned snake was 
previously detected, that there was a high likelihood that the species 
would still be present even if it had not been recently detected. 
Therefore, based on the best available information, in order to 
determine occupied areas for the species, we used occurrence points 
ranging from 2010 to present for the Key ring-necked snake and 1996 to 
present for the rim rock crowned snake.
    (2) We selected all suitable habitat (habitat that contained the 
physical or biological features) within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius of an 
occurrence record. A 1-mi radius was based on the maximum recapture 
distance of 1 mi (1.6 km) recorded during a demographic study of the 
ringneck snake in Kansas (Fitch 1975, p. 25).
    (3) We selected additional contiguous suitable habitat that 
contained all the physical or biological features (PBFs) that extended 
beyond the 1-mi (1.6-km) radius to include dispersal areas for the two 
species.
    (4) We then constrained the boundary of a critical habitat unit 
based on potential effects of physical barriers (for example, roads 
wider than 2 lanes or water) that cause habitat fragmentation and 
prevent connectivity and dispersal opportunities within units, as we 
consider that individuals of either species would be unable or unlikely 
to pass such barriers.
    We conclude that the occupied areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat provide for the conservation of both species, because they are 
suitable habitat that contain all the physical or biological features 
for all extant populations and facilitate connectivity and dispersal 
opportunities within units.
    As previously stated, we also identified unoccupied areas for the 
rim rock crowned snake to be essential for its conservation. For areas 
outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of 
proposed listing for the rim rock crowned snake, we first looked for 
areas historically occupied by the rim rock crowned snake. However, 
many areas where rim rock crowned snakes were historically observed 
have been converted due to urban and agricultural development and are 
no longer suitable for the species. Further, populations in the Florida 
Keys are vulnerable to sea level rise now and will become more 
vulnerable in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we have determined 
that in order to recover the species, additional populations will need 
to be established in high-quality pine rockland or rockland hammock 
habitat that is actively protected and managed. We searched for other 
areas within the historical geographic area occupied by the species 
that contain high-quality pine rocklands or rockland hammock habitat 
and evaluated each site for its potential conservation based on quality 
of habitat, vulnerability to sea level rise, and existing protections 
and management of the habitat and sites. Based on these criteria, we 
identified two areas that contain appropriate habitat for the species 
(all physical or biological features essential for the conservation of 
the species are present in these areas) but for which we could not 
verify whether the areas were occupied. Accordingly, we find these 
areas unoccupied. The two unoccupied areas are located within the 
historical range as well as within Miami-Dade County far enough inland 
such that effects from projected sea level rise would have minimal 
impact to habitat. Therefore, we include these two areas as proposed 
critical habitat for the purpose of reestablishing populations, which 
are essential for the conservation of the species since populations are 
likely to be lost in the lower and upper Florida Keys due to projected 
sea level rise. Furthermore, the addition of two reestablished 
populations in Miami-Dade County would increase the redundancy of the 
species and reduce the chance that a catastrophic event would eliminate 
all populations in this area.
    We conclude that these areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species because they provide areas for reestablishing populations, 
and they are high-quality habitat that contain all the physical or 
biological features for the rim rock crowned snake.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical or biological features necessary for the Key ring-necked snake 
and the rim rock crowned snake. The scale of the maps we prepared under 
the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations 
may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands 
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps 
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule 
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if 
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action 
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with 
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse 
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or 
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.

[[Page 62644]]

    For the Key ring-necked snake, we propose to designate as critical 
habitat lands that we have determined are occupied at the time of 
listing (that is, currently occupied) and that contain all of the 
physical or biological features that are essential to support life-
history processes of the subspecies. Our proposed critical habitat 
designation includes all areas currently occupied by the species. For 
the rim rock crowned snake only, as discussed above, we have also 
identified, and propose for designation as critical habitat, unoccupied 
areas that are essential for the conservation of the species.
    All units contain all of the identified physical or biological 
features and support multiple life-history processes, including all 
unoccupied units for the rim rock crowned snake.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include 
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2022-0022 and on our internet site (https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Key Ring-Necked Snake

    We are proposing four units as critical habitat for the Key ring-
necked snake. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute 
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the Key ring-necked snake. The four areas we 
propose as critical habitat are: (1) Big Pine Key, (2) Middle Torch 
Key, (3) Cudjoe Key, and (4) Stock Island. Table 11 shows the proposed 
critical habitat units, the land ownership, and the approximate area of 
each unit. All proposed units for the Key ring-necked snake are 
occupied.

                     Table 11--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Key Ring-Necked Snake
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Size of unit in
           Critical habitat unit                    Land ownership by type         acres (hectares)   Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Big Pine Key............................  Federal............................        1,174 (475)          Yes
                                             State..............................          366 (148)
                                             Local/County.......................            62 (25)
                                             Private............................            77 (31)
                                             Unknown/Undefined..................            54 (22)
2. Middle Torch Key........................  Federal............................            59 (24)          Yes
                                             State..............................           211 (85)
                                             Private............................            57 (23)
                                             Unknown/Undefined..................            29 (12)
3. Cudjoe Key..............................  Federal............................          332 (134)          Yes
                                             State..............................            76 (31)
                                             Local/County.......................            45 (18)
                                             Private............................            28 (11)
                                             Unknown/Undefined..................            26 (10)
4. Stock Island............................  Local/County.......................              8 (3)          Yes
                                                                                 -------------------
    Total..................................  ...................................      2,604 (1,054)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Key ring-necked snake, 
below.

Unit 1: Big Pine Key

    Unit 1 encompasses 1,734 ac (702 ha) within Monroe County in the 
lower Florida Keys and contains all of the essential physical or 
biological features for the subspecies. This unit is occupied. The 
northern portion of the unit is located in a primarily rural area. The 
habitat associated with the central and southern portions of the unit 
is located in rural areas but is sparsely fragmented by two-lane roads 
and residential and commercial development. The majority of habitat in 
this unit is federally owned by the Service, within the National Key 
Deer Wildlife Refuge, while other large tracts are owned by the 
National Park Service and the State of Florida. Smaller tracts of 
habitat are owned by Monroe County, local government, and private 
entities. The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management to protect them from development and fire 
suppression (in pine rocklands). This unit is also vulnerable to 
effects from sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, and storms.

Unit 2: Middle Torch Key

    Unit 2 encompasses approximately 356 ac (144 ha) within Monroe 
County in the lower Florida Keys and contains all of the essential 
physical or biological features for the subspecies. This unit is 
occupied. The State owns a significant portion of the habitat in this 
unit and a smaller portion is owned by both Federal and private 
entities. The State of Florida and the Service own and manage the 
Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area and the National Key Deer 
Wildlife Refuge, respectively. The habitat is only slightly fragmented 
in the center and at the northern- and southern-most locations. The 
slight habitat fragmentation is due to a small amount of residential 
development and a two-lane road. The physical or biological features in 
this unit may require special management to protect them from 
development. This unit is also vulnerable to effects from sea level 
rise, saltwater intrusion, and storms.

Unit 3: Cudjoe Key

    Unit 3 encompasses five subunits that total approximately 507 ac 
(205 ha) within Monroe County in the lower Florida Keys and contains 
all of the essential physical or biological features for the 
subspecies. This unit is occupied. In the two southern-most subunits, 
the habitat is fragmented by two- and four-lane roads and residential 
and commercial development. The habitat associated with the other three

[[Page 62645]]

subunits is located in rural areas, only sparsely fragmented by two-
lane roads and residential and commercial development. The majority of 
the habitat in this unit is owned and managed by the Service and 
associated with the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge. The physical or 
biological features in this unit may require special management to 
protect them from development and fire suppression (in pine rocklands). 
This unit is also vulnerable to effects from sea level rise, saltwater 
intrusion, and storms.

Unit 4: Stock Island

    Unit 4 encompasses approximately 8 ac (3 ha) within Monroe County 
in the lower Florida Keys and contains all of the essential physical or 
biological features for the subspecies. This unit is occupied. The 
habitat in this unit is surrounded and/or fragmented by residential and 
commercial development. The vast majority of habitat is owned by the 
City of Key West. The physical or biological features in this unit may 
require special management to protect them from development. This unit 
is also vulnerable to effects from sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, 
and storms.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Rim Rock Crowned Snake

    We are proposing 11 units as critical habitat for the rim rock 
crowned snake. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute 
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the rim rock crowned snake. The 11 areas we 
propose as critical habitat are: (1) Richmond Pine Rocklands, (2) 
Deering Estate Complex/Bill Sadowski Park, (3) Barnacle, (4) Camp 
Owaissa Bauer, (5) Navy Wells, (6) North Key Largo, (7) Key Largo, (8) 
Tavernier, (9) Vaca Key, (10) Big Pine Key, (11) Key West. Table 12 
shows the proposed critical habitat units, the approximate area of each 
unit, the ownership of each unit, and whether the unit is occupied.

                    Table 12--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Rim Rock Crowned Snake
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Size of unit in
             Critical habitat unit                   Land ownership by type        acres (hectares)   Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Richmond Pine Rocklands....................  Federal.........................           160 (65)          Yes
                                                Local/County....................          513 (208)
                                                Private.........................           144 (58)
2. Deering Estate Complex/Bill Sadowski Park..  State...........................           241 (98)          Yes
                                                Local/County....................             19 (8)
                                                Private.........................            31 (13)
3. Barnacle...................................  State...........................              3 (1)          Yes
                                                Private.........................            1 (0.4)
                                                Unknown/Undefined...............            1 (0.4)
4. Camp Owaissa Bauer.........................  State...........................              9 (4)           No
                                                Local/County....................            83 (34)
                                                Private.........................              4 (2)
5. Navy Wells.................................  State...........................            85 (34)           No
                                                Local/County....................           240 (97)
                                                Private.........................        0.05 (0.02)
6. North Key Largo............................  Federal.........................          601 (243)          Yes
                                                State...........................        1,484 (601)
                                                Local/County....................             24 (9)
                                                Private.........................            53 (21)
7. Key Largo..................................  State...........................           151 (61)          Yes
                                                Local/County....................            56 (23)
                                                Private.........................            91 (37)
8. Tavernier..................................  State...........................            98 (40)          Yes
                                                Local/County....................            30 (12)
                                                Private.........................            54 (22)
9. Vaca Key...................................  County/Local....................            1 (0.4)          Yes
                                                Private.........................            58 (23)
10. Big Pine Key..............................  Federal.........................        1,200 (486)          Yes
                                                State...........................          380 (154)
                                                Local/County....................            71 (29)
                                                Private.........................            77 (31)
11. Key West..................................  Local/County....................              5 (2)          Yes
                                                Private.........................              3 (1)
                                                                                 -------------------
    Total.....................................  ................................      5,972 (2,418)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 rim rock crowned snake 
below.

Unit 1: Richmond Pine Rocklands

    Unit 1 consists of 817 ac (331 ha) and contains all of the 
essential physical or biological features for the species. This unit is 
occupied. Located within Miami-Dade County, this unit is fragmented by 
commercial and residential development, Federal and local government 
installations, and the Zoo Miami facility. Unit 1 is completely 
surrounded by a dense urban matrix typical of the Miami metropolitan 
area. Habitat areas associated with Unit 1 have experienced a 
significant amount

[[Page 62646]]

of sustained and recent urban development contributing to habitat loss 
but also have been the focus of land acquisition for conservation. A 
recent private land development project within the boundaries of the 
proposed unit has contributed to fragmentation and loss of suitable 
habitat. Several large tracts of suitable habitat are owned by Miami-
Dade County, but only a fraction are managed and protected in 
perpetuity. The remainder are protected as Natural Forest Communities 
(NFCs). This program provides only temporary protection, habitat 
management is not required, and a portion of the parcel may be 
developed. Landowners include Federal Government agencies (U.S. Coast 
Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Office of Public 
Buildings), Miami-Dade County, University of Miami (private), and other 
private entities. Approximately 80 ac (32 ha) of the U.S. Coast Guard 
property is proposed for designation as critical habitat in this unit. 
The Coral Reef Commons HCP has been finalized to protect and manage 53 
ac (21 ha) of pine rocklands (north end of Unit 1) within the project 
footprint, and an additional 57 ac (23 ha) to the south of the project 
footprint, but still within Unit 1. Thus, we are considering these two 
parcels in this unit for exclusion under the Coral Reef Commons HCP.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management to protect them from development and fire 
suppression (in pine rocklands). This unit is also vulnerable to 
effects from storms.

Unit 2: Deering Estate Complex/Bill Sadowski Park

    Unit 2 consists of 291 ac (119 ha) and contains all of the 
essential physical or biological features for the species. This unit is 
occupied. Located within Miami-Dade County, this unit is fragmented by 
residential communities, light commercial development, and canals. The 
Biscayne Bay borders the majority of Unit 2 to the east, with suburban 
development surrounding the remaining areas. Habitat areas associated 
with Unit 2 have experienced a relatively stable environment as most 
are adjacent to neighborhoods or the Biscayne Bay but also have been 
the focus of land acquisition for conservation. The majority of lands 
within this unit are conserved and managed by the County as Bill 
Sadowski Park and Deering Estate. Landowners include the State of 
Florida, Miami-Dade County, the Deering Estate Foundation (private), 
and other private entities. The physical or biological features in this 
unit may require special management to protect them from development 
and fire suppression (in pine rocklands). This unit is also vulnerable 
to effects from storms.

Unit 3: Barnacle

    Unit 3 consists of 5 ac (2 ha) and contains all of the essential 
physical or biological features for the species. This unit is occupied. 
Located within Miami-Dade County, this unit is surrounded by an 
established urban matrix on all sides except the Biscayne Bay to the 
east. The majority of suitable habitat is within the boundaries of the 
Barnacle Historic State Park, a State of Florida property, and 
additional habitat is owned by private entities or is of unknown/
undefined ownership. The physical or biological features in this unit 
may require special management to protect them from development and 
fire suppression (in pine rocklands). This unit is also vulnerable to 
effects from storms.

Unit 4: Camp Owaissa Bauer

    Unit 4 consists of 96 ac (39 ha) and contains all of the essential 
physical or biological features for the species. Located within Miami-
Dade County, agriculture lands and light residential communities 
surround the unit, and a two-lane road separates the larger north 
portion from the south portion. The unit is considered unoccupied, as 
there are no records of rim rock crowned snake observations; however, 
it contains all physical or biological features, is within the species' 
historical range, and is located inland, away from projected habitat 
losses from sea level rise as predicted for the Florida Keys 
populations. Therefore, Unit 4 would serve as a suitable 
reestablishment site to increase species redundancy when population 
losses are expected to occur in the Florida Keys in the future; thus, 
this area is essential for the conservation of the species. The 
majority of the unit is owned by Miami-Dade County, and is managed by 
Miami-Dade County's Environmentally Endangered Lands program. Some 
small parcels are owned by the State of Florida and private or unknown/
undefined entities.

Unit 5: Navy Wells

    Unit 5 consists of 325 ac (132 ha) and contains all of the 
essential physical or biological features for the species. It is 
located within Miami-Dade County; agriculture lands and light 
residential development surround the unit. The unit is considered 
unoccupied, as there are no records of rim rock crowned snake 
observations; however, it contains all physical or biological features, 
is within the species' historical range, and is located inland, away 
from projected habitat losses from sea level rise as predicted for the 
Florida Keys populations. Therefore, Unit 5 would serve as a suitable 
reestablishment site to increase species redundancy when population 
losses are expected to occur in the Florida Keys in the future; thus, 
this area is essential for the conservation of the species. The 
majority of the unit is owned by Miami-Dade County, and the State of 
Florida owns a large tract of land, both of which are managed by Miami-
Dade County's Environmentally Endangered Lands program. Some small 
parcels are owned by private entities.

Unit 6: North Key Largo

    Unit 6 consists of 2,162 ac (875 ha) and contains all of the 
essential physical or biological features for the species. This unit is 
occupied. It is located within Monroe County and includes the city of 
Key Largo of the upper Florida Keys islands. This unit is surrounded by 
the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Florida Bay to the west. Habitat 
consists primarily of contiguous habitat owned by several Federal 
agencies (National Park Service, Naval Air Station, U.S. Coast Guard, 
and the Service), in which the Service owns the majority as Crocodile 
Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Other Federal land owners have 
turned over ownership to the Service (Dixon 2020, pers. comm.), but 
records may not reflect this yet. Parcels previously owned by the other 
Federal entities are embedded within the Refuge and have been managed 
as part of the Refuge. The State of Florida owns and manages Dagny 
Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical Park within this unit. Monroe 
County, local government, and private entities own additional habitat 
within this unit. The physical or biological features in this unit may 
require special management to protect them from development. This unit 
is also vulnerable to effects from sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, 
and storms.

Unit 7: Key Largo

    Unit 7 consists of 298 ac (121 ha) and contains all of the 
essential physical or biological features for the species. This unit is 
occupied. Located within Monroe County and part of the city of Key 
Largo, of the upper Florida Keys islands, the habitat in this unit is 
surrounded and/or fragmented by suburban and urban development. The 
majority of habitat consists of habitat owned by private entities and 
the State of Florida (John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park). Smaller 
portions of habitat are owned by Monroe County. Habitat connectivity 
among occurrences is lacking within the unit; fragmentation is

[[Page 62647]]

from residential and light commercial development, as well as canals 
and two-lane roads. The physical or biological features in this unit 
may require special management to protect them from development. This 
unit is also vulnerable to effects from sea level rise, saltwater 
intrusion, and storms.

Unit 8: Tavernier

    Unit 8 consists of 181 ac (73 ha) and contains all of the essential 
physical or biological features for the species. This unit is occupied. 
Located within Monroe County and part of the city of Tavernier, within 
the upper Florida Keys islands, the habitat in this unit is surrounded 
and/or fragmented by suburban and urban development, canals, and two-
lane roads. The State of Florida (Dove Creek Hammock), county/local 
government, and private entities own land in this unit. The physical or 
biological features in this unit may require special management to 
protect them from development. This unit is also vulnerable to effects 
from sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, and storms.

Unit 9: Vaca Key

    Unit 9 consists of 59 ac (24 ha) and contains all of the essential 
physical or biological features for the species. This unit is occupied. 
Located within Monroe County and part of the city of Marathon, within 
the upper Florida Keys, the habitat in this unit is surrounded and/or 
fragmented by suburban and urban development. The majority of habitat 
is owned by private entities, including the Florida Keys Land Trust 
Inc. Additionally, Monroe County owns an important tract that is within 
dispersal distance of the land trust property. The physical or 
biological features in this unit may require special management to 
protect them from development and fire suppression (in pine rocklands). 
This unit is also vulnerable to effects from sea level rise, saltwater 
intrusion, and storms.

Unit 10: Big Pine Key

    Unit 10 consists of 1,729 ac (700 ha) and contains all of the 
essential physical or biological features for the species. This unit is 
occupied. Located within Monroe County within the lower Florida Keys, 
the central and southern portions of the unit are surrounded and/or 
fragmented by residential communities, some light commercial 
development, and two-lane roads. The northern portion of the unit is 
primarily rural with some two-lane roads and residential communities 
scattered throughout. The majority of habitat in this unit is federally 
owned, specifically as National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge. Large tracts 
are also owned by the National Park Service, other Federal ownership, 
and the State of Florida. Smaller tracts of habitat are owned by Monroe 
County, local government, and private entities. The physical or 
biological features in this unit may require special management to 
protect them from development and fire suppression (in pine rocklands). 
This unit is also vulnerable to effects from sea level rise, saltwater 
intrusion, and storms.

Unit 11: Key West

    Unit 11 consists of 9 ac (4 ha) and contains all of the essential 
physical or biological features for the species. This unit is occupied. 
It is located within Monroe County and part of the city of Key West, 
within the lower Florida Keys. Large resorts and hotels are located to 
the east, and the Key West International Airport is located to the 
south of this unit. The remaining areas around the unit are 
undeveloped. Unit 11 is owned by Monroe County, local government, and 
private entities. The physical or biological features in this unit may 
require special management to protect them from development and fire 
suppression (in pine rocklands). This unit is also vulnerable to 
effects from sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, and storms.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214) (although we 
also published a revised definition after that (on August 27, 2019); 
that 2019 definition was subsequently vacated by the court in CBD v. 
Haaland). Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or 
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical 
habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may 
include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that 
preclude or significantly delay development of such features.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that 
involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal 
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed 
species or critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out 
by a Federal agency--do not require section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.

[[Page 62648]]

    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, 
subsequent to the previous consultation: (a) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (c) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (d) if a new 
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected 
by the identified action.
    In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request 
reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify 
some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on 
specific land management plans after subsequently listing a new species 
or designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a 
description of those exceptions.

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the 
conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, the role of 
critical habitat is to support physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the 
conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include, but are not limited to: Construction, land 
development, and agriculture that require clearing, digging, and/or 
otherwise altering suitable habitat. Clearing of vegetation and digging 
could remove vegetation cover, leaf litter, woody debris, and limestone 
substrate, which would contribute to losses of shelter, ability to 
thermo-regulate, prey, sites for laying and incubating eggs, and 
conditions for a warm, moist microhabitat. Additionally, development, 
agriculture, and construction projects can further fragment tracts of 
suitable habitat, inhibiting dispersal by the Key ring-necked snake and 
the rim rock crowned snake between remaining areas of suitable habitat, 
and cause habitat degradation by making it more difficult to conduct 
prescribed fire in pine rocklands habitat. Furthermore, in areas 
protected and managed for conservation, prescribed fire and other 
management activities (mechanical clearing, out-planting, etc.) have 
the potential to harm individuals; however, the long-term benefits 
typically far outweigh the potential harm.

Exemptions

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

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any 
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department 
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
(Sikes Act), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan 
provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is 
proposed for designation. No DoD lands with a completed INRMP are 
within the proposed critical habitat designation for either the Key 
ring-necked snake or the rim rock crowned snake.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on 
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant 
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Endangered Species Act, 81 FR 7226 (Feb. 11, 2016) (2016 Policy)--
both of which were developed jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 Department of the Interior 
Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The Secretary's Authority to Exclude 
Areas from a Critical Habitat Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act'' (M-37016). We explain each decision to exclude 
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to demonstrate that the 
decision is reasonable.
    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the 
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the 
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may 
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would 
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the 
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as 
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor. We describe below the process that we undertook for 
taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of 
the relevant impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by

[[Page 62649]]

comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without 
critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (for 
example, under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all 
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (that 
is, conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat'' 
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with 
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental 
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected 
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other 
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the 
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. 
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion 
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of 
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) 
exclusion analysis.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess, to the extent practicable, 
the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. 
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 identifies four criteria when a regulation 
is considered a ``significant'' rulemaking, and requires additional 
analysis, review, and approval if met. The criteria relevant here is 
whether the designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect 
of greater than $100 million in any given year (section 3(f)(1)). 
Therefore, our consideration of economic impacts uses a screening 
analysis to assess whether a designation of critical habitat for the 
Key ring-necked snake or the rim rock crowned snake is likely to exceed 
the economically significant threshold.
    For these particular designations, we developed incremental effects 
memorandums (IEMs) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEMs was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of 
critical habitat for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned 
snake (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2021, entire). We began 
by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that 
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of 
the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of 
critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, 
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In 
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (that is, 
absent critical habitat designation) and includes any probable 
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already be 
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management 
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of 
the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening 
analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific 
areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts 
as a result of the designation. The presence of the listed species in 
occupied areas of critical habitat means that any destruction or 
adverse modification of those areas will also likely jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Therefore, designating occupied 
areas as critical habitat typically causes little if any incremental 
impacts above and beyond the impacts of listing the species. 
Accordingly, the screening analysis focuses on areas of unoccupied 
critical habitat. If the proposed critical habitat designation contains 
any unoccupied units, the screening analysis assesses whether those 
units require additional management or conservation efforts that may 
incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis, combined 
with the information contained in our IEMs, constitute what we consider 
to be our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical 
habitat designation for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock 
crowned snake; our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
    As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of 
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas that may 
be affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of 
the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Key ring-necked snake 
and the rim rock crowned snake, first we identified, in the IEM dated 
April 19, 2021, probable incremental economic impacts associated with 
the following categories of activities: (1) Land development 
(commercial and residential); (2) agriculture development; (3) refuge 
activities (construction related to infrastructure, asphalt road and 
debris removal, mechanical treatments to support prescribed fire, 
invasive species removal, out planting, prescribed fire); and (4) 
recreational activities. We considered each industry or category 
individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have 
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will 
not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under 
the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we 
list the species, in areas where the species is present, Federal 
agencies would be required to consult with the Service under section 7 
of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may 
affect the species. If, when we list the species, we also finalize the 
proposed critical habitat designations, our consultation would include 
an evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    In our IEMs, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that would result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (that is, difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Key 
ring-necked snake's and the rim rock crowned snake's critical habitat. 
Because the designations of critical habitat for Key ring-necked snake 
and the rim rock crowned snake are proposed concurrently with the 
listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to 
discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species 
being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of 
critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this 
case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or 
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same 
features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any 
actions that would likely adversely affect the essential physical or 
biological features of occupied critical habitat are also likely to 
adversely affect the

[[Page 62650]]

species. The IEMs outline our rationale concerning this limited 
distinction between baseline conservation efforts and incremental 
impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this species. This 
evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as the basis to 
evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed 
designation of critical habitat.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for the Key ring-necked 
snake totals approximately 2,604 ac (1,054 ha). All units are occupied. 
The proposed critical habitat for the rim rock crowned snake totals 
5,972 ac (2,418 ha). Of the 11 critical habitat units for the rim rock 
crowned snake, 9 are occupied and 2 are considered unoccupied.
    When an action is proposed in an area of designated critical 
habitat, and the proposed activity has a Federal nexus, the need for 
consultation is triggered. Any incremental costs associated with 
consideration of potential effects to the critical habitat are a result 
of this consultation process. For all occupied areas, the economic 
costs of critical habitat designations will most likely be limited to 
additional administrative efforts to consider adverse modification in 
section 7 consultations, as the listing of both species is happening 
concurrently with critical habitat designation, and all occupied units 
would still need to undergo section 7 consultation due to listing 
regardless of critical habitat designation. While this additional 
analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action 
agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, 
these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would 
not be significant. In total, critical habitat designations for the Key 
ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake are unlikely to 
generate costs or benefits exceeding $100 million in a single year. For 
the Key ring-necked snake, the analysis predicted that approximately 
one formal consultation, three informal consultations, and three 
technical assistance efforts are anticipated to occur annually in 
proposed critical habitat areas. For the rim rock crowned snake, the 
analysis predicted that approximately two formal consultations, eight 
informal consultations, and nine technical assistance efforts are 
anticipated to occur annually in proposed critical habitat areas (IEc 
2021, p. 3). For the Key ring-necked snake, approximately 85 percent of 
the proposed areas overlap with existing designations for species 
including Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly (Strymon acis bartrami), 
the Lower Florida Keys distinct population segment of the rice rat 
(Oryzomys palustris natator), and Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea 
corallicola). For the rim rock crowned snake, approximately 90 percent 
of the proposed areas overlaps with other designations, including 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea 
troglodyta floridalis), Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia mosieri), 
Carter's small-flowered flax (Linum carteri var. carteri), and the 
Florida distinct population segment of the American crocodile 
(Crocodylus acutus).
    Overall, we expect that agency administrative costs for 
consultation, incurred by the Service and the consulting Federal 
agency, would be minor (less than $6,000 per consultation effort) and, 
therefore, would not be significant (IEc 2021, p. 22). The total annual 
incremental costs of critical habitat designations for the Key ring-
necked snake and rim rock crowned snake are anticipated to be less than 
$14,400 per year and $35,200 per year, respectively.
    Incremental costs may occur outside of the section 7 consultation 
process if the designation of critical habitat triggers additional 
requirements or project modifications under State or local laws, 
regulations, or management strategies. These types of costs typically 
occur if the designation increases awareness of the presence of the 
species or the need for protection of its habitat. Given that both the 
Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake are covered by 
certain existing Federal and State protections, project proponents may 
already be aware of the presence of the two species. For example, the 
rim rock crowned snake is a covered species under the Coral Reef 
Commons HCP, and both the Key ring-necked snake and rim rock crowned 
snake are listed as ``State-designated Threatened'' on Florida's 
Endangered and Threatened Species list. The species are further 
protected through habitat management and conservation under Florida's 
Imperiled Species Management Plan, the Florida Keys Wildlife and 
Environmental Area Management Plan, Monroe County Year 2030 
Comprehensive Plan, and the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge. 
Therefore, designating critical habitat is unlikely to provide 
information to State or local agencies that would result in new 
regulations or actions (IEc 2021, pp. 20-21).
    With regard to the two unoccupied units for the rim rock crowned 
snake, additional costs are unlikely because the proposed units 
substantially overlap with critical habitat designations for other 
species (over 95 percent total overlap for each unit). In these areas, 
consultations for listed species and designated critical habitat are 
likely to have already resulted in protections for habitat suitable for 
the rim rock crowned snake even absent listing or critical habitat 
designation.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above, as well as on all aspects of this proposed rule and 
our required determinations. During the development of a final 
designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and 
any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the 
public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine 
that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of 
including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of this species.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (for example, a 
DoD installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a 
newly listed species or a species previously not covered). If a 
particular area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then 
national-security or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the 
process of determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical 
habitat.'' However, the Service must still consider impacts on national 
security, including homeland security, on those lands or areas not 
covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 4(b)(2) requires the 
Service to consider those impacts whenever it designates critical 
habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or 
another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of 
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise 
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from 
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have 
reason to consider excluding those areas.
    However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD, 
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat 
on the basis of national-security or homeland-

[[Page 62651]]

security impacts, it must provide a reasonably specific justification 
of an incremental impact on national security that would result from 
the designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That 
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as 
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities, 
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of 
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting 
the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific 
justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide 
a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to 
the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation. 
If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a 
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the 
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the 
expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) 
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other 
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security 
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the 
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in 
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great 
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing 
the benefits of exclusion.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Key ring-
necked snake are not owned or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, 
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland 
security. For the rim rock crowned snake, as mentioned above, 
approximately 80 ac (32 ha) of the U.S. Coast Guard property is 
proposed for designation as critical habitat in the Richmond Pine 
Rocklands unit (Unit 1). This U.S. Coast Guard property is separated 
into two main areas: the Communication Station (COMMSTA) Miami and the 
Civil Engineering Unit (CEU). The COMMSTA houses transmitting and 
receiving antennas. The CEU plans and executes projects at regional 
shore facilities, such as construction and post-disaster assessments.
    The U.S. Coast Guard parcel contains approximately 80 ac (32 ha) of 
pine rocklands. The U.S. Coast Guard parcel has a draft management plan 
that includes management of pine rockland habitats, including 
vegetation control and prescribed fire and protection of lands from 
further development or degradation. In addition, the standing pine 
rockland area is partially managed through an active recovery grant to 
the Institute for Regional Conservation. Under this grant, up to 39 ac 
(16 ha) of standing pine rocklands will undergo invasive vegetation 
control.
    Based on a review of the specific mission of the U.S. Coast Guard 
facility in conjunction with the measures and efforts set forth in the 
draft management plan to preserve pine rockland habitat and protect 
sensitive and listed species, we have determined that it is unlikely 
that the critical habitat, if finalized as proposed, would negatively 
impact the facility or its operations. As a result, we do not 
anticipate any impact on national security.
    However, if through the public comment period we receive 
information regarding impacts on national security or homeland security 
from designating particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of 
developing the final designation of critical habitat, we will conduct a 
discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those 
areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that may 
affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors, 
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the 
species in the area--such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or 
candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs)--or whether 
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that 
may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. 
In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or 
partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government 
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected 
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, social, or other 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    For the Key ring-necked snake, we have not identified any areas to 
consider for exclusion from critical habitat. In preparing this 
proposal, we have determined that there are currently no management 
plans for the Key ring-necked snake, and no HCPs where the Key ring-
necked snake is a covered species. Additionally, the proposed 
designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. 
Therefore, we anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or 
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. However, during 
the development of a final designation, we will consider any 
information currently available or received during the public comment 
period. If we evaluate information regarding a request for an exclusion 
and we do not exclude, we will fully describe our rationale for not 
excluding in the final critical habitat determination.
    For the rim rock crowned snake, we are considering a portion of one 
unit (Unit 1: Richmond Pine Rocklands) for exclusion due to other 
relevant impacts because of the presence of an HCP that includes the 
rim rock crowned snake as a covered species. When analyzing other 
relevant impacts of including a particular area in a designation of 
critical habitat, we weigh those impacts relative to the conservation 
value of the particular area. To determine the conservation value of 
designating a particular area, we consider a number of factors, 
including, but not limited to, the additional regulatory benefits that 
the area would receive due to the protection from destruction or 
adverse modification as a result of actions with a Federal nexus, the 
educational benefits of mapping essential habitat for recovery of the 
listed species, and any benefits that may result from a designation due 
to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
    In the case of the rim rock crowned snake, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the presence of the rim rock 
crowned snake and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a 
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the rim rock 
crowned snake due to protection from destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Continued implementation of an 
ongoing management plan that provides conservation equal to or more 
than the protections that result from a critical habitat designation 
would reduce those benefits of including that specific area in the 
critical habitat designation.
    We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering 
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including, 
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for 
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features; 
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation

[[Page 62652]]

management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will 
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in 
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a 
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in 
response to new information.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits 
Under Section 10 of the Act
    HCPs for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act provide for partnerships with non-Federal entities to minimize and 
mitigate impacts to listed species and their habitats. In some cases, 
HCP permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species and 
their habitats on private lands than designation of critical habitat 
would provide alone. We place great value on the partnerships that are 
developed during the preparation and implementation of HCPs.
    CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve 
candidate and listed species, respectively, on non-Federal lands. In 
exchange for actions that contribute to the conservation of species on 
non-Federal lands, participating property owners are covered by an 
``enhancement of survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act, which authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may 
result from implementation of conservation actions, specific land uses, 
and, in the case of SHAs, the option to return to a baseline condition 
under the agreements. We also provide enrollees assurances that we will 
not impose further land-, water-, or resource-use restrictions, or 
require additional commitments of land, water, or finances, beyond 
those agreed to in the agreements.
    When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis based on permitted conservation plans (such as CCAAs, SHAs, 
and HCPs), we anticipate consistently excluding such areas if 
incidental take caused by the activities in those areas is covered by 
the permit under section 10 of the Act and the CCAA/SHA/HCP meets all 
of the following three factors (see the 2016 Policy for additional 
details):
    (a) The permittee is properly implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and is 
expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. A CCAA/
SHA/HCP is properly implemented if the permittee is and has been fully 
implementing the commitments and provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, 
Implementing Agreement, and permit.
    (b) The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a 
covered species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very similar in its habitat 
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Services 
extend to such an agreement depends on the degree to which the 
conservation measures undertaken in the CCAA/SHA/HCP would also protect 
the habitat features of the similar species.
    (c) The CCAA/SHA/HCP specifically addresses that species' habitat 
and meets the conservation needs of the species in the planning area.
    The proposed critical habitat designation includes areas that are 
covered by the following permitted plan providing for the conservation 
of the rim rock crowned snake: the Coral Reef Commons HCP.
    Coral Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan--In preparing this 
proposal, we have determined that lands associated with the Coral Reef 
Commons HCP within the Richmond Pine Rocklands unit (Unit 1) are 
included within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat.
    Coral Reef Commons is a mixed-use community, which consists of 900 
apartments, retail stores, restaurants, and parking. In 2017, an HCP 
and associated permit under section 10 of the Act was developed and 
issued for the Coral Reef Commons development. As part of the HCP and 
permit, an approximately 53-ac (21-ha) on-site preserve (same as the 
area for proposed critical habitat designation) was established under a 
conservation encumbrance that will be managed in perpetuity for pine 
rocklands habitat and sensitive and listed species, including the rim 
rock crowned snake. An additional pine rocklands area of approximately 
57 ac (23 ha) on the University of Miami's Center for Southeastern 
Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing site is an off-site mitigation area 
for Coral Reef Commons. Both the on-site preserve and the off-site 
mitigation area are being managed to maintain healthy pine rocklands 
habitat through the use of invasive, exotic plant management; 
mechanical treatment; and prescribed fire. Since initiating the Coral 
Reef Commons HCP, pine rocklands restoration efforts have been 
conducted within all of the management units in both the on-site 
preserves and the off-site mitigation area. A second round of 
prescribed fire began in February 2021. Currently, the on-site 
preserves meet or exceed the success criteria described in the HCP.
    Critical habitat within Unit 1 that is associated with the Coral 
Reef Commons HCP is limited to the on-site preserves and off-site 
mitigation area. Based on our review of the HCP and proposed critical 
habitat for the rim rock crowned snake, we do not anticipate needing 
any additional conservation measures for the species beyond those that 
are currently in place. Therefore, we are considering excluding those 
specific lands associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in 
the preserve and off-site mitigation area from the final designation of 
critical habitat for the rim rock crowned snake. After consideration of 
public comment on this issue, we will analyze in the final rule whether 
the benefits of excluding the lands described above from the final 
designation of critical habitat for the rim rock crowned snake outweigh 
the benefits of designating those lands as critical habitat. Based on 
that analysis, the Secretary may exercise her discretion to exclude the 
lands from the final designation.

Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act

    For the Key ring-necked snake, we are not considering at this time 
any exclusions from the proposed designation based on economic impacts, 
national security impacts, or other relevant impacts--such as 
partnerships, management, or protection afforded by cooperative 
management efforts--under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, in this 
proposed rule, we seek information from the public with respect to 
whether there are any areas that should be considered for exclusion 
from the critical habitat designation. (Please see ADDRESSES for 
instructions on how to submit comments).
    We are considering whether to exclude the following areas under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat designation 
for the rim rock crowned snake: a portion of Unit 1 (Richmond Pine 
Rocklands) covered by the Coral Reef Commons HCP (102 ac (41.3 ha)), 
which includes onsite preserves and offsite mitigation areas.
    In conclusion, for the rim rock crowned snake, we are considering 
exclusions based on other relevant

[[Page 62653]]

impacts. We specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion 
of such areas. During the development of a final designation, we will 
consider any information currently available or received during the 
public comment period regarding other relevant impacts of the proposed 
designation and will determine whether these or any other specific 
areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation 
under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 
50 CFR 424.19, and the 2016 Policy.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

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

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (that 
is, small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential 
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered 
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under 
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may 
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant 
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly 
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. The 
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities 
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small 
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final 
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed 
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this 
proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use, as there are no energy facilities 
within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat units for either 
the Key ring-necked snake or the rim rock crowned snake. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

[[Page 62654]]

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following finding:
    (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In 
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or 
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal 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 proposed rule would 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. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations 
on State or local governments and, as such, a Small Government Agency 
Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Key ring-necked snake and the rim rock crowned snake in 
a takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the 
Service to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate 
private property as a result of critical habitat designation. 
Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or 
establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the 
designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does 
not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or 
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation 
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that 
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal 
agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing 
actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A 
takings implications assessment has been completed for the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Key ring-necked snake and the 
rim rock crowned snake, and it concludes that, if adopted, this 
designation of critical habitat does not pose significant takings 
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does 
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these 
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for 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 State and local 
governments in long-range planning because they 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) of the Act 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 E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule 
identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The proposed areas of critical habitat are

[[Page 62655]]

presented on maps, and the proposed 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 information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of 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), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's 
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to 
communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a 
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 
3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal lands fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for the Key ring-necked 
snake or the rim rock crowned snake, so no Tribal lands would be 
affected by the proposed designation.

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 Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, amend paragraph (h) by adding entries to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for ``Snake, Key ring-necked'' and 
``Snake, rim rock crowned'' in alphabetical order under REPTILES to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
            Common name                Scientific name        Where listed        Status    and applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                    Reptiles
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Snake, Key ring-necked............  Diadophis punctatus   Wherever found......          E   [Federal Register
                                     acricus.                                                citation when
                                                                                             published as a
                                                                                             final rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                             17.95(c).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Snake, rim rock crowned...........  Tantilla oolitica...  Wherever found......          E   [Federal Register
                                                                                             citation when
                                                                                             published as a
                                                                                             final rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                             17.95(c).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (c) by:
0
a. Adding an entry for ``Key Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus 
acricus)'' immediately following the entry for ``New Mexican Ridge-
Nosed Rattlesnake (Crotalus willardi obscurus)''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica)'' 
immediately following the entry for ``Key Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis 
punctatus acricus)''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  17.95   Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (c) Reptiles.
* * * * *
Key Ring-Necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Monroe County, Florida, 
on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Key ring-necked

[[Page 62656]]

snake consist of the following components:
    (i) Pine rocklands habitat that contains:
    (A) Refugia consisting of a limestone rock substrate with holes, 
crevices, and shallow depressions; piles of rock rubble; and pockets of 
organic matter accumulating in solution holes;
    (B) Suitable prey;
    (C) Warm, moist microhabitats to maintain homeostasis; and
    (D) A natural or prescribed fire regime at 5- to 7-year intervals 
that maintains the pine rocklands habitat and associated plant 
community.
    (ii) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
    (A) Refugia consisting of a limestone substrate with holes, 
crevices, and shallow depressions; piles of rock rubble; and pockets of 
organic matter accumulating in solution holes;
    (B) Suitable prey;
    (C) Warm, moist microhabitat to maintain homeostasis; and
    (D) Little or no fire maintenance.
    (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 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (4) 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 
Albers Conical Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), North 
American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983) High Accuracy Reference Network 
(HARN). The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map 
is based are available to the public at the Service's internet site at 
https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0022, and at the field 
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office 
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices, 
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Key Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus) 
paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 62657]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.052

    (6) Unit 1: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 1 encompasses 1,734 acres (ac) (702 hectares (ha)) north 
of U.S. 1 within Monroe County, within the lower Florida Keys. The 
majority of habitat in this unit (1,174 ac (475 ha)) is owned and 
managed by the Service and associated with the National Key Deer 
Wildlife Refuge and by the National Park Service; other large tracts 
are owned by the State of Florida (366 ac (148 ha)). Smaller tracts of 
habitat are owned by Monroe County, local government, and private 
entities (194 ac (79 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Key Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus) 
paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 62658]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.053

    (7) Unit 2: Middle Torch Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 2 encompasses approximately 356 ac (144 ha) north of U.S. 
1 and east and west of Middle Torch Road within Monroe County. The 
State owns a significant portion of the habitat (211 ac (85 ha)), and a 
smaller portion is owned by both Federal (59 ac (24 ha)) and private 
entities (86 ac (35 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Key Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus) 
paragraph(7)(ii)

[[Page 62659]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.054

    (8) Unit 3: Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 3 encompasses five subunits that total approximately 507 
ac (205 ha) north of U.S. 1 and east and west of Blimp Road within 
Monroe County. The majority of the habitat in this unit is owned and 
managed by the Service and associated with the National Key Deer 
Wildlife Refuge (332 ac (134 ha)). The remainder of the unit is owned 
by State, local, and private entities (175 ac (71 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Key Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus) 
paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 62660]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.055

    (9) Unit 4: Stock Island, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 4 encompasses approximately 8 ac (3 ha) north of U.S. 1 
and east of College Road within Monroe County, within the lower Florida 
Keys. Nearly all habitat in this unit is owned by the City of Key West.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Key Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus) 
paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 62661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.056

Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Monroe 
Counties, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the rim rock crowned snake consist of 
the following components:
    (i) Pine rocklands habitat that contains:
    (A) Refugia consisting of a limestone rock substrate with holes, 
crevices, and shallow depressions; piles of rock rubble; and pockets of 
organic matter accumulating in solution holes;
    (B) Suitable prey;
    (C) Warm, moist microhabitats to maintain homeostasis; and
    (D) A natural or prescribed fire regime at 5- to 7-year intervals 
that maintains the pine rocklands habitat and associated plant 
community.
    (ii) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
    (A) Refugia consisting of a limestone substrate with holes, 
crevices, and shallow depressions; piles of rock rubble; and pockets of 
organic matter accumulating in solution holes;

[[Page 62662]]

    (B) Suitable prey;
    (C) Warm, moist microhabitat to maintain homeostasis; and
    (D) Little or no fire maintenance.
    (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 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (4) 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 
Albers Conical Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), NAD 1983 
HARN. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map 
is based are available to the public at the Service's internet site at 
https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0022, and at the field 
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office 
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices, 
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph (5)

[[Page 62663]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.057

    (6) Unit 1: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of 819 acres (ac) (331 hectares (ha)) in Miami-
Dade County. It is composed of 160 ac (65 ha) of Federal land and 659 
ac (267 ha) of County and private lands. This unit is bordered on the 
north by SW 152 Street (Coral Reef Drive), on the south by SW 200 St 
(Quail Drive/SR 994), on the east by U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and 
on the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(6)(ii)

[[Page 62664]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.058

    (7) Unit 2: Deering Estate Complex/Bill Sadowski Park, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of 293 ac (119 ha) in Miami-Dade County, 
including 241 ac (98 ha) of State land, 19 ac (8 ha) of County owned 
lands, and 31 ac (12 ha) of private lands. The majority of lands within 
this unit are conserved and managed by the County as Bill Sadowski Park 
and Deering Estate. The majority of the unit is bordered on the north 
by Coral Reef Drive, on the west by Old Cutler Road, to the south by 
Eureka Drive, and to the east by unsuitable habitat within the Deering 
Estate, which is further bordered by the Biscayne Bay. A small parcel 
of the Deering Estate included in Unit 2 is located west of Old Cutler 
Road, and is bordered on the east by SW 7th Avenue and by residential 
property on the north and south. Bill Sadowski Park, an outparcel of 
Unit 2, is bordered by Cutler Drain (Canal C-100) on the north, SW 79th 
Avenue on the west, SW 78th Avenue on the east, and SW 178th Terrace on 
the south.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(7)(ii)

[[Page 62665]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.059

    (8) Unit 3: Barnacle, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 3 consists of 6 ac (2 ha) in Miami-Dade County, including 
3 ac (1 ha) of State land. The remaining acres are local or private 
ownership. The majority of the unit is within the boundaries of the 
Barnacle Historic State Park. This unit is bordered by Main Highway on 
the northwest, Via Abitare Way on the southwest, an unnamed residential 
road on the northeast, and the Biscayne Bay on the southeast.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(8)(ii)

[[Page 62666]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.060

    (9) Unit 4: Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 4 consists of 96 ac (39 ha) in Miami-Dade County, with 9 
ac (4 ha) of State land, 83 ac (34 ha) of County owned lands, and 4 ac 
(2 ha) of private lands. The majority of the unit is owned by Miami-
Dade County and is managed by Miami-Dade County's Environmentally 
Endangered Lands program. The unit is bordered by State Road 997 on the 
west and SW 167th Avenue on the east.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(9)(ii)

[[Page 62667]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.061

    (10) Unit 5: Navy Wells, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 5 consists of 326 ac (132 ha) in Miami-Dade County. It 
includes 85 ac (34 ha) of State lands and 240 ac (97 ha) of County 
owned land. The unit is bordered by State Road 9336 on the east, and 
Lucille Drive (SW 360th Street) on the south. The majority of the unit 
is owned by Miami-Dade County, and the State of Florida owns a large 
tract of land, both of which are managed by Miami-Dade County's 
Environmentally Endangered Lands program.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 6 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(10)(ii)

[[Page 62668]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.062

    (11) Unit 6: North Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 6 consists of 2,161 ac (875 ha) in Monroe County, Florida, 
in the upper Florida Keys. This unit is surrounded by the Atlantic 
Ocean to the east and the Florida Bay to the west. The unit is bisected 
by County Road 905 and U.S. Highway 1, which runs in a northeast to 
southwest direction in the center of North Key Largo south to Key 
Largo. It consists of 601 ac (243 ha) of Federal lands, 1,484 ac (601 
ha) of State lands, 24 ac (9 ha) of locally owned lands, and 53 ac (21 
ha) of private lands. The majority of Federal land in this unit is 
owned and managed by the Service and associated with Crocodile Lake 
National Wildlife Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(11)(ii)

[[Page 62669]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.063

    (12) Unit 7: Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 7 consists of 298 ac (121 ha) in Monroe County, Florida, 
in the upper Florida Keys. This unit is bordered by U.S. Highway 1 on 
the northwest. It consists of 151 ac (40 ha) of State lands, 56 ac (23 
ha) of County/local government owned lands, and 91 ac (37 ha) of 
private lands. The majority of habitat consists of habitat owned by 
private entities and the State of Florida (John Pennekamp Coral Reef 
State Park).
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:

Figure 8 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(12)(ii)

[[Page 62670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.064

    (13) Unit 8: Tavernier, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 8 consists of 181 ac (73 ha) in Monroe County, Florida, in 
the upper Florida Keys. The majority of the unit is bordered by U.S. 
Highway 1 on the northwest, and Peace Avenue on the north. Two 
outparcels are bordered by U.S. Highway 1 on the southeast. Located 
within Monroe County and part of the city of Tavernier, within the 
upper Florida Keys islands, the habitat in this unit is surrounded and/
or fragmented by suburban and urban development, canals, and two-lane 
roads. It consists of 98 ac (40 ha) of State lands, 30 ac (12 ha) of 
County/local government owned lands, and 54 ac (22 ha) of private 
lands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:

Figure 9 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(13)(ii)

[[Page 62671]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.065

    (14) Unit 9: Vaca Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 9 consists of 59 ac (24 ha) of habitat in Monroe County, 
Florida, in the upper Florida Keys. This unit is bordered by U.S. 
Highway on the south. It is composed of 58 ac (23.5 ha) of privately 
owned land, and 1 ac (0.4 ha) of lands owned by County/local 
government.
    (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:

Figure 10 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(14)(ii)

[[Page 62672]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.066

    (15) Unit 10: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 10 consists of 1,729 ac (700 ha) in Monroe County, 
Florida, in the lower Florida Keys. This unit is bordered by U.S. 
Highway 1 on the south. It consists of 1,200 ac (486 ha) of Federal 
land, 380 ac (154 ha) of State lands, 71 ac (29 ha) of locally owned 
lands, and 77 ac (31 ha) of private lands. The majority of this unit is 
owned and managed by the Service and associated with the National Key 
Deer Wildlife Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:

Figure 11 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(15)(ii)

[[Page 62673]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.067

    (16) Unit 11: Key West, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 11 consists of 9 ac (4 ha) in Monroe County, Florida, in 
the lower Florida Keys. Large resorts and hotels are located to the 
east and the Key West International Airport is located to the south of 
this unit. It consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of local/County-owned land and 3 
ac (1 ha) of private land.
    (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:

Figure 12 to Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) paragraph 
(16)(ii)

[[Page 62674]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.068

* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-21543 Filed 10-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C