Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Bristle Fern, 78582-78610 [2022-27089]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78582-78610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27089]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BE12


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Florida Bristle Fern

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the Florida bristle fern (Trichomanes punctatum 
ssp. floridanum) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as 
amended. In total, approximately 1,698 hectares (ha) (4,195 acres (ac)) 
fall within 10 units of critical habitat in Miami-Dade and Sumter 
Counties, Florida. This rule extends the Act's protections to the 
Florida bristle fern's designated critical habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective January 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in

[[Page 78583]]

preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation 
that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, 
during normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, 
FL 32960; telephone 772-562-3909.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the decision file for this critical habitat 
designation and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the Florida Ecological Services 
Field Office at the Vero Beach address provided above. Any additional 
tools or supporting information that we developed for this critical 
habitat designation will be available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service website and Field Office identified above and at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Classification and 
Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 
Jacksonville, FL 32256; by telephone 904-731-3134; or by facsimile 904-
731-3045. 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 section 4(a)(3) of the Act, if 
we determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species, we 
must designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. We published a final rule to list the Florida bristle 
fern as an endangered species on October 6, 2015 (80 FR 60440). 
Designations of critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a 
rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.
    What this document does. This rule finalizes a designation of 
critical habitat for the Florida bristle fern (Trichomanes punctatum 
ssp. floridanum) consisting of 10 units comprising approximately 1,698 
ha (4,195 ac) in Miami-Dade and Sumter Counties, Florida.
    The basis for our action. 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 
of critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data 
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, national 
security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area 
from critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless she determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
    Economic analysis. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
we prepared an economic analysis of the impacts of designating critical 
habitat for the Florida bristle fern. We published the announcement of, 
and solicited public comments on, the draft economic analysis (DEA; 85 
FR 10371, February 24, 2020). Because we received no comments on the 
DEA, we adopted the DEA as a final version. The final economic analysis 
(IEc 2020, entire) is available at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068.
    Peer review and public comment. 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 actions under the Act, we sought the expert 
opinions of independent specialists with scientific expertise that 
included familiarity with the species, the geographic regions in which 
the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. The purpose of 
peer review is to ensure that our designation is based on 
scientifically sound data and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
to comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions in the critical 
habitat proposal during the public comment period for the February 24, 
2020, proposed rule. We received responses from two peer reviewers on 
our technical assumptions and analysis, and on whether or not we used 
the best scientific data available. These peer reviewers generally 
concurred with our methods and conclusions, and they provided 
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this 
final rule. Information we received from peer review is incorporated 
into this final designation of critical habitat. We also considered all 
comments and information we received from the public during the comment 
period for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Florida 
bristle fern and the associated DEA (85 FR 10371; February 24, 2020).

Previous Federal Actions

    On November 9, 2009, the Florida bristle fern was first recognized 
as a candidate for possible future listing (74 FR 57804). On October 9, 
2014, we proposed to list the Florida bristle fern as an endangered 
species (79 FR 61136). On October 6, 2015, we finalized the listing for 
the subspecies as an endangered species (80 FR 60440). On February 24, 
2020, we proposed to designate critical habitat for the Florida bristle 
fern (85 FR 10371). Please refer to the October 9, 2014 (79 FR 61136), 
proposed listing rule for a more detailed description of Federal 
actions regarding the Florida bristle fern.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This final rule incorporates changes to our proposed rule (85 FR 
10371; February 24, 2020) based on the comments and information we 
received. As a result, the final designation of critical habitat 
reflects the following changes from the February 24, 2020, proposed 
rule (85 FR 10371):
    1. We revised Matheson Hammock (SF 1) to include additional areas 
as critical habitat. This unit was originally proposed as 16 ha (39 ac) 
and now consists of approximately 22 ha (55 ac), which is an increase 
of approximately 41 percent for this unoccupied unit.
    2. We revised Snapper Creek (SF 2) to include additional areas as 
critical habitat. This unit was originally proposed as 3 ha (8 ac) and 
now consists of approximately 6 ha (15 ac),

[[Page 78584]]

which is an increase of approximately 88 percent for this unoccupied 
unit.
    3. We added Charles Deering Estate Hammock as a new unoccupied 
critical habitat unit (SF 3). This unit consists of approximately 43 ha 
(106 ac), which is an increase of approximately 3 percent of the total 
proposed critical habitat acreage.
    4. We revised Castellow and Ross Hammocks (proposed SF 3; now SF 4) 
to include additional areas as critical habitat. This unit was 
originally proposed as 38 ha (93 ac) and now consists of approximately 
56 ha (139 ac), which is an increase of approximately 48 percent for 
this occupied unit.
    5. We revised the unit number for Silver Palm Hammock (proposed SF 
4; now SF 5).
    6. We revised Hattie Bauer Hammock (proposed SF 5; now SF 6) to 
include additional areas as critical habitat. This unit was originally 
proposed as 3 ha (8 ac) and now consists of approximately 6 ha (16 ac), 
which is an increase of approximately 100 percent for this occupied 
unit.
    7. We revised Fuchs and Meissner Hammocks (proposed SF 6; now SF 7) 
to remove 1.6 ha (4 ac) that do not contain the essential physical or 
biological features for the Florida bristle fern and to include an 
additional 0.4 ha (1 ac) as critical habitat. This unit now consists of 
approximately 10 ha (25 ac), which is a decrease of approximately 8 
percent of the proposed area for this occupied unit.
    8. We revised the unit number for Royal Palm Hammock (proposed SF 
7; now SF 8), and we updated the acreage for this unit. The proposed 
rule reported the size of the unit as 60 ha (148 ac); in this rule, we 
update the size of the unit to 61 ha (150 ac). The change is due to 
using updated parcel data from Miami-Dade County (2021 data versus 2017 
data).
    9. We updated the coordinates or plot points from which the maps 
were generated. The information is available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and from the 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach.
    10. Under Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of the Species in this rule:
     We corrected the critical habitat unit name and occupancy 
status where a long-term microclimate study occurred at Deering's 
Cutler Slough from Deering Snapper Creek to Charles Deering Estate 
Hammock.
     We changed ``underground'' to ``horizontal'' when 
describing rhizomal stem growth.
     In the description of nonnative, invasive plants that 
impact Florida bristle fern, we replaced love vine (Cassytha 
filiformis) with the most common aroid vines in the Miami-Dade County 
critical habitat units (golden pothos (Epipremnum pinnatum cv. aureum) 
and arrowhead vine (Syngonium podophyllum)).
     We added that invasive vines have become an increasing 
threat to hammocks in south Florida and can result in canopy collapse 
during hurricanes or other high wind events.
    11. Under Special Management Considerations or Protection in this 
rule:
     We described the competitive interaction between native 
bryophytes and Florida bristle fern.
     We added language to describe that most of the critical 
habitat units are open to public access and that Florida bristle fern 
may be at risk of collection, damage from people climbing on them, and 
impacts to microclimate due to installation and improvements of trails.
     We added language discussing the potential short- to mid-
term benefits of sea level rise to the fern through lifting a 
freshwater lens into previously drained areas or areas experiencing a 
lowered water table, which may restore or preserve a favorable 
microclimate for the subspecies.
    12. We added the potential presence of gametophytes, the cryptic 
reproductive stage of the fern, at historically occupied areas to our 
reasoning for designating unoccupied critical habitat units in this 
rule.
    13. In the description of each critical habitat unit in this rule, 
we removed language suggesting prescribed burning as an appropriate 
management tool for Florida bristle fern conservation.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    Our proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Florida 
bristle fern (85 FR 10371; February 24, 2020) opened a 60-day comment 
period on the proposed action and associated DEA, ending April 24, 
2020. We requested that all interested parties submit written comments 
and we also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, 
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting 
general public comment were published in the Miami Herald and Orlando 
Sentinel on March 4, 2020. During the comment period, we received two 
comment letters from peer reviewers directly addressing the proposed 
critical habitat designation and nine public comments. We did not 
receive any requests for a public hearing, and we did not receive any 
comments on the DEA. A majority of the comments supported the 
designation; none opposed the designation; and the letters from the 
peer reviewers included suggestions on how we could refine or improve 
the designation. We received some comments outside the scope of the 
designation (including information on recovery strategies) and, 
although we noted these comments, we only respond to comments herein 
that were within the scope of our action to designate critical habitat. 
All substantive information provided to us during the comment period 
has been incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed 
below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: Both peer reviewers suggested adding the following 
areas in Miami-Dade County to the critical habitat designation: Monkey 
Jungle (also known as Cox Hammock), Smathers Four Fillies Farm 
(contiguous to and formerly part of Snapper Creek Hammock), the Charles 
Deering Estate Hammock (also known as Addison Hammock), and Timms 
Hammock (within Camp Owaissa Bauer). The reviewers noted that these 
areas contain one or more of the physical or biological features 
defined in the proposed critical habitat rule and that Monkey Jungle, 
Smathers Four Fillies Farm, and the Charles Deering Estate Hammock 
contained documented historical records of the Florida bristle fern. 
Timms Hammock (within Camp Owaissa Bauer) was not known to have 
historical records but was noted to have excellent habitat for the 
Florida bristle fern and is close to another occupied unit (Hattie 
Bauer Hammock).
    Our Response: All these areas, with the exception of Smathers Four 
Fillies Farm, were included in the request for information in the 
proposed critical habitat rule. We asked for information regarding 
their occupancy status and habitat suitability, whether physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies are 
present, and whether they should be included in the designation and 
why. After re-examining historical records, meeting with land managers, 
and re-analyzing GIS data, we added Smathers Four Fillies Farm and 
Charles Deering Estate Hammock to the critical habitat designation as 
described in Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, above, because 
we have determined they are

[[Page 78585]]

essential to the conservation of the species and meet the regulatory 
criteria. Below, we describe our response for not including Monkey 
Jungle and Timms Hammock to the critical habitat designation.
    Monkey Jungle--The documented occurrence from Monkey Jungle (in 
1989 by A. Cressler; Cressler 1991, entire) was unconfirmed due to no 
collections or voucher records. Monkey Jungle is privately owned, and 
researchers have not been permitted access to survey the entire area 
for Florida bristle fern (Adimey 2013, pers. comm.; van der Heiden 
2013a, pers. comm.; Possley 2021, pers. comm.), so occupancy by the 
fern is unknown, although it was not found in the areas that were 
surveyed. Even though this area may have one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Florida 
bristle fern, the area has a high number of invasive plant species 
(Adimey 2013, pers. comm.; Possley 2020, pers. comm.), disturbance due 
to development and management of the park, and potential herbivory by 
monkeys (Adimey 2013, pers. comm.). Based on these factors, it is 
unlikely that this area was occupied by the Florida bristle fern at the 
time of listing or that it is essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies. Therefore, we are not adding Monkey Jungle as unoccupied 
critical habitat to the critical habitat designation.
    Timms Hammock/Camp Owaissa Bauer--Timms Hammock is located within 
Camp Owaissa Bauer, which is owned and managed by Miami-Dade County. 
Even though this area contains some or all of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Florida 
bristle fern, it does not contain historical or known extant 
populations of Florida bristle fern nor is it contiguous to currently 
or historically occupied areas. Because our methodology for determining 
which unoccupied areas were essential for the conservation of the 
species excludes areas that do not have historical records, regardless 
of habitat suitability (see Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat, 
below), Timms Hammock/Camp Owaissa Bauer does not meet the statutory 
requirement that unoccupied critical habitat be essential for the 
conservation of the species and is not included in the critical habitat 
designation.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested expanding the size of five 
units in Miami-Dade County (Matheson Hammock, Snapper Creek, Castellow 
and Ross Hammocks, Hattie Bauer Hammock, and Fuchs and Meissner 
Hammocks) to include contiguous pieces of hammock that seemed to be 
excluded despite meeting all habitat criteria. The reviewer noted that 
many of these parcels are under active forest management by public and 
private entities (private through a property tax incentive program and/
or a local regulatory requirement). All parcels that meet forest and 
substrate characteristics and that are contiguous to the proposed 
critical habitat units were considered by the reviewer to provide 
habitat critical to the survival of Florida bristle fern.
    Our Response: To clarify which parcels the reviewer was suggesting 
adding to the units, we held several discussions with the peer reviewer 
and the landowners or managers of each parcel to get more information 
about the suitability of each parcel. We only considered adding parcels 
to proposed units that met the criteria for designating occupied or 
unoccupied critical habitat units (see Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat, below). After re-examining historical records, 
meeting with land managers, and re-analyzing GIS data, we added 
contiguous hammock parcels to Unit SF 1 (Matheson Hammock), Unit SF 2 
(Snapper Creek), Unit SF 3 (now SF 4; Castellow and Ross Hammocks), 
Unit SF 5 (now SF 6; Hattie Bauer Hammock), and Unit SF 6 (now SF 7; 
Fuchs and Meissner Hammocks) as described in Summary of Changes from 
the Proposed Rule, above, because we have determined they meet the 
statutory and regulatory criteria for critical habitat.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested adding the following areas 
to the critical habitat designation: Camp Redlands, Bill Sadowski Park, 
Whispering Pines Hammock, Black Creek Forest, Harden Hammock, Silver 
Palm Groves, Camp Owaissa Bauer, Lucille Hammock, Loveland Hammock, and 
Holiday Hammock in Miami-Dade County. The reviewer noted that these 
areas contain one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Florida bristle fern as defined in the 
proposed critical habitat rule. The reviewer analyzed relative 
elevation, presence of limestone outcroppings, presence of surrogate 
ferns (Asplenium verecundum and Tectaria fimbriata), canopy cover, and 
hydrology connection when suggesting areas to add to the critical 
habitat designation. The reviewer noted that identifying rare fern 
presence as a surrogate for habitat appropriateness was similar to how 
the proposed listing considered potential habitat in central Florida.
    Our Response: While these areas contain one or more of the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the Florida 
bristle fern, they do not contain historical or known extant 
populations of Florida bristle fern nor are they contiguous to 
currently or historically occupied areas. Also, the proposed rule did 
not consider rare fern presence as a surrogate for habitat 
appropriateness when designating critical habitat units in central or 
south Florida. Because our methodology for designating unoccupied 
critical habitat excludes any areas that do not have historical 
records, regardless of habitat suitability (see Criteria Used to 
Identify Critical Habitat, below), these areas do not meet our criteria 
for determining that unoccupied areas are essential for the 
conservation of Florida bristle fern and are not included in the final 
critical habitat designation.

Comments From States

    Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act requires the Service to give 
actual notice of any designation of lands that are considered to be 
critical habitat to the appropriate agency of each State in which the 
species is believed to occur and invite each such agency to comment on 
the proposed regulation. Section 4(i) of the Act states that the 
Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for 
her failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments 
or petition. We did not receive any written comments from the State of 
Florida on the proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida 
bristle fern.

Public Comments

    (4) Comment: One commenter urged the Service to add more clear 
reasoning behind our decision for each unoccupied area included.
    Our Response: We have added language to the rule to provide more 
clarity for each unoccupied area. This information further supports 
including currently unoccupied, but historically occupied, areas to the 
critical habitat designation. Further information about our rationale 
for why unoccupied critical habitat is needed for the subspecies can be 
found in Areas Outside the Geographic Area Occupied at the Time of 
Listing, below. In addition, information is provided in each unit 
description below with the rationale for each unit.

Background

    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

[[Page 78586]]

determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and 
designating 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).
    As with the proposed rule, we are applying the 2019 regulations for 
this final rule because the 2019 regulations are the governing law just 
as they were when we completed the proposed rule. Although there was a 
period in the interim--between July 5, 2022, and September 21, 2022--
when the 2019 regulations became vacated and the pre-2019 regulations 
therefore governed, the 2019 regulations are now in effect and govern 
listing and critical habitat decisions (see Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. Cal. July 
5, 2022) (CBD v. Haaland) (vacating the 2019 regulations and thereby 
reinstating the pre-2019 regulations)); In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 
22-70194 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (staying the district court's order 
vacating the 2019 regulations until the district court resolved a 
pending motion to amend the order); Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-5206-JST, Doc. Nos. 197, 198 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 
2022) (granting plaintiffs' motion to amend July 5, 2022 order and 
granting government's motion for remand without vacatur).
    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 (i.e., 
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 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 and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. The implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further 
delineate unoccupied critical habitat by setting out three specific 
parameters: (1) when designating critical habitat, the Secretary will 
first evaluate areas occupied by the species; (2) the Secretary will 
only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat 
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species; and (3) for an 
unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must 
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will 
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area 
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for

[[Page 78587]]

recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include 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 this species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    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 that 
may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to 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 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 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

    Florida bristle fern occurs exclusively in upland hardwood forest 
hammock habitats that support the climate (stable humidity and 
temperature), hydrology, canopy cover, and limestone substrates 
necessary for the subspecies to persist, grow, and reproduce. Upland 
hardwood forests consist of a mosaic of natural hammock and hardwood 
communities primarily characterized as mesic, hydric, and rockland 
hammocks, or intermixed hammock strands, with associated transitional 
wetland matrix/hydric and upland communities (Florida Natural Areas 
Inventory [Inventory] 2010, pp. 16-28). The hammock habitats occur 
within and as part of larger matrices of hydric or pine rockland 
communities (Inventory 2010, pp. 16-28). Detailed descriptions of these 
natural communities can be found in Natural Communities of Florida 
(Inventory 2010, pp. 16-28) and in the final listing rule for Florida 
bristle fern (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). Natural communities 
include both wetland and upland communities having intact vegetation 
(i.e., not cleared).
    The current range of Florida bristle fern includes two 
metapopulations, one in south Florida (Miami-Dade County) and one in 
central Florida (Sumter County). The south Florida metapopulation is 
currently composed of four known populations, and the central Florida 
metapopulation is composed of two known populations. The south Florida 
populations of Florida bristle fern occur in communities characterized 
by primarily rockland hammock or closed tropical hardwood hammocks 
occurring within a larger matrix of pine rockland on the Miami Rock 
Ridge. In central Florida, the populations of the subspecies occur in 
predominantly mesic hammocks situated in a mosaic of hydric hammock and 
mixed wetland hardwoods. These internal or inter-mixed strands of 
hammock within the forested communities are characterized by fairly 
dense to extremely dense canopy cover, which prevents drastic changes 
in temperature and humidity and the desiccation of the fern from direct 
sunlight and drying winds.
    The matrix of landscapes associated with the hammocks or the 
intermixed strands of these communities support the suitable conditions 
necessary for the growth and reproduction of Florida bristle fern. 
Suitable habitat quality and size are necessary to ensure the 
maintenance of the microclimate conditions (stable temperature, high 
humidity, moisture, canopy shade, and shelter) essential to the 
subspecies' survival and conservation. These combined factors establish 
the fern's microclimate: (a) The level of protection/exposure the fern 
experiences given its location in a

[[Page 78588]]

solution hole (a limestone solution feature; in the Miami Rock Ridge, 
they consist of steep-sided pits, varying in size, formed by 
dissolution of subsurface limestone followed by a collapse above 
(Snyder et al. 1990, p. 236)) or on an exposed boulder; (b) the quality 
of the solution hole or exposed boulder substrate; and (c) the amount 
of canopy cover. The surrounding vegetation is a key component in 
producing and supporting this microclimate. There are differences in 
vegetation and substrate characteristics between the two geographically 
distant metapopulations that can account for differences in the amount 
of habitat needed to support the fern. For example, Florida bristle 
fern in south Florida occurs in a tropical climate and attaches to the 
interior walls of well-protected and insulated solution holes. By 
comparison, in central Florida, Florida bristle fern occurs in a more 
temperate climate and is found more exposed by attaching to a substrate 
that is above the surface. The size and quality of the intact habitat 
surrounding the exposed substrate can play a greater role in providing 
and supporting the stable, shaded, and wind-protected microclimate 
conditions the fern needs. Therefore, the microclimate conditions 
(stable temperature, high humidity, canopy shade, and shelter) have the 
potential to be maintained (and the plant is able to persist) within 
smaller areas in south Florida than those needed to support the 
microclimate conditions in central Florida. For both metapopulations, 
intact upland hardwood forest and associated hammock habitat is an 
essential feature to the conservation of this subspecies, and 
sufficient habitat is needed to ensure the maintenance of the fern's 
microclimate and life processes (growth, dispersal).
    Therefore, we identify upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of 
sufficient quality and size to sustain the necessary microclimate and 
life processes for Florida bristle fern to be a physical or biological 
feature essential to the conservation of this subspecies.

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

Substrate and Soils
    Florida bristle fern is generally epipetric (grows on rocks) or 
epiphytic (grows non-parasitically upon another plant). In combination 
with the habitat characteristics discussed above, the subspecies 
requires exposed limestone substrate to provide suitable growing 
conditions for anchoring, nutrients, pH, and proper drainage (van der 
Heiden 2016, p. 1). Florida bristle fern prefers substrate having 
exposed oolitic (composed of minute, rounded concretions resembling 
fish eggs) limestone or limestone solution features (solution holes) 
filled with a thin layer of highly organic soil and standing water for 
part or all of the year. The limestone substrate occurs primarily as 
solution holes in south Florida and exposed limestone boulders in 
central Florida.
    In south Florida, Florida bristle fern is currently found growing 
in rocky outcrops of rockland hammocks, in oolitic limestone solution 
holes, and, occasionally, on tree roots in limestone-surrounded areas 
(Nauman 1986, p. 181; Possley 2013a, pers. comm.). These rockland 
habitats are outcrops primarily composed of marine limestone 
representing the distinct geological formation of the Miami Rock Ridge, 
a feature that encompasses a broad area from Miami to Homestead, 
Florida, and narrows westward through the Long Pine Key area of 
Everglades National Park (Snyder et al. 1990, pp. 233-234). The 
limestone solution holes are considered specialized habitat within 
these hammock areas that host Florida bristle fern (Snyder et al. 1990, 
p. 247). The solution-hole features that dominate the rock surface in 
the Miami Rock Ridge are steep-sided pits formed by dissolution of 
subsurface limestone followed by the eventual collapse of the surface 
above (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 236). The limestone solution holes often 
have complex internal topography and vary in size and depth, from 
shallow holes a few centimeters deep to those that are several meters 
in size and up to several meters deep (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 238; 
Kobza et al. 2004, p. 154). The bottoms of most solution holes are 
filled with organic soils, while deeper solution holes penetrate the 
water table and have (at least historically) standing water for part of 
the year (Snyder et al. 1990, pp. 236-237; Rehage et al. 2014, pp. 
S160-S161). A direct relationship has been found between the length of 
time a solution hole contains water (hydroperiod length) and the 
habitat quality (vegetative cover) of the solution hole (Rehage et al. 
2014, p. S161).
    Oolitic limestone occurs in south Florida (and other locations in 
the world), but it does not occur in central Florida. In central 
Florida, Florida bristle fern resides on limestone substrate in high-
humidity hammocks (van der Heiden 2013a, pers. comm.; van der Heiden 
2016, p. 1). In the mesic hammocks on the Jumper Creek Tract of the 
Withlacoochee State Forest, the subspecies has been observed growing on 
exposed limestone rocks as small as 0.1 meters (m) (0.3 feet (ft)) tall 
as well as on larger boulders with tall, horizontal faces, and occurs 
alongside numerous other plant species, including rare State-listed 
species (e.g., hemlock spleenwort (Asplenium cristatum) and widespread 
polypody (Pecluma dispersa)) (van der Heiden 2013b, pers. comm.; van 
der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 7-8). Rock outcrops may also provide 
suitable substrate where the underlying Ocala limestone (a geologic 
formation of exposed limestone near Ocala, Florida) is near the 
surface.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify exposed 
substrate derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala limestone, or exposed 
limestone boulders, which provide anchoring and nutritional 
requirements, to be a physical or biological feature essential to the 
conservation of Florida bristle fern.
Climate and Hydrology
    Florida bristle fern is considered strongly hygrophilous (i.e., 
growing or adapted to damp or wet conditions) and is generally 
perceived as restricted to constantly humid microhabitat (Kr[ouml]mer 
and Kessler 2006, p. 57; Proctor 2012, pp. 1024-1025). Features that 
allow for proper ecosystem functionality and a suitable microhabitat 
required for the growth and reproduction of the subspecies include a 
canopy cover of suitable density (i.e., average canopy closure more 
than 75 percent) and humidity and moisture of sufficient levels and 
stability (on average, above approximately 90 percent relative 
humidity) (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 8; Possley 2015, pers. 
comm.; van der Heiden 2016, p. 18).
    The relationship between moist habitats and the Hymenophyllaceae 
Family of ferns (filmy ferns), to which the Trichomanes species 
belongs, has been long observed and documented (Shreve 1911, pp. 187, 
189; Proctor 2003, entire; Proctor 2012, p. 1024). In a tropical rain 
forest system, the diversity and number of filmy fern species is shown 
to have a direct relation to the air moisture (relative humidity) 
(Gehrig-Downie et al. 2012; pp. 40-42). While not in the same fern 
Family as the Florida bristle fern, a study of the rare temperate 
woodland fern, Braun's hollyfern (Polystichum braunii), found air 
humidity to be a key factor in species health, with stronger plant 
productivity occurring in higher humidity levels (Schwerbrock and 
Leuschner 2016, p. 5). Although a minimum suitable humidity level, or 
threshold, for Florida bristle fern has not been quantified for either

[[Page 78589]]

metapopulation of the subspecies, information from field studies 
indicates conditions of high and stable relative humidity are essential 
to the subspecies. Minor drops in ambient humidity may limit 
reproduction of the subspecies and can negatively impact overall health 
of the existing metapopulations, as well as inhibit the growth of new 
plants, impacting long-term viability (Possley 2013b, pers. comm.; van 
der Heiden 2013a, pers. comm.). This relationship was observed in 
Sumter County, where small drops (approximately 1 to 2 percent) in 
relative humidity associated with colder weather resulted in observed 
declines in the health of some clusters of Florida bristle fern within 
the local population (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 9).
    The average relative humidity for hammocks in Sumter County 
remained near 95 percent for the duration of a September-November 2013 
study (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 8-9). Further, the minimum 
and maximum monthly average relative humidity from September 2013 to 
March 2015 for the two central Florida hammocks supporting Florida 
bristle fern were 88 and 99 percent and 89 and 100 percent, 
respectively (van der Heiden 2016, p. 18). The lowest monthly average 
relative humidity in each of the hammocks was 65 and 69 percent, 
respectively. In comparison, the minimum and maximum monthly average 
relative humidity documented outside of the hammock (from June 2014 to 
March 2015) was 68 and 93 percent, respectively, with a low monthly 
relative humidity of 51 percent. In summary, similar and consistently 
high average humidity values occurred between and within the two 
hammocks supporting the subspecies, and consistently higher relative 
humidity values were recorded in the hammocks compared to outside the 
hammocks.
    Likewise, in south Florida, 8 years of data-log monitoring of 
Deering's Cutler Slough (the location of a known extirpated population, 
Charles Deering Estate Hammock, of Florida bristle fern) recorded an 
average of 90 percent relative humidity occurring within a solution 
hole compared to the 84 percent average relative humidity documented in 
the slough outside of the solution hole during the same time period 
(Possley et al. 2009, pp. 4-6; Possley 2015, pers. comm.).
    The hammock environments are high or slightly elevated grounds that 
do not regularly flood but are dependent on a high water table to keep 
humidity levels high (Inventory 2010, pp. 19-28). The subspecies is 
affected by humidity at two spatial scales: the larger hammock 
community-scale and the smaller substrate (boulder/solution hole) 
microclimate-scale (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 9-10). 
Moisture (precipitation and low evaporation) and humidity levels are 
likely factors limiting the occurrence of Florida bristle fern (Shreve 
1911, p. 189; Proctor 2003, p. 726; Gehrig-Downie et al. 2012, p. 40). 
The high humidity levels discussed above and stable temperatures, 
moisture, and shading (cover) are all features considered essential to 
the subspecies and produced by the combination of:
    (1) Solution hole or boulder microclimate;
    (2) Organic, moisture-retaining soils (high soil moisture 
conditions);
    (3) Hydrology of the surrounding or adjacent wetlands; and
    (4) Protective shelter of the surrounding habitat minimizing 
effects from drying winds and/solar radiation.
    Solution holes provide the limestone substrate and produce the 
necessary humid and moist microclimate needed by the subspecies in 
south Florida. In central Florida, the fern occurs in the more 
northerly portion of the hammocks and northern aspect of the limestone 
boulders, obtaining greater shading and moist conditions compared to 
the sunnier and drier south-facing portions of the hammocks and sides 
of boulders (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 7, 31). Variances 
within hammocks, such as slight structural differences or proximity to 
water, also play an important part in where suitable microhabitat 
occurs in the hammock habitats. Intact hydrology and the connectivity 
of substrates to surface water and streams may play a role in spore and 
vegetative fragment dispersal for the subspecies (we provide more 
detail about this below, under Sites for Reproduction, Germination, and 
Spore Production and Dispersal). Soils associated with the hammock 
ecosystems consist of sands mixed with organic matter, which produce 
better drained soils than soils of surrounding or adjacent wetland 
communities. Soils in habitats of extant Florida bristle fern 
populations in south Florida consist of an uneven layer of highly 
organic soil and moderately well-drained, sandy, and very shallow soils 
(classified as Matecumbe muck). Soils in habitats of the central 
Florida metapopulation are predominantly sand and Okeelanta muck (80 FR 
60440; October 6, 2015). For both metapopulations, a relatively high 
soil-moisture content and high humidity are maintained by dense litter 
accumulation, ground cover, and heavy shade produced by the dense 
canopy (Service 1999, pp. 3-99).
    In addition, the protected hammock habitats are slightly higher in 
elevation than the surrounding habitat, which combined with the 
limestone substrate, leaf litter, and sandy soils, create a hydrology 
that differs from lower elevation habitats. It is this combination of 
hammock ecosystem characteristics (i.e., closed canopy, limestone 
substrate, humid climate, higher elevation) occurring in hardwood 
forested upland communities as described earlier that are essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify a constantly 
humid microhabitat climate consisting of dense canopy cover, moisture, 
stable high temperature, and stable monthly average relative humidity 
of 90 percent or higher, with intact hydrology within hammocks and the 
surrounding and adjacent wetland communities, to be a physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of Florida bristle 
fern.
Cover and Shelter
    Florida bristle fern occurs exclusively in hardwood hammock 
habitats having dense canopy, which provides shade necessary to support 
suitable microhabitat for the subspecies to persist, grow, and 
reproduce. In south Florida (Miami-Dade County), the extant populations 
of Florida bristle fern occur in communities classified as rockland 
hammocks on the Miami Rock Ridge. In central Florida (Sumter County), 
the extant populations of the subspecies occur in mesic hammocks, often 
situated in a mosaic of natural communities including hydric hammock 
and mixed wetland hardwoods.
    The dense canopies of the hammock systems (including rockland and 
mesic hammocks) contribute to maintaining suitable temperature and 
humidity levels within this microclimate. The dense canopies found in 
these habitats minimize temperature fluctuations by reducing soil 
warming during the day and heat loss at night, thereby helping to 
prevent frost damage to hammock interiors (Inventory 2010, p. 25). In 
areas with greater temperature variations, as in central Florida, these 
benefits afforded by the dense canopy of both the mesic hammock and 
surrounding habitat combined are important to maintaining suitable 
conditions for Florida bristle fern. The rounded canopy profile of 
hammocks helps maintain mesic (moist) conditions by deflecting winds, 
thereby limiting desiccation (extreme dryness) during dry periods and 
reducing interior storm damage (Inventory 2010, p. 25). Changes

[[Page 78590]]

in the canopy can impact humidity and evaporation rates, as well as the 
amount of light available to the understory. Both known extant 
metapopulations of Florida bristle fern live in dense canopy habitat, 
with shady conditions, which may be obligatory due to the poikilohydric 
(i.e., possess no mechanism to prevent desiccation) nature of some fern 
species including the Florida bristle fern (Kr[ouml]mer and Kessler 
2006, p. 57).
    While the proper amount of canopy is critical to the persistence of 
Florida bristle fern, the lower limit of acceptable canopy density has 
yet to be quantified for either metapopulation. Field observations in 
south Florida have found clusters of Florida bristle fern desiccated 
when the immediate canopy above plants was destroyed or substantially 
reduced, allowing high amounts of light into the understory (Possley 
2019, entire); however, over the course of many months, these clusters 
eventually recovered. In addition, this dense, closed canopy may serve 
as a shield for Florida bristle fern to inhibit the growth of other 
plant species on the same part of an inhabited rock area (van der 
Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 9). In central Florida, the average canopy 
closure where Florida bristle fern occurs has been estimated to be more 
than 75 percent (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 9). Although there 
are several occurrences in these mesic hammocks where sunlight can be 
observed through the canopy, generally the habitat is shaded throughout 
the year, with the lowest canopy cover recorded at 64 percent in 
December (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 8, 20). This information 
was obtained from a study of short duration (September-December 2013), 
and it is likely that percent canopy cover and consequently shading 
would be greater in summer months when foliage is densest (van der 
Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 8).
    Surrounding habitat that minimizes the effects from drying winds 
and solar radiation and provides a stable and protective shelter is 
necessary for this fern to survive. A suitable habitat size and quality 
is necessary to provide a functioning canopy cover that maintains the 
microclimate conditions (humidity, moisture, temperature, and shade) 
essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Field observations of 
Florida bristle fern in central Florida found more robust and healthy 
ferns in an interior hammock with approximately 300 m (985 ft) of 
surrounding habitat between it and cleared pastureland. This was 
compared to ferns in a hammock that had only 100 m (328 ft) of 
surrounding habitat separating it from the edge of cleared pasture. The 
ferns located nearer the edge (i.e., approximately within 100 m (328 
ft)) of the adjacent cleared pasture had visible signs of stress, and 
these ferns appeared desiccated and had fewer reproductive bristles 
than the ferns in the hammock and with 300 m (985 ft) of surrounding 
vegetation (van der Heiden 2016, p. 3). These observations are 
consistent with findings that documented edge effects on ferns up to 
200 m (656 ft) into the forest (Hylander et al. 2013, pp. 559-560). 
Edge effects included loss of individual plants, loss of percent canopy 
cover, and increased temperature, sunlight, and wind on the 
microclimate (Hylander et al. 2013, pp. 559-560; Silva and Schmitt 
2015, pp. 227-228). There are no similar studies for the fern in Miami-
Dade County, though it is assumed their occurrence in solution holes 
provides some protection from the edge effects of the hammock habitat.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify dense canopy 
cover of surrounding native vegetation (at least 300 m (985 ft) as 
measured from the edge of and surrounding the boulder substrate for 
central Florida) that consists of the upland hardwood forest hammock 
habitats and provides shade, shelter, and moisture to be a physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of Florida bristle 
fern.

Sites for Reproduction, Germination, and Spore Production and Dispersal

    Growth and reproduction of Florida bristle fern can occur through 
spore dispersal, rhizome (horizontal stem) growth, and clonal 
vegetative fragments (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). The habitats 
identified above provide plant communities, which require a self-
maintaining closed canopy and climate-controlled interior, an adequate 
space for the rhizomal growth, dispersal of seeds, sporophyte and 
gametophyte survival, and recruitment of plant fragments.
    While specific information on spore dispersal distances is largely 
unknown for this subspecies, the microclimate is found to be essential 
for spore germination and survival. Dispersal of spores, gametophytes, 
and vegetative fragments may take place via water-based methods, 
animals, and, to a lesser extent, wind-driven opportunities. In the 
Hymenophyllaceae Family of ferns, spores lack the capacity to withstand 
desiccation, are not known to be dispersed long distance through the 
wind, and depend upon the moist microclimate for growth and survival 
(Mohammad Rosli 2014, p. 21).
    In terms of protecting the subspecies' genetic components, a recent 
study of Florida bristle fern chloroplast DNA found little genetic 
differentiation between the two metapopulations, which can indicate 
that both metapopulations are recently established from a single source 
or that there is a favoring of a genetic sequence (Hughes 2015, 
entire). Lower genetic variation in a population produces a lower 
effective population (the number of individuals that can undergo cross-
fertilization). In such small populations, such as with Florida bristle 
fern, any loss of individuals may also be a loss of genetic information 
and a reduction of subspecies fitness (Fernando et al. 2015, pp. 32-
34). Therefore, ensuring space for reproduction, germination, spore 
production, and dispersal of the subspecies helps ensure the 
conservation of genetic information and subspecies fitness.
    Adequate space and the maintenance of the stable microclimate 
habitat support clonal growth as well as the reproductive stages of 
Florida bristle fern. The rare American hart's tongue fern (Asplenium 
scolopendrium var. americanum) is a species like the Florida bristle 
fern that relies on the specific microclimate conditions of high 
humidity, moisture, and shelter. In a study of the American hart's 
tongue fern, the presence of these microclimate habitat conditions 
determined the success of the fern's life-history processes (growth, 
reproduction, and spore production) (Fernando et al. 2015, p. 33).
    Interior condition of the hammock microclimate (e.g., humidity, 
temperature) are influenced by the hammock's own canopy and hydrology 
and the vegetative structure and hydrology of the surrounding habitat. 
For example, in south Florida, the pre-settlement landscape of the 
rockland hammocks on the Miami Rock Ridge occurred as ``small islands'' 
in a sea of pine rockland and seasonally flooded prairies, or 
transverse glades (shallow channels through the Miami Rock Ridge that 
had wet prairie vegetation and moved water out of the Everglades Basin 
toward the coast). It has been estimated that originally more than 500 
hammocks occurred in this area, ranging in size from 0.1 ha (0.2 ac) to 
over 40 ha (100 ac) (Craighead 1972, p. 153). The vast majority of 
these hammocks have been destroyed, and those that remain are 
significantly reduced in size. In addition, the habitats surrounding 
the remaining rockland hammocks have been drastically altered or 
destroyed, primarily through urban and agricultural development, and, 
in many

[[Page 78591]]

cases, no longer function as effective or efficient buffers to protect 
rockland hammocks from the impacts of changes in temperature and 
humidity, or extreme weather or natural stochastic events (e.g., frost, 
high winds, and hurricanes/tropical storms). This fragmentation and 
distance between hammocks can hinder water-based dispersal and the 
recruitment of new plants and gametophytes. Fragmentation may reduce 
the stable, protected microclimate conditions and the survivability of 
spores within that microclimate. Thus, the hammock microhabitat 
supporting the subspecies must be of a suitable minimum size with 
sufficiently dense canopy, substrate, and understory vegetation within 
a hammock's interior, and there must also be intact surrounding habitat 
of sufficient amount, distribution, and space to support appropriate 
growing conditions for Florida bristle fern across its range.
    The central Florida metapopulation of Florida bristle fern occurs 
in two mesic hammocks, which exist as part of a wetland matrix of 
hydric hammock, mixed wetland hardwoods, cypress/tupelo floodplain 
swamp, and freshwater marsh. The surrounding existing suitable habitat 
and substrate are essential to providing space for growth, 
reproduction, and dispersal of the existing populations.
    Therefore, we identify the habitats described as physical or 
biological features above that also provide suitable microhabitat 
conditions, hydrology, and connectivity that can support the 
subspecies' growth, distribution, and population expansion (including 
rhizomal growth, spore dispersal, and sporophyte and gametophyte growth 
and survival) to be a physical or biological feature essential to the 
conservation of Florida bristle fern.

Habitats Protected From Disturbance

    Florida bristle fern can be outcompeted by other native, as well as 
nonnative, invasive species. Nonnative plants and native weeds, 
including a few of the most common invasive plants such as golden 
pothos (Epipremnum pinnatum cv. aureum), arrowhead vine (Syngonium 
podophyllum), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and Burma 
reed (Neyraudia reynaudiana), compete with Florida bristle fern for 
space, light, water, and nutrients; limit the subspecies' growth and 
abundance; and can make habitat conditions unsuitable for the 
subspecies. Nonnative plant species have affected hammock habitats 
where Florida bristle fern occurs, and as identified in the final 
listing rule (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015), are considered one of the 
threats to the subspecies (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 273; Gann et al. 
2002, pp. 552-554; Inventory 2010, pp. 22, 26). Invasive vines such as 
golden pothos, arrowhead vine, Philodendron spp., and Monstera spp., 
have become an increasing threat to hammocks in south Florida and can 
result in canopy collapse during hurricanes or other high wind events 
(Duncan 2020, pers. comm.). Nonnative plants can outcompete and 
displace Florida bristle fern in solution holes, and can blanket 
existing occurrences, blocking out all light and smothering the fern 
(Possley 2013c, pers. comm.). Native bryophytes, especially leafy 
liverworts such as Neckeropsis undulata, also compete with Florida 
bristle fern and gain the advantage in higher light levels (Possley 
2019, pp. 3-4). In addition to the negative impacts of nonnative and 
native invasive plants, feral hogs can impact substrate and vegetation 
(directly) and habitat suitability (indirectly). Rooting from hogs can 
destroy existing habitat by displacing smaller rocks where the 
subspecies grows and potentially damage or eliminate a cluster of the 
fern (Werner 2013, pers. comm.). In the Withlacoochee State Forest, 
damaged areas from feral hogs are also more susceptible to invasion 
from nonnative plant species (Werner 2013, pers. comm.).
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify a plant 
community of predominantly native vegetation that is minimally 
disturbed or free from human-related disturbance, with either no 
competitive nonnative, invasive plant species, or such species in 
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on Florida bristle fern, 
to be a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of 
Florida bristle fern.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
Florida bristle fern conservation from studies of the species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described above, in the final listing rule 
(80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015), and the proposed critical habitat rule 
(85 FR 10371; February 24, 2020). We have determined that the following 
physical or biological features are essential to Florida bristle fern 
conservation:
    (1) Upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of sufficient quality 
and size to sustain the necessary microclimate and life processes for 
Florida bristle fern.
    (2) Exposed substrate derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala 
limestone, or exposed limestone boulders, which provide anchoring and 
nutritional requirements.
    (3) Constantly humid microhabitat consisting of dense canopy cover, 
moisture, stable high temperature, and stable monthly average humidity 
of 90 percent or higher, with intact hydrology within hammocks and the 
surrounding and adjacent wetland communities.
    (4) Dense canopy cover of surrounding native vegetation that 
consists of the upland hardwood forest hammock habitats and provides 
shade, shelter, and moisture.
    (5) Suitable microhabitat conditions, hydrology, and connectivity 
that can support Florida bristle fern's growth, distribution, and 
population expansion (including rhizomal growth, spore dispersal, and 
sporophyte and gametophyte growth and survival).
    (6) Plant community of predominantly native vegetation that is 
minimally disturbed or free from human-related disturbance, with either 
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species, or such species in 
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on Florida bristle fern.

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 which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of Florida 
bristle fern may require special management considerations or 
protections to reduce threats related to habitat modification and 
destruction primarily due to development, agricultural conversion, 
hydrologic alteration, nonnative and invasive species, public use, and 
sea level rise. For more information on threats to Florida bristle 
fern, please refer to the final listing rule (80 FR 60440; October 6, 
2015).
    The four known populations of the south Florida metapopulation 
occur on County-managed conservation lands at Castellow Hammock, Hattie 
Bauer Hammock, Fuchs Hammock, and Meissner Hammock. However, these 
areas are still vulnerable to the effects of activities in the 
surrounding areas, including agricultural clearing and hydrologic 
alterations. In addition, these areas are vulnerable to threats from 
nonnative, invasive species, especially if current control efforts are 
discontinued or decreased. The small amount of rockland hammock or 
mixed

[[Page 78592]]

rockland/mesic hammock is vulnerable to impacts related to urban and 
agricultural development, including hydrologic alterations, and threats 
by nonnative, invasive species (especially as such areas are often not 
actively managed for nonnative species). Also, these areas are open to 
public access, and Florida bristle fern may be at risk of collection, 
damage from people climbing on them, and impacts to microclimate due to 
installation and improvements of trails (Duncan 2020, pers. comm.). We 
expect these hammock communities in south Florida to be further 
degraded due to sea level rise and the increase in the number of flood 
events, which would fully or partially inundate some rockland hammocks 
along the coast and in the southern portion of Miami-Dade County and in 
Everglades National Park. In the short to mid-term, sea level rise may 
benefit the fern by lifting a freshwater lens into previously drained 
areas or areas experiencing a lowered water table, which may restore or 
preserve a favorable microclimate for the subspecies (Duncan 2020, 
pers. comm.). Over the long term, however, sea level rise is expected 
to increase the salinity of the water table and soils, resulting in 
vegetation shifts across the Miami Rock Ridge.
    The two known populations of the central Florida metapopulation 
both occur on State-owned land in the Jumper Creek Tract of the 
Withlacoochee State Forest. Land clearing and hydrological alterations 
on private lands adjacent to the Jumper Creek Tract continue to be 
threats to the subspecies' populations and habitat. In addition, while 
the Withlacoochee State Forest is generally considered public 
conservation land, it is managed by the Florida Forest Service and is 
subject to logging in certain areas. Logging is less likely to occur on 
the Jumper Creek Tract due to the existing matrix of hammocks and 
pinelands (versus a predominantly pineland community). This area is 
also subject to impacts from nonnative, invasive species, although 
forest management on the Jumper Creek Tract currently includes 
nonnative plant control. Moisture and humidity levels of the fern 
habitat are also dependent upon the hydrology of the surrounding or 
adjacent wetlands. Alterations in the natural hydrologic regime within 
the hammock and these adjacent habitats affect these physical or 
biological features. Draining, ditching, and excessive pumping of 
groundwater can lower the water table in hammocks, causing reduced 
moisture and humidity levels. In such cases, mesic hammocks, for 
example, may undergo shifts in species composition toward xeric hammock 
composition. These impacts to hammock systems may ultimately reduce or 
eliminate suitable habitat for the subspecies. A lowered water table or 
dewatering of hammocks can also render the habitat vulnerable to 
catastrophic fire.
    Special management considerations and protections that will address 
these threats include increased coordination and conservation of the 
subspecies and its habitat (including preventing impacts to hammock 
hydrology, canopy cover, microclimate, and substrate) on Federal lands 
and, with the cooperation of State, County, and private landowners, on 
non-Federal lands. Habitat restoration and management efforts 
(including nonnative plant treatments) of high-priority sites will be 
emphasized. At this time, the subspecies does not occur on Federal 
lands for either metapopulation, but reintroduction is being explored 
for Royal Palm Hammock in Everglades National Park in south Florida.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify 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.
    The current distribution of Florida bristle fern is reduced from 
its historical distribution to a level where it is in danger of 
extinction. We anticipate that recovery will require continued 
protection of existing populations and habitat, as well as establishing 
sites that more closely approximate its historical distribution, in 
order to ensure there are adequate numbers of Florida bristle fern in 
stable populations and that these populations occur over a wide 
geographic area within both metapopulations. This strategy will help to 
ensure that catastrophic events, such as fire, cannot simultaneously 
affect all known populations. Rangewide recovery considerations, such 
as maintaining existing genetic diversity and striving for 
representation of all major portions of the subspecies' historical 
range, were considered in formulating this critical habitat 
designation.
    The amount and distribution of the designated critical habitat are 
designed to provide:
    (1) The processes that maintain the physical or biological features 
that are essential to the conservation of the subspecies;
    (2) Sufficient quality and size of habitat to support the 
persistence of the physical or biological features for the subspecies 
(hammock microclimate, humidity, temperature, substrate, canopy cover, 
native plant community);
    (3) Habitat to expand the distribution of Florida bristle fern into 
historically occupied areas;
    (4) Space to increase the size of each population to a level where 
the threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental 
uncertainties are diminished; and
    (5) Additional space to improve the ability of the subspecies to 
withstand local or regional-level environmental fluctuations or 
catastrophes.
    For Florida bristle fern, we are designating critical habitat in 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at the 
time of listing. For those areas, we determined that they were of 
suitable habitat within the known historical range, with current 
occurrence records, contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies, and require 
special management considerations or protection. We are also 
designating specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by 
the subspecies at the time of listing because we have determined that a 
designation limited to occupied areas would be inadequate to ensure the 
conservation of the subspecies. For those unoccupied areas, we have 
determined that it is reasonably certain that the unoccupied areas will 
contribute to the conservation of the subspecies and that the areas 
contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the subspecies.

Sources of Data To Identify Critical Habitat Boundaries

    To determine the general extent, location, and boundaries of the 
designated critical habitat, we used the following sources of 
information:
    (1) Historical and current records of Florida bristle fern 
occurrence and distribution found in publications, reports, personal 
communications, and associated voucher specimens housed at museums and 
private collections;
    (2) Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission), Inventory, 
Institute for Regional Conservation (Institute), and Fairchild 
geographic

[[Page 78593]]

information system (GIS) data showing the location and extent of 
documented occurrences of Florida bristle fern;
    (3) Reports and databases prepared by the Institute and Fairchild;
    (4) ESRI ArcGIS online basemap aerial imagery (December 2010) and 
historical aerial imagery (1938 for Miami-Dade County; 1941 for Sumter 
County); and
    (5) GIS data depicting land cover (Commission and Inventory 
Cooperative Land Cover Map, version 3.3) within Miami-Dade and Sumter 
Counties, and the location and habitat boundaries of rockland hammocks 
in Miami-Dade County (Institute et al. 2005; Institute 2009; Miami-Dade 
County Information Technology Department 2021; Florida Geographic Data 
Library 2017; Commission and Inventory 2020; Sumter County 2019).
    The presence of the physical or biological features was determined 
using the above sources of information as well as site visits by 
biologists and botanists (Possley 2019, entire) through field surveys, 
habitat mapping, and substrate mapping by the Institute (van der Heiden 
and Johnson 2014, entire; Possley 2015, pers. comm.; van der Heiden 
2016, entire), and follow-up discussions with Miami-Dade County, 
Fairchild staff, and private landowners.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

    The occupied critical habitat units were delineated around the 
documented extant populations and the existing physical or biological 
features that require special management considerations or protection. 
We have determined that all currently known occupied habitat for 
Florida bristle fern was also occupied by the subspecies at the time of 
listing, and that these areas contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies and which may 
require special management considerations or protection. We are 
designating these areas as occupied habitat.

Occupied Habitat--South Florida Metapopulation (Miami-Dade County)

    Occupied habitat, which for the south Florida metapopulation occurs 
in rockland hammock habitat, was identified based on available 
occurrence data for Florida bristle fern. Rockland hammock boundaries 
were delineated using the Institute's 2009 rockland hammock GIS layer. 
Based on our assessment of rockland hammocks on the Miami Rock Ridge 
(see above, under Sites for Reproduction, Germination, and Spore 
Production and Dispersal), we included all of the remaining rockland 
hammocks currently occupied by Florida bristle fern within the critical 
habitat assessment. Next, we grouped rockland hammocks, where 
appropriate, to form units. Rockland hammocks in close proximity to one 
another provide connectivity and allow spore dispersal (water-based, 
animal, or wind-driven dispersal) from occupied to adjacent habitat, 
which is important for establishing new clusters of plants to increase 
population resiliency and subspecies redundancy. In addition, based on 
the Act's implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12(d)), when habitats 
are in close proximity to one another, an inclusive area may be 
designated. Although the population historically observed in Ross 
Hammock has been reported as extirpated, we combined Ross Hammock with 
Castellow Hammock into a single occupied unit (unit South Florida 4 [SF 
4]) because: (1) The subspecies is exceedingly hard to find even by 
species experts and, therefore, may be present even though it has been 
reported as extirpated; (2) gametophytes, the very cryptic reproductive 
stage of the fern, are not recognizable in the field and could still be 
present on site even if the sporophytes, the recognizable plant form, 
have been extirpated; (3) there is the likelihood that spores could 
travel between occupied and adjacent habitat, particularly during high-
water events; and (4) habitat directly adjacent to known occurrences 
(e.g., separated only by a road) can also be occupied if habitat 
conditions are suitable. Three occupied units (Castellow and Ross, 
Hattie Bauer, and Fuchs and Meissner hammocks) totaling 73 ha (180 ac) 
are designated as critical habitat for the south Florida 
metapopulation.

Occupied Critical Habitat--Central Florida Metapopulation (Sumter 
County)

    For the central Florida populations, habitat was identified as the 
intersection of mesic, hydric, and elevated hydric hammocks that 
contain boulder substrate (van der Heiden 2016, p. 3).
    On the Jumper Creek Tract, known extant populations of Florida 
bristle fern occur in two small mesic hammocks located within and 
supported by a matrix of hydric hammock and mixed wetland hardwood 
communities. The mesic hammocks are approximately 0.18 ha (0.44 ac) and 
0.11 ha (0.28 ac) in size and difficult to differentiate from the 
surrounding forested vegetation. Our evaluation of occurrence data for 
this metapopulation also included historical observations of the 
Florida bristle fern south of the Jumper Creek Tract where the 
subspecies was formerly known to occur near Battle Slough (near the 
existing town of Wahoo) and located in close proximity to the extant 
populations. In this area, habitat types include mixed wetland 
hardwoods surrounded by freshwater marsh, cypress/tupelo, and mixed 
hardwood-coniferous forest. Using the information mentioned above on 
current and historical occurrences and habitat type and applying the 
data for suitable substrate (boulders), we delineated a contiguous unit 
of occupied habitat for Florida bristle fern.
    As discussed in Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of the Species, above, suitable hammock micro-conditions 
in this landscape (specifically the high humidity, stable temperatures, 
moisture, and shade) required by Florida bristle fern are supported by 
the surrounding vegetation, which minimizes drastic changes in 
temperature or humidity at the microclimate scale. Generally, forest 
edges receive more light, are prone to greater desiccation, and have a 
reduced biodiversity compared to the forest interiors. Pronounced edge 
effects from adjacent land clearing and fragmentation, such as with 
agricultural lands, reduce the quality of forested habitat and 
detrimentally affect the interior microclimate.
    To most accurately represent suitable habitat for Florida bristle 
fern within these central Florida communities and ensure the 
persistence of the necessary microclimate, we consider natural 
communities within 300 m (985 ft) as measured from the edge of and 
surrounding the boulder substrate (equivalent to 9.3 ha (23 ac)) to be 
habitat essential to the conservation of the subspecies (van der Heiden 
2014, pers. comm.; van der Heiden 2016, p. 3) in protecting the habitat 
from edge effects. The suitable habitat communities and the 
distribution of exposed limestone substrate (boulder) in these 
communities were delineated with the use of ground survey and satellite 
imagery data (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 6-7; van der Heiden 
2016, p. 3). Site-level data of vegetative communities produced from 
aerial photography (Commission and Inventory 2020) and feedback from 
species experts and local biologists on habitat and substrate 
occurrence in this area were also used.
    Thus, using the best available data, one occupied unit totaling 742 
ha (1,834 ac) is designated as critical habitat for the central Florida 
metapopulation. This critical habitat designation consists of a 
contiguous unit within and adjacent to Jumper Creek Tract of intact 
vegetation (i.e., not cleared) in mesic or hydric hammocks and mixed 
wetland hardwood communities having exposed

[[Page 78594]]

limestone substrate (boulders), which have, at minimum, a 300-m (985-
ft) radius of surrounding intact vegetation.

Areas Outside the Geographic Area Occupied at the Time of Listing

    To consider for designation areas not occupied by the subspecies at 
the time of listing, we must determine that these areas are essential 
for the conservation of Florida bristle fern. In south Florida, 
occupied critical habitat for the subspecies is within a relatively 
small amount of highly fragmented habitat and occupied patches are 
generally isolated from one another within the landscape. In addition, 
the extent of the geographic area in south Florida (Miami-Dade County) 
that is currently occupied by the plant is substantially (nearly 80 
percent) smaller than its historical range. In central Florida, the two 
known existing populations are in very close proximity and also in a 
much smaller area than the known historical range. Because of this 
fragmentation and loss of range, both metapopulations have lower 
resiliency under these current conditions compared to historical 
occurrences, and, therefore, the subspecies' adaptive capacity 
(representation) and redundancy has been reduced.
    Based on these factors in relation to the threats to Florida 
bristle fern, we have determined that designation of unoccupied areas 
are needed to conserve the species; thus, additional habitat is 
essential to provide a sufficient amount of habitat (total area and 
number of patches) and connectivity for the long-term conservation of 
the plant. Therefore, we have identified and are designating as 
critical habitat specific areas outside the geographical area occupied 
by the subspecies at the time of listing that are essential for the 
conservation of the subspecies. This will ensure enough sites and 
individuals exist for each metapopulation of Florida bristle fern to 
recover. We used habitat and historical occurrence data and the 
physical or biological features described earlier to identify 
unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the Florida 
bristle fern. As discussed in more detail below, the unoccupied areas 
we selected are essential for the conservation of the subspecies 
because they:
    (1) Consist of a documented historical, but now extirpated, 
occurrence of the subspecies;
    (2) Could still have Florida bristle fern gametophytes on site;
    (3) Provide areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem 
processes;
    (4) Provide suitable habitat (that contains some or all of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies) that allow for growth and expansion; and
    (5) Occur in the known historical range of the subspecies.
    These unoccupied areas provide sufficient space for growth and 
reproduction for the subspecies within the historical range and will 
provide ecological diversity so that the subspecies has the ability to 
evolve and adapt over time (representation) and ensure that the 
subspecies has an adequate level of redundancy to guard against future 
catastrophic events. These areas also represent the areas within the 
historical range with the best potential for recovery of the subspecies 
due to their current conditions, provide habitat and space to support 
spore dispersal and new growth, and are likely suitable for 
reintroductions. Also, the areas with historical occurrences of Florida 
bristle fern have a high likelihood of gametophyte presence, the very 
cryptic reproductive stage of the fern (Possley 2020, pers. comm.), 
that could develop into sporophytes (the recognizable mature plant) 
under the proper conditions (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). For these 
reasons, we have reasonable certainty that the unoccupied areas will 
contribute to the conservation of the species.

Unoccupied Habitat--South Florida Metapopulation (Miami-Dade County)

    The existing suitable habitat for the south Florida metapopulation 
consists of a patchwork of small parcels. Therefore, we must ensure the 
integrity of the solution hole and canopy cover, which is responsible 
for maintaining the stable damp, humid, and shaded microclimate 
identified as a physical or biological feature for the subspecies.
    Using the Institute's 2009 rockland hammock GIS layer, the 
Commission and Inventory's Cooperative Land Cover site-level data for 
rockland hammocks, the Institute et al.'s 2015 Natural Forest Community 
GIS layer for hammocks, and site visit information from Service staff 
biologists and botanists from Fairchild and Miami-Dade County, we 
evaluated all unoccupied sites within rockland hammock habitats, 
including mixed rockland/mesic hammock and rockland hammock with 
connecting mixed wetland hardwood habitat, in Miami-Dade County. 
Specifically, we reviewed available historical aerial photography of 20 
rockland hammocks historically occupied, but now unoccupied, by the 
subspecies. Ten additional potential sites were visited by Service 
staff. Also, specific information provided by Miami-Dade County and 
Fairchild on four additional areas was reviewed. A site was considered 
in the evaluation for unoccupied critical habitat if it is within the 
historical range of the subspecies and:
    (1) Holds a documented historical occurrence;
    (2) Contains one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the subspecies;
    (3) Provides viable habitat for introductions or could be restored 
to support Florida bristle fern;
    (4) Occurs at the edge of the range and provides areas that would 
allow for growth and expansion; or
    (5) Occurs near an occupied site (for potential recruitment).
    Each site will, in conjunction with occupied areas of designated 
critical habitat, support the conservation of the subspecies. Based on 
our review, we identified four unoccupied rockland hammock units on the 
Miami Rock Ridge outside of Everglades National Park (see table 1, 
below). These four units represent the units with documented, but now 
extirpated, historical occurrences with intact rockland hammock within 
the historical range of the subspecies outside of the Everglades 
National Park. Within the Everglades National Park, we identified a 
fifth unit, the Royal Palm Hammock, for inclusion in the designated 
critical habitat. This hammock was also historically occupied by the 
subspecies but was not occupied at the time of listing. The resulting 
five unoccupied designated units consist of 136 ha (335 ac) and are 
considered essential for the conservation of Florida bristle fern 
because they protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies and 
reestablish wild populations within the known historical range of the 
subspecies in Miami-Dade County. The unoccupied units each contain one 
or more of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies and are likely to provide for the 
conservation of the subspecies. The majority of four of the unoccupied 
units are on lands managed by Miami-Dade County, and the fifth 
unoccupied unit is on land managed by Everglades National Park.

Unoccupied Habitat--Central Florida Metapopulation (Sumter County)

    For the central Florida metapopulation, criteria for determining 
unoccupied critical habitat included units that:
    (1) Hold a documented historical occurrence;
    (2) Contain one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the subspecies;

[[Page 78595]]

    (3) Provide space for growth and recovery (to add resiliency to a 
small population);
    (4) Provide viable habitat for introductions; and
    (5) Provide connectivity across the range of the subspecies.
    Unoccupied habitat was delineated based on documented historical 
occurrences, existing suitable habitat (as defined by the physical or 
biological features), and evaluation of the habitat and substrate 
delineation mapping (van der Heiden 2016, pp. 5-7) with data obtained 
through field surveys and satellite mapping. The one unoccupied unit 
designated as critical habitat consists of approximately 747 ha (1,846 
ac) (see table 1, below). It consists of documented historically 
occupied (now extirpated) habitat with suitable wetland and upland 
communities having intact vegetation (i.e., not cleared) and hammocks 
and exposed limestone boulders with at least a 300-m (985-ft) radius or 
greater of surrounding native vegetation (van der Heiden 2014, pers. 
comm.; van der Heiden 2016, p. 3). Its size was based on the conditions 
necessary to maintain the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies. It is considered essential for the 
conservation of Florida bristle fern because it protects habitat needed 
to recover the subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the 
known historical range of the subspecies in Sumter County. The 
unoccupied unit contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies and is likely 
to provide for the conservation of the subspecies.

Critical Habitat Maps

    When determining 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 the physical or 
biological features necessary for Florida bristle fern. 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 rule have been excluded by 
text in the rule and are not included for designation as critical 
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not 
trigger section 7 consultation under the Act with respect to critical 
habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the 
specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the 
adjacent critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
the discussion of individual units below. We will make the coordinates 
or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the 
public at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-
0068, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero 
Beach (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating approximately 1,698 ha (4,195 ac) in 10 units in 
Miami-Dade and Sumter Counties, Florida, as critical habitat for 
Florida bristle fern. The designated critical habitat consists of units 
identified for the south and central Florida metapopulations and are 
delineated in (1) south Florida by rockland/tropical hammocks of Miami-
Dade County (208 ha (515 ac)); and (2) central Florida by Withlacoochee 
State Forest, Jumper Creek Tract, and adjacent lands in Sumter County 
(1,489 ha (3,680 ac)). Four of the units are currently occupied by the 
subspecies and contain those physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the subspecies but may require special 
management considerations or protection. Six of the units are currently 
unoccupied by the subspecies but are essential for the conservation of 
the subspecies. Table 1 shows the name, occupancy, area, and land 
ownership of each unit within the critical habitat designation for 
Florida bristle fern. Land ownership within the entire designated 
critical habitat consists of Federal (4 percent), State (91 percent), 
County (3 percent), and private (2 percent) ownership.

Table 1--Name, Occupancy, Area, and Land Ownership of Designated Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bristle Fern (Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum)
    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. All areas are rounded to the nearest whole hectare (ha) and acre (ac).
                             Ownership information is based on Miami-Dade County data (2021) and Sumter County data (2019).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Federal ha                                     Private/other
                  Unit                              Occupancy                  (ac)        State ha (ac)  County ha (ac)      ha (ac)      Total ha (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Rockland/Tropical Hammocks of South Florida, Miami-Dade County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matheson Hammock (SF 1)................  Unoccupied.....................               0               0         21 (51)           2 (4)         22 (55)
Snapper Creek Hammock (SF 2)...........  Unoccupied.....................               0           3 (8)               0           3 (7)          6 (15)
Charles Deering Estate Hammock (SF 3)..  Unoccupied.....................               0        43 (106)               0               0        43 (106)
Castellow and Ross Hammocks (SF 4).....  Occupied.......................               0         17 (43)         25 (63)         13 (32)        56 (139)
Silver Palm Hammock (SF 5).............  Unoccupied.....................               0          4 (10)               0               0          4 (10)
Hattie Bauer Hammock (SF 6)............  Occupied.......................               0               0          4 (10)           2 (6)          6 (16)
Fuchs and Meissner Hammocks (SF 7).....  Occupied.......................               0           2 (5)          8 (19)           0 (1)         10 (25)
Royal Palm Hammock (SF 8)..............  Unoccupied.....................        61 (150)               0               0               0        61 (150)
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    South Florida Total................  ...............................        61 (150)        70 (172)        58 (144)         20 (50)       208 (515)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Withlacoochee State Forest, Jumper Creek Tract, and adjacent lands of Central Florida, Sumter County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF 1...................................  Occupied.......................               0     726 (1,795)               0         16 (39)     742 (1,834)
CF 2...................................  Unoccupied.....................               0     747 (1,846)               0               0     747 (1,846)
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Central Florida Total..............  ...............................               0   1,473 (3,641)               0         16 (39)   1,489 (3,680)
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 78596]]

 
        Total South and Central Florida  ...............................        61 (150)   1,543 (3,813)        58 (144)         36 (89)   1,698 (4,195)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Florida bristle fern, 
below.

Rockland/Tropical Hammocks of South Florida, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    The designated critical habitat for the south Florida 
metapopulation is composed of eight units (SF 1-SF 8) consisting of 
approximately 208 ha (515 ac) located between South Miami and eastern 
Everglades National Park in central and southern Miami-Dade County, 
Florida.
SF 1--Matheson Hammock
    We identified this area as essential for the conservation of the 
Florida bristle fern. SF 1 consists of approximately 22 ha (55 ac) of 
habitat in Matheson Hammock in and around Matheson Hammock Park in 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit is composed of 20.6 ha (51.1 ac) 
of County-owned land that is primarily managed cooperatively by Miami-
Dade County's Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program and 
Natural Areas Management (NAM) division. The remaining 1.5 ha (3.7 ac) 
are privately owned and managed by the landowners through the EEL 
Covenant Program and/or are protected from development through Miami-
Dade County's designation as Natural Forest Communities. Matheson 
Hammock is within the historical range of Florida bristle fern but was 
not occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, Florida bristle 
fern was documented here in the past (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015), 
and it is possible that the site still contains the fern's gametophytes 
(the very cryptic reproductive stage of the fern) (Possley 2020, pers. 
comm.) that could develop into sporophytes (the recognizable mature 
plant) under the proper conditions (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). 
Also, this unit contains some or all of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Unit SF 1 
possesses those characteristics as described by the first identified 
physical or biological feature (upland hardwood forest hammock habitats 
of sufficient quality and size to sustain the necessary microclimate 
and life processes for Florida bristle fern) and the second identified 
physical or biological feature (exposed substrate derived from oolitic 
limestone, Ocala limestone, or exposed limestone boulders, which 
provide anchoring and nutritional requirements). The third through 
sixth identified physical or biological features are degraded in this 
unit, but with appropriate management and restoration actions (such as 
removal of invasive plant species), these physical or biological 
features can be restored. Based upon the presence of key habitat needs 
and the conditions of the site, this unit constitutes habitat for the 
Florida bristle fern.
    This unit will serve to protect habitat needed to recover the 
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range 
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would 
increase redundancy in the South Florida metapopulation. It would also 
provide habitat for recolonization in the case of stochastic events 
(such as hurricanes), should other areas of suitable habitat be 
destroyed, or should Florida bristle fern be extirpated from one of its 
currently occupied locations. This unit is essential for the 
conservation of the subspecies because it will provide habitat for 
range expansion in known historical habitat that is necessary to 
increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation.
    We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the 
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation 
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation 
partners, and methods for restoring habitat and reintroducing the 
subspecies are being developed for this unit. As stated previously, the 
majority of this unit is composed of County-owned land and primarily 
managed cooperatively by Miami-Dade County's EEL program and NAM 
division. The EEL program's focus is on the ``protection and 
conservation of endangered lands,'' and these EEL areas are managed for 
restoration and conservation through actions such as invasive plant 
removal. In addition, State and County partners have shown interest in 
reintroduction efforts for the Florida bristle fern in this area. The 
privately owned portions of this unit are either enrolled in the 
County's EEL Covenant Program, a 10-year commitment to restore and 
manage the property as a natural area in exchange for tax incentives, 
or designated as a Natural Forest Community under Miami-Dade County's 
Code of Ordinances (chapter 24, article IV, division 2, section 24-
49.2), which limits development of rockland hammocks to no more than 10 
percent of the site.
SF 2--Snapper Creek
    We identified this area as essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies. SF 2 consists of approximately 6 ha (15 ac) of habitat in 
Snapper Creek Hammock adjacent to R. Hardy Matheson Preserve in Miami-
Dade County, Florida. This unit consists of 3.2 ha (8 ac) of State-
owned land that is primarily managed cooperatively by Miami-Dade 
County's EEL program and NAM division and 2.6 ha (7 ac) of University 
of Miami-owned land that is managed in cooperation with Fairchild. 
Snapper Creek is within the historical range of Florida bristle fern 
but was not occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, Florida bristle 
fern was documented here in the past (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015), 
and it is possible that the site still contains the fern's gametophytes 
(the very cryptic reproductive stage of the fern) (Possley 2020, pers. 
comm.) that could develop into sporophytes (the recognizable mature 
plant) under the proper conditions (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). 
Also, this unit contains some or all of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Unit SF 2 
possesses those characteristics as described by the first

[[Page 78597]]

identified physical or biological feature (upland hardwood forest 
hammock habitats of sufficient quality and size to sustain the 
necessary microclimate and life processes for Florida bristle fern) and 
the second identified physical or biological feature (exposed substrate 
derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala limestone, or exposed limestone 
boulders, which provide anchoring and nutritional requirements). The 
third through sixth identified physical or biological features are 
degraded in this unit, but with appropriate management and restoration 
actions (such as removal of invasive plant species), these physical or 
biological features can be restored. Based upon the presence of key 
habitat needs and the conditions of the site, this unit constitutes 
habitat for the Florida bristle fern.
    This unit will serve to protect habitat needed to recover the 
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range 
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would 
increase the subspecies' redundancy in the South Florida 
metapopulation. It will also provide habitat for recolonization in the 
case of stochastic events (such as hurricanes), should other areas of 
suitable habitat be destroyed, or should Florida bristle fern be 
extirpated from one of its currently occupied locations. This unit is 
essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it will 
provide habitat for range expansion in known historical habitat that is 
necessary to increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
    We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the 
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation 
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation 
partners, and methods for restoring habitat and reintroducing the 
subspecies are being developed for this unit. As stated previously, 
this unit is composed of State-owned land that is primarily managed 
cooperatively by Miami-Dade County's EEL program and NAM division and 
University of Miami-owned land that is cooperatively managed with 
Fairchild. The EEL program's focus is on the ``protection and 
conservation of endangered lands,'' and these EEL areas are managed for 
restoration and conservation through actions such as invasive plant 
removal. In addition, State, County, and private partners have shown 
interest in reintroduction efforts for the Florida bristle fern in this 
area.
SF 3--Charles Deering Estate Hammock
    We identified this area as essential for the conservation of the 
Florida bristle fern. SF 3 consists of approximately 43 ha (106 ac) of 
habitat in the Charles Deering Estate in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 
This unit is composed of State-owned land that is primarily managed 
cooperatively by Miami-Dade County's EEL program and NAM division. 
Charles Deering Estate Hammock is within the historical range of 
Florida bristle fern but was not occupied by the subspecies at the time 
of listing.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, Florida bristle 
fern was documented here in the past (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015), 
and it is possible that the site still contains the fern's gametophytes 
(the very cryptic reproductive stage of the fern) (Possley 2020, pers. 
comm.) that could develop into sporophytes (the recognizable mature 
plant) under the proper conditions (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). 
Also, this unit contains all of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Based upon the 
presence of key habitat needs and the conditions of the site, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the Florida bristle fern.
    This unit will serve to protect habitat needed to recover the 
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range 
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would 
increase the subspecies' redundancy in the South Florida 
metapopulation. It will also provide habitat for recolonization in the 
case of stochastic events (such as hurricanes), should other areas of 
suitable habitat be destroyed, or should Florida bristle fern be 
extirpated from one of its currently occupied locations. This unit is 
essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it will 
provide habitat for range expansion in known historical habitat that is 
necessary to increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
    We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the 
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation 
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation 
partners, and methods for reintroducing the subspecies are being 
developed for this unit. As stated previously, this unit is composed 
entirely of State-owned land and is primarily managed cooperatively by 
Miami-Dade County's EEL program and NAM division. The EEL program's 
focus is on the ``protection and conservation of endangered lands,'' 
and these EEL areas are managed for restoration and conservation 
through actions such as invasive plant removal. In addition, State and 
County partners have shown interest in reintroduction efforts for the 
Florida bristle fern in this area.
SF 4--Castellow and Ross Hammocks
    SF 4 consists of approximately 56 ha (139 ac) of habitat in 
Castellow and Ross Hammocks in and around Castellow Hammock Preserve in 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit consists of 17.5 ha (43.3 ac) of 
State-owned and 25.6 ha (63.4 ac) of County-owned lands that are 
primarily managed cooperatively by Miami-Dade County's EEL program and 
NAM division. The remaining 13 ha (32.3 ac) are privately owned and 
managed by the landowners through the EEL Covenant Program and/or are 
protected from development through Miami-Dade County's designation as 
Natural Forest Communities. This unit is occupied by the subspecies and 
contains some or all of the physical or biological features essential 
to its conservation.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address threats of commercial, residential, or agricultural 
development; hydrological alterations; competition with nonnative 
species; human use and recreation; and sea level rise. In some cases, 
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and 
landowners to implement needed actions. Such actions include removal of 
invasive species, review of County development plans, and review of 
projects considering land use changes.
SF 5--Silver Palm Hammock
    We identified this area as essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies. SF 5 consists of approximately 4 ha (10 ac) of habitat in 
Silver Palm Hammock in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit consists 
of State-owned land that is primarily managed cooperatively by Miami-
Dade County's EEL program and NAM division. Silver Palm Hammock is 
within the historical range of Florida bristle fern but was not 
occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, Florida bristle 
fern was documented here in the past (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015), 
and it is possible that the site still contains the fern's gametophytes 
(the very cryptic reproductive stage of the fern) (Possley 2020, pers. 
comm.) that could develop into sporophytes (the recognizable mature 
plant) under the proper conditions (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). 
Also, this unit contains some or all of the physical or biological 
features

[[Page 78598]]

essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Unit SF 5 possesses 
those characteristics as described by the first identified physical or 
biological feature (upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of 
sufficient quality and size to sustain the necessary microclimate and 
life processes for Florida bristle fern); the second identified 
physical or biological feature (exposed substrate derived from oolitic 
limestone, Ocala limestone, or exposed limestone boulders, which 
provide anchoring and nutritional requirements); the third identified 
physical or biological feature (constantly humid microhabitat 
consisting of dense canopy cover, moisture, stable high temperature, 
and stable monthly average humidity of 90 percent or higher, with 
intact hydrology within hammocks and the surrounding and adjacent 
wetland communities); the fourth identified physical or biological 
feature (dense canopy cover of surrounding native vegetation that 
consists of the upland hardwood forest hammock habitats and provides 
shade, shelter, and moisture); and the fifth identified physical or 
biological feature (suitable microhabitat conditions, hydrology, and 
connectivity that can support Florida bristle fern's growth, 
distribution, and population expansion (including rhizomal growth, 
spore dispersal, and sporophyte and gametophyte growth and survival)). 
The sixth identified physical or biological feature is degraded in this 
unit, but with appropriate management and restoration actions (such as 
removal of invasive plant species), this feature can be restored. Based 
upon the presence of key habitat needs and the conditions of the site, 
this unit constitutes habitat for the Florida bristle fern.
    This unit will serve to protect habitat needed to recover the 
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range 
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would 
increase the subspecies' redundancy in the South Florida 
metapopulation. It will also provide habitat for recolonization in the 
case of stochastic events (such as hurricanes), should other areas of 
suitable habitat be destroyed, or should Florida bristle fern be 
extirpated from one of its currently occupied locations. This unit is 
essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it will 
provide habitat for range expansion in known historical habitat that is 
necessary to increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
    We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the 
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation 
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation 
partners, and methods for restoring habitat are being developed for 
this unit. As stated previously, this unit is entirely composed of 
State-owned land and is primarily managed cooperatively by Miami-Dade 
County's EEL program and NAM division. The EEL program's focus is on 
the ``protection and conservation of endangered lands,'' and these EEL 
areas are managed for restoration and conservation through actions such 
as invasive plant removal. In addition, State and County partners have 
shown interest in reintroduction efforts for the Florida bristle fern 
in this area.
SF 6--Hattie Bauer Hammock
    SF 6 consists of approximately 6 ha (16 ac) of habitat in Hattie 
Bauer Hammock in and around Hattie Bauer Hammock Preserve in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. This unit consists of 4 ha (10 ac) of County-owned 
land that is primarily managed cooperatively by Miami-Dade County's EEL 
program and NAM division. The remaining 2 ha (6 ac) are privately owned 
and managed by the landowners through the EEL Covenant Program and/or 
are protected from development through Miami-Dade County's designation 
as Natural Forest Communities. This unit is occupied by the subspecies 
and contains some or all of the physical or biological features 
essential to its conservation.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address threats of commercial, residential, or agricultural 
development; hydrological alterations; competition with nonnative 
species; human use and recreation; and sea level rise. In some cases, 
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and 
landowners to implement needed actions. Such actions include removal of 
invasive species, review of County development plans, and review of 
projects considering land use changes.
SF 7--Fuchs and Meissner Hammocks
    SF 7 consists of approximately 10 ha (25 ac) of habitat in Fuchs 
and Meissner Hammocks in and around Fuchs and Meissner Hammock 
Preserves in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit consists of 2 ha (5 
ac) of State-owned and 7.6 ha (19 ac) of County-owned lands that are 
primarily managed cooperatively by Miami-Dade County's EEL program and 
NAM division. The remaining 0.4 ha (1 ac) are privately owned and 
managed by the landowners through the EEL Covenant Program and/or are 
protected from development through Miami-Dade County's designation as 
Natural Forest Communities. This unit is occupied by the subspecies and 
contains some or all of the physical or biological features essential 
to its conservation.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address threats of commercial, residential, or agricultural 
development; hydrological alterations; competition with nonnative 
species; human use and recreation; and sea level rise. In some cases, 
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and 
landowners to implement needed actions. Such actions include removal of 
invasive species, review of County development plans, and review of 
projects considering land use changes.
SF 8--Royal Palm Hammock
    We identified this area as essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies. SF 8 consists of approximately 61 ha (150 ac) of habitat in 
Royal Palm Hammock in Everglades National Park, which is federally 
owned land, in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Royal Palm Hammock is within 
the historical range of Florida bristle fern but was not occupied by 
the subspecies at the time of listing.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, Florida bristle 
fern was documented here in the past (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015), 
and it is possible that the site still contains the fern's gametophytes 
(the very cryptic reproductive stage of the fern) (Possley 2020, pers. 
comm.) that could develop into sporophytes (the recognizable mature 
plant) under the proper conditions (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). 
Also, this unit contains all of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Based upon the 
presence of key habitat needs and the conditions of the site, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the Florida bristle fern.
    This unit will serve to protect habitat needed to recover the 
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range 
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would 
increase the subspecies' redundancy in the South Florida 
metapopulation. It will also provide habitat for recolonization in the 
case of stochastic events (such as hurricanes), should other areas of 
suitable habitat be destroyed, or should Florida bristle fern be 
extirpated from one of its currently occupied locations. This unit is 
essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it will 
provide habitat for range expansion in known historical habitat that is 
necessary to increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation.

[[Page 78599]]

    We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the 
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation 
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation 
partners, and habitat maintenance in this unit is ongoing. This unit is 
entirely composed of federally owned Everglades National Park land, and 
the National Park Service has responsibilities under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act to carry out programs for the conservation of federally listed 
endangered and threatened species. The Everglades National Park General 
Management Plan (Plan), approved in 2015, prior to the published final 
listing rule for Florida bristle fern, guides the National Park 
Service's management of Everglades National Park, including 
conservation of endangered and threatened species. The 2015 Plan 
identifies the Florida bristle fern as extirpated from Everglades 
National Park (Royal Palm Hammock), and, therefore, specific 
conservation measures were not discussed for the subspecies (National 
Park Service 2015, p. 226). However, Everglades National Park continues 
to conduct nonnative plant species control in Royal Palm Hammock, which 
helps maintain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Florida bristle fern.

Withlacoochee State Forest, Jumper Creek Tract, and Adjacent Lands of 
Central Florida, Sumter County

    The designated critical habitat for the central Florida 
metapopulation is composed of two units (CF 1 and CF 2) consisting of 
approximately 1,489 ha (3,680 ac) located within and adjacent to the 
Jumper Creek Tract of the Withlacoochee State Forest in Sumter County, 
Florida.
CF 1
    CF 1 consists of approximately 742 ha (1,834 ac) of habitat in 
Sumter County, Florida. This unit consists of 726 ha (1,795 ac) of 
State-owned land within the Jumper Creek Tract of the Withlacoochee 
State Forest and 16 ha (39 ac) of privately owned land directly 
adjacent to the two locations where Florida bristle fern is currently 
observed. The State-owned land is managed by the Florida Forest 
Service. This unit is occupied by the subspecies and contains all of 
the physical or biological features essential to its conservation.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address threats of residential and agricultural development, land 
clearing, logging, cattle grazing, hydrological alteration, competition 
with nonnative species, human use and recreation, and impacts related 
to climate change. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or 
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed 
actions.
CF 2
    We identified this area as essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies. CF 2 consists of approximately 747 ha (1,846 ac) of habitat 
on State-owned land within the Jumper Creek Tract of the Withlacoochee 
State Forest, Sumter County, Florida. This is within the historical 
range of Florida bristle fern but was not occupied by the subspecies at 
the time of listing.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, Florida bristle 
fern was documented here in the past (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015), 
and it is possible that the site still contains the fern's gametophytes 
(the very cryptic reproductive stage of the fern) (Possley 2020, pers. 
comm.) that could develop into sporophytes (the recognizable mature 
plant) under the proper conditions (80 FR 60440; October 6, 2015). 
Also, this unit contains all of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Based upon the 
presence of key habitat needs and the conditions of the site, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the Florida bristle fern.
    This unit will serve to protect habitat needed to recover the 
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range 
in Sumter County. Re-establishing at least one historical population in 
this unit would increase the subspecies' redundancy in the Central 
Florida metapopulation. It will also provide habitat for recolonization 
in the case of stochastic events (such as hurricanes), should other 
areas of suitable habitat be destroyed, or should Florida bristle fern 
be extirpated from one of its currently occupied locations. This unit 
is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it will 
provide habitat for range expansion in known historical habitat that is 
necessary to increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
    We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the 
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation 
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation 
partners, and habitat maintenance in this unit is ongoing. This unit is 
entirely composed of State-owned land that is part of the Withlacoochee 
State Forest. The Ten-Year Resource Management Plan for the 
Withlacoochee State Forest (Management Plan), approved in 2015, prior 
to the published final listing rule for Florida bristle fern, guides 
the Florida Forest Service's management, including protection of 
endangered and threatened species found on the Withlacoochee State 
Forest. The Management Plan lists the Florida bristle fern as occurring 
in the Forest, but specific conservation measures are not discussed for 
the subspecies. However, the Withlacoochee State Forest conducts 
nonnative species control (Florida Department of Agriculture and 
Consumer Services 2015, p. 34), which helps maintain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of Florida bristle 
fern. The Florida Forest Service has shown interest in reintroduction 
efforts for Florida bristle fern in this area.

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.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or 
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
agency actions within the subspecies' habitat that may require 
consultation include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the Service, Army National 
Guard, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of 
section 404 Clean

[[Page 78600]]

Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction 
and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway 
Administration. 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.
    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: (1) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) 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 as a 
whole 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 
designation, 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:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter native vegetation 
structure or composition within the upland hardwood forest hammock 
habitat consisting of rockland or closed tropical hardwood hammock 
(south Florida) or mesic, hydric, or intermixed hammock strands 
(central Florida) ecosystems as defined as a physical or biological 
feature essential to the conservation of the Florida bristle fern in 
the designated critical habitat. Such activities could include, but are 
not limited to, land conversion or clearing related to residential, 
commercial, agricultural, or recreational development, including 
associated infrastructure; logging; introduction of nonnative plant 
species; or improper fire management. These activities could result in 
loss, modification, and fragmentation of rockland/mesic hammock 
habitat, thereby eliminating or reducing the habitat necessary for the 
growth and reproduction of the subspecies.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter microhabitat for Florida 
bristle fern within the rockland or closed tropical hardwood hammock 
(in south Florida) or mesic, hydric, or intermixed hammock strands (in 
central Florida) ecosystems, including significant alterations to the 
substrate within the rockland/mesic-hydric hammocks or to the canopy or 
hydrology within the rockland/mesic-hydric hammocks or surrounding 
upland hardwood forest vegetation as identified as a physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the Florida bristle 
fern in the designated critical habitat. Such activities could include, 
but are not limited to, residential, commercial, agricultural, or 
recreational development, including associated infrastructure; land 
conversion or clearing; logging; introduction of nonnative species, 
including invasive plants or feral hogs; ground or surface water 
withdrawals; and ditching. These activities could result in changes to 
temperature, humidity, light, and existing water levels, thereby 
eliminating or reducing the microhabitat necessary for the growth and 
reproduction of the subspecies.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology of the 
upland forested hammock ecosystems as defined as a physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the Florida bristle 
fern in the designated critical habitat, including significant 
alterations to the hydrology of surrounding wetland habitat and the 
underlying water table. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, regional drainage efforts, ground or surface water 
withdrawals, and ditching. These activities could result in changes to 
existing water levels and humidity levels within the hammocks, thereby 
eliminating or reducing the habitat necessary for the growth and 
reproduction of the subspecies.

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

[[Page 78601]]

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), if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no 
DoD lands with a completed INRMP within the final critical habitat 
designation.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will 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.
    The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we 
take into consideration the economic, national security, or other 
relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical 
habitat. We describe below the process that we undertook for taking 
into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the 
relevant impacts.
    On December 18, 2020, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (85 FR 82376) revising portions of our regulations pertaining 
to exclusions of critical habitat. These final regulations became 
effective on January 19, 2021, and applied to critical habitat rules 
for which a proposed rule was published after January 19, 2021. 
Consequently, these new regulations do not apply to this final rule 
because the rule proposing critical habitat for Florida bristle fern 
published on February 24, 2020. In addition, this regulation was 
rescinded (87 FR 43433; July 21, 2022) and no longer applies to any 
designations of critical habitat. Therefore, for this final rule 
designating critical habitat for the Florida bristle fern, we apply the 
regulations at 424.19 and the 2016 Joint Policy on 4(b)(2) exclusions 
(81 FR 7226; February 11, 2016).

Exclusions Based on 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. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider 
our economic analysis of the critical habitat designation and related 
factors (IEc 2020, entire). The analysis, dated January 30, 2020, was 
made available for public review from February 24, 2020, through April 
24, 2020 (85 FR 10371). The economic analysis addressed probable 
economic impacts of critical habitat designation for Florida bristle 
fern. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may 
pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic 
impacts of this critical habitat designation. Additional information 
relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of critical 
habitat designation for the Florida bristle fern is summarized below 
and available in the screening analysis for the species (IEc 2020, 
entire), available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2019-0068 or by contacting the Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office, Vero Beach (see ADDRESSES).
    We did not receive any public comments on the DEA. Based on peer 
review comments and changes that we made to the critical habitat units 
(see Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, above), the IEM was 
revised to reflect the areas added to the final critical habitat 
designation. Due to the small amount of area added to the final 
critical habitat designation, it was determined that the screening 
analysis did not need to be revised.
    In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that 
may result from the designation of critical habitat for Florida bristle 
fern, first we identified, in the IEM dated April 2021, probable 
incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories 
of activities: (1) Commercial or residential development; (2) roadway 
and bridge construction; (3) utility-related activities; (4) 
agriculture, including land clearing; (5) grazing; (6) groundwater 
pumping; (7) surface water withdrawals and diversions; (8) forest 
management; (9) fire management; (10) conservation and restoration 
activities, including nonnative species control; and (11) recreation. 
Additionally, we considered whether the 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. In areas where 
Florida bristle fern is present, Federal agencies already are required 
to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities 
they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the subspecies. When 
this final critical habitat designation rule becomes effective, 
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat will be incorporated into the existing consultation 
process.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that will result from the subspecies being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., the difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for Florida 
bristle fern. The following considerations helped 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 subspecies, and (2) any actions that would 
result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to 
Florida bristle fern would also likely adversely affect the essential 
physical or biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines 
our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline 
conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of 
critical habitat for this subspecies. This evaluation of the 
incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable 
incremental economic impacts of this designation.
    The final critical habitat designation for Florida bristle fern 
totals approximately 1,698 ha (4,195 ac) in Miami-Dade and Sumter 
Counties, Florida, and includes both occupied and unoccupied units. 
Within the occupied units, any actions that may affect critical habitat 
would also affect the subspecies, and it is unlikely that any 
additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the 
adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as 
necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of Florida 
bristle fern. Therefore, the economic impacts of

[[Page 78602]]

implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be 
limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse 
modification.
    Within the unoccupied units, incremental section 7 costs will 
include both the administrative costs of consultation and the costs of 
developing and implementing conservation measures needed to avoid 
adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, this analysis 
focuses on the likely impacts to activities occurring in unoccupied 
units of the final critical habitat designation. This analysis 
considers the potential need to consult on development, transportation, 
and other activities authorized, undertaken, or funded by Federal 
agencies within unoccupied habitat. The total annual incremental 
section 7 costs associated with the designation were estimated to be 
$210,000 in 2019 dollars (IEC 2020, p. 12). The increase in size of the 
unoccupied units from the proposed to the final critical habitat 
designation is minor (52 ha (129 ac)) and is not anticipated to 
significantly increase the annual incremental section 7 costs 
associated with the designation. Accordingly, we conclude that these 
costs will not reach the threshold of ``significant'' under E.O. 12866.
    We considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation. The Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude 
any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the Florida 
bristle fern based on economic impacts.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    In preparing this rule, we have determined that the lands within 
the final designation of critical habitat for the Florida bristle fern 
are not owned or managed by the DoD or Department of Homeland Security, 
and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or 
homeland security. We did not receive any additional information during 
the public comment period for the proposed designation regarding 
impacts of the designation on national security or homeland security 
that would support excluding any specific areas from the final critical 
habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. Consequently, the Secretary 
is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final 
designation based on impacts on national security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security as discussed above. We consider a number of factors, including 
whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in 
the area such as habitat conservation plans (HCPs), safe harbor 
agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with assurances, or 
whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and 
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion 
from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence of Tribal 
conservation plans and partnerships and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
    In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for Florida bristle fern, 
and the designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, HCPs, 
or permitted or non-permitted plans or agreements from this critical 
habitat designation. We did not receive any additional information 
during the public comment period for the proposed rule regarding other 
relevant impacts to support excluding any specific areas from the final 
critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. Accordingly, the Secretary 
is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final 
designation based on other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

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

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine 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.

[[Page 78603]]

    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 will be directly 
regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to 
evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. 
Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may 
pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic 
impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on this 
information, we affirm our certification that this final critical 
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this E.O. 
that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse 
effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory action under 
consideration. Our economic analysis finds that none of these criteria 
is relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the 
economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with Florida 
bristle fern conservation activities within critical habitat are not 
expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected 
to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The economic analysis concludes that incremental impacts may 
primarily occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations 
for development and transportation projects, and for other activities 
primarily related to land and facility management, cultural resource, 
research, and conservation activities in Everglades National Park; 
however, these are not expected to significantly affect small 
governments. Incremental impacts stemming from various species 
conservation and development control activities are expected to be 
borne by the Federal Government, State of Florida, and Miami-Dade 
County, which are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do 
not believe that the critical habitat designation will significantly or 
uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with 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 Florida bristle fern in a takings implications assessment. 
The Act does not authorize us 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

[[Page 78604]]

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 
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Florida 
bristle fern 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 rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, the 
appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. We did not receive 
comments from the State of Florida. From a federalism perspective, the 
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties 
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have 
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological 
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the subspecies 
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) will be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the subspecies, this rule 
identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies. The designated areas of critical 
habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options 
for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, 
if desired.

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

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the 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 designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. As discussed above (see Exclusions 
Based on Other Relevant Impacts), we have determined that no Tribal 
lands will be affected by this designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on 
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0068 and upon request from the Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office, Vero Beach (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 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.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--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. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) in the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
under Ferns and Allies by removing the entry for ``Trichomanes 
punctatumssp. floridanum'' and adding in its place an entry for 
``Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum'' to read as follows:


17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 78605]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
         Scientific name              Common name        Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                Ferns and Allies
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Trichomanes punctatum ssp.        Florida bristle     Wherever found....  E              80 FR 60440, 10/6/2015;
 floridanum.                       fern.                                                  50 CFR
                                                                                          17.96(b)(1).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.96 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

* * * * *
    (b) Conifers, ferns and allies, and lichens. (1) Family 
Hymenophyllaceae: Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum (Florida 
bristle fern).
    (i) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Sumter 
Counties, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (ii) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Florida bristle fern consist of the 
following components:
    (A) Upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of sufficient quality 
and size to sustain the necessary microclimate and life processes for 
Florida bristle fern.
    (B) Exposed substrate derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala 
limestone, or exposed limestone boulders, which provide anchoring and 
nutritional requirements.
    (C) Constantly humid microhabitat consisting of dense canopy cover, 
moisture, stable high temperature, and stable monthly average humidity 
of 90 percent or higher, with intact hydrology within hammocks and the 
surrounding and adjacent wetland communities.
    (D) Dense canopy cover of surrounding native vegetation that 
consists of the upland hardwood forest hammock habitats and provides 
shade, shelter, and moisture.
    (E) Suitable microhabitat conditions, hydrology, and connectivity 
that can support Florida bristle fern's growth, distribution, and 
population expansion (including rhizomal growth, spore dispersal, and 
sporophyte and gametophyte growth and survival).
    (F) Plant community of predominantly native vegetation that is 
minimally disturbed or free from human-related disturbance, with either 
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species, or such species in 
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on Florida bristle fern.
    (iii) 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 
January 23, 2023.
    (iv) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS 
mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS was 
used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection used in 
mapping and calculating distances and locations within the units was 
North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83 Geographic. 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 https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-
0068, https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, 
and at the Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach. 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.
    (v) Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Family Hymenophyllaceae: Trichomanes punctatum ssp. 
floridanum (Florida bristle fern) paragraph (b)(1)(v)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 78606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE22.006

    (vi) SF 1--Matheson Hammock, SF 2--Snapper Creek Hammock, and SF 
3--Charles Deering Estate Hammock, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (A) SF 1 consists of approximately 22 hectares (ha) (55 acres (ac)) 
in Matheson Hammock in and around Matheson Hammock Park. This unit is 
composed of 20.6 ha (51.1 ac) of County-owned land that is primarily 
managed cooperatively by Miami-Dade County's Environmentally Endangered 
Lands (EEL) program and Natural Areas Management division. The 
remaining 1.5 ha (3.7 ac) are privately owned and managed by the 
landowners through the County's EEL Covenant Program and/or are 
protected from development through the County's designation as Natural 
Forest Communities.
    (B) SF 2 consists of approximately 6 ha (15 ac) in Snapper Creek 
Hammock adjacent to R. Hardy Matheson Preserve.

[[Page 78607]]

This unit consists of 3.2 ha (8 ac) of State-owned land that is 
primarily managed cooperatively by Miami-Dade County's EEL program and 
Natural Areas Management division and 2.8 ha (7 ac) of University of 
Miami-owned land that is managed in cooperation with Fairchild Tropical 
Botanical Gardens.
    (C) SF 3 consists of approximately 43 ha (106 ac) in Charles 
Deering Estate. This unit is comprised of State-owned land that is 
primarily managed by the Miami-Dade County EEL program and Natural 
Areas Management division.
    (D) Map of SF 1, SF 2, and SF 3 follows:

Figure 2 to Family Hymenophyllaceae: Trichomanes punctatum ssp. 
floridanum (Florida bristle fern) paragraph (b)(1)(vi)(D)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE22.007

    (vii) SF 4--Castellow and Ross Hammocks, SF 5--Silver Palm Hammock, 
SF 6--Hattie Bauer Hammock, and SF 7--Fuchs and Meissner Hammocks, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (A) SF 4 consists of approximately 56 ha (139 ac) in Castellow and 
Ross Hammocks in and around Castellow Hammock Preserve. This unit 
consists of 17.5 ha (43.3 ac) of State-owned and 25.6 ha (63.4 ac) of 
County-owned lands that are primarily managed cooperatively by the 
Miami-Dade County EEL program and Natural Areas Management division. 
The remaining 13 ha (32.3 ac) are privately owned and managed by the 
landowners through the EEL Covenant Program and/or are protected from 
development through Miami-Dade County's designation as Natural Forest 
Communities.
    (B) SF 5 consists of approximately 4 ha (10 ac) in Silver Palm 
Hammock. This unit comprises State-owned land that is primarily managed 
cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County EEL program and Natural Areas 
Management division.
    (C) SF 6 consists of approximately 6 ha (16 ac) in Hattie Bauer 
Hammock in and around Hattie Bauer Hammock Preserve. This unit consists 
of 4 ha (10 ac) of County-owned land that is primarily managed 
cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County EEL program and Natural Areas 
Management division. The remaining 2 ha (6 ac) are privately owned and 
managed by the landowners through the EEL Covenant Program and/or are 
protected from development through Miami-Dade County's designation as 
Natural Forest Communities.
    (D) SF 7 consists of approximately 10 ha (25 ac) in Fuchs and 
Meissner Hammocks in and around Fuchs and Meissner Hammock Preserves. 
This unit consists of 2 ha (5 ac) of State-owned and 7.6 ha (19 ac) of 
County-owned lands that are primarily managed cooperatively by the 
Miami-Dade County EEL program and Natural Areas Management division. 
The remaining 0.4 ha (1 ac) are privately owned and managed by the 
landowners through the EEL Covenant Program and/or are protected from 
development through Miami-Dade County's designation as Natural Forest 
Communities.
    (E) Map of SF 4, SF 5, SF 6, and SF 7 follows:


[[Page 78608]]


Figure 3 to Family Hymenophyllaceae: Trichomanes punctatum ssp. 
floridanum (Florida bristle fern) paragraph (b)(1)(vii)(E)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE22.008

    (viii) SF 8--Royal Palm Hammock, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (A) SF 8 consists of approximately 61 ha (150 ac) in Royal Palm 
Hammock in Everglades National Park.
    (B) Map of SF 8 follows:


[[Page 78609]]


Figure 4 to Family Hymenophyllaceae: Trichomanes punctatum ssp. 
floridanum (Florida bristle fern) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(B)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE22.009

    (ix) CF 1 and CF 2, Sumter County, Florida.
    (A) CF 1 consists of approximately 742 ha (1,834 ac) of State-owned 
land (726 ha (1,795 ac)) within the Jumper Creek Tract of the 
Withlacoochee State Forest and of privately owned land (16 ha (39 ac)) 
directly adjacent to Withlacoochee State Forest. The State-owned land 
is managed by the Florida Forest Service.
    (B) CF 2 consists of approximately 747 ha (1,846 ac) of State-owned 
land within the Jumper Creek Tract of the Withlacoochee State Forest.
    (C) Map of CF 1 and CF 2 follows:


[[Page 78610]]


Figure 5 to Family Hymenophyllaceae: Trichomanes punctatum ssp. 
floridanum (Florida bristle fern) paragraph (b)(1)(ix)(C)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE22.010

    (2) [Reserved]

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-27089 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C