[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 796-800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31575]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ47


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on the May 24, 2013, proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata 
(Kentucky glade cress) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic 
analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation and an amended required 
determinations section of the proposal. For this action, our DEA 
consists of an incremental effects memorandum considering the probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat and a screening analysis of the 
probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the 
Kentucky glade cress. We are reopening the comment period to allow all 
interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the 
proposed rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required 
determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be 
resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in our determination on 
this rulemaking action.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published May 24, 2013, 
at 78 FR 31479, is reopened. We will consider comments received or 
postmarked on or before February 6, 2014. Comments submitted 
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES 
section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the 
closing date.

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed 
rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015, or by mail from the Kentucky 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal 
and associated DEA by searching for Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal 
and DEA by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 
J.C. Watts Federal Building, 330 W.

[[Page 797]]

Broadway, Rm. 265, Frankfort, KY 40601; by telephone 502-695-0468; or 
by facsimile 502-695-1024. Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat 
for L. exigua var. laciniata that was published in the Federal Register 
on May 24, 2013 (78 FR 31479), our DEA of the proposed designation, and 
the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will 
consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. 
We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The distribution of the L. exigua var. laciniata;
    (b) The amount and distribution of L. exigua var. laciniata 
habitat;
    (c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that 
contain features essential for the conservation of the species we 
should include in the designation and why; and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to 
the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on L. exigua var. laciniata and proposed critical 
habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, we seek information on the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic 
impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic 
impacts.
    (7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences 
of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation 
and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    (8) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat 
designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific 
area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (78 
FR 31479) during the initial comment period from May 24, 2013, to July 
23, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into 
the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully 
consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final 
determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration 
all written comments and any additional information we receive during 
both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during 
the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed 
are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
critical habitat rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the 
ADDRESSES section. We request that you send comments only by the 
methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing the proposed critical habitat rule 
and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed 
rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0015, or by mail from the Kentucky Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat for L. exigua var. laciniata in 
this document. For more information on L. exigua var. laciniata or its 
habitat, refer to the proposed listing rule published in the Federal 
Register on May 24, 2013 (78 FR 31498), which is available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0069) or 
from the Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    On May 24, 2013, we published a proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the species (78 FR 31479). We proposed to designate 
approximately 2,053 acres (ac) (830 hectares (ha)) in six units located 
in Bullitt and Jefferson Counties, Kentucky, as critical habitat. That 
proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending July 23, 2013. For more 
information on previous Federal actions concerning L. exigua var. 
laciniata, refer to the proposed designation of critical habitat 
published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2013 (78 FR 31479).

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, and 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at 
the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is 
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions 
affecting critical habitat must consult

[[Page 798]]

with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national 
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat 
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the 
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such 
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
    When considering the benefits of inclusion of an area we consider, 
among other factors, the additional regulatory benefits that an area 
would receive through the analysis under section 7 of the Act 
addressing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies); the educational 
benefits of identifying areas containing essential features that aid in 
the recovery of the listed species; and any ancillary benefits 
triggered by existing local, State, or Federal laws as a result of the 
critical habitat designation.
    When considering the benefits of excluding a particular area, we 
consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is 
likely to incentivize or result in the conservation of the species and 
its habitat; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a conservation or management plan 
for the species and its habitat. In the case of L. exigua var. 
laciniata, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of 
the presence of L. exigua var. laciniata and the importance of habitat 
protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat 
protection for L. exigua var. laciniata due to protection from adverse 
modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, 
situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for 
projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
    We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. 
However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be 
based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final 
designation, including information obtained during the comment period 
and information about the economic impact of designation. To consider 
information related to economic impact, we have prepared a draft 
economic analysis (DEA) concerning the proposed critical habitat 
designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).

Consideration of Economic Impact

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios ``with critical 
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical 
habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which 
includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on 
landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by 
the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as 
well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, 
therefore, represents the impacts of all efforts attributable to the 
listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species 
and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the 
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts 
and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs 
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, 
above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when 
evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas 
from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to 
conduct an optional section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of 
critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress (IEc 2013, entire). The 
purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas 
in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in 
probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening 
analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat 
designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and 
water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, 
best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area 
as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. The screening 
analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are 
already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to 
incur incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis 
allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or 
sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a 
result of the designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether 
units are unoccupied by the species and may require additional 
management or conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat 
designation and may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening 
analysis, combined with the information contained in our IEM, is what 
we consider our DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for 
the Kentucky glade cress and is summarized in the narrative below.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We 
assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts, if sufficient 
data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. 
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. In our IEM dated September 9, 2013, 
we identified probable incremental economic impacts associated with the 
following categories of activities: (1) Residential and commercial 
development; (2) transportation

[[Page 799]]

projects; (3) recreational activities; (4) agricultural activities; (5) 
utility projects; and (6) commercial timber harvest. We considered each 
industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether 
the activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In 
areas where the Kentucky glade cress 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 
species. If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, 
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation 
process. Therefore, disproportionate impacts to any geographic area or 
sector are not likely as a result of this critical habitat designation.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that would result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the 
Kentucky glade cress critical habitat. Because the designation of 
critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress was proposed concurrently 
with the listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult 
to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species 
being listed and those which would result solely from the designation 
of critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in 
this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical and 
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same 
features essential for the life requirements of the species, and (2) 
any actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to 
constitute jeopardy to the Kentucky glade cress would also likely 
adversely affect the essential physical and 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 
species.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for the Kentucky glade 
cress totals 2,053 ac (830 ha) in six units, consisting of 18 subunits, 
that are all occupied by the species. All of the units and subunits are 
privately owned except for unit 1, which is owned by the Louisville/
Jefferson County Metropolitan Government, and subunit 4B, where the 
Kentucky State Nature Preserve Commission owns a 20-acre conservation 
easement (Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Inclusive of all units, any 
actions that may affect the species or its habitat would also affect 
designated critical habitat, 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 the Kentucky glade cress. 
In general, because the glade cress is a narrow endemic species, the 
quality of its habitat is closely linked to the species' survival and 
conservation measures would be, in most cases, addressed through the 
consultation recommendations as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the Kentucky glade cress (Fish and Wildlife 
Service 2013). Therefore, in our DEA, we determined that in most 
circumstances, these costs of the proposed critical habitat designation 
would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be 
significant.
    Federal action agencies will most likely incur incremental costs 
associated with section 7 consultations. In the DEA, we determined that 
few activities will lead to section 7 consultation because this species 
is an upland plant with no occurrences on Federal lands. Future section 
7 consultation is likely to be infrequent. Activities we expect to be 
subject to consultation may involve the development in the Louisville, 
Kentucky/Jefferson County metropolitan area, which is predicted to grow 
substantially through year 2050. Critical habitat may impact property 
values indirectly if developers assume the designation will limit the 
potential use of that land. However, the designation of critical 
habitat is not likely to result in an increase of consultations. 
Therefore, the incremental administrative burden resulting from the 
designation is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on 
the small number of anticipated consultations and pre-consultation 
costs. The $100 million threshold is established by Executive Order 
12866, which directs agencies to assess the potential costs and 
benefits of regulatory actions and quantify those costs and benefits if 
that action may have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
annually.
    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the 
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our 
amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or 
supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive 
during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area 
from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding 
the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the 
exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our May 24, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 31479), we indicated that 
we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes 
and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable effects on 
landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable economic impacts 
of the designation. Following our evaluation in the DEA of the probable 
incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical 
habitat for the Kentucky glade cress, we have amended or affirmed our 
determinations below. Specifically, we affirm the information in our 
proposed rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 
(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 
(Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's 
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with 
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). However, based on 
our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress, 
we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and E.O. 12630 (Takings).

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

[[Page 800]]

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 if 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.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the 
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory 
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is 
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation 
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried by the agency is not likely to adversely modify critical 
habitat. Therefore, under these circumstances only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement 
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical 
habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our position that 
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this 
designation. Federal agencies are not small entities, and to this end, 
there is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Therefore, because no small entities 
are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, 
if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed 
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

E.O. 12630 (Takings)

    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 Kentucky glade cress in a takings implications assessment. 
As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only 
Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or require approval or authorization from a Federal agency 
for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. 
The DEA found that no significant economic impacts are likely to result 
from the designation of critical habitat for the Kentucky glade cress. 
Because the Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only 
to Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and 
private property rights should result from this designation. Based on 
information contained in the economic analysis assessment and described 
within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts to a 
property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a takings 
action. Therefore, we conclude that this designation of critical 
habitat for the Kentucky glade cress does not pose significant takings 
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 20, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-31575 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P