[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41211-41225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AZ64


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and 
Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; revision and reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on the October 3, 2013, proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida 
brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-flowered 
flax) 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. In addition, we have made minor amendments to the 
proposed critical habitat units based on information received from 
other Federal agencies and from the public during our initial public 
comment period. We are reopening the comment period to allow all 
interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the 
original proposed rule, the revisions to the proposal described in this 
document, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations 
section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they 
will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before 
August 14, 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 draft economic analysis on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108 or by mail from 
the South Florida 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 draft economic analysis by searching for Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2013-0108, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal 
and associated draft economic analysis by U.S. mail or hand-delivery 
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108; 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: Craig Aubrey, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; telephone 772-562-3909; 
or facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat 
for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri that was 
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293), the 
revisions to the proposal described in this document, 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 Brickellia mosieri or 
Linum carteri var. carteri 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 amount and distribution of Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri and their habitats;
    (b) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range 
currently occupied by these plants;
    (c) Where these features are currently found;
    (d) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;
    (e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of these plants, should be included in the designation and 
why; and
    (f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of these plants and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
areas occupied by Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri or 
proposed to be designated as critical habitat, and possible impacts of 
these activities on these plants and proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri and 
proposed critical habitat.

[[Page 41212]]

    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included 
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts 
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas 
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic 
impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the 
likely economic impacts.
    (7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (8) Information specific to the management of pine rocklands under 
Miami-Dade County's Environmentally Endangered Lands Covenant Program 
that might allow us to evaluate potential exclusions.
    (9) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (78 
FR 61293) during the initial comment period from October 3, 2013, to 
December 2, 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 
rule, the revisions to the proposal described in this document, or the 
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 rule, this document, 
and the DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed 
rule, this document, and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108, or by mail from 
the South Florida 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 Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri in this document. On October 3, 2013, we published 
both a proposed rule to list B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri as 
endangered (78 FR 61273) and a proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for both plants (78 FR 61293).
    In the proposed critical habitat rule, we proposed to designate a 
combined total of approximately 2,707 acres (ac) (1,096 hectares (ha)) 
in seven units located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, as critical 
habitat. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending December 2, 
2013. We intend to submit for publication in the Federal Register a 
final critical habitat designation for Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri on or before October 3, 2014.
    For more information on previous Federal actions concerning B. 
mosieri and L. c. var. carteri, refer to the proposed rules, which are 
available online at http://www.regulations.gov or from the South 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

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

Changes From Previously Proposed Critical Habitat

    In the proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR 61293), we proposed 
seven units (Units 1-7) as critical habitat for both Brickellia mosieri 
and Linum carteri var. carteri. In the final rule, we intend to change 
unit names to be specific to each plant; for example, Unit 1 would be 
Unit BM1 for B. mosieri and Unit LCC1 for L. c. var. carteri. 
Additionally, the large overall unit boundaries described in the 
original proposed rule encompass multiple, smaller designations within 
each unit; in the final rule, we would add subunit names that identify 
individual patches, or multiple patches having the same occupancy 
status that are only separated by a road. These changes would provide 
more detail to help clarify locations and needs for each plant within 
the larger unit areas. The unit naming conventions we intend to adopt 
in the final rule are summarized in Table 1.

[[Page 41213]]



Table 1--Naming conventions of units and subunits for the critical habitat designation of Brickellia mosieri and
                                           Linum carteri var. carteri.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Brickellia mosieri critical habitat      Linum carteri var. carteri critical
                               -----------------------------------------                 habitat
 Unit name in October 3, 2013,                                          ----------------------------------------
         proposed rule           Unit name for final       Subunits       Unit name for final
                                        rule                                     rule               Subunits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Trinity Pineland and    BM1.................  BM1A, BM1B (2      LCC1................  LCC1A-LCC1C (3
 surrounding areas.                                    subunits).                               subunits)
Unit 2: Nixon Smiley Pineland   BM2.................  BM2A-BM2G (7       LCC2................  LCC2A-LCC2F (6
 Preserve and surrounding                              subunits).                               subunits)
 areas.
Unit 3: U.S. Department of      BM3.................  BM3A-BM3G (7       LCC3................  LCC3A-LCC3H (8
 Agriculture (USDA)                                    subunits).                               subunits)
 Subtropical Horticultural
 Research Station and
 surrounding areas.
Unit 4: Richmond Pinelands and  BM4.................  BM4A-BM4G (7       LCC4................  LCC4A-LCC4C (3
 surrounding areas.                                    subunits).                               subunits)
Unit 5: Quail Roost Pineland    BM5.................  BM5A-BM5K (11      LCC5................  LCC5A-LCC5J (10
 and surrounding areas.                                subunits).                               subunits)
Unit 6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and  BM6.................  BM6A-BM6L (12      LCC6................  LCC6A-LCC6U (21
 surrounding areas.                                    subunits).                               subunits)
Unit 7: Navy Wells Pineland     BM7.................  BM7A-BM7I (9       LCC7................  LCC7A-LCC7G (7
 Preserve and surrounding                              subunits).                               subunits)
 areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as a result of coordination meetings and our initial 
public comment period, we received new information concerning the 
current habitat condition of proposed areas, as well as information 
regarding additional areas of suitable habitat that were not included 
in the proposed designation but that meet the definition of critical 
habitat. Based on this new information, we are proposing to 
substantively revise the critical habitat designation as follows:

Proposed Deletion

    We propose to remove State-owned Navy Wells 23 from Unit 7 
of the proposed critical habitat designation for Brickellia mosieri. 
This area is unoccupied, and is composed of State-owned and neighboring 
private land (totaling approximately 45.0 ac (18.2 ha)). We propose 
this change based on new information regarding the current condition of 
these lands. Recent observations indicate that Navy Wells 23 
has a dense understory of hammock trees and shrubs, and that the 
neighboring private land is not native habitat (i.e., it is an exotic-
dominated, disturbed area). Based on this new information, we have 
determined that the area is no longer essential to the conservation of 
the species.

Proposed Revisions

    We propose to revise the boundaries of three previously proposed, 
unoccupied areas: Camp Matecumbe (in Unit 2 for both plants), Tamiami 
Pineland Complex Addition (in Unit 2 for Linum carteri var. carteri), 
and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) lands (in Unit 4 for both plants), as a 
result of information we received from partners and other Federal 
agencies. These revisions reflect the best scientific information on 
current site conditions within individual units. Because the following 
changes are fairly small and are not likely to be discernable at the 
scale of the published critical habitat maps, we instead describe these 
proposed revisions by text as follows:
     Addition of two small, suitable, unoccupied pine rockland 
areas, totaling approximately 2.7 ac (1.1 ha) and managed by Miami-Dade 
County, located adjacent to the east boundary of Camp Matecumbe, to the 
critical habitat designation for both Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri. Based on onsite observations, these two areas 
consist of suitable habitat for both plants as well as functioning as 
buffers to the previously proposed, adjacent habitat within Camp 
Matecumbe, and are considered essential to the conservation of both 
plants. Their inclusion in the unit is also consistent with the habitat 
delineation methodology used for proposed critical habitat, as well as 
with our approach to supplemental areas (i.e., where the addition of 
the habitat increases conservation quality of adjacent proposed 
critical habitat).
     Inclusion of suitable unoccupied habitat for Linum carteri 
var. carteri within a utility corridor, totaling approximately 11.2 ac 
(4.5 ha) and owned by Florida Power and Light, located adjacent to the 
north boundary of Tamiami Pineland Complex, in the critical habitat 
designation for L. c. var. carteri. Based on onsite observations, this 
area is suitable habitat for L. c. var. carteri, and is considered 
essential to the conservation of the plant. Its inclusion in the unit 
is also consistent with the habitat delineation methodology used for 
proposed critical habitat, which includes cleared areas occurring over 
pine rockland soils.
     Revision of unoccupied critical habitat on USCG land for 
both Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri to remove a 
recreational area from the critical habitat polygon (approximately 7.0 
ac (2.8 ha)). This revision is based on our recent coordination with 
the USCG, during which we learned that the subject area was an existing 
park with high use, including military training, sporting events, and 
camping throughout the area. Based on this new information, we believe 
the removed area is unlikely to serve as suitable habitat for either 
plant, and we have determined that it is no longer essential to the 
conservation of either plant. This revision is also consistent with the 
habitat delineation methodology used for proposed critical habitat, 
which avoids delineating areas with existing high human use (such as 
parks).

Proposed Additions

    We also propose to add three small, unoccupied areas as a result of 
new information received since the publication of the proposed rule. 
These areas are adjacent to or near previously proposed areas. Revised 
maps, set forth in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of this 
document, indicate these additional areas, as well as areas already 
proposed in only those relevant units; the revised maps of those units 
use the naming conventions we intend to adopt in the final rule 
(described above under Changes from Previously Proposed Critical 
Habitat) for all of the critical habitat units. A description of the 
three areas follows:

[[Page 41214]]

     Addition of suitable, unoccupied pine rocklands within 
Bill Sadowski Park, totaling approximately 19.5 ac (7.9 ha) and owned 
and managed by Miami-Dade County, to the critical habitat designation 
for both Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Bill 
Sadowski Park is shown on the revised maps for Units BM3 and LCC3, as 
subunits BM3H and LCC3I, respectively. Onsite observations indicate 
that the habitat quality of these pine rocklands is higher than 
previously assessed (using aerial imagery) in our analysis for the 
proposed critical habitat rule. Based on this new information, we have 
determined that the habitat is essential to the conservation of both 
plants.
     Addition of suitable unoccupied pine rockland within 
Eachus Pineland, totaling approximately 17.3 ac (7.0 ha) and owned and 
managed by Miami-Dade County, to the critical habitat designation for 
both Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Eachus Pineland 
is shown on the revised maps for Units BM4 and LCC4, as subunits BM4H 
and LCC4D, respectively. Onsite observations indicate that the habitat 
quality of this pine rockland is higher than previously assessed (using 
aerial imagery) in our analysis for the proposed critical habitat rule. 
Based on this new information, we have determined that the habitat is 
essential to the conservation of both plants.
     Addition of up to three unoccupied areas on Department of 
Defense lands (Homestead Air Reserve Base and U.S. Special Operations 
Command South) was also suggested during the initial comment period. 
Onsite observations indicate that these areas consist of suitable pine 
rockland habitat for both plants. One of these areas (approximately 
12.9 ac (5.2 ha)) meets the criteria used in our methodology for 
designating proposed unoccupied critical habitat for Brickellia 
mosieri, and is considered essential to the conservation of the 
species. This area is shown on the revised map for Unit BM6, as subunit 
BM6M. All three areas (totaling approximately 17.3 ac (7.0 ha)) meet 
the criteria used in our methodology for designating proposed 
unoccupied critical habitat for Linum carteri var. carteri, and are 
considered essential to the conservation of the plant. These areas are 
shown on the revised map for Unit LCC6, as subunits LCC6V and LCC6W. 
However, all three areas may be subject to an integrated natural 
resources management plan (INRMP), as described in the October 3, 2013, 
proposed rule. We are currently reviewing relevant INRMPs and want to 
notify the public that these areas may be exempted from the final rule 
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
    As a result of the deletions and revisions described above, we are 
now proposing approximately 1,067 ha (2,637 ac) of critical habitat for 
Brickellia mosieri, and 1,079 ha (2,666 ac) for Linum carteri var. 
carteri.

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 for 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 exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to 
incentivize or result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, 
or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management 
plan. In the case of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, 
the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the 
presence of B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri and the importance of 
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased 
habitat protection for B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri 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 periods 
and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, 
we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed 
critical habitat designation (DEA), which is available for review and 
comment (see ADDRESSES).

Consideration of Economic Impacts

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

[[Page 41215]]

considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result 
from the proposed designation of critical habitat as published in the 
Federal Register on October 3, 2013. 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 Brickellia mosieri 
and Linum carteri var. carteri (Industrial Economics, Incorporated, 
March 25, 2014). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis 
on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic 
impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out 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, constitutes our draft economic analysis (DEA) of 
the proposed critical habitat designation for B. mosieri and L. c. var. 
carteri and is summarized in the narrative below.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O.s' 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 and if sufficient data are available, 
the probable impacts 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 evaluation of the probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri, we first identified, in the IEM and its 
subsequent revision, dated February 7, 2014, and March 11, 2014, 
respectively, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the 
following categories of activities: (1) Federal lands management (U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Coast Guard; National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Prisons Bureau; and the U. S. Army 
Corps of Engineers); (2) inadequate fire management; (3) roadway and 
bridge construction; (4) agriculture; (5) groundwater pumping; (6) 
commercial or residential development; and (7) recreation. We 
considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we 
considered whether their 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 B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri are 
present, Federal agencies already are required to confer with the 
Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or 
implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this 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 Brickellia 
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Because the designation of 
critical habitat for B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri 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 requisites of the 
species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or 
harassment to constitute jeopardy to B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri 
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. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been 
used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts 
of the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    To prepare the screening analysis, Industrial Economics, Inc., 
relied on: (1) The proposed rule and associated geographic information 
systems (GIS) data layers provided by the Service; (2) the Service's 
incremental effects memorandum; (3) the results of the Service's 
outreach efforts to other Federal agencies concerning the likely 
effects of critical habitat; and (4) limited interviews with relevant 
stakeholders.
    The screening analysis determined that critical habitat designation 
for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri is unlikely to 
generate costs exceeding $100 million in a single year. Data 
limitations prevent the quantification of benefits.
    In occupied areas, the economic impacts of implementing the rule 
through section 7 of the Act would most likely be limited to additional 
administrative effort to consider adverse modification. This finding is 
based on the following factors:
     Upon listing of the species, any activities with a Federal 
nexus occurring within occupied habitat would be subject to section 7 
consultation requirements regardless of critical habitat designation, 
due to the presence of the listed species; and
     In most cases, project modifications requested to avoid 
adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid 
jeopardy in occupied habitat.
    In unoccupied areas, incremental section 7 costs would 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 areas

[[Page 41216]]

of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    This analysis forecasts the total number and administrative cost of 
future consultations likely to occur for transportation and land 
management activities undertaken by or funded by Federal agencies 
within unoccupied habitat. In addition, the analysis forecasts costs 
associated with conservation efforts that may be recommended in 
consultation for those activities occurring in unoccupied areas. The 
total incremental section 7 costs associated with the proposed 
designation are estimated to be $120,000 (2013 dollars) in a single 
year for both administrative and conservation effort costs.
    The designation of critical habitat is unlikely to trigger 
additional requirements under State or local regulations. This 
assumption is based on the protective status currently afforded pine 
rocklands habitat. Additionally, the designation of critical habitat 
may cause developers to perceive that private lands would be subject to 
use restrictions, resulting in perceptional effects. Such costs, if 
they occur, are unlikely to result in costs reaching $100 million when 
combined with anticipated annual section 7 costs.
    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, the 
revisions described in this document, 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 these species.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our October 3, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 61293), 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 of the 
probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of 
critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, 
we have affirmed or amended 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 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 B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri, we are amending 
our required determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), Takings (E.O. 12630), and the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

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 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 are, therefore, not required to evaluate the 
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory 
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is 
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation 
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried by the agency is not likely to 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 will 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 Brickellia

[[Page 41217]]

mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri 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 economic analysis found that no significant 
economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical 
habitat for B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri. 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 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, the 
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of 
critical habitat for B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri does not pose 
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the 
designation.

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

    Based on our review and the results of our economic analysis, we do 
not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 
million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act . The 
designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or 
local governments. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical 
habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small 
government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not 
required.

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to 
be amended on October 3, 2013, at 78 FR 61293, 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; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.96(a) by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (8), (9), and (11) in the entry proposed at 78 
FR 61293 for ``Family Asteraceae: Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-
bush)'' to read as follows; and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (1) and (3) and adding paragraphs (4), (5), and 
(6) to the entry proposed at 78 FR 61293 for ``Family Linaceae: Linum 
carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-flowered flax)'' to read as 
follows.


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Asteraceae: Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-bush)
* * * * *
    (8) Unit BM3: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 41218]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.000


[[Page 41219]]


    (9) Unit BM4: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM4 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.001
    

[[Page 41220]]


* * * * *
    (11) Unit BM6: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM6 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.002
    

[[Page 41221]]


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *
    Family Linaceae: Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-
flowered flax)
    (1) Critical habitat units for Linum carteri var. carteri in Miami-
Dade County, Florida, are set forth on the maps in paragraphs (4), (5), 
and (6) of this entry and in paragraphs (6), (7), (10), and (12) of the 
entry for Family Asteraceae: Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-bush) 
in this paragraph (a). The index map of all of the critical habitat 
units is provided at paragraph (5) of the entry for Family Asteraceae: 
Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-bush) in this paragraph (a).
* * * * *
    (3) Critical habitat map units. Unit maps were developed using ESRI 
ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS 
was also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection 
used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the 
units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in 
this entry, and the relevant maps in the entry for Family Asteraceae: 
Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-bush) in this paragraph (a), as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries 
of the critical habitat designation for Linum carteri var. carteri. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are 
available to the public at the Service's Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108), and at the 
field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field 
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional 
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (4) Unit LCC3: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC3 
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 41222]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.003


[[Page 41223]]


    (5) Unit LCC4: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC4 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.004


[[Page 41224]]


    (6) Unit LCC6: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC6 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.005


[[Page 41225]]


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

    Dated: June 13, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-16164 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P