[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47180-47220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18611]



[[Page 47179]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 155

August 12, 2014

Part II





 Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

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

[[Page 47180]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective on September 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation used in 
preparation of this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation 
that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, 
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South 
Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 
32960; telephone 772-562-3909; facsimile 772-562-4288.
    The coordinates, plot points, or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, 
at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031, and at 
the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information 
that we develop for this critical habitat designation will also be 
available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office 
set out above, and may also be included in the preamble of this rule 
and at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Aubrey, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 
1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; telephone 772-562-3909; or 
facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, 
when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines that a 
species is endangered or threatened, we are required to designate 
critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. 
Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a 
rule. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we list the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies as endangered 
species.
    Basis for our action. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 
Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best 
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic 
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
    The areas we are designating in this rule constitute our current 
best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterflies. In total, we are designating approximately 4,273 hectares 
(ha) (10,561 acres (ac)) in four units as critical habitat for the 
Florida leafwing butterfly and approximately 4,670 ha (11,539 ac) in 
seven units as critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterfly.
    We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of 
critical habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts 
of the critical habitat designation and related factors. We announced 
the availability of the draft economic analysis in the Federal Register 
on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26392), allowing the public to provide comments. 
We have incorporated the comments and have completed the analysis 
concurrently with this final designation.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
experts to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound 
data and analyses. We obtained opinions from seven knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical 
assumptions analysis, and to determine whether or not we had used the 
best available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred 
with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. We also 
considered all comments and information we received from the public 
during the comment periods. Information we received during the comment 
period is incorporated in this final designation as appropriate.

Previous Federal Actions

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

[[Page 47181]]

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

Peer Review

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

Peer Reviewer Comments

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

Comments From States

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

[[Page 47182]]

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

Public Comments

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

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

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

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or 
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species, and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those PBFs 
within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical 
constituent elements (PCEs such as

[[Page 47183]]

roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 
soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. PCEs 
are the specific elements of PBFs that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but 
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential for the 
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat 
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, would continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of these 
subspecies. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis 
of the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the PBFs that are essential 
to the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derived the specific PBFs essential for the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies from studies of both of the 
butterflies' habitat, ecology, and life histories as described in the 
Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 
49832), and in the information presented below.
    We have determined that PBFs presented below are required for the 
conservation of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterflies. One change to these features in this final determination 
from the proposed rule is a result of the peer review process: Hydric 
pine flatwoods is added to the plant communities known for the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies to describe the 
plant community more accurately in ENP (Sadle 2013c, pers. comm.). We 
also specify the disturbance regime of storms as a PBF for both 
butterflies. We clarify the criteria for inclusion of parcels within 
critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. We also 
modify the fourth PCE for both butterflies, to reflect a more variable 
return interval for dynamic natural or artificial disturbances.

Physical or Biological Features for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly

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

[[Page 47184]]

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

[[Page 47185]]

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

Primary Constituent Elements for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly

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

Special Management Considerations or Protection for the Florida 
Leafwing Butterfly

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

[[Page 47186]]

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

[[Page 47187]]

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

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Florida Leafwing 
Butterfly

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

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

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

[[Page 47188]]

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

Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing

    After following the above criteria, we determined that occupied 
areas are not sufficient for the conservation of the subspecies for the 
following reasons:
    (1) Restoring the subspecies to its historical range and reducing 
its vulnerability to stochastic events, such as hurricanes and storm 
surge, require reintroduction to areas where the subspecies occurred in 
the past but has since been extirpated;
    (2) Providing increased connectivity for populations and areas for 
small populations to expand requires currently unoccupied habitat; and
    (3) Reintroduction or assisted migration to reduce the 
vulnerability of the subspecies to sea level rise and storm surge 
requires higher elevation sites that currently are unoccupied by the 
Florida leafwing.
    Therefore, we looked to unoccupied areas that may be essential for 
the conservation of the subspecies.
    We used habitat and historical occurrence data to identify 
unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the subspecies.
    The unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies because they:
    (1) Represent areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem 
processes for populations of the Florida leafwing. The historical 
distribution of the Florida leafwing appeared limited to large pine 
rocklands parcels 120 ha (296 ac) or greater. For many years the 
leafwing persisted at Navy Wells, which has an area of 120 ha (296 ac), 
long after being extirpated from everywhere else in Miami-Dade County 
that was smaller in area. The only other leafwing populations that 
occurred outside of the Everglades in the past 25 years were those in 
the Richmond Pine Rocklands and Big Pine Key, which have approximately 
364 and 567 ha (900 and 1,400 ac) of pine rocklands, respectively. We 
believe appropriately sized units should be, at a minimum, the size of 
Navy Wells (i.e., 120 ha (296 ac)). Large contiguous parcels of habitat 
are more likely to be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance 
and succession, and support viable populations of the Florida leafwing. 
The unoccupied areas selected were at least 120 ha (296 ac) or greater 
in size.
    (2) Provide areas to maintain connectivity of habitat to allow for 
population expansion. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization 
of the Florida leafwing and result in extinction. Because of the 
dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the 
recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new 
sites or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects.
    (3) Provide areas that, once restored, will allow the Florida 
leafwing to disperse and recolonize, and in some instances may be able 
to support expansion and a larger number of the subspecies either 
through reintroduction or expansion from areas already occupied by the 
butterfly. These areas generally are habitats within or adjacent to 
pine rocklands that have been affected by natural or anthropogenic 
impacts but retain areas that are still suitable for the butterfly or 
that could be restored. These areas would help to offset the 
anticipated loss and degradation of habitat occurring or expected from 
the effects of climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to 
development.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as 
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such 
lands lack PBFs for the Florida leafwing. The scale of the maps we 
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of 
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed 
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat 
boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been excluded by 
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 
a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7 
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no 
adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the 
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2013-0031, on our Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, and 
at the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly

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

[[Page 47189]]

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

                                               Table 1--Florida Leafwing Butterfly Critical Habitat Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Hectares
               Unit No.                         Unit name                  Ownership              Percent         (acres)               Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB1..................................  Everglades National Park.  Federal..................             100    3,235 (7,994)  yes.
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Total.................             100    3,235 (7,994)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB2..................................  Navy Wells Pineland        State....................              29          35 (85)  no.
                                         Preserve.
                                                                   Private-Other............              71         85 (211)
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Total.................             100        120 (296)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB3..................................  Richmond Pine Rocklands..  Federal..................              14         50 (122)  no.
                                                                   Private-Other............              86        309 (767)
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Total.................             100        359 (889)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB4..................................  Big Pine Key.............  Federal..................              65        365 (901)  no.
                                                                   State....................              16         90 (223)
                                                                   Private-Other............              19        104 (258)
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Total.................             100      559 (1,382)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total All Units...................  .........................  Federal..................              85    3,650 (9,017)
                                                                   State....................               3        125 (308)
                                                                   Private-Other............              12      498 (1,236)
                                                                   All......................             100   4,273 (10,561)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing, 
below.
Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit FLB1 consists of 3,235 ha (7,994 ac) in Miami-Dade County. 
This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 
percent of which are located within the Long Pine Key region of ENP. 
This unit is currently occupied and contains all the PBFs required by 
the subspecies, and contains the PCE of pine rockland. The PBFs in this 
unit may require special management considerations or protection to 
address threats of a lack of adequate fire management, habitat 
fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases 
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with the ENP to 
implement needed actions.
    For instance, ENP is currently in the process of updating its fire 
management plan (FMP) and environmental assessment which will assess 
the impacts of fire on various environmental factors, including listed, 
proposed, and candidate species (Land 2011, pers. comm.; Sadle 2013a, 
pers. comm.). ENP is actively coordinating with the Service, as well as 
other members of the Imperiled Butterfly Working Group (IBWG), to 
review and adjust the prescribed burn practices outlined in the FMP to 
help maintain or increase Florida leafwing population sizes, protect 
pine rocklands, expand or restore remnant patches of hostplants, and 
ensure that short-term negative effects from fire (i.e., loss of 
hostplants, loss of eggs and larvae) can be avoided or minimized.
Unit FLB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit FLB2 consists of 120 ha (296 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This 
unit is comprised entirely of conservation lands located within the 
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, which is jointly owned by Miami-Dade 
County (85 ha (211 ac)) and the State (35 ha (85 ac)). State lands are 
interspersed within Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department 
lands, which are managed for conservation. This unit is bounded on the 
north by SW 348 Street, on the south by SW 360 Street, on the east by 
State Road 9336, and on the west by the vicinity of SW 202 Avenue.
    The unit was occupied historically by the Florida leafwing and 
includes some of the largest remaining contiguous fragments of pine 
rockland habitats outside of ENP. This unit is not currently occupied 
but is essential for the conservation of the butterfly because it 
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish 
wild populations within the historical range of the subspecies, and 
maintain populations throughout the historic distribution of the 
subspecies in Miami-Dade County, and it provides habitat for recovery 
in the case of stochastic events if the butterfly is extirpated from 
the one location where it is presently found.
Unit FLB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit FLB3 consists of 359 ha (889 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This 
unit is comprised of lands in Federal (U.S. Coast Guard (Homeland 
Security) (29 ha (72 ac)), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department of 
Defense (DoD) (8 ha (20 ac)), National Oceanic Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) (4 ha (9 ac)), Federal Bureau of Prisons 
(Department of Justice (DoJ) (9 ha (21 ac))), and private or other (309 
ha (767 ac)) ownership. This unit is bordered on the

[[Page 47190]]

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

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

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

[[Page 47191]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 47192]]

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

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

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

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

Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing

    After following the above criteria, we determined that occupied 
areas were not sufficient for the conservation of the subspecies for 
the following reasons:
    (1) Restoring the subspecies to its historical range and reducing 
its vulnerability to stochastic events, such as hurricanes and storm 
surge, requires reintroduction to areas where it occurred in the past 
but has since been extirpated.
    (2) Providing increased connectivity for populations and areas for 
small populations to expand requires currently unoccupied habitat.
    (3) Reintroduction or assisted migration to reduce the 
vulnerability of the subspecies to sea-level rise and storm surge 
requires higher elevation sites that currently are unoccupied by the 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.

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

[[Page 47193]]

fire return intervals and scope are inconsistent. In addition, little 
or no fire management occurs on private lands. Thus, areas of pine 
rockland that now support the subspecies may not provide as optimal 
habitat in the future as a lack of adequate fire management removes or 
fragments hostplant distribution. Conversely, hostplants may return or 
increase in areas following prescribed burns, allowing the butterflies 
to expand or colonize within them in the future.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as 
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such 
lands lack PBFs for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The scale 
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the 
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such 
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been 
excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical 
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not 
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would 
affect the PBFs in the adjacent critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2013-0031, on our Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, and 
at the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation for the Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak 
Butterfly

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

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

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

[[Page 47194]]

 
    Total All Units.........  ...............  Federal........              80   3,719 (9,189)
                                               State..........               5       222 (548)
                                               Private-Other..              15     729 (1,802)
                                              -------------------------------------------------
                                               All............             100  4,670 (11,539)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

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

[[Page 47195]]

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

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001)), 
and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether 
an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
Under the provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse 
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the 
proposed Federal action, the effected critical habitat would continue 
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.

[[Page 47196]]

    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies. As discussed above, the role of 
critical habitat is to support life-history needs of these butterflies 
and provide for the conservation of these subspecies.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterflies. These activities include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter the pine rockland and 
associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood habitats. Such 
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential, 
commercial, or recreational development, including associated 
infrastructure.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or 
composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of 
residential, commercial, or recreational development; and associated 
infrastructure.
    (3) Actions that would introduce nonnative plant species that would 
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such 
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and 
commercial development and associated infrastructure.
    (4) Actions that would introduce nonnative arthropod species that 
would significantly influence the natural histories of the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies. Such activities 
may include release of parasitic or predator species (flies or wasps) 
for use in agriculture-based biological control programs.
    (5) Actions that would introduce chemical pesticides into the pine 
rockland and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine flatwood 
habitats in a manner that impacts the butterflies. Such activities may 
include use of adulticides for control of mosquitos or agricultural-
related pests.

Exemptions

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

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat 
any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the 
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to 
an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), 
if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a 
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.'' There are DoD lands within the critical habitat 
designation area; however, none of these lands is covered by an INRMP. 
Accordingly, no lands that otherwise meet the definition of critical 
habitat are exempt under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

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

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

[[Page 47197]]

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

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

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

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the DoD where a national security impact 
might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have determined that some 
lands within the designation of critical habitat for the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak are owned or managed by the DoD 
and the Department of Homeland Security. However, we anticipate no 
impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not 
intending to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from the 
final designation based on impacts on national security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other 
relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We 
consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have 
developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether 
there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by 
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we 
look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government 
relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also 
consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
    In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no permitted HCPs or other management plans for the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. An HCP for Big Pine and No 
Name Keys in Monroe County, Florida, which was implemented in 2006, did 
not address the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. 
However, in order to fulfill the HCP's mitigation requirements, Monroe 
County has been actively acquiring parcels of high-quality habitats, 
including pine rocklands, and placing them into conservation. Natural 
lands acquired under the HCP will be managed for conservation, in 
perpetuity, either by the County or through agreements with the State 
or Service. These conservation actions have benefited the Florida 
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak by protecting habitat. However, 
we anticipate no impact on the HCP from this final critical habitat 
designation. Furthermore, the final designation does not include any 
tribal lands or additional trust resources, so we anticipate no impact 
on tribal lands or partnerships from this final critical habitat 
designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her 
discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on 
other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

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

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

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

[[Page 47198]]

concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with 
fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than 
$5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses 
with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade 
contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and 
agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To 
determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are 
significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger 
regulatory impacts under these designations as well as types of project 
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant 
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's 
business operations.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the 
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory 
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is 
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation 
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement 
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical 
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal 
action agencies will be directly regulated by these designations. There 
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule we reviewed and evaluated 
all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to 
our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our 
certification that this final critical habitat designation will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has provided 
guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine 
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when 
compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration.
    Appendix A of the FEA discusses the potential for critical habitat 
to affect energy supply, distribution, or use through the additional 
cost of considering adverse modification in section 7 consultation. The 
FEA finds that none of the outcomes relative to significant adverse 
effect thresholds set forth by OMB are relevant to this analysis. Thus, 
based on information in the FEA, energy-related impacts associated with 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak conservation activities 
within critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of 
critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

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

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

[[Page 47199]]

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

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), 
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating 
critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterflies in a takings implications assessment. As 
discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only 
Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding 
or assistance, or that require approval or authorization from a Federal 
agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of 
critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal 
agency. Based on the best available information, the takings 
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical 
habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak does 
not pose significant takings implications.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary 
impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the 
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information 
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation 
with appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. We received 
comments from FWC and FDACS and have addressed them in the Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations section of this rule. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have 
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the PBFs of the habitat necessary 
to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in 
long-range planning (because these governments no longer have to wait 
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable 
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are 
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the 
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the 
species, the rule identifies the elements of PBFs essential to the 
conservation of the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterflies. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented on 
maps, and the rule provides several options for the interested public 
to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.

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

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

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

Authors

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

[[Page 47200]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (i) Insects.
* * * * *
Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly (Strymon Acis Bartrami)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Monroe 
Counties, Florida, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly are:
    (i) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations, 
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods.
    (A) Pine rockland habitat contains:
    (1) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory.
    (2) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock.
    (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
    (B) Rockland hammock habitat associated with the pine rocklands 
contains:
    (1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open semi-open canopy, subcanopy, 
and understory.
    (2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering 
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying 
limestone rock.
    (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
    (C) Hydric pine flatwood habitat associated with the pine rocklands 
contains:
    (1) Open canopy with a sparse or absent subcanopy, and dense 
understory.
    (2) Substrate with a thin layer of poorly drained sands and organic 
materials that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone or 
calcareous rock.
    (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
    (ii) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough 
to have minimal effect on survival of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
butterfly.
    (iii) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton, 
in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food 
resources, and for adult butterfly nectar source and reproduction;
    (iv) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially 
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g. fire, hurricanes or other 
weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine 
rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine 
flatwood plant communities.
    (v) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and 
hydric pine flatwood plant communities that allow for connectivity and 
are sufficient in size to sustain viable populations of Bartram's scrub 
hairstreak butterfly.
    (vi) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and 
hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low 
enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its 
ability to occupy the habitat.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
September 11, 2014.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial 
data layers. ArcGIS was also used to calculate the size of habitat 
areas. The projection used in mapping and calculating distances and 
locations within the units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, 
NAD 83. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is 
based are available to the public at the Service's Internet site 
(http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/), the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031), and at the 
field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field 
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional 
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map of all critical habitat units for the Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak butterfly follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 47201]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.000

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

[[Page 47202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.001

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

[[Page 47203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.002

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

[[Page 47204]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.003

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

[[Page 47205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.004

    (A) Map A of Unit BSHB4 follows:

[[Page 47206]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.005

    (B) Map B of Unit BSHB4 follows:

[[Page 47207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.006

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

[[Page 47208]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.007

    (A) Map A of Unit BSHB5 follows:

[[Page 47209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.008

    (B) Map B of Unit BSHB5 follows:

[[Page 47210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.009

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

[[Page 47211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.010

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

[[Page 47212]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.011

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *
Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Monroe 
Counties, Florida, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Florida leafwing butterfly consist of six components:
    (i) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations, 
associated rockland hammocks and hydric pine flatwoods.
    (A) Pine rockland habitat contains:

[[Page 47213]]

    (1) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory.
    (2) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock.
    (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
    (B) Rockland hammock habitat associated with pine rocklands 
contains:
    (1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, 
subcanopy, and understory.
    (2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering 
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying 
limestone rock.
    (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
    (C) Hydric pine flatwood habitat associated with pine rocklands 
contains:
    (1) Open canopy with a sparse or absent subcanopy, and dense 
understory.
    (2) Substrate with a thin layer of poorly drained sands and organic 
materials that accumulates on top of the underlying limestone or 
calcareous rock.
    (3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
    (ii) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough 
to have minimal effect on survival of the Florida leafwing butterfly.
    (iii) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton, 
in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food 
resources, and for adult butterfly roosting habitat and reproduction.
    (iv) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially 
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes or 
other weather events, at appropriate intervals) that maintains the pine 
rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and hydric pine 
flatwood plant communities.
    (v) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and 
hydric pine flatwood plant communities sufficient in size to sustain 
viable Florida leafwing populations.
    (vi) Pine rockland habitat and associated rockland hammock and 
hydric pine flatwood plant communities with levels of pesticide low 
enough to have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its 
ability to occupy the habitat.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
September 11, 2014.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial 
data layers. ArcGIS was also used to calculate the size of habitat 
areas. The projection used in mapping and calculating distances and 
locations within the units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, 
NAD 83. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is 
based are available to the public at the Service's Internet site 
(http://www.fws.gov/verobeach), the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031), and at the 
field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field 
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional 
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map of all critical habitat units for the Florida 
leafwing butterfly follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 47214]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.012

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

[[Page 47215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.013

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

[[Page 47216]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.014

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

[[Page 47217]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.015

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

[[Page 47218]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.016

    (A) Map A of Unit FLB4 follows:

[[Page 47219]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.017

    (B) Map B of Unit FLB4 follows:

[[Page 47220]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AU14.018

* * * * *

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