[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49846-49886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19533]



[[Page 49845]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 158

August 17, 2015

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 49846]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-bush) and 
Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-flowered flax) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We designate as 
critical habitat approximately 1,062 hectares (ha) (2,624 acres (ac)) 
for B. mosieri and approximately 1,072 ha (2,649 ac) for L. c. var. 
carteri. The critical habitat areas for these plants, located entirely 
in Miami-Dade County, Florida, largely overlap, for a combined total of 
approximately 1,095 ha (2,706 ac). Critical habitat for both plants 
includes both occupied and unoccupied habitat. The Service determined 
that the unoccupied units are essential for the conservation of the 
plants, to provide for the necessary expansion of current Brickellia 
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri populations, and for 
reestablishment of populations into areas where these plants previously 
occurred. The effect of this regulation is to extend the Act's 
protections to these plants' critical habitats.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and from the South Florida Ecological Services 
Field Office. Comments and materials we received, as well as some 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this final 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 
Field Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; by telephone 772-
562-3909; or by 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.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps were 
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108, and at the South Florida Ecological 
Services Field Office (http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/) (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information 
that we developed for this critical habitat designation will also be 
available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office 
addresses provided above, and at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Hartley, Endangered Species 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological 
Services Field Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; by 
telephone 772-562-3909; or by 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 Act, when we list a 
species as endangered or threatened, we must designate critical 
habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designations 
of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
    We listed Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri as 
endangered species on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567). On October 3, 
2013, we published in the Federal Register a proposed critical habitat 
designation for B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri (78 FR 61293). 
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 critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule 
constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri 
var. carteri. Here we are designating approximately 1,062 ha (2,624 ac) 
as critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and approximately 1,072 ha 
(2,649 ac) for Linum carteri var. carteri. The critical habitat areas 
for these plants, located entirely in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 
largely overlap, for a combined total of approximately 1,095 ha (2,706 
ac). Critical habitat for both plants includes both occupied and 
unoccupied habitat. The Service determined that the unoccupied units 
are essential for the conservation of the plants, to provide for the 
necessary expansion of current Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri 
var. carteri populations, and for reestablishment of populations into 
areas where these plants previously occurred.
    This rule consists of: A final rule designating critical habitat 
for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri under the Act.
    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 designations and related factors. We announced 
the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal 
Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 41211), allowing the public to provide 
comments on our analysis. We have incorporated the comments and have 
completed the economic analysis concurrently with this final 
designation.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from five knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical 
assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we had used the best 
available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred with 
our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information and 
suggestions to improve this final rule. Information we received from 
peer review is incorporated in this final revised designation. We also 
considered all comments and information received from the public during 
the comment periods.

Previous Federal Actions

    For more information on previous Federal actions concerning 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, refer to the 
proposed rules published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 
FR 61273 and 78 FR 61293), and the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567), which are 
available online at http://www.regulations.gov or from the South 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

[[Page 49847]]

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri during two comment periods. The first comment 
period opened with the publication of the proposed rule (78 FR 61293) 
on October 3, 2013, and closed on December 2, 2013. We also requested 
comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and associated 
draft economic analysis during a comment period that opened July 15, 
2014, and closed on August 14, 2014 (79 FR 41211). We also contacted 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis during these comment 
periods.
    During the first comment period, we received 10 comment letters 
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During 
the second comment period, we received six comment letters addressing 
the proposed critical habitat designation. 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 designation either has been 
incorporated directly into this final designation or is addressed 
below.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions 
from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise, that 
included familiarity with Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. 
carteri and/or their habitat, biological needs, and threats; the 
geographical region of South Florida in which these plants occur; and 
conservation biology principles. We received responses from five of the 
peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. The peer reviewers 
generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided 
additional information and suggestions to improve the final critical 
habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following 
summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer requested that additional 
information be provided regarding the source of ownership data and 
conservation lands. This reviewer also requested that ownership data 
and conservation land boundaries be referenced on the critical habitat 
maps or additional maps.
    Our Response: Ownership of proposed critical habitat areas in the 
proposed rule was determined using geographic information system (GIS) 
data consisting of Miami-Dade County parcel layer (August 2008 version) 
and the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Florida Managed Areas 
layer (March 2009 version). Ownership of critical habitat areas in this 
final rule was determined using updated GIS data consisting of Miami-
Dade County parcel layer (July 2013 version) and FNAI Florida Managed 
Areas layer (March 2014 version); this information has been 
incorporated into Tables 1 and 2 in the Final Critical Habitat 
Designation section, below. With regard to the inclusion of ownership 
data and conservation area boundaries on critical habitat maps, we 
prepare these maps under the parameters for publication within the Code 
of Federal Regulations. While we attempted in the proposed rule to 
provide detail such as select area names to better show the location of 
critical habitat areas along the Miami Rock Ridge, the scale of the 
maps prevented all conservation areas or ownership data from being 
depicted. This is still the case for maps showing the final critical 
habitat designation, which retained the same scale as maps in the 
proposed rule. More detailed information is available at the South 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the FNAI Florida 
Element Occurrence (FLEO) data for the pine rockland natural community 
and rare plants, animals, and invertebrates could have been used in our 
designation of critical habitat units. The reviewer also commented on 
the lack of map references to these and other spatial occurrence data 
(from Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG), the Institute for 
Regional Conservation (IRC), and other sources), while allowing that 
the latter were well referenced in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We did review 
the FLEO data for rare pine rockland species as part of our anlaysis, 
and have added text reflecting this under the Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat section, below. We were not aware of available FLEO 
data for the pine rockland natural community. We have since inquired 
with FNAI regarding these data, and have found out that the information 
available is only for some, not all, pine rocklands on the Miami Rock 
Ridge, and that detailed data (e.g., habitat condition, species 
occurrences) for most areas are at least 10 years old. Thus, we believe 
that the information we used in our critical habitat analysis 
(specifically, recent aerial photography and the feedback of experts 
familiar with on-the-ground conditions) is more appropriate to a 
current assessment of habitat conditions than the FLEO pine rockland 
data, and constitutes the best available scientific and commercial 
information. Please refer to our response to Comment (1), above, 
regarding the inclusion of additional information on critical habitat 
maps.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended including the fire-
suppressed pine rockland habitat located between Ross and Castellow 
Hammocks in Brickellia mosieri's designated critical habitat, based on 
it being the type locality for the plant.
    Our Response: In our analysis of proposed critical habitat, some 
areas of former pine rockland habitat were considered too severely fire 
suppressed (i.e., having extremely dense canopy cover, based on our 
assessment of aerial photography) such that they are now unsuitable 
habitat for Brickellia mosieri, and unlikely to be able to be restored. 
These areas were not delineated as pine rocklands in our critical 
habitat analysis, and thus were not included in the consequence matrix 
used to identify unoccupied habitat for designation. This included the 
severely fire-suppressed pine rockland between Ross and Castellow 
Hammocks. Our assessment has been confirmed by a species expert who 
conducts monitoring in the area and is familiar with current habitat 
conditions. Thus, we believe that the subject area is not appropriate 
for inclusion in the critical habitat designation at this time.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that our methodology and 
choice of critical habitat patches appear very reasonable, but 
suggested supporting future critical habitat designations with 
quantitative analyses, such as those that would provide the 
quantitative contribution of each patch to network connectivity.
    Our Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. In our analysis 
for the proposed rule, we evaluated connectivity of each habitat patch 
using two criteria: The number of other pine rockland habitat patches 
within 2 kilometers (km) (1.2 miles (mi)), and the distance to the 
nearest pine rockland

[[Page 49848]]

patch within a 2-km (1.2-mi) radius (where a score of ``0'' signaled 
adjacent patches). In this quantitative ranking, scores for both of 
these criteria were calculated in GIS using the pine rockland habitat 
layer we previously delineated as described in the Criteria Used To 
Identify Critical Habitat section, below. By applying these criteria, 
given areas of equal habitat quality, size, and surrounding landscape 
composition, those patches having more and closer neighbors (i.e., 
other pine rockland patches) would be ranked higher in our evaluation. 
The intent of these criteria was to maximize patch connectivity within 
each geographic area. We believe this was the best approach for 
delineating the critical habitat for these two plants, but appreciate 
that the reviewer's suggested evaluation approach may be useful in 
developing a consequence matrix in future critical habitat 
designations, where necessary and appropriate.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested adding many of the mowed 
fields within the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and Miami Zoo properties to 
the designated critical habitat in Unit 4 (now, Units BM4 and LCC4). 
The reviewer stated that these lack a pine canopy and shrub layer, but 
support a high diversity of pine rockland species, including State-
listed and federally listed plants, and noted that similar mowed areas 
likely occur in other portions of the Richmond Pinelands. We received a 
similar comment, concerning a mowed area on the USCG property, during 
the second public comment period (see response to Comment (10) below).
    Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We 
acknowledge that mown areas having pine rockland substrate (i.e., 
cleared pine rocklands) support some imperiled pine rockland plants, 
including Linum carteri var. carteri. However, while cleared areas 
currently support occurrences of L. c. var. carteri, scientific data 
are lacking with regard to the reason for this--whether it be a 
requirement related to very high light conditions, disturbed substrate, 
or a combination of these or other factors not yet identified. For the 
long-term conservation of these plants, we consider habitats having a 
completely open canopy (i.e., cleared pine rocklands) to be less 
preferred than intact pine rockland having suitable canopy cover. 
Accordingly, cleared areas scored lower quantitatively for onsite 
habitat quality than intact pine rockland, and thus had a lower overall 
ranking in our consequence matrix, which we used to evaluate the 
conservation quality of unoccupied habitat (discussed in the Criteria 
Used To Identify Critical Habitat section, below). Mown fields within 
USCG and Miami Zoo lands, and surrounding land in the Richmond 
Pinelands, were included in our evaluation, but did not rank high 
enough (i.e., conservation quality ranking was less than 0.50) for 
inclusion in the critical habitat designation. Based on our assessment, 
we do not believe these areas are essential to the plant's conservation 
at this time. However, we are actively communicating with both USCG and 
Miami-Dade County, and are supportive of conservation measures that 
would benefit L. c. var. carteri on these lands (e.g., optimizing 
mowing regime).
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional information 
related to cultivated plantings of Brickellia mosieri, citing an 
observation of larger, more vigorous individuals than their wild 
counterparts, and the potential for plantings of both B. mosieri and 
Linum carteri var. carteri to provide a continual input of propagules 
that may successfully colonize other pine rockland areas.
    Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this additional 
information, and support such planting programs (e.g., FTBG's Connect 
to Protect Network) to aid in the recovery of these plants.

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) states, ``the 
Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for 
[her] failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's 
comments or petition.'' The two plants only occur in Florida, and we 
received no comments from the State of Florida regarding the critical 
habitat proposal. We note, however, that one peer reviewer was from the 
Florida Forest Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services; those comments are addressed above.

Public Comments

    (7) Comment: One commenter stated that there is no reason why a 
population of Brickellia mosieri could not be supported at Tropical 
Park (in the vicinity of Unit BM1).
    Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In our 
evaluation of unoccupied habitat, we used the best available scientific 
data to establish a minimum habitat size that would likely support a 
sustaining population of Brickellia mosieri. Based on expert opinion, 
we excluded unoccupied patches below 2 ha (5 ac) for B. mosieri (see 
``Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring,'' in the proposed critical habitat rule published in the 
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293)). The pine rockland 
habitat patch at Tropical Park (unoccupied) is approximately 1.7 ha 
(4.3 ac), and thus was not included in the consequence matrix for B. 
mosieri. Although some sites occupied by B. mosieri are less than 2 ha 
(5 ac) in size, it is not known whether these populations are 
sustainable in the long term. Thus, we believe that our minimum size 
threshold for unoccupied habitat is a conservative estimate, and that 
the methodology we used to determine proposed critical habitat supports 
the identification of pine rockland habitat patches with the highest 
conservation quality.
    (8) Comment: Two commenters suggested revising the criteria used to 
evaluate onsite habitat quality in the consequence matrix, which was 
used to score and rank unoccupied pine rockland habitat patches in our 
critical habitat analysis. Both commenters stated that it would be more 
appropriate (especially for Linum carteri var. carteri) for pine 
rockland with a canopy openness greater than 50 percent to score higher 
than pine rockland with 25-50 percent canopy openness.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comment and acknowledge that Linum 
carteri var. carteri responds favorably to high light conditions, 
including disturbed pine rocklands with canopy openness near 100 
percent. Such cleared areas currently support occurrences of L. c. var. 
carteri, but scientific data are lacking with regard to the reason for 
this--whether it be a requirement related to very high light 
conditions, disturbed substrate, or a combination of these or other 
factors not yet identified. The criteria used to evaluate onsite 
habitat quality reflect our belief that habitats having a completely 
open canopy (i.e., cleared pine rocklands) are less preferred than 
intact pine rockland having suitable canopy cover for the long-term 
conservation of these plants. However, to investigate whether and how 
the suggested change to scoring would impact the set of unoccupied 
habitat patches having an overall score greater than 0.50, we conducted 
a test revision of the consequence matrix for L. c. var. carteri. 
Scoring of canopy cover was adjusted as follows: If canopy was 
estimated to be 50 to 75 percent open, that patch received the highest 
possible score for that criteria (i.e., a ``4''; original score for 
these patches was a ``3''); patches with a canopy estimated to be 
greater than 75 percent open received a score of ``3'' (original score 
was a ``2''); patches with a canopy estimated to be

[[Page 49849]]

25 to 50 percent open received a score of ``2'' (original score was a 
``4''); and patches with a canopy estimated to be less than 25 percent 
open (e.g., having a closed canopy due to inadequate fire management 
and extensive cover by nonnative invasive plants) received the lowest 
possible score (``1''; unchanged from original scoring). We then 
compared these test patch rankings to rankings under the original 
scoring scheme. All habitat patches for L. c. var. carteri in the 
original matrix having a total score greater than 0.63 were still in 
the revised set. Based on total score greater than 0.50 (our chosen 
cut-off for conservation quality as discussed in the Criteria Used To 
Identify Critical Habitat section, below), the revised set of 
unoccupied habitat patches for L. c. var. carteri included 3 new 
patches, but did not include 28 previously included patches (compared 
to proposed critical habitat in the proposed rule published in the 
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293)). The net area 
difference, based on the revised versus original matrix, was 
approximately 101 ha (250 ac) less than the proposed critical habitat. 
We also evaluated the revised set of habitat patches spatially, and 
determined that the revised polygon set had reduced connectivity, 
particularly in the area between the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Chapman Field (on the coast) and more interior habitat to the 
southwest. Lastly, we evaluated aerial photography of the individual 
polygons that would be added, and do not believe that they represent 
quality habitat--as pine rockland habitat in general, or for L. c. var. 
carteri specifically. Evaluation of aerial photography of the 
individual polygons that would be deleted indicates that at least some 
of these areas represent high-quality pine rockland habitat, including 
areas that could be open enough for L. c. var. carteri.
    Based on our test revision, it seems apparent that a lower cut-off 
value for conservation quality would be needed to capture these high-
quality areas and achieve adequate connectivity if the revised scoring 
was used. Therefore, we do not believe that the suggested scoring 
revision would result in a more appropriate set of habitat patches for 
L. c. var. carteri, and thus have not made any changes to the 
consequence matrix. One reason that the revised scoring did not result 
in the anticipated improvement to proposed critical habitat for L. c. 
var. carteri may be due to the way in which we scored patch canopy 
cover--that is, the entire polygon received a single score for canopy 
cover, although in many cases canopy cover is not distributed evenly 
through a habitat patch. While there are likely many alternative 
methods for evaluating conservation quality of pine rockland habitat, 
peer reviewers of the proposed rule agreed that our methodology is 
sound and that the resulting determination for unoccupied critical 
habitat is appropriate.
    (9) Comment: One commenter suggested technical corrections to 
sections of the proposed rule pertaining to characteristic pine 
rockland vegetation, related to scientific names.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comment and have incorporated these 
corrections into the Physical or Biological Features, the Primary 
Constituent Elements, and the Regulation Promulgation sections of the 
final rule, below.
    (10) Comment: One commenter stated that the ``antenna field'' area 
of mowed pine rockland bordered on the north by Coral Reef Drive (152nd 
Street) and on the east by SW 117th Street would support both 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, and that it is 
possible that one or both plants are there already. The commenter 
further stated that, although the area has been mown for decades, the 
vegetation is primarily native pine rockland plants that have adapted 
to the mowing by growing prostrate instead of vertically.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Peer Review Comment (5), 
above, with regard to how these areas were handled in the methodology 
for designation. In addition, a survey of this area has recently been 
conducted, and neither Brickellia mosieri nor Linum carteri var. 
carteri were found. However, we continue to actively communicate with 
both USCG and Miami-Dade County, and are supportive of conservation 
measures that would benefit pine rockland plants on these lands (e.g., 
optimizing mowing regime).

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    Based on information we received in comments regarding Brickellia 
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, we refined our description of 
physical or biological features and primary constituent elements for 
both plants to include corrections to the following scientific names, 
in order to more accurately describe the characteristic vegetation of 
pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge:
    (1) Lysiloma bahamense has been changed to L. latisiliquum;
    (2) Thrinax morrisii has been deleted;
    (3) Rapanea punctata has been changed to Myrsine floridana;
    (4) Dodonaea viscosa has been deleted;
    (5) Quercus elliottii has been changed to Q. pumila;
    (6) Chamaecrista fasciculata has been changed to C. deeringiana; 
and
    (7) Zamia pumila has been changed to Z. integrifolia.

    These revisions have also been made in the critical habitat 
discussion as well as in the Regulation Promulgation section of this 
final rule.
    We also made revisions and refinements of the proposed critical 
habitat designation, and described these amendments in our document 
making available the draft economic analysis and reopening the proposed 
rule's comment period (79 FR 41211; July 15, 2014). Please refer to 
that notice for details; those revisions, with the exception of the 
proposed additions on Department of Defense lands, are reflected in 
this final rule, and described below in Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat.
    Since publishing the revised proposed critical habitat designation 
on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 41211), we have determined that three 
unoccupied areas on Department of Defense lands (Homestead Air Reserve 
Base and the Special Operations Command South Headquarters) meet the 
criteria for exemption from critical habitat designation under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act (discussed under the Exemptions section, below), and 
we have removed these from this final designation. The exemptions 
result in the removal of one area (one subunit; approximately 5.2 ha 
(12.9 ac)) from the critical habitat designation for Brickellia 
mosieri, and three areas (two subunits; totaling approximately 7.0 ha 
(17.3 ac)) from the critical habitat designation for Linum carteri var. 
carteri. The amount of critical habitat designated for each plant in 
this final rule (1,062 ha (2,624 ac) for B. mosieri and 1,072 ha (2,649 
ac) for L. c. var. carteri) reflects these exempted areas.

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

[[Page 49850]]

    (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 
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those 
specific elements of the physical or biological features 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. 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, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to insure 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 this 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    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 physical or biological 
features (PBFs) 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

[[Page 49851]]

    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific PBFs essential for Brickellia mosieri and 
Linum carteri var. carteri from studies of the plants' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section 
of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the 
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293), and in the 
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the 
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on September 4, 
2014 (79 FR 52567). The PBFs for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri 
var. carteri were defined on the basis of the habitat features of the 
areas occupied by the plants at the time of listing, which included 
substrate types, plant community structure, and associated plant 
species. The PBFs below include an updated description of the PBF 
related to ``Cover or Shelter.'' We have determined that B. mosieri and 
L. c. var. carteri require the following PBFs:
Space for Individual and Population Growth
    Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri are endemic to, 
and occur exclusively within, pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock 
Ridge outside of Everglades National Park (ENP) in Miami-Dade County in 
south Florida. This community and associated native plant species are 
described in the Status Assessment for Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri section in the proposed listing rule published in 
the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61273). Pine rocklands 
are a fire-maintained ecosystem characterized by an open canopy and 
understory and by a limestone substrate (often exposed). Open canopy 
conditions are required to allow sufficient sunlight to reach the 
herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering of B. mosieri and L. 
c. var. carteri. These plants also require a limestone substrate to 
provide suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, 
and proper drainage). This combination of ecosystem characteristics 
(i.e., open canopy and limestone substrate) occurs only in pine 
rockland habitats (as opposed to rockland hammock, which occurs in 
conjunction with pine rockland and has a limestone substrate but a 
closed canopy). Therefore, based on this information, we identify pine 
rockland habitats to be a PBF for these plants.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Soils--Substrates supporting Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri 
var. carteri for anchoring or nutrient absorption are composed of 
oolitic limestone that is at or very near the surface. Solution holes 
occasionally form where the surface limestone is dissolved by organic 
acids. There is typically very little soil development, consisting 
primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient sand, marl, clayey loam, and 
organic debris found in solution holes, depressions, and crevices on 
the limestone surface (FNAI 2010, p. 62). However, extensive sandy 
pockets can be found at the northern end of the Miami Rock Ridge, 
beginning from approximately North Miami Beach and extending south to 
approximately SW. 216 Street (which runs east-west approximately one-
half mile south of Quail Roost Pineland) (Service 1999, p. 3-162). In 
this area (the northern Biscayne region), pine rockland soils are 
primarily quartz sands classified as Opalocka sand-rock outcrop 
complex. This region has the least exposed rock. In the southern 
Biscayne, or Redlands, region to the south, pine rockland soils are 
rockier (i.e., exposed rock is the predominant surface) and are 
primarily classified as Cardsound silty clay loam-rock outcrop complex. 
Other soil types that are loosely associated with pine rocklands 
include Udorthents (in the northern half of the plants' current ranges) 
and Krome very gravelly loam (in the southern half). Therefore, based 
on the information above, we identify substrate derived from oolitic 
limestone to provide anchoring and nutritional requirements to be a PBF 
for these plants.
Cover or Shelter
    Pine rockland is characterized by an open canopy of Pinus elliottii 
var. densa (South Florida slash pine). Subcanopy development is rare in 
well-maintained pine rocklands, with only occasional hardwoods such as 
Lysiloma latisiliquum (wild tamarind) and Quercus virginiana (live oak) 
growing to tree size in Miami Rock Ridge pinelands (Snyder et al. 1990, 
p. 253). The shrub/understory layer is also characteristically open, 
although the height and density of the shrub layer varies based on fire 
frequency, with understory plants growing taller and more dense as time 
since fire increases. Subcanopy/shrub species that typically occur 
include, but may not be limited to, Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), 
Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm), Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm), 
Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Myrsine floridana (myrsine), Metopium 
toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia 
bicolor (tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra (rough velvetseed), Ardisia 
escallonioides (marlberry), Psidium longipes (mangroveberry), 
Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow bustic), and Rhus copallinum (winged 
sumac) (FNAI 2010, pp. 61-62). Short-statured shrubs may include, but 
are not limited to, Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata 
(white indigoberry), Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas berry), 
Morinda royoc (redgal), and Chiococca alba (snowberry) (FNAI 2010, p. 
62). Understory vegetation may include, but is not limited to: 
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S. 
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn); 
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris 
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora floridensis (Florida white-top sedge); 
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn); Echites umbellata (devil's 
potato); Croton linearis (pineland croton); Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats); 
Chamaecrista deeringiana (partridge pea); Zamia integrifolia (coontie); 
and Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair pineland fern) (FNAI 2010, p. 62). 
An open canopy and understory are required to allow sufficient sunlight 
to reach the herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering of B. 
mosieri and L. c. var. carteri. Therefore, based on the information 
above, we identify vegetation composition and structure that allows for 
adequate sunlight, and space for individual growth and population 
expansion, to be a PBF for these plants.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Brickellia mosieri--The reproductive biology and needs of B. 
mosieri have not been studied (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 12), and our 
knowledge of the ecology of the species related to reproduction needs 
primarily consists of observed habitat requirements and demographic 
trends. Field observations indicate that the species does not usually 
occur in great abundance; populations are typically sparse and contain 
a low density of plants, even in well-maintained pine rockland habitat 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 12). Bradley (2013b, pers. comm.) estimated 
that, based on this observation, the minimum habitat patch size to 
support a sustaining population may be approximately 2 ha (5 ac), 
although no

[[Page 49852]]

studies have been conducted to evaluate this estimate. Some occupied 
sites are less than 2 ha (5 ac) in size, but it is not known whether 
these populations are sustainable in the long term.
    Reproduction is sexual (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 12), but specific 
pollinators or dispersers are unknown. Flower morphology suggests the 
species may be pollinated by butterflies, bees, or both (Koptur 2013, 
pers. comm.). Wind is one likely dispersal vector (Gann 2013b, pers. 
comm.), as is seed dispersal by animals. Within pine rocklands, more 
than 50 species of butterflies have been observed that may act as 
pollinators for Brickellia mosieri . Similarly, a large variety of 
native and nonnative bee species are known to pollinate pine rockland 
plants, which may include B. mosieri. Declines in pollinator visitation 
may cause decreased seed set or fruit production, which could lead to 
lower seedling establishment and numbers of mature plants. The 
availability of pollinators of appropriate type and sufficient numbers 
is necessary for B. mosieri to reproduce and ensure sustainable 
populations. Because the specific type(s) and number of pollinators of 
B. mosieri are unknown, and may include non-generalist species closely 
tied to pine rockland habitats, preserving and restoring connectivity 
of pine rockland habitat fragments is essential to the long-term 
conservation of the species. Sufficient connectivity of pine rockland 
habitat is also necessary to support establishment of new populations 
through seed dispersal, and to preserve and enhance genetic diversity.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify habitat 
connectivity of sufficient size and suitability, or habitat that can be 
restored to these conditions that supports the species' growth, 
distribution, and population expansion, to be a PBF for Brickellia 
mosieri.
    Linum carteri var. carteri--The reproductive needs of L. c. var. 
carteri are not well understood. Maschinski (2006, p. 83) reported that 
L. c. var. carteri has typical behavior for an early successional 
plant--plants grow to reproductive status quickly, and populations 
typically contain a higher density of plants. The minimum habitat patch 
size to support a sustaining population may be smaller than that needed 
for Brickellia mosieri, possibly as small as 0.4 ha (1 ac) (Bradley 
2013b, pers. comm.), although no studies have been conducted to 
evaluate this estimate. Reproduction is believed to be sexual (Bradley 
and Gann 1999, p. 71), but specific pollinators are unknown. Flower 
morphology suggests this variety may also be pollinated by butterflies 
or bees, or both (Koptur 2013, pers. comm.). Alternatively, Mosquin and 
Hayley (1967, p. 1278) suggested L. c. var. carteri may be self-
pollinated. Dispersal agents are unknown, but most likely include 
animal and human-related vectors in the existing landscape.
    Therefore, given the uncertainty regarding specific pollinators and 
dispersal vectors, the importance of connectivity of pine rockland 
habitat discussed above for Brickellia mosieri also applies to Linum 
carteri var. carteri. We identify habitat connectivity of sufficient 
size and suitability, or habitat that can be restored to these 
conditions to support the species' growth, distribution, and population 
expansion, to also be a PBF for L. c. var. carteri.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of Brickellia 
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri
    Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri continue to occur 
in habitats that are protected from incompatible human-generated 
disturbances and are only partially representative of the plants' 
historical, geographical, and ecological distributions because their 
ranges within these habitats has been reduced. These plants are still 
found in their representative plant communities of pine rocklands. 
Representative communities are located on Federal, State, local, and 
private lands that implement habitat management activities which 
benefit these plants.
    Disturbance Regime--Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of 
disturbance, most importantly from natural or prescribed fires (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; FNAI 2010, p. 63). These 
fires are a vital component in maintaining native vegetation, such as 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, which require high 
light conditions and exposed substrate. Without fire, succession from 
pine rockland to rockland hammock (an upland tropical hardwood forest 
occurring over limestone) is rapid, and understory species such as B. 
mosieri and L. c. var. carteri are shaded out by dense canopy and deep 
leaf litter. In addition, displacement of native species by invasive, 
nonnative plants often occurs.
    Hurricanes and other significant weather events also create 
openings in the pine rockland canopy (FNAI 2010, p. 63), although these 
types of disturbances are more sporadic in nature and may pose a threat 
to small, isolated populations such as those that remain of Brickellia 
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. For L. c. var. carteri, mowing 
may also serve as another means of maintaining an open canopy where the 
plant occurs in firebreaks, rights-of-way, and cleared fields. However, 
in order to avoid potential negative impacts, the timing of mowing is 
critical and should be conducted after flowering has occurred (see 
Demographics, Reproductive Biology and Population Genetics of L. c. 
var. carteri in the proposed listing rule published October 3, 2013 (78 
FR 61273)). Mechanical control of hardwoods may also help maintain an 
open canopy in pine rockland, but cannot entirely replace fire since it 
does not have the same benefits related to removal of leaf litter and 
nutrient cycling. Natural and prescribed fire remains the primary and 
ecologically preferred disturbance regime for pine rockland.
    Brickellia mosieri tends to occur on exposed limestone with minimal 
organic litter and in areas with only minor amounts of substrate 
disturbance (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 11). In contrast, Linum carteri 
var. carteri is currently associated with pine rocklands that have 
undergone some sort of substrate disturbance (e.g., firebreaks, canal 
banks, edges of railway beds). All known occurrences over the last 15 
years have been within either scarified pine rockland, disturbed areas 
adjacent to or within pine rocklands, or completely disturbed areas 
having a limestone substrate (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 71; Bradley 
2013a, pers. comm.). Inadequate fire management, resulting in closed 
canopy conditions, may have excluded L. c. var. carteri (which responds 
positively to low competition and high light environments) from 
otherwise suitable pine rocklands habitat (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 
71). Alternatively, this variety may only proliferate on sites where 
exposed substrate occurs following disturbance; historically this may 
have occurred following hurricanes (e.g., under tip-up mounds of fallen 
trees), animal disturbance, or fire (Gann 2013a, pers. comm.). Whether 
current occurrences of L. c. var. carteri reflect a need for higher 
light conditions than B. mosieri, a requirement for disturbed 
substrate, or some combination of these, or other unidentified factors, 
is unknown, and microhabitat data for either plant are generally 
lacking. The best available scientific data suggest that both plants 
require a similar disturbance regime to maintain the open canopy and

[[Page 49853]]

low litter conditions characteristics of pine rockland habitat, and 
thereby maintain persistent populations.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify natural or 
prescribed fire, or other disturbance regimes that maintain the pine 
rockland habitat, to be a PBF for these plants.

Primary Constituent Elements

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri in 
areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' 
primary constituent elements (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 plants' life-history processes, 
we determine that the PCEs specific to Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri are:
    (1) Areas of pine rockland habitat that contain:
    (a) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
    (b) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
    (c) A plant community of predominately native vegetation that may 
include, but is not limited to:
    (i) Canopy vegetation dominated by Pinus elliottii var. densa 
(South Florida slash pine);
    (ii) Subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, 
Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm), 
Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), 
Myrsine floridana (myrsine), Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima 
lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra 
(rough velvetseed), Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry), Psidium 
longipes (mangroveberry), Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow bustic), and 
Rhus copallinum (winged sumac);
    (iii) Short-statured shrubs that may include, but are not limited 
to, Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata (white indigoberry), 
Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda royoc (redgal), 
and Chiococca alba (snowberry); and
    (iv) Understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to: 
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S. 
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn); 
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris 
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora floridensis (Florida white-top sedge); 
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn); Echites umbellata (devil's 
potato); Croton linearis (pineland croton); Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats); 
Chamaecrista deeringiana (partridge pea); Zamia integrifolia (coontie); 
and Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair pineland fern).
    (2) A disturbance regime that naturally or artificially duplicates 
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or other weather 
events) and that maintains the pine rockland habitat as described in 
PCE (1).
    (3) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain 
viable populations of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri 
in the pine rockland habitat as described in PCE (1).

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of Brickellia 
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri may require special management 
considerations or protection to reduce threats related to habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and modification primarily due to development; 
inadequate fire management; nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level 
rise. For an indepth discussion of threats, see Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species in our proposed listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61273), and as updated in 
our final listing rule published in the Federal Register on September 
4, 2014 (79 FR 52567). For a discussion of the special management 
considerations or protection for the PBFs in this critical habitat 
designation, see the discussion in the proposed critical habitat rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 612793).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If, 
after identifying areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, 
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 occupied at the time of listing--are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    In this rule, we are designating as critical habitat habitat both 
within the geographical area occupied by these plants at the time of 
listing, and outside the geographical area occupied by these plants at 
the time of listing but within their historical range, because such 
areas are essential for the conservation of these plants. We used 
habitat and historical occurrence data, and applied general 
conservation design principles, to identify unoccupied habitat 
essential for the conservation of these plants.
    To determine the general extent, location, and boundaries of 
critical habitat, the Service used the following sources of 
information:
    (1) Historical and current records of Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri occurrences and distributions found in 
publications, reports, personal communications, and associated voucher 
specimens housed at museums and private collections;
    (2) FNAI, IRC, and FTBG GIS data showing the location and extent of 
documented occurrences of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. 
carteri, as well as occurrence data for other imperiled pine rockland 
species;
    (3) Reports and databases prepared by botanists with IRC and FTBG. 
Some of these were funded by the Service, while others were requested 
or volunteered by biologists with IRC or FTBG;
    (4) ESRI ArcGIS online basemap aerial imagery (collected December 
2010) and Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs; 1-m true 
color; collected 2004) of Miami-Dade County. Because pine rockland 
habitat has a recognizable signature in these aerial photographs, the 
presence of PCEs was partially determined through evaluation of this 
imagery; and
    (5) GIS data depicting soils (Soil Service Geographic (SSURGO) 
dataset), land cover (South Florida Water Management District Land Use 
and Cover 2008-2009), and elevation (Dade County LiDAR 88--2003) within 
Miami-Dade County; these data were also used to determine the presence 
of PCEs.
    Due to the lack of existing taxa-specific data or recommendations 
related to conservation design (e.g.,

[[Page 49854]]

minimum area or number of populations needed for recovery), we used 
general conservation design principles in conjunction with the best 
available data for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri to 
identify those unoccupied pine rocklands with the highest conservation 
quality--that is, those areas that currently provide the best quality 
habitat and are likely to continue to do so in the future, or areas 
that have the highest restoration potential. Guidelines for 
conservation design, which have been developed using island 
biogeography models, are highly relevant to areas such as the 
fragmented pine rocklands of the Miami Rock Ridge (i.e., pine rockland 
islands in a sea of urban and agriculture development). Due to the 
degree of habitat loss that has already occurred, application of all 
such guidelines are somewhat limited by the nature of the remaining 
habitat (e.g., sizes, shapes, and locations of individual habitat 
patches). As such, we evaluated conservation quality of unoccupied pine 
rockland habitat using the following three major principles:
    (1) Geographic spread--Species that are well distributed across 
their native ranges are less susceptible to extinction than are species 
confined to small portions of their ranges.
    (2) Size--Large habitat patches are superior to small habitat 
patches, in that larger areas will support larger populations and will 
be less negatively impacted by edge effects. All else being equal, 
conservation design options that include greater areal extent are 
superior. When comparative circumstances are not otherwise equal, 
factors such as habitat quality, the presence of specific landscape 
features, and the spatial arrangement of habitat may offset a solely 
area-driven selection process.
    (3) Connectivity--Habitat that occurs in less fragmented, 
contiguous patches is preferable to habitat that is fragmented or 
isolated by urban lands. Habitat patches close to one another serve 
species of concern better than patches situated far apart. 
Interconnected patches are better than isolated patches. Conservation 
design alternatives should seek, in order of priority:
    (a) Continuity within habitat (minimize additional fragmentation);
    (b) Connectedness (increase existing habitat patches); and
    (c) Proximity (minimize distance between habitat patches).
    Using these guiding principles, we evaluated the remaining 
unoccupied pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge outside of ENP 
with the intent of identifying the largest patches and highest quality 
habitat available (patches of sufficient size and quality to support 
populations), in sufficient amount (i.e., sufficient numbers of 
populations) and spatial arrangement (to provide opportunities for 
future migration and colonization) to provide for the conservation of 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Our evaluation 
consisted of the following steps:
    (1) Using primarily aerial imagery and GIS-based vegetation and 
soils data, wedelineated pine rockland habitat in Miami Dade County 
outside of ENP. Pine rocklands were identified based on the presence of 
specific soil types (see ``Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other 
Nutritional or Physiological Requirements,''above), and presence of 
pine rockland vegetation. Fire-suppressed areas and areas where 
intergrading with rockland hammock occurs were also evaluated. Some 
former pine rockland habitat was considered too severely fire 
suppressed (i.e., having extremely dense canopy cover) such that it is 
now unsuitable habitat for Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. 
carteri, and unlikely to be able to be restored; these areas were not 
delineated as pine rocklands in our critical habitat analysis. Some 
cleared areas occurring over pine rockland soils were delineated, with 
the intent that such areas provide opportunities for restoration. The 
resulting habitat layer consisted of 245 habitat patches.
    (2) To maximize geographic spread within the plants' historical 
ranges, we divided the extent of delineated habitat into five 
geographic areas (northeast to southwest).
    (3) For each plant, we included occupied patches in final critical 
habitat (25 habitat patches for Brickellia mosieri, and 6 patches for 
Linum carteri var. carteri). One occurrence of L. c. var. carteri (a 
single plant found on a canal bank) is not included in final critical 
habitat due to the anomalous nature of the occurrence, and because we 
were not able to define patch boundaries based on any of the criteria 
described in (1), above. In addition, a new occurrence of L. c. var. 
carteri (11 plants in a firebreak) was discovered on October 17, 2014 
on the Deering Estate, but outside the proposed critical habitat 
subunit. Because we believe that the proposed critical habitat 
designation contains sufficient habitat for the conservation of this 
plant, subunit boundaries were not revised and this occurrence is not 
included in the final critical habitat designation.
    (4) For each plant, for the remaining (unoccupied) habitat, we 
excluded patches below the estimated minimum size for each plant based 
on expert opinion--2 ha (5 ac) for Brickellia mosieri, and 0.4 ha (1 
ac) for Linum carteri var. carteri (see ``Sites for Breeding, 
Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring,'' above). The 
resulting layers consisted of 106 habitat patches for B. mosieri, and 
218 patches for L. c. var. carteri.
    (5) For each plant, for the remaining habitat (unoccupied; 2 ha (5 
ac) or greater than or equal to 0.4 ha (1 ac), Brickellia mosieri or 
Linum carteri var. carteri, respectively), we assigned a score for 
eight evaluation criteria designed to assess overall conservation 
quality of the patch, using the following five major objectives 
(discussed more indepth below and at http://www.regulations.gov):
    (a) Onsite habitat quality (intact, open pine rocklands scored 
higher than cleared patches or patches having a closed canopy);
    (b) Patch size (larger patches scored higher);
    (c) Surrounding landscape composition (pine rocklands surrounded by 
less development scored higher);
    (d) Connectivity (within each geographic area, pine rockland 
patches in closer proximity to each other and with greater numbers of 
neighbors scored higher); and
    (e) Vulnerability to sea level rise (pine rockland patches located 
at higher elevations scored higher).
    (6) For each plant, within each geographic area, we used a 
consequence matrix to evaluate the performance of each unoccupied pine 
rockland patch across the objectives described above in (5). The 
resulting total score of each patch was a 0.0-1.0 value, summed across 
all criteria, where a score of 1.0 indicates the patch in each 
geographic area that has the highest conservation quality, based on the 
defined objectives.
    Using the results of the consequence matrix for each plant, we 
evaluated potential ``cut-off'' values for patch total score by 
visually assessing and comparing habitat amounts and spatial 
arrangements between various cut-off values in order to identify the 
best conservation arrangement. Because taxa-specific data and 
recommendations were not available regarding how much area is needed 
for the conservation and recovery of Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri, we applied the general conservation design 
principles related to connectivity, above, and principles of population 
viability and metapopulation theory. Small populations and plant 
species with limited distributions, like those of B. mosieri and L. c. 
var. carteri, are

[[Page 49855]]

vulnerable to relatively minor environmental disturbances (Frankham 
2005, pp. 135-136), and are subject to the loss of genetic diversity 
from genetic drift, the random loss of genes, and inbreeding (Ellstrand 
and Elam 1993, pp. 217-237; Leimu et al. 2006, pp. 942-952). These 
factors increase the probability of both local extinctions and 
population extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991, pp. 4, 28; Newman and 
Pilson 1997, p. 360; Palstra and Ruzzante 2008, pp. 3428-3447). To 
ameliorate these effects, the recovery of many rare plant species 
includes the creation of new sites or reintroductions to increase 
population size (each occurrence, and overall) and support genetic 
diversity. Sufficient area is also required to allow B. mosieri and L. 
c. var. carteri to expand their current distributions (curtailed 
compared to historical ranges), use habitat depending on the 
availability of suitable conditions (dynamic, related to time since 
disturbance within each patch), and maintain their ability to withstand 
local- or unit-level environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
    Based on our assessment, as described above, we determined that 
unoccupied pine rockland patches with a total score for conservation 
quality greater than 0.50 should be proposed for critical habitat 
designation. In addition, in the proposed critical habitat rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61293), we 
proposed 15 supplemental pine rockland patches for critical habitat 
designation for one or more of the following reasons: (1) A population 
of Brickellia mosieri was previously observed in the patch (although 
not recently enough to consider the population extant at this time); 
(2) addition of the patch increases conservation quality of adjacent 
critical habitat; (3) addition of the patch increases connectivity of 
pine rockland habitat across the landscape; and (4) the patch is 
located at the northernmost end of these plants' historical ranges (an 
area not captured using the consequence matrix approach). The last 
category consists of four patches with conservation quality less than 
or equal to 0.50, due to some combination of lower onsite habitat 
quality, smaller size, and more development in the surrounding 
landscape, all of which are related to their position closer to Miami. 
While these patches may not represent the best habitat currently 
available, they do provide needed opportunities to increase these 
plants' geographic spread and restore the plants to the northernmost 
intact habitat within their historical ranges, which is more heavily 
impacted, and are essential to the conservation of these plants, as 
discussed above.
    Revisions to the resulting set of habitat patches were proposed in 
the revised proposed rule and availability of the draft economic 
analysis published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 
41211), based on new information concerning the current habitat 
condition of proposed areas as well as information regarding additional 
areas of suitable habitat that were not included in the proposed 
designation but that meet the definition of critical habitat. The 
proposed changes consisted of the removal of two unoccupied patches 
from the proposed designation, the revision of patch boundaries for 
three unoccupied areas, and the proposed designation of six new 
unoccupied pine rockland patches (multiple patches may make up a single 
subunit). For more information regarding these proposed changes, refer 
to that notice. We have since determined that three of the six new 
proposed patches (i.e., three unoccupied areas on Department of Defense 
lands) meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat 
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (discussed under the 
Exemptions section, below), and we have removed these from the 
designation of critical habitat in this final rule.
Habitat Within the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing
    We are designating seven critical habitat units for each plant. 
Five of the seven units were occupied by Brickellia mosieri at the time 
of listing; the remaining two units are within the plant's historical 
range, but were unoccupied at the time of listing. Three of the seven 
units were occupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of 
listing; the remaining four units are within the plant's historical 
range, but were unoccupied at the time of listing. The occupied units 
include the mapped extent of each plant's population and contain the 
PCEs.
    Within each of these occupied units is also unoccupied habitat, 
which is included based on our determination that such areas are 
essential to the conservation of these plants, as discussed above. In 
addition to providing sufficient habitat (area, number of patches, 
connectivity), this unoccupied habitat allows for the dynamic nature of 
pine rockland habitat. Conditions within pine rockland patches, such as 
the openness of the canopy and understory and the accumulation of leaf 
litter over the limestone substrate, vary greatly across the landscape 
and across time. Only a portion of the delineated habitat is suitable 
for Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri, or both plants, 
at any given time, and the size and location of suitable areas within 
the population is dynamic over time, being largely driven by the 
frequency and scale of natural or prescribed fires and other types of 
disturbance (e.g., for L. c. var. carteri, mowing or other events that 
disturb the limestone substrate). Although prescribed burns are 
administered on conservation lands that retain B. mosieri or L. c. var. 
carteri, or both, populations, fire return intervals and scope are 
inconsistent. Thus, areas of pine rockland habitat that now support one 
or both of these plants may not support the plants in the future, as 
inadequate fire management removes or fragments suitable habitat. 
Conversely, suitable habitat conditions may return or increase in areas 
following natural or prescribed fires, allowing opportunities for the 
plants to expand or colonize these areas in the future.
    The delineation of units (occupied plus unoccupied patches) also 
includes space to plan for the persistence of Brickellia mosieri and 
Linum carteri var. carteri populations in the face of imminent effects 
on habitats as a result of sea level rise. Although occupied habitat 
within each unit contains the PCEs, some of these areas may be altered, 
as a result of vegetation shifts or salt water intrusion, to an extent 
which cannot be predicted at this time.
    In identifying unoccupied patches with these units, we considered 
the following additional criteria, which we incorporated into the 
consequence matrix described above:
    (1) Objective 1 (onsite habitat quality): Pine rockland areas of 
sufficient habitat quality to support the growth and reproduction of 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. In general, areas of 
intact pine rockland having an open canopy and understory are more 
likely to support populations of these plants over the long term. In 
some cases, disturbed or cleared pine rockland areas have also been 
included in the designation; these areas possess other desirable 
characteristics (e.g., size, connectivity) and could allow B. mosieri 
or L. c. var. carteri to expand from areas already occupied by these 
plants. These areas are typically habitats within or adjacent to pine 
rocklands that have been affected by natural or anthropogenic impacts, 
but that retain areas that are still suitable for the plants. These 
areas would help to off-set the anticipated loss and degradation of 
habitat occurring or expected from the

[[Page 49856]]

effects of climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to 
development.
    (2) Objective 2 (patch size): Pine rockland areas of sufficient 
size to support ecosystem processes for populations of Brickellia 
mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri. Given areas of equal habitat 
quality, larger areas would be ranked higher in our evaluation.
    (3) Objective 3 (surrounding landscape composition): Pine rockland 
areas within a suitable landscape to allow for natural disturbance 
regimes--specifically, prescribed fire--and to minimize negative 
impacts related to changes in hydrology or nutrient/pollution inputs 
from the surrounding area. Pine rocklands surrounded by other natural 
communities will likely provide higher quality habitat in the long term 
than pine rocklands that are imbedded in a highly urbanized or 
agricultural matrix. Given areas of equal habitat quality and size, 
areas with more natural communities and less urban development in the 
surrounding area would be ranked higher in our evaluation.
    (4) Objective 4 (connectivity): Pine rockland areas of sufficient 
amount and arrangement to maintain connectivity of habitat to allow for 
population sustainability and expansion. Sufficient connectivity of 
pine rockland habitat will contribute to the availability of 
pollinators of appropriate type and sufficient numbers to allow 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri to reproduce and 
ensure sustainable populations, and to allow for population expansion 
through seed dispersal. Given areas of equal habitat quality, size, and 
surrounding landscape composition, those patches having more and closer 
neighbors (i.e., other pine rockland patches) would be ranked higher in 
our evaluation.
    (5) Objective 5 (vulnerability to sea level rise): Pine rockland 
areas of suitable elevation to reduce vulnerability to sea level rise. 
Those pine rocklands situated at higher elevations are less likely to 
be negatively affected by either inundation or vegetation shifts caused 
by changes in the salinity of the water table and soils associated with 
sea level rise. Given areas of equal conservation quality, as described 
above, those patches having a higher average elevation would be ranked 
higher in our evaluation.
    A complete description regarding how these objectives were weighted 
and evaluated in our consequence matrix can be found in the 
supplemental materials provided with the proposed rule at http://www.regulations.gov.
Habitat Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing
    We are designating two critical habitat units that were unoccupied 
by Brickellia mosieri at the time of listing, and four critical habitat 
units that were unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of 
listing, which have been determined to be essential to the conservation 
of these plants. These units represent portions of these plants' 
historical ranges in which the plants have been extirpated (see Current 
Range, Population Estimates, and Status for both plants in our proposed 
listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 
FR 61273)). In one unit, located in the northern portion of these 
plants' historical ranges but unoccupied by either B. mosieri or L. c. 
var. carteri, the unoccupied critical habitat patches are the only pine 
rockland habitat that remains in this area. While the full extent of B. 
mosieri's historical range is unknown, due to limited data, comparing 
its current distribution to historical observations suggests that its 
range has contracted at least 30 percent (based on our revised estimate 
of the species' historical range as described in the final listing rule 
published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567)). 
Likewise, the historical range of L. c. var. carteri has been reduced 
approximately 30 percent. The reductions in the historical ranges of 
these plants have occurred almost entirely in their northern portions, 
between Pinecrest and South Miami/Coconut Grove. As noted earlier, 
little pine rockland habitat has escaped urban development in this 
area, and those patches that remain are of lesser conservation quality 
due to lower onsite habitat quality, smaller patch sizes, and higher 
amounts of development in the surrounding landscape. While these 
patches may not represent the best pine rockland habitat currently 
available, they provide needed habitat to increase these plants' 
geographic spread to currently unoccupied portions of their historical 
ranges, and are essential for the conservation of the two plants.
    In summary, for occupied habitat within the geographic area 
occupied by Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri at the 
time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by 
evaluating habitat suitability of pine rockland habitat within this 
geographic area, and retained those areas that contain some or all of 
the PCEs to support life-history functions essential for conservation 
of these plants.
    For unoccupied habitat within the geographic area occupied by 
Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of 
listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by evaluating 
the five objectives incorporated into the consequence matrix (see 
discussion above).
    For habitat outside the geographic area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries 
based on the availability of remaining pine rockland habitat in the 
unit. All four available patches were included in the delineation in 
order to provide sufficient area for Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri to expand their current restricted ranges.
    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 physical or biological features for Brickellia mosieri and 
Linum carteri var. carteri. 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 or 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-
2013-0108, and at the field office responsible for the designation (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
    Units and subunits are designated based on sufficient elements of 
physical or biological features being present to support the life 
processes of Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Some 
subunits contain all of the identified elements of physical or 
biological features and support multiple

[[Page 49857]]

life processes. Some subunits contain only some elements of the 
physical or biological features necessary to support particular use of 
that habitat by B. mosieri or L. c. var. carteri.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating seven units, each, as critical habitat for 
Brikellia mosieri and Linum carteri. var. carteri. The critical habitat 
areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of 
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat.

Brickellia mosieri

    The seven units (all located in Miami-Dade County, Florida) we are 
designating as critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri are: (1) Unit 
BM1: Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas; (2) Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley 
Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas; (3) Unit BM3: U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and 
surrounding areas; (4) Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding 
areas; (5) Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas; (6) 
Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and surrounding areas; and (7) Unit BM7: 
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas. Because of the 
highly fragmented nature of the remaining pine rockland habitat, these 
large overall unit boundaries encompass multiple, smaller designations 
(i.e., subunits) within each unit; only these subunits within the unit 
boundaries meet the definition of critical habitat. Subunit 
designations identify individual habitat patches, or multiple habitat 
patches having the same occupancy status that are only separated by a 
road. Table 1 shows occupancy, area, and land ownership for each 
subunit within the critical habitat designation for B. mosieri.

    Table 1--Occupancy (O = occupied, U = unoccupied), Area, and Land Ownership of Designated Critical Habitat Subunits for Brickellia mosieri. Area
  Estimates Reflect All Land Within Critical Habitat Unit/Subunit Boundaries. Substantial Overlap Exists With Areas Being Designated for Linum carteri.
                                                                      var. carteri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Unit                       Subunit          Occupancy     Hectares      Acres                    Land ownership by type \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BM1..............................  BM1A................            U             5           13  County/Local.
                                   BM1B................            U            12           30  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............           18           43  .......................................................
BM2..............................  BM2A................            U            32           78  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM2B................            U            47          115  County/Local.
                                   BM2C................            U             8           19  State.
                                   BM2D................            O             3            8  County/Local.
                                   BM2E................            O             2            5  County/Local.
                                   BM2F................            U             1            2  County/Local.
                                   BM2G................            O            16           39  State, County/Local.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          108          267  .......................................................
BM3..............................  BM3A................            U             2            6  State.
                                   BM3B................            U            59          146  Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM3C................            U            11           28  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM3D................            U             3            6  County/Local.
                                   BM3E................            U            34           84  State, County/Local.
                                   BM3F................            U             6           15  State, County/Local.
                                   BM3G................            U             5           11  County/Local.
                                   BM3H................            U             8           19  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          127          315  .......................................................
BM4..............................  BM4A................            U            89          219  Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM4B................            O           137          339  Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM4C................            U            10           24  Federal, County/Local.
                                   BM4D................            U            17           42  County/Local.
                                   BM4E................            O           124          306  Federal, County/Local.
                                   BM4F................            U             5           13  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM4G................            O             6           15  Private/Other.
                                   BM4H................            U             7           17  County/Local.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          395          975  .......................................................
BM5..............................  BM5A................            O            25           62  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM5B................            U             6           14  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM5C................            U             4           10  County/Local.
                                   BM5D................            O             3            8  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM5E................            U            22           53  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM5F................            U             3            7  County/Local.
                                   BM5G................            U             4           10  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM5H................            U             9           22  State, County/Local.
                                   BM5I................            U             6           14  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM5J................            U            13           31  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM5K................            U             3            6  Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............           96          238  .......................................................
BM6..............................  BM6A................            U            38           93  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6B................            U            14           35  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6C................            U             5           12  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6D................            U             4           10  State, County/Local, Private/Other.

[[Page 49858]]

 
                                   BM6E................            O            13           32  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6F................            O             7           17  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6G................            O             1            3  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6H................            O             1            4  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6I................            U             6           15  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6J................            U            11           28  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6K................            U             7           16  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM6L................            O             5           12  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          112          276  .......................................................
BM7..............................  BM7A................            U            11           27  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM7B................            U            10           24  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM7C................            U             8           20  State, County/Local.
                                   BM7D................            U             7           18  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM7E................            U            16           39  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM7F................            O           133          330  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM7G................            U            11           27  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   BM7H................            U            11           26  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          206          510  .......................................................
        CH Total.................  ....................  ............        1,062        2,624  .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ Ownership information is based on Miami-Dade County parcel data (July 2013) and FNAI's Florida Managed Lands data (March 2014).

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri, below.

Unit BM1: Trinity Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida

    Unit BM1 consists of 18 ha (43 ac) in Miami-Dade County. Within 
Unit BM1, there are two subunits--BM1A (County-owned) and BM1B 
(combination of State, County, and privately owned lands). The unit is 
comprised of State lands within Trinity Pineland County Park (4 ha (10 
ac)); County lands primarily within A. D. ``Doug'' Barnes Park (6 ha 
(14 ac)); and parcels in private ownership (8 ha (19 ac)). This unit is 
bordered on the north by SW 24 Street, on the south by the Snapper 
Creek Expressway (State Road (SR) 878), on the east by SW 67 Avenue, 
and on the west by SW 87 Avenue. The unit is within the historical 
range of Brickellia mosieri, although data are lacking regarding 
historical occupancy of the specific critical habitat patches in the 
unit. This unit includes the only remaining pine rockland habitat in 
this northern portion of the Miami Rock Ridge.
    This unit was not occupied by Brickellia mosieri at the time of 
listing but is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish 
wild populations within the historical ranges of the species, and 
maintain populations throughout the historical distribution of the 
species in Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in 
the case of stochastic events, should B. mosieri be extirpated from one 
of its current locations.

Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida

    Unit BM2 consists of approximately 108 ha (267 ac) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM2, there are seven subunits (BM2A-
BM2G) comprising primarily conservation lands and including four larger 
areas plus three smaller areas. The unit is comprised of State lands 
within Camp Matecumbe, Tamiami Pineland Complex Addition, and Rockdale 
Pineland (49 ha (121 ac)); County/local lands primarily within Nixon 
Smiley Pineland Preserve, Tamiami #8 (Nixon Smiley Addition) Pineland, 
Pine Shore Pineland Preserve, Ron Ehman Park, and Rockdale Pineland 
Addition (59 ha (146 ac)); and small portions of parcels in private or 
other ownership (less than 1 ha (less than 1 ac)). This unit is 
bordered on the north by SW 104 Street, on the south by SW 152 Street 
(Coral Reef Drive), on the east by U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on 
the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
    This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some 
habitat within the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri (three 
occurrences; approximately 21 ha (52 ac)) at the time of listing. This 
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine 
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation 
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, 
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs 
in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats of habitat fragmentation; inadequate fire 
management; competition with nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level 
rise. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or coordinated 
with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions.
    Some of the unoccupied habitat within this unit was historically 
occupied by Brickellia mosieri, although it was not occupied by the 
species at the time of listing. This unoccupied habitat is essential to 
the conservation of B. mosieri because it serves to protect habitat 
needed to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the 
historical ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout 
the historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It 
also provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, 
should B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.

[[Page 49859]]

Unit BM3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and 
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Unit BM3 consists of approximately 127 ha (315 ac) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM3, there are eight subunits (BM3A-
BM3H), including two larger areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) Subtropical Horticultural Research Station, and Deering Estate 
at Cutler) plus six smaller areas surrounding these. The unit is 
comprised of Federal lands within the USDA Subtropical Horticultural 
Research Station (59 ha (145 ac)); State lands within the R. Hardy 
Matheson Preserve, Ludlam Pineland, Deering Estate at Cutler, and 
Deering Estate South Addition (45 ha (112 ac)); County/local lands 
within Coral Reef Park, Ned Glenn Nature Preserve, and Bill Sadowski 
Park (15 ha (38 ac)); and parcels in private ownership (8 ha (19 ac)). 
This unit is bordered on the north by SW 112 Street, on the south by 
the intersection of Old Cutler Road and Franjo Road (County Road (CR) 
977), on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by U.S. 1 
(South Dixie Highway). The unit is within the historical range of 
Brickellia mosieri, although data are lacking regarding historical 
occupancy of the specific critical habitat patches in the unit.
    This unit was unoccupied by Brickellia mosieri at the time of 
listing but is essential to the conservation of the species because it 
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish 
wild populations within the historical ranges of the species, and 
maintain populations throughout the historical distribution of the 
species in Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in 
the case of stochastic events, should B. mosieri be extirpated from one 
of its current locations.

Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida

    Unit BM4 consists of approximately 395 ha (975 ac) in Miami-Dade 
County. Within Unit BM4, there are eight subunits (BM4A-BM4H), most 
within the Richmond Pinelands complex (made up of Federal and County-
owned lands, as well as land owned by the University of Miami). The 
unit is comprised of Federal lands owned by the USCG (Homeland 
Security), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE; Department of Defense), 
U.S. Prison Bureau (Department of Justice), and the U.S. Department of 
Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (75 ha 
(185 ac)); County/local lands within and adjacent to Larry and Penny 
Thompson Park, Martinez Pineland, Zoo Miami, and Eachus Pineland (239 
ha (590 ac)); and parcels in private or other ownership (81 ha (200 
ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by SW 152 Street (Coral Reef 
Drive), on the south by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/SR 994), on the east by 
U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome 
Avenue).
    This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some 
habitat within the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri 
(approximately 267 ha (660 ac)) at the time of listing. All occupied 
habitat occurs within the Richmond Pinelands, which together compose 
the largest remaining group of contiguous fragments of pine rockland 
habitat outside of ENP. This occupied habitat contains all of the PCEs, 
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable 
vegetation composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance 
regimes, and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. 
The PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation; 
inadequate fire management; competition with nonnative, invasive 
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases, these threats are being 
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement 
needed actions.
    Some of the unoccupied habitat within this unit was historically 
occupied by Brickellia mosieri, although it was not occupied by the 
species at the time of listing. This unoccupied habitat is essential to 
the conservation of B. mosieri because it serves to protect habitat 
needed to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the 
historical ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout 
the historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It 
also provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, 
should B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.

Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida

    Unit BM5 consists of approximately 96 ha (238 ac) in Miami-Dade 
County. Within Unit BM5, there are 11 subunits (BM5A-BM5K), including 4 
larger areas plus 7 smaller areas surrounding these. The unit is 
comprised of State lands within Quail Roost Pineland, Goulds Pineland 
and Addition, and Silver Palm Groves Pineland (39 ha (97 ac)); County/
local lands including Black Creek Forest, Rock Pit #46, and lands owned 
by the School Board of Miami-Dade County (15 ha (37 ac)); and parcels 
in private ownership (42 ha (104 ac)), including Porter-Russell 
Pineland owned by the Tropical Audubon Society. This unit is bordered 
on the north by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/SR 994), on the south by SW 248 
Street, on the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on the west by SW 194 
Avenue.
    This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some 
habitat within the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri (two 
occurrences; approximately 28 ha (70 ac)) at the time of listing. This 
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine 
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation 
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, 
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs 
in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats of habitat fragmentation; inadequate fire 
management; competition with nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level 
rise. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or coordinated 
with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions.
    Unoccupied habitat in the unit is essential to the conservation of 
Brickellia mosieri because it serves to protect habitat needed to 
recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the historical 
ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout the 
historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It also 
provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, should 
B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.

Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida

    Unit BM6 consists of approximately 112 ha (276 ac) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM6, there are 12 subunits (BM6A-BM6L), 
composed of 1 larger area (Camp Owaissa Bauer and its addition) and 11 
smaller areas to the south. The unit is comprised of State lands within 
Owaissa Bauer Pineland Addition, Ingram Pineland, West Biscayne 
Pineland, and Fuchs Hammock Addition (20 ha (50 ac)); County/local 
lands including Camp Owaissa Bauer, Pine Island Lake Park, Seminole 
Wayside Park, and Northrop Pineland

[[Page 49860]]

(63 ha (156 ac)); and parcels in private ownership (28 ha (70 ac)), 
including the private conservation area, Pine Ridge Sanctuary. This 
unit is bordered on the north by SW 248 Street, on the south by SW 312 
Street, on the east by SW 112 Avenue, and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
    This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some 
habitat within the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri (five 
occurrences; approximately 27 ha (67 ac)) at the time of listing. This 
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine 
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation 
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, 
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs 
in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation; 
inadequate fire management; competition with nonnative, invasive 
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases, these threats are being 
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement 
needed actions.
    Some of the unoccupied habitat within this unit was historically 
occupied by Brickellia mosieri. Although it was unoccupied by the 
species at the time of listing, this habitat is essential to the 
conservation of B. mosieri because it serves to protect habitat needed 
to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the 
historical ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout 
the historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It 
also provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, 
should B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.

Unit BM7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida

    Unit BM7 consists of approximately 206 ha (510 ac) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit BM7, there are eight subunits (BM7A-
BM7H), including one larger area (Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) and 
seven smaller outlying areas. The unit is comprised of State lands 
within Palm Drive Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland #39, Navy Wells 
Pineland Preserve (portion), and Florida City Pineland (53 ha (132 
ac)); County/local lands including primarily Sunny Palms Pineland and 
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (portion) (125 ha (309 ac)); and parcels 
in private ownership (28 ha (68 ac)). This unit is bordered on the 
north by SW 320 Street, on the south by SW 368 Street, on the east by 
U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
    This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some 
habitat in the unit was occupied by Brickellia mosieri (one occurrence; 
approximately 134 ha (330 ac)) at the time of listing. This occurrence 
is on Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, which is one of the largest 
remaining areas of pine rockland habitats outside of ENP. This occupied 
habitat contains all of the PCEs, including pine rockland habitat, 
oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation composition and 
structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, and habitat 
connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs in this unit 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
threats of habitat fragmentation; inadequate fire management; 
competition with nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level rise. 
However, in Navy Wells, most of these threats are being addressed or 
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed 
actions.
    Some of the unoccupied habitat within this unit was historically 
occupied by Brickellia mosieri. Although it was unoccupied by the 
species at the time of listing, this habitat is essential to the 
conservation of B. mosieri because it serves to protect habitat needed 
to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the 
historical ranges of the species, and maintain populations throughout 
the historical distribution of the species in Miami-Dade County. It 
also provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, 
should B. mosieri be extirpated from one of its current locations.

Linum carteri var. carteri

    The seven units (all located in Miami-Dade County, Florida) we are 
designating as critical habitat for Linum carteri var. carteri are: (1) 
Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas; (2) Unit LCC2: Nixon 
Smiley Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas; (3) Unit LCC3: USDA 
Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and surrounding areas; (4) 
Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding areas; (5) Unit LCC5: 
Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas; (6) Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa 
Bauer and surrounding areas; and (7) Unit LCC7: Navy Wells Pineland 
Preserve and surrounding areas. Because of the highly fragmented nature 
of the remaining pine rockland habitat, these large overall unit 
boundaries encompass multiple, small designations (i.e., subunits) 
within each unit; only these subunits within the unit boundaries are 
designated as critical habitat. Subunit designations identify 
individual habitat patches, or multiple habitat patches having the same 
occupancy status that are only separated by a road. Table 2 shows 
occupancy, area, and land ownership for each subunit within the 
critical habitat designation for L. c. var. carteri.

Table 2--Occupancy (O = occupied, U = unoccupied), Area, and Land Ownership of Designated Critical Habitat Subunits for Linum carteri var. carteri. Area
    Estimates Reflect All Land Within Critical Habitat Unit/Subunit Boundaries. Substantial Overlap Exists With Areas Being Designated for Brickellia
                                                                         mosieri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Unit                       Subunit          Occupancy     Hectares      Acres                    Land ownership by type \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCC1.............................  LCC1A...............            U             5           13  County/Local.
                                   LCC1B...............            U             2            4  County/Local.
                                   LCC1C...............            U            12           30  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............           19           48  .......................................................
LCC2.............................  LCC2A...............            U            32           78  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC2B...............            U            47          115  County/Local.
                                   LCC2C...............            U            12           30  State, County/Local.
                                   LCC2D...............            U             3            8  County/Local.
                                   LCC2E...............            U             3            7  County/Local.
                                   LCC2F...............            O            16           39  State, County/Local.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          113          278  .......................................................
LCC3.............................  LCC3A...............            O             2            6  State.
                                   LCC3B...............            O             1            2  County/Local, Private/Other.

[[Page 49861]]

 
                                   LCC3C...............            O            59          146  Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC3D...............            U            11           28  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC3E...............            U             3            6  County/Local.
                                   LCC3F...............            U            34           84  State, County/Local.
                                   LCC3G...............            U             6           15  State, County/Local.
                                   LCC3H...............            U             5           11  County/Local.
                                   LCC3I...............            U             8           19  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          128          316  .......................................................
LCC4.............................  LCC4A...............            U           236          582  Federal, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC4B...............            U           142          350  Federal, County/Local.
                                   LCC4C...............            U             1            3  Private/Other.
                                   LCC4D...............            U             7           17  County/Local.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          386          952  .......................................................
LCC5.............................  LCC5A...............            U            25           62  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC5B...............            U             2            4  County/Local.
                                   LCC5C...............            U             7           18  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC5D...............            U             4           10  County/Local.
                                   LCC5E...............            U             3            8  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC5F...............            U            29           71  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC5G...............            U             4           10  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC5H...............            U             9           22  State, County/Local.
                                   LCC5I...............            U            13           31  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC5J...............            U             3            6  Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............           98          242  .......................................................
LCC6.............................  LCC6A...............            U             1            3  Private/Other.
                                   LCC6B...............            U             1            1  Private/Other.
                                   LCC6C...............            U             1            3  State, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6D...............            O             8           19  State, County/Local.
                                   LCC6E...............            U            30           74  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6F...............            U             1            2  Private/Other.
                                   LCC6G...............            U             4            9  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6H...............            U             5           13  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6I...............            U            <1            1  Private/Other.
                                   LCC6J...............            O             2            4  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6K...............            U            14           35  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6L...............            U             5           12  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6M...............            U             4           10  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6N...............            U            13           32  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6O...............            U             7           17  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6P...............            U             1            3  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6Q...............            U             1            4  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6R...............            U             6           15  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6S...............            U            11           28  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6T...............            U             7           16  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC6U...............            U             6           15  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          128          315  .......................................................
LCC7.............................  LCC7A...............            U            11           27  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC7B...............            U             4            9  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC7C...............            U             8           20  State, County/Local.
                                   LCC7D...............            U             7           18  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC7E...............            U            16           39  County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC7F...............            U           145          359  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                   LCC7G...............            U            11           26  State, County/Local, Private/Other.
                                                                      --------------------------
    Unit Total...................  ....................  ............          201          497  .......................................................
        Total CH.................  ....................  ............        1,072        2,649  .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ Ownership information based on Miami-Dade County parcel data (July 2013) and FNAI's Florida Managed Lands data (March 2014).

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Linum carteri var. carteri, 
below.

Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida

    Unit LCC1 consists of 19 ac (48 ha) in Miami-Dade County. Within 
Unit LCC1, there are three subunits--LCC1A and LCC1B (primarily County-
owned), and LCC1C (combination of State lands and private ownership). 
The unit is comprised of State lands within Trinity Pineland County 
Park (4 ac (10 ha)); County lands primarily within Tropical Park and A. 
D. ``Doug'' Barnes Park (7 ha (18 ac)); and parcels in private 
ownership (8 ha (19 ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by SW 24 
Street, on the south by the Snapper Creek Expressway (State Road (SR) 
878), on the east by SW 67 Avenue, and on the west by SW 87 Avenue. The 
unit is within the historical range of Linum carteri var. carteri, 
although data are lacking regarding historical occupancy of the 
specific critical habitat patches in the unit. This unit includes the 
only

[[Page 49862]]

remaining pine rockland habitat in this northern portion of the Miami 
Rock Ridge.
    This unit was unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time 
of listing but is essential to the conservation of the plant because it 
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild 
populations within the plant's historical range, and maintain 
populations throughout the plant's historical distribution in Miami-
Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of 
stochastic events, should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated from one of 
its current locations.

Unit LCC2: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida

    Unit LCC2 consists of approximately 113 ha (278 ac) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC2, there are six subunits (LCC2A-
LCC2F) comprising primarily conservation lands and including four 
larger areas plus two smaller areas. The unit is comprised of State 
lands within Camp Matecumbe, Tamiami Pineland Complex Addition, and 
Rockdale Pineland (53 ha (131 ac); County/local lands within Nixon 
Smiley Pineland Preserve, Tamiami #8 (Nixon Smiley Addition) Pineland, 
Pine Shore Pineland Preserve, Ron Ehman Park, and Rockdale Pineland 
Addition (59 ha (147 ac)); and parcels in private or other ownership 
(<1 ha (<1 ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by SW 104 Street, 
on the south by SW 152 Street (Coral Reef Drive), on the east by U.S. 1 
(South Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
    This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some 
habitat within the unit was occupied by Linum carteri var. carteri (one 
occurrence; approximately 16 ha (39 ac)) at the time of listing. This 
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine 
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation 
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, 
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs 
in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats of habitat fragmentation; inadequate fire 
management; competition with nonnative, invasive plants; and sea level 
rise. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or coordinated 
with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions.
    Unoccupied habitat within the unit is essential to the conservation 
of Linum carteri var. carteri because it serves to protect habitat 
needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild populations within the 
plant's historical range, and maintain populations throughout the 
plant's historical distribution in Miami-Dade County. It also provides 
habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, should L. c. 
var. carteri be extirpated from one of its current locations.

Unit LCC3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and 
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Unit LCC3 consists of approximately 128 ha (316 ac) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC3, there are nine subunits (LCC3A-
LCC3I), including two larger areas (USDA and Deering Estate at Cutler) 
plus seven smaller areas surrounding these. The unit is comprised of 
Federal lands within the USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research 
Station (59 ha (145 ac)); State lands within the R. Hardy Matheson 
Preserve, Ludlam Pineland, Deering Estate at Cutler, and Deering Estate 
South Addition (45 ha (112 ac)); County/local lands within Coral Reef 
Park, Ned Glenn Nature Preserve, and Bill Sadowski Park (15 ha (38 
ac)); and parcels in private ownership (8 ha (21 ac)). This unit is 
bordered on the north by SW 112 Street, on the south by the 
intersection of Old Cutler Road and Franjo Road (County Road (CR) 977), 
on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by U.S. 1 (South 
Dixie Highway).
    This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some 
habitat within the unit was occupied by Linum carteri var. carteri 
(three occurrences; approximately 62 ha (153 ac)) at the time of 
listing. This occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, 
including pine rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable 
vegetation composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance 
regimes, and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. 
The PCEs in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation; 
inadequate fire management; competition with nonnative, invasive 
plants; and sea level rise, including storm surge. In some cases, these 
threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and 
landowners to implement needed actions.
    Unoccupied habitat within the unit is essential to the conservation 
of Linum carteri var. carteri because it serves to protect habitat 
needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild populations within the 
plant's historical range, and maintain populations throughout the 
plant's historical distribution in Miami-Dade County. It also provides 
habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, should L. c. 
var. carteri be extirpated from one of its current locations.

Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida

    Unit LCC4 consists of approximately 386 ha (952 ac) in Miami-Dade 
County. Within Unit LCC4, there are four subunits (LCC4A-LCC4D), 
primarily within the Richmond Pinelands complex (made up of Federal and 
County-owned lands, as well as land owned by the University of Miami). 
The unit is comprised of Federal lands owned by USCG, ACOE, U.S. Prison 
Bureau, and NOAA (75 ha (185 ac)); County/local lands within and 
adjacent to Larry and Penny Thompson Park, Martinez Pineland, Zoo 
Miami, and Eachus Pineland (240 ha (592 ac)); and parcels in private or 
other ownership (71 ha (175 ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by 
SW 152 Street (Coral Reef Drive), on the south by SW 200 St (Quail 
Drive/SR 994), on the east by U.S. 1 (South Dixie Highway), and on the 
west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
    This unit was unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time 
of listing but is essential to the conservation of the plant because it 
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild 
populations within the plant's historical range, and maintain 
populations throughout the plant's historical distribution in Miami-
Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of 
stochastic events, should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated from one of 
its current locations.

Unit LCC5: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida

    Unit LCC5 consists of approximately 98 ha (242 ac) in Miami-Dade 
County. Within Unit LCC5, there are 10 subunits (LCC5A-LCC5J), 
including 4 larger areas plus 6 smaller areas surrounding these. The 
unit is comprised of State lands within Quail Roost Pineland, Goulds 
Pineland and Addition, and Silver Palm Groves Pineland (39 ha (97 ac)); 
County/local lands including Medsouth Park, Black Creek Forest, Rock 
Pit #46, and lands owned by the School Board of Miami-Dade County (18 
ha (44 ac)); and parcels in private ownership (41 ha (101 ac)), 
including Porter-Russell Pineland owned by the Tropical Audubon 
Society. This unit is bordered on the north by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/
SR 994), on the south by SW 248 Street, on

[[Page 49863]]

the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on the west by SW 194 Avenue.
    This unit was unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time 
of listing but is essential to the conservation of the plant because it 
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild 
populations within the plant's historical range, and maintain 
populations throughout the plant's historical distribution in Miami-
Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of 
stochastic events, should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated from one of 
its current locations.

Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida

    Unit LCC6 consists of approximately 128 ha (315 ac) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC6, there are 21 subunits (LCC6A-
LCC6U), composed of 1 larger area (Camp Owaissa Bauer and its addition) 
and 20 smaller areas surrounding it. The unit is comprised of State 
lands within Owaissa Bauer Pineland Addition, Ingram Pineland, West 
Biscayne Pineland, and Fuchs Hammock Addition (20 ha (51 ac)); County/
local lands including Camp Owaissa Bauer, Pine Island Lake Park, 
Seminole Wayside Park, and Northrop Pineland (63 ha (156 ac)); and 
parcels in private ownership (44 ha (109 ac)), including the private 
conservation area, Pine Ridge Sanctuary. This unit is bordered on the 
north by SW 248 Street, on the south by SW 312 Street, on the east by 
SW 112 Avenue, and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
    This unit is composed of both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Some 
habitat within the unit was occupied by Linum carteri var. carteri (2 
occurrences; approximately 9 ha (23 ac)) at the time of listing. This 
occupied habitat contains some or all of the PCEs, including pine 
rockland habitat, oolitic limestone substrate, suitable vegetation 
composition and structure, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, 
and habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability. The PCEs 
in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation; 
inadequate fire management; competition with nonnative, invasive 
plants; and sea level rise. In some cases, these threats are being 
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement 
needed actions.
    Unoccupied habitat within the unit is essential to the conservation 
of Linum carteri var. carteri because it serves to protect habitat 
needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild populations within the 
plant's historical range, and maintain populations throughout the 
plant's historical distribution in Miami-Dade County. It also provides 
habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events, should L. c. 
var. carteri be extirpated from one of its current locations.

Unit LCC7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida

    Unit LCC7 consists of approximately 201 ha (497 ac) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. Within Unit LCC7, there are seven subunits (LCC7A-
LCC7G), including one larger area (Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) and 
six smaller outlying areas. The unit is comprised of State lands within 
Palm Drive Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland #39, Navy Wells Pineland 
Preserve (portion), and Florida City Pineland (53 ha (132 ac)); County/
local lands including primarily Sunny Palms Pineland and Navy Wells 
Pineland Preserve (portion) (125 ha (309 ac)); and parcels in private 
ownership (23 ha (56 ac)). This unit is bordered on the north by SW 320 
Street, on the south by SW 368 Street, on the east by U.S. 1 (South 
Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
    This unit was unoccupied by Linum carteri var. carteri at the time 
of listing but is essential to the conservation of the plant because it 
serves to protect habitat needed to recover the plant, reestablish wild 
populations within the plant's historical range, and maintain 
populations throughout the plant's historical distribution in Miami-
Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of 
stochastic events, should L. c. var. carteri be extirpated from one of 
its current locations.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal 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 et al., 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 affected critical habitat would 
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
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:

[[Page 49864]]

    (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 Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat 
is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for the 
conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may 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 Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. 
These activities include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter the pine rockland 
ecosystem, including significant alterations to hydrology or substrate. 
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 suppression of natural fires or excessive 
prescribed burning, or 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.

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical 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.''
    We consulted with the military on the development and 
implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We 
analyzed INRMPs developed by military installations located within the 
range of our proposed critical habitat designation for B. mosieri and 
L. c. var. carteri to determine if they met the criteria for exemption 
from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We found that 
the following areas are Department of Defense lands with completed, 
Service-approved INRMPs within the range of the proposed critical 
habitat designation.
Homestead Air Reserve Base--Unit LCC6
    The Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB) has a current and completed 
INRMP, signed in July 2009. This INRMP identifies goals, objectives, 
and strategies for the management of HARB's natural resources for a 5-
year period (i.e., through 2014), and provides environmental 
stewardship initiatives for the remaining natural communities on HARB, 
including pine rocklands, as well as efforts to control invasive and 
nonnative animal and plant species. The INRMP (including appendices) 
identifies a ``Remnant Pine Rockland'' management unit (2.1 ha (5.1 
ac)), which includes the unoccupied habitat patch proposed for critical 
habitat designation for Linum carteri var. carteri (subunit LCC6V; 1.0 
ha (2.5 ac)) in the revised proposed rule and availability of the draft 
economic analysis published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014 
(79 FR 41211). The INRMP briefly discusses management recommendations 
for this area including mechanical reduction of fuel load, herbicide 
treatment of Neyraudia reynaudiana (Burma reed), and potential 
reforestation of canopy species. The INRMP identifies one objective for 
the remnant pine rockland: To restore and protect the habitat to 
support native plant communities and

[[Page 49865]]

associated wildlife, including endangered and threatened species' 
habitat. To achieve this objective, the INRMP proposes the development 
of a Pine Rockland Restoration and Management Plan (PRRMP) to include 
invasive and nonnative species removal.
    An updated INRMP has been drafted and is expected to be finalized 
by the time this final critical habitat rule publishes in the Federal 
Register or shortly thereafter. The revised INRMP incorporates the 
PRRMP, which was finalized in September 2012, as well as a Protected 
Plant Management Plan (PPMP). The updated INRMP goals include 
implementation of both plans, which consist of restoring the pine 
rockland management unit to natural conditions by removing invasive and 
nonnative plants and animals, reintroducing extirpated native species, 
preventing pollution, and conducting various maintenance and monitoring 
procedures. The PPMP is used to supplement and update the INRMP, and 
currently focuses on measures to manage habitat for Galactia smallii 
(Small's milkpea), Linum arenicola (sand flax), and State-protected 
plant species occurring on HARB. The PPMP states that if Brickellia 
mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri are identified on HARB, the PPMP 
will be revised to include these plants and appropriate management and 
monitoring activities will be implemented.
    The current HARB INRMP benefits Linum carteri var. carteri through 
ongoing ecosystem management, which should provide suitable habitat for 
this plant. Specifically, the PPMP includes control of woody and 
herbaceous invasive pest plants, which would support suitable habitat 
for L. c. var. carteri by helping ensure a more open canopy. In 
addition, the INRMP includes continued mowing and ``weed whacking,'' 
which function as a surrogate for periodic fires by reducing 
competition with weedy species and helping to maintain an open canopy. 
While these activities are proposed to continue at the current 
frequencies, weed whacking would be raised to 15 cm (6 in) above the 
ground to avoid cutting L. arenicola too low--this would also benefit 
L. c. var. carteri, which has a similar life history and response to 
mowing, if it were to occur there. (For an indepth discussion related 
to the effects of invasive, nonnative plants and mowing on L. c. var. 
carteri, see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species in our proposed 
listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 
FR 61273), and as updated in our final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52567)).
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the HARB INRMP and that conservation efforts identified 
in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Linum carteri var. carteri. 
Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical 
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not 
including approximately 1.0 ha (2.5 ac) of habitat in this final 
critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Special Operations Command South Headquarters--Units BM6 and LCC6
    The U.S. Special Operations Command South Headquarters (SOCSO) has 
an INRMP that was finalized in December 2014. SOCSO is a 34.1-ha (84.2-
ac) property that was formerly part of HARB and is now leased by SOCSO 
from Miami-Dade County. The SOCSO INRMP provides natural resource 
management for portions of this property for a 5-year period (2012-
2017), focusing on the management of Galactia smallii and Linum 
arenicola. In part, the INRMP designates two pine rockland management 
areas, totaling approximately 7.2 ha (17.9 ac), that will be conserved 
and managed, including permanent fencing of the areas, invasive plant 
control, mowing, and prescribed burning. These designated management 
areas include the unoccupied habitat patches proposed for critical 
habitat designation for Brickellia mosieri (subunit BM6M; 5.2 ha (12.9 
ac)) and Linum carteri var. carteri (subunit LCC6W; totaling 6.0 ha 
(14.8 ac)) in the revised proposed rule and availability of the draft 
economic analysis published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014 
(79 FR 41211).
    The SOCSO INRMP benefits Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. 
carteri through ongoing ecosystem management, which should provide 
suitable habitat for these plants. Although conservation benefits and 
management for Galactia smallii and Linum arenicola are the focus of 
the INRMP, some protection and conservation for other native pine 
rockland plant species (including B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri, if 
they were to occur there) will be provided by the use of prescribed 
fire and invasive species control including herbicide treatments used 
to benefit G. smallii and L. arenicola. Prescribed fire is proposed in 
the management areas on a 4- to 7-year interval, the year following the 
herbicide treatment if weather conditions permit. In addition, proposed 
protocols for mowing of the inside perimeter of the management areas 
would benefit L. c. var. carteri. Where G. smallii and L. arenicola 
occur within the fenced perimeter, winter mowing (mid-January to mid-
February) would avoid primary seed set by these species and L. c. var. 
carteri, if it were to occur there. In addition, where invasive and 
nonnative species occur in the mowed area, a broadcast herbicide would 
be applied to the areas with exotic species approximately 1 month after 
mowing, further reducing competition and helping to ensure an open 
canopy.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the SOCSO INRMP and that conservation efforts identified 
in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri. Therefore, lands within this installation are 
exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the 
Act. We are not including approximately 6.0 ha (14.8 ac) of habitat in 
this final critical habitat designation because of this exemption.

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

    Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may exclude an area 
from critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless she determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making 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 must 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 (Industrial Economics, 
Incorporated, 2014) which together with our narrative and 
interpretation of effects constitute our draft economic analysis (DEA) 
of the critical habitat designation and related factors. This analysis 
was made available for public review from July 15, 2014, through August 
14, 2014. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and 
evaluated all

[[Page 49866]]

information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our 
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. This information is summarized below and 
available in the screening analysis for Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri (Industrial Economics, Incorporated, 2014), 
available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that will result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for Brickellia 
mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri's critical habitat. Because the 
designations of critical habitat for B. mosieri and L.c. var. carteri 
were proposed concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience 
that it is more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are 
attributable to the species being listed and those which will result 
solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, the following 
specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) 
The PBFs identified for critical habitat are the same features 
essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions 
that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute 
jeopardy to B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri would also likely 
adversely affect the essential physical and biological features of 
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this 
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and 
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this 
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as 
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of the 
designation of critical habitat.
    In occupied areas, the economic impacts of implementing the rule 
through section 7 of the Act will most likely be limited to additional 
administrative effort to consider adverse modification. This finding is 
based on the following factors:
     Any activities with a Federal nexus occurring within 
occupied habitat will be subject to section 7 consultation requirements 
regardless of critical habitat designation, due to the presence of the 
listed species; and
     In most cases, project modifications requested to avoid 
adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid 
jeopardy in occupied habitat.
    In unoccupied areas, incremental section 7 costs will include both 
the administrative costs of consultation and the costs of developing 
and implementing conservation measures needed to avoid adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Therefore, this analysis focuses on 
the likely impacts to activities occurring in unoccupied areas of the 
critical habitat designation.
    This analysis forecasts the total number and administrative cost of 
future consultations likely to occur for transportation and land 
management activities undertaken by or funded by Federal agencies 
within unoccupied habitat. In addition, the analysis forecasts costs 
associated with conservation efforts that may be recommended in 
consultation for those activities occurring in unoccupied areas. The 
total incremental section 7 costs associated with the designation are 
estimated to be $120,000 (2013 dollars) in a single year for both 
administrative and conservation effort costs.
    The designation of critical habitat is unlikely to trigger 
additional requirements under State or local regulations. This 
assumption is based on the protective status currently afforded pine 
rocklands habitat. Additionally, the designation of critical habitat 
may cause developers to perceive that private lands will be subject to 
use restrictions, resulting in perceptional effects. Such costs, if 
they occur, are unlikely to result in costs reaching $100 million in 
any one year.
    Our economic 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 Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri based on economic impacts.
    A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting documents 
may be obtained by contacting the South Florida Ecological Services 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security 
Impacts

    As discussed above, we have already exempted from the designation 
of critical habitat under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act those Department 
of Defense lands with completed INRMPs determined to provide a benefit 
to Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri. Under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are other lands where a 
national security or homeland security impact might exist. In preparing 
this final rule, we have determined that additional lands within the 
proposed designation are owned or managed by the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Homeland Security. However, we anticipate that 
designation of these additional lands will have no impact on national 
security or homeland security. Consequently, the Secretary is not 
intending to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from this 
final designation based on impacts on national security or homeland 
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.
    In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no permitted HCPs or other approved management plans for 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, and the final 
designation does not include any tribal lands or tribal trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or 
HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary 
is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final 
designation based on other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based

[[Page 49867]]

on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must 
allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have 
developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself, and therefore, 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 this designation. 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. Therefore, 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. Following our evaluation of the probable incremental 
economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for 
Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. carteri, we affirm the 
information in our proposed rule concerning E.O. 13211. Specifically, 
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

[[Page 49868]]

small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 
million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The 
economic analysis concludes that incremental impacts may primarily 
occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for 
transportation and land management projects; however, these are not 
expected to significantly affect small governments. Incremental impacts 
stemming from various species conservation and development control 
activities are expected to be borne by the Federal Government, State of 
Florida, and Miami-Dade County, which are not considered small 
governments. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat 
designation will significantly or uniquely affect small government 
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with 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 Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri 
var. carteri in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, 
the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. 
Although private parties that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. The economic 
analysis found that no significant economic impacts are likely to 
result from the designation of critical habitat for B. mosieri and L. 
c. var. carteri. Because the Act's critical habitat protection 
requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts 
between critical habitat and private property rights should result from 
this designation. Based on the best available information, the takings 
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical 
habitat for B. mosieri and L. c. var. carteri does not pose significant 
takings implications.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. We did not receive 
comments from the State of Florida. We note, however, that one peer 
reviewer was from the Florida Forest Service, Florida Department of 
Agriculture and Consumer Services, and we have addressed those comments 
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 
physical and biological features 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 local 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 these 
plants, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of Brickellia mosieri and Linum 
carteri var. carteri. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act 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

[[Page 49869]]

tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public 
lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information 
available to tribes.
    We have determined that there are no tribal lands occupied by 
Brickellia mosieri or Linum carteri var. carteri at the time of listing 
that contain the physical or biological features essential to 
conservation of the species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by B. 
mosieri or L. c. var. carteri that are essential for the conservation 
of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for 
B. mosieri or L. c. var. carteri on tribal lands.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

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. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by revising the entries for ``Brickellia 
mosieri'' and ``Linum carteri var. carteri'' under FLOWERING PLANTS in 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Flowering Plants
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Brickellia mosieri...............  Florida brickell-     U.S.A. (FL)........  Asteraceae.........  E                       844     17.96(a)           NA
                                    bush.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Linum carteri var. carteri.......  Carter's small-       U.S.A. (FL)........  Linaceae...........  E                       844     17.96(a)           NA
                                    flowered flax.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) as follows:
0
a. By adding an entry for ``Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-
bush)'' in alphabetical order under the family Asteraceae;
0
b. By adding Family Linaceae in alphabetical order to the list of 
families; and
0
c. By adding an entry for ``Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-
flowered flax)'' in alphabetical order under the family Linaceae.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Asteraceae: Brickellia mosieri (Florida brickell-bush)
    (1) Critical habitat units for Brickellia mosieri are depicted for 
Miami-Dade County, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
Brickellia mosieri are:
    (i) Areas of pine rockland habitat that contain:
    (A) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
    (B) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
    (C) A plant community of predominately native vegetation that may 
include, but is not limited to:
    (1) Canopy vegetation dominated by Pinus elliottii var. densa 
(South Florida slash pine);
    (2) Subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, 
Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm), 
Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), 
Myrsine floridana (myrsine), Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima 
lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra 
(rough velvetseed), Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry), Psidium 
longipes (mangroveberry), Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow bustic), and 
Rhus copallinum (winged sumac);
    (3) Short-statured shrubs that may include, but are not limited to, 
Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata (white indigoberry), 
Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda royoc (redgal), 
and Chiococca alba (snowberry); and
    (4) Understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to: 
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S. 
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn); 
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris 
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora floridensis (Florida white-top sedge); 
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn); Echites umbellata (devil's 
potato); Croton linearis (pineland croton); Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats); 
Chamaecrista deeringiania (partridge pea); Zamia integrifolia 
(coontie); and Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair pineland fern).
    (ii) A disturbance regime that naturally or artificially duplicates 
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or other weather 
events) and that maintains the pine rockland habitat described in 
paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
    (iii) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain 
viable populations of Brickellia mosieri in the pine rockland habitat 
described in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
    (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 exists within the legal boundaries on 
September 16, 2015.

[[Page 49870]]

    (5) Critical habitat map units. Unit maps were developed using ESRI 
ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS 
was also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection 
used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the 
units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in 
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish 
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or 
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the 
public at the Service's Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, 
at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108), and at the field office responsible for this 
designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.002
    

[[Page 49871]]


    (6) Unit BM1: Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.003


[[Page 49872]]


    (7) Unit BM2: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.004


[[Page 49873]]


    (8) Unit BM3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and 
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.005


[[Page 49874]]


    (9) Unit BM4: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.006


[[Page 49875]]


    (10) Unit BM5: Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.007


[[Page 49876]]


    (11) Unit BM6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. Map of Unit BM6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.008


[[Page 49877]]


    (12) Unit BM7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit BM7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.009

* * * * *
    Family Linaceae: Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's small-
flowered flax)
    (1) Critical habitat units for Linum carteri var. carteri are 
depicted for Miami-Dade County, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Linum 
carteri var. carteri are:
    (i) Areas of pine rockland habitat that contain:
    (A) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
    (B) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
    (C) A plant community of predominately native vegetation that may 
include, but is not limited to:

[[Page 49878]]

    (1) Canopy vegetation dominated by Pinus elliottii var. densa 
(South Florida slash pine);
    (2) Subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, 
Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm), 
Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), 
Myrsine floridana (myrsine), Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood), Byrsonima 
lucida (locustberry), Tetrazygia bicolor (tetrazygia), Guettarda scabra 
(rough velvetseed), Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry), Psidium 
longipes (mangroveberry), Sideroxylon salicifolium (willow bustic), and 
Rhus copallinum (winged sumac);
    (3) Short-statured shrubs that may include, but are not limited to, 
Quercus pumila (running oak), Randia aculeata (white indigoberry), 
Crossopetalum ilicifolium (Christmas berry), Morinda royoc (redgal), 
and Chiococca alba (snowberry); and
    (4) Understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to: 
Andropogon spp.; Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S. 
sanguineum (bluestems); Aristida purpurascens (arrowfeather threeawn); 
Sorghastrum secundum (lopsided Indiangrass); Muhlenbergia capillaris 
(hairawn muhly); Rhynchospora floridensis (Florida white-top sedge); 
Tragia saxicola (pineland noseburn); Echites umbellata (devil's 
potato); Croton linearis (pineland croton); Chamaesyce spp. (sandmats); 
Chamaecrista deeringiania (partridge pea); Zamia integrifolia 
(coontie); and Anemia adiantifolia (maidenhair pineland fern).
    (ii) A disturbance regime that naturally or artificially duplicates 
natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or other weather 
events) and that maintains the pine rockland habitat described in 
paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
    (iii) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain 
viable populations of Linum carteri var. carteri in the pine rockland 
habitat described in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry.
    (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 exists within the legal boundaries on 
September 16, 2015.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Unit maps were developed using ESRI 
ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS 
was also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection 
used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the 
units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in 
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish 
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or 
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the 
public at the Service's Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, 
at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0108), and at the field office responsible for this 
designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.

[[Page 49879]]

    (5) Index map follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.010
    

[[Page 49880]]


    (6) Unit LCC1: Trinity Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.011


[[Page 49881]]


    (7) Unit LCC2: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve and surrounding 
areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.012


[[Page 49882]]


    (8) Unit LCC3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and 
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC3 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.013


[[Page 49883]]


    (9) Unit LCC4: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.014


[[Page 49884]]


    (10) Unit LCC5: Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.015


[[Page 49885]]


    (11) Unit LCC6: Camp Owaissa Bauer and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.016


[[Page 49886]]


    (12) Unit LCC7: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. Map of Unit LCC7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AU15.017

* * * * *

    Dated: July 16, 2015.
Michael Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2015-19533 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P