Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 14 (Friday, January 22, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3866-3925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01141]

[[Page 3865]]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 14

January 22, 2016

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Consolea corallicola (Florida Semaphore Cactus) and
Harrisia aboriginum (Aboriginal Prickly-Apple); Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 3866]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0057; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ92

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Consolea corallicola (Florida Semaphore Cactus)
and Harrisia aboriginum (Aboriginal Prickly-Apple)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical
habitat for Consolea corallicola (Florida semaphore cactus) and
Harrisia aboriginum (aboriginal prickly-apple) under the Endangered
Species Act (Act). In total, approximately 4,411 acres (1,785 hectares)
for Consolea corallicola in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida;
and 3,444 acres (1,394 hectares) for Harrisia aboriginum in Manatee,
Charlotte, Sarasota, and Lee Counties, Florida, fall within the
boundaries of the critical habitat designations.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on February 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we used
in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation
that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment,
during normal business hours at the South Florida Ecological Services
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The coordinates, plot points, or both from which the maps are
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/,
at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0057, and at
the South Florida Ecological Services Office (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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field
Office listed above, and may also be included in the preamble and/or at
http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), when we determine that
any species is threatened or endangered, we must designate critical
habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designations
of critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule.
This rule consists of: A final rule designating critical habitat
for two endangered plant species, Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum.
We have prepared an economic analysis of the designations. In order
to consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, together with our
narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider our draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors. The analysis, dated October 15, 2014, was made available for
public review from January 22, 2015, through March 23, 2015 (80 FR
3316). The DEA addressed probable economic impacts of critical habitat
designation for Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. We did
not receive any comments regarding the DEA; therefore, we consider the
October 15, 2014, DEA, our IEM, and narrative interpretation of the
effects to be the final economic analysis.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from three
independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on
scientifically sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from two
of the independent specialists with scientific expertise to review our
technical assumptions, 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,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information
we received from peer review did not result in changes to the proposed
designation. We also considered all comments and information received
from the public during the comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

Previous Federal actions for Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum are outlined in our proposed and final rules to list both
species as endangered species published in the Federal Register on
October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), and October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63796),
respectively.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum and the associated DEA with the publication of the proposed
rule to designate critical habitat that published January 22, 2015 (80
FR 3316). The comment period opened on January 22, 2015, and closed on
March 23, 2015. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
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 DEA during the comment period.
We received four comment letters directly addressing the proposed
critical habitat designation. All substantive information provided
during the comment period is addressed below.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from two of the
peer reviewers.
Both peer reviewers noted that the proposal was comprehensive and
that the data which the Service relied upon to delineate critical
habitat was sound. Peer reviewers did not provide any new information
that would necessitate changes to the final rule. Peer reviewer
comments are addressed in the following summary.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: The proposed rule references a population within John
Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. This population was planted by park
staff and is, therefore, considered cultivated as there is no
documentation that

[[Page 3867]]

supports Consolea corallicola occurring historically within the park.
Our Response: The proposed rule did not identify a population of
Consolea corallicola within John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park since
the Service was unaware that C. corallicola was planted at this
location. Although individuals of listed plant species receive
protection under section 7 of the Act regardless of whether they were
translocated (planted) or originated naturally, designation of critical
habitat at John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park does not mandate the
Florida Park Service to manage the habitat or reintroduce C.
corallicola in the areas identified. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State
Park is located within critical habitat unit FSC2 that also contains
Dagny Johnson Botanical State Park where the plant is known to occur.
Critical habitat units for this species are delineated by the presence
of suitable habitat conditions that promote survival and expansion of
populations into the future and are not required to be completely
occupied by the species at the time of listing.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the Florida Natural Areas
Inventory (FNAI), Guide to the natural communities of Florida: 2010
edition contains a ``new'' natural community, designated as Keys Cactus
Barren that occurs in the Florida Keys on Key Largo limestone. This may
be another natural community that C. corallicola uses or may be
reintroduced or otherwise assisted in its migration. However, the Keys
Cactus Barren is so ``new'' that it has not been mapped out or
identified properly like the other natural communities that were
designated in the 1990 FNAI Guide to the natural communities of
Florida. It may be useful for those active in the conservation of C.
corallicola to identify and map Keys cactus barren within critical
habitat areas that are being proposed.
Our Response: The Service agrees that, while no historical wild
populations were reported from Keys cactus barren habitat, it is likely
to be a suitable habitat type for Consolea corallicola because it is an
open canopy habitat with many of the same associated species found in
rockland hammock or buttonwood forest. The ecology of Keys cactus
barrens remains poorly understood, in particular, how they arise and
what processes maintain them. While areas of Keys cactus barren habitat
are not delineated in the data we utilized, the habitat type occurs
largely as inclusions within rockland hammock, coastal berm, or
buttonwood forest. Since these habitats were included in the proposal,
it is likely that many unmapped Keys cactus barren areas are included
in the final critical habitat designation.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that proper management of
individual plants and their habitat may prove to be very expensive and
time demanding, requiring quarterly population monitoring to remove
Cactoblastis cactorum larvae, and to control other native and nonnative
plants and animals around individual plants.
Our Response: The Service agrees that conservation of these species
will necessitate a commitment by the Service and our conservation
partners. Nonnative plant and animal control is ongoing at some sites,
and most populations are visited at least twice per year to monitor for
Cactoblastis infestations. We welcome suggestions from stakeholders and
partners on how to efficiently address the threat from C. cactorum
moths.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that reducing fuels around
the cacti before prescribed fire and in case of wildfire may also need
to be conducted in the event that prescribed or wild fire burns into
the plants.
Our Response: The Service agrees that fuel reduction or other
strategies are needed to reduce the risk of wild or prescribed fire
escaping into areas supporting the two cacti. We discuss the risk of
wildfire in this final rule, but we believe that emergency management
actions that may be needed in the event of wildfire, such as clearing
fuels around individual cacti, must take place on a case-by-case basis.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that, in addition to using
current aerial photography to identify critical habitat for these
species, the Service should use historical aerial photography as well.
The earliest possible aerials show the habitat as it was from the mid-
1900s, when Florida was much different than it is today (more open),
and will lead to more effective identification of the natural
communities the two cacti need.
Our Response: The Service has identified critical habitat areas
that are suitable for the two species based largely on current habitat
conditions, and to a much lesser extent, areas that could be suitable
if they undergo restoration (see Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat sections for each species). We attempted to designate a
critical habitat unit for each current and historical population on
record. In some areas of these species' range, dense development and
concomitant lack of large natural areas are the primary limiting factor
to the size of the critical habitat units. While historical aerial
imagery would help us understand past habitat conditions and perhaps
identify some areas lost to disrupted ecology or nonnative species, we
believe the improvement to this critical habitat designation would be
negligible because the main limiting factor for these species is
habitat loss due to development and sea level rise, rather than due to
lack of natural disturbance and active management.

Comments From the State

Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act requires the Secretary to give
actual notice of any regulation proposed thereunder to the State agency
in each State in which the species occur, and to invite comments.
Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to designate
critical habitat for Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum are
addressed below.
(6) Comment: The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services' Division of Plant Industry (FDACS-DPI), which maintains
Florida's list of threatened, endangered, and economically exploited
species under Florida's native plant protection statute (Chapter 5B-40
Preservation of Native Flora of Florida), stated that it supports the
designation of critical habitat for Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum. The commenter stated that habitat at the highest available
elevation will be important to avoid possible inundation from storms
and sea level rise.
Our Response: The Service appreciates FDACS-DPI support of the
critical habitat designation. We agree that habitats at higher
elevations are important for reducing the vulnerability of these two
plants to storm surge and sea level rise. A significant portion of the
total critical habitat designation for Consolea corallicola is on Key
Largo, which contains the vast majority of the relatively high
elevations within the species' historical range. However, we did not
include the highest elevation in the Florida Keys (located on Windley
Key) because there is no record of C. corallicola on the island. The
critical habitat designation for Harrisia aboriginum includes higher
elevation coastal berms and shell mounds. Shell mounds are often
several meters above sea level. Other areas with higher elevation do
not contain the associated species, vegetation structure, and
disturbance regime suitable for Harrisia aboriginum.

[[Page 3868]]

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

Public and peer review comments did not necessitate any changes to
the final rule.

Summary of Biological Status for Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum

For more information on Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum taxonomy, life history, habitat, population descriptions,
and factors affecting the species, please refer to the proposed listing
rule published October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), the final listing rule
published October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63796), and the proposed rule to
designate critical habitat published January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3316).

Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
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 may designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential for the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include, but are not limited to, the
recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals,
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished
materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect

[[Page 3869]]

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 Consolea
corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. 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 sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
may be designated as critical habitat, we consider the physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical geographic and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum from studies of the
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below.
Additional information on these cacti can be found in the proposed and
final listing rules. We have determined that the following physical or
biological features are essential to the conservation of Consolea
corallicola.

Consolea corallicola

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Plant Community and Competitive Ability. Consolea corallicola
occurs in communities classified as coastal berm, buttonwood forests,
and rockland hammocks restricted to the Florida Keys. These communities
and their associated native plant species are described in the Status
Assessment for Consolea corallicola in the proposed and final listing
rules. These habitats and their associated plant communities provide
vegetation structure that allows for adequate growing space, sunlight,
and a competitive regime that is required for C. corallicola to persist
and spread. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, rockland hammock, and
buttonwood forest to be a physical or biological feature for C.
corallicola.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Climate (temperature and precipitation). Consolea corallicola
requires adequate rainfall and does not tolerate prolonged freezing
temperatures. The climate of south Florida where C. corallicola occurs
is characterized by distinct wet and dry seasons, a monthly mean
temperature above 18 [deg]C (64.4 [deg]F) in every month of the year,
and annual rainfall averaging 75 to 150 cm (30 to 60 inches (in))
(Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). Freezes can occur in the winter months,
but are very infrequent at this latitude in Florida. Therefore, based
on the information above, we determined this type of climate to be a
physical or biological feature for C. corallicola.
Soils. Substrates supporting Consolea corallicola include loose
sediment formed by a mixture of coarse sand, shell fragments, pieces of
coralline algae, and other coastal debris, exposed bare limestone rock
or with a thin layer of leaf litter or highly organic soil (Bradley and
Gann 1999, p. 37; FNAI 2010a, b, and c, p. 1; FNAI 2010d,e, p. 2).
These substrates provide anchoring spots, nutrients, moisture regime,
and suitable soil chemistry for C. corallicola; and facilitate a
community of associated plant species that create a competitive regime
that allows C. corallicola to persist and spread. Therefore, based on
the information above, we identify substrates derived from calcareous
sand or limestone that provide anchoring and nutritional requirements
to be a physical or biological feature for C. corallicola.
Hydrology. The species requires coastal berms and buttonwood
forests that occur at an elevation higher than the daily tidal range,
but are subject to flooding by seawater during extreme tides and storm
surge (FNAI 2010b, p. 2; FNAI 2010c, p. 2). This flooding helps to
limit the variety of plants that may grow in these habitats and compete
with Consolea corallicola. Rockland hammocks occur on high ground that
does not regularly flood, but this habitat is often dependent upon a
high water table to keep humidity levels high, and may be inundated
during storm surges (FNAI 2010e, p. 2). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify rockland hammock habitat with
groundwater levels needed to maintain humidity and buttonwood and
coastal berm habitat inundated by storm surge or tidal events at a
frequency and duration needed to limit plant species competition while
not creating overly saline conditions to be a physical or biological
feature for C. corallicola.
Cover or Shelter
Consolea corallicola occurs in open canopy and semi-open to closed
canopy habitats. The spatial and temporal distribution of open canopy
areas varies by habitat type and time since the last disturbance, such
as a hurricane, caused canopy openings. In rockland hammocks, suitable
sites will often be found near the hammock edge or where there are
openings in the forest canopy. More open communities (e.g., coastal
berm and buttonwood forests) provide more abundant and temporally
consistent suitable habitat than communities capable of establishing a
dense canopy (e.g., hardwood hammocks). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify habitats that have a vegetation
composition and structure that allows for adequate sunlight and space
for individual growth and population expansion to be a physical or
biological feature for C. corallicola.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The habitats identified above as physical or biological features
also provide a plant community with associated plant species that
foster a competitive regime suitable to Consolea corallicola and
contain adequate open space for the recruitment of new plants.
Associated plant species in these habitats attract and provide cover
for generalist pollinators (e.g., bees, butterflies, and beetles) that
pollinate C. corallicola.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
Consolea corallicola continues to occur in habitats that are
protected from human-generated disturbances and are representative of
the species' historical, geographical, and ecological distribution
although its range has been reduced. The species is still found in
coastal berm, buttonwood forest, and

[[Page 3870]]

rockland hammocks. As described above, these habitats provide a
community of associated plant and animal species that are compatible
with C. corallicola, vegetation structure that provides adequate
sunlight levels and open space for plant growth and regeneration, and
substrates with adequate moisture availability and suitable soil
chemistry. Representative communities are located on Federal, State,
local, and private conservation lands that implement conservation
measures benefitting the species. Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify habitat of sufficient size and connectivity that can
support species growth, distribution, and population expansion to be
physical or biological features for C. corallicola.
Disturbance Regime. Coastal berm, buttonwood forest, and rockland
hammock habitats that could or currently support Consolea corallicola
depend on natural disturbance regimes from hurricanes or tidal
inundation to open the canopy in order to provide light levels
sufficient to support the species. The historical frequency and
magnitude of hurricanes and tidal inundation has allowed for the
persistence of C. corallicola by occasionally creating areas of open
canopy. In the absence of disturbance, some of these habitats may have
closed canopies, resulting in areas lacking enough available sunlight
to support C. corallicola. However, too frequent or severe disturbance
that transitions the habitat toward more saline conditions could result
in the decline of the species in the area. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify habitats that have disturbance regimes,
including hurricanes, and infrequent inundation events that maintain
habitat suitability to be physical or biological features for C.
corallicola.

Primary Constituent Elements for Consolea corallicola

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Consolea corallicola in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements.
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.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to Consolea corallicola are:
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, rockland
hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(A) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, and storm-deposited sediment.
(B) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the limestone.
(C) Buttonwood forest habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
(2) Substrate with calcareous marl muds, calcareous sands, or
limestone rock.
(ii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation with no
invasive, nonnative animal or plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Consolea
corallicola.
(iii) A disturbance regime, due to the effects of strong winds or
saltwater inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation,
that creates canopy openings in coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and
buttonwood forest.
(iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient size to sustain
viable populations in coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood
forest.
(v) Habitats that provide populations of the generalist pollinators
that visit the flowers of Consolea corallicola.

Special Management Considerations or Protection for Consolea
corallicola

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
Special management considerations or protection are necessary
throughout the critical habitat units to avoid further degradation or
destruction of the habitat that provides those features essential to
the species' conservation. The primary threats to the physical or
biological features that Consolea corallicola depends on include:
(1) Habitat destruction and modification by development and sea
level rise;
(2) Competition with nonnative, invasive plant and animal species;
(3) Wildfire; and
(4) Hurricanes and storm surge.
Some of these threats can be addressed by special management
considerations or protection, while others (e.g., sea level rise,
hurricanes, storm surge) are beyond the control of landowners and
managers. However, even when landowners or land managers may not be
able to control all the threats, they may be able to address the
results of the threats.

Proposed Actions To Ameliorate Threats

The following measures or management activities can ameliorate
threats to Consolea corallicola:
(1) Protecting habitats from residential, commercial, or
recreational facility development;
(2) Avoiding ditching or filling that may alter hydrological
conditions;
(3) Nonnative plant and animal species control programs to reduce
competition and predation and prevent habitat degradation; and
(4) Hardwood reduction to maintain the open vegetation structure of
the species' habitats.
The reduction of these threats will require the implementation of
special management actions within each of the critical habitat areas
identified in this final rule. All critical habitat units will need
management to address the ongoing threats listed above and those
presented in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species sections in
the proposed and final listing rules.

Ongoing Actions To Ameliorate Threats

The Service, National Park Service (NPS), State of Florida, Miami-
Dade and Monroe Counties, and several local governments own and manage
conservation lands within the range of Consolea corallicola. The Nature
Conservancy purchased Torchwood Hammock Preserve on Little Torch Key in
1988, to protect what was at the time the only known remaining
population of C. corallicola. The comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)
for the Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges (National Key Deer
Refuge, Key West National Wildlife Refuge, and Great White Heron
National Wildlife Refuge) and Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
promote the enhancement of wildlife populations by maintaining and
enhancing a diversity and abundance of habitats for native plants and
animals, especially imperiled species that are found only in the
Florida Keys. This CCP provides specifically for

[[Page 3871]]

maintaining and expanding populations of C. corallicola.
NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.1 prohibit visitors from harming or
removing plants, listed or otherwise, from Everglades National Park
(ENP) or Biscayne National Park (BNP). Consolea corallicola is listed
on the Regulated Plant Index as endangered under chapter 5B-40, Florida
Administrative Code. Florida Statutes 581.185 sections (3)(a) and (b)
prohibit any person from willfully destroying or harvesting any species
listed as endangered or threatened on the Regulated Plant Index, or
growing such a plant on the private land of another, or on any public
land, without first obtaining the written permission of the landowner
and a permit from the Florida Department of Plant Industry.
The Service, NPS, State of Florida, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties,
and several local governments conduct nonnative species control efforts
on sites that support or have suitable habitat for C. corallicola. The
introduced Cactoblastis moth (Cactoblastis cactorum) infests C.
corallicola plants and may cause mortality. We consider the moth to be
a major threat to the species. Monitoring for Cactoblastis moth
infestations, and hand removal efforts of the moth larvae and eggs are
conducted at BNP and Torchwood Hammock Preserve in an effort to protect
C. corallicola. No satisfactory method of large-scale control for the
Cactoblastis moth is known at this time. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service's Center for Medical,
Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology in Tallahassee, Florida, is
developing containment methods to control the spread of the
Cactoblastis moth (USDA 2006, p. 9).
Reintroductions of Consolea corallicola have been implemented at
several locations on State and Federal lands in the Florida Keys over
the past 15 years. Attempts at reintroduction implemented in the 1990s
were largely unsuccessful due to poor site selection, Cactoblastis moth
predation, crown rot, and burial of small plants by leaf litter. It is
too early to judge the results of more recent reintroductions that were
implemented in 2013 and 2014. Reintroduction of C. corallicola serves
multiple objectives towards the plant's conservation, including
increasing the number of populations to address the threat of few,
small populations; establishing populations across a wider geographic
area to reduce the chance that all populations will be affected by
natural disturbances, such as hurricanes and storm surge events; and
establishing populations at higher elevation sites that will be less
vulnerable to storm surge events and sea level rise. Assisted migration
to higher elevations at existing sites may be needed in the future to
conserve populations if the area supporting the existing population
shows indications of increased soil salinity and population decline due
to sea level rise.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for Consolea corallicola

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If,
after identifying currently occupied areas, a determination is made
that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species,
in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied--are essential for the conservation of
the species.
We are designating critical habitat units throughout the historical
range of Consolea corallicola. The species currently occupies all of
the islands of the Florida Keys where it was recorded historically. We
determined that there is no unoccupied habitat that is essential for
the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are only designating
critical habitat in areas within the geographical area presently
occupied by the species (i.e., occupied at the time of listing).
The wild populations of Consolea corallicola are much reduced (50
percent) from the species' historical distribution, and one of the two
remaining wild populations is small, consisting of only 12 mature
plants. The habitats required by C. corallicola are severely fragmented
by development in the Florida Keys. We anticipate that recovery will
require continued protection of the remaining extant populations and
habitat, augmenting existing small populations, and establishing
populations in additional areas to more closely approximate its
historical distribution in order to ensure there are adequate numbers
of plants in stable populations and that these populations occur over a
wide geographic area. This will help to ensure that catastrophic
events, such as storms, cannot simultaneously affect all known
populations.
Small plant populations with limited, fragmented distributions,
such as Consolea corallicola, are vulnerable to relatively minor
environmental disturbances (Frankham 2005, pp. 135-136) that could
result in 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). Plant populations with lowered genetic
diversity are more prone to local extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991,
pp. 4, 28). Smaller plant populations generally have lower genetic
diversity, and lower genetic diversity may in turn lead to even smaller
populations by decreasing the species' ability to adapt, thereby
increasing the probability of population extinction (Newman and Pilson
1997, p. 360; Palstra and Ruzzante 2008, pp. 3428-3447). Because of the
dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the
recovery of many rare plant species includes the creation of new sites
or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects.
Habitat fragmentation can have negative effects on populations,
especially rare plants, and can affect survival and recovery (Aguilar
et al. 2006, pp. 968-980; Aguilar et al. 2008, pp. 5177-5188; Potts et
al. 2010, pp. 345-352). In general, habitat fragmentation causes
habitat loss, habitat degradation, habitat isolation, changes in
species composition, changes in species interactions, increased edge
effects, and reduced habitat connectivity (Fahrig 2003, pp. 487-515;
Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007, pp. 265-280). Habitat fragments are often
functionally smaller than they appear because edge effects (such as
increased nonnative, invasive species or wind speeds) impact the
available habitat within the fragment (Lienert and Fischer 2003, p.
597).
In selecting areas for critical habitat designation, we utilized
the Shaffer and Stein (2000) methodology for conserving imperiled
species known as the `three Rs': Representation, resiliency, and
redundancy. Representation, or preserving some of everything, means
conserving not just a species but its associated plant communities.
Resiliency and redundancy ensure there is enough of a species so it can
survive into the future. Resiliency means ensuring that the habitat is
adequate for a species and its representative components. Redundancy
ensures an adequate number of sites and individuals. This methodology
has been widely accepted as a reasonable

[[Page 3872]]

conservation strategy (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841).
We have addressed representation through the primary constituent
elements (as discussed above) and by identifying areas of habitat for
the expansion of Consolea corallicola populations. There are only
approximately 800 to 1,000 known individuals and only 6 populations.
All but 2 populations consist of fewer than 100 individuals (low
redundancy). All populations occur on small islands where the amount of
suitable remaining habitat is limited (low resiliency), and much of the
remaining habitat may be lost to sea level rise over the next century.

Sources of Data To Identify Critical Habitat Boundaries

To determine the location and boundaries of critical habitat, the
Service used the following sources of information and considerations:
(1) Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) population records and
ArcGIS geographic information system software to spatially depict the
location and extent of documented populations of Consolea corallicola
(FNAI 2011a, pp. 1-4);
(2) Reports prepared by botanists with the Institute for Regional
Conservation (IRC), NPS, and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) (Some of these were funded by the Service; others
were requested or volunteered by biologists with the NPS or FDEP.);
(3) Historical records found in reports and associated voucher
specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are referenced in the above-
mentioned reports from the IRC and FNAI;
(4) Digitally produced habitat maps provided by Monroe County; and
(5) Aerial images of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The presence
of primary constituent elements was determined through the use of GIS
spatial data depicting the current habitat status. These habitat data
for the Florida Keys were developed by Monroe County from 2006 aerial
images, and ground conditions for many areas were checked in 2009.
Habitat data for BNP were provided by the NPS. The areas that contain
the primary constituent elements follow predictable landscape patterns
and have a recognizable signature in the aerial imagery.
We have identified areas to include in this designation by applying
the following considerations. The amount and distribution of critical
habitat being designated allows existing and future established
populations of Consolea corallicola to:
(1) Maintain their existing distribution;
(2) Expand their distribution into previously occupied areas
(needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
(3) Use habitat depending on habitat availability (response to
changing nature of coastal habitat including sea level rise) and
support genetic diversity;
(4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the
threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties
are diminished; and
(5) Maintain their ability to withstand local or unit-level
environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

The critical habitat designation for Consolea corallicola focuses
on areas within the historical range that were occupied at the time the
species was listed and have retained the necessary primary constituent
elements that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of existing
populations. The critical habitat units were delineated around
documented extant populations. These units include the mapped extent of
the population that contains one or more of the physical or biological
features. We considered the following when identifying occupied areas
of critical habitat:
(1) The delineation included space to allow for the successional
nature of the occupied habitats (i.e., gain and loss of areas with
sufficient light availability due to disturbance of the tree canopy
driven by natural events such as inundation and hurricanes), and
habitat transition or loss due to sea level rise.
(2) Some areas will require special management to be able to
support a higher density of the plant within the occupied space. These
areas generally are habitats where some of the primary constituent
elements have been lost through natural or human causes. These areas
would help to offset the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat
occurring or expected from the effects of climate change (such as sea
level rise) or due to development.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such
lands lack physical or biological features for Consolea corallicola.
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 would 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.
Units were designated based on sufficient elements of physical or
biological features being present to support Consolea corallicola life-
history processes. Some units contained all of the identified elements
of physical or biological features and supported multiple life-history
processes. Some segments contained only some elements of the physical
or biological features necessary to support C. corallicola's particular
use of that 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 rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates, plot points, or both on
which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0057, on our Internet
site at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
above).

Critical Habitat Designation for Consolea corallicola

We are designating four units as critical habitat for Consolea
corallicola. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for C. corallicola. The four areas we designate as
critical habitat are:
(1) FSC1 Swan Key in Biscayne National Park, Miami-Dade County,
Florida;
(2) FSC2 Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida;
(3) FSC3 Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida; and
(4) FSC4 Little Torch Key in Monroe County, Florida.

Land ownership within the designated critical habitat consists of
Federal (28 percent), State (58 percent), County (1 percent), and
private and other (14 percent). Table 1 shows these units by land
ownership, area, and occupancy.

[[Page 3873]]

Table 1--Consolea Corallicola Critical Habitat Units
[All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal ac County ac Private/other
Unit Total ac (ha) (ha) State ac (ha) (ha) ac (ha) Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSC1--Swan Key--Biscayne National Park...... 37 (15) 37 (15) 0 0 0 Yes.
FSC2--Key Largo............................. 3,434 (1,389) 702 (284) 2,331 (943) 17 (7) 384 (155) Yes.
FSC3--Big Pine Key.......................... 772 (313) 508 (205) 172 (70) 11 (5) 81 (33) Yes.
FSC4--Little Torch Key...................... 168 (68) 0 47 (19) 10 (4) 111 (45) Yes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 4,411 (1,785) 1,247 (504) 2,550 (1,032) 38 (16) 576 (233) .............................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total.................... 100 28 58 1 13 .............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

Two (FSC1 and FSC2) of the four critical habitat units designated
for Consolea corallicola are also currently designated under the Act as
critical habitat for the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), and
two (FSC2 and FSC3) are designated as critical habitat units for
Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable thoroughwort).
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Consolea corallicola,
below.

Unit FSC1: Swan Key--Biscayne National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Unit FSC1 consists of approximately 37 ac (15 ha) in Miami-Dade
County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership,
100 percent of which are located on Swan Key within Biscayne National
Park. The unit includes all upland rockland hammock habitat on Swan
Key, most of which is located on the eastern side of Swan Key,
surrounded by the island's mangrove fringe. A second, smaller area is
located on the island's elongate western half and is also surrounded by
mangroves.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species and
the coastal hardwood hammock and buttonwood forest primary constituent
elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats of
nonnative plant and animal species and sea level rise. However, in most
cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated with BNP to
implement needed actions. BNP conducts nonnative species control on
Swan Key and monitors Consolea corallicola for population trends and
Cactoblastis moth damage. The NPS is currently revising the BNP General
Management Plan (Plan), which identifies C. corallicola but does not
discuss specific conservation measures. However, the Plan states that
Swan Key will continue to be a ``sensitive resource area'' and managed
to protect critical ecosystems, habitats, and natural processes. Access
will be tightly controlled and limited to permitted research
activities. In addition, the Service believes assisted migration to the
highest elevations on Swan Key on BNP may be needed in the future to
conserve the population if the area supporting the existing population
shows indications of increased soil salinity and population decline due
to sea level rise.

Unit FSC2: Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida

Unit FSC2 consists of approximately 3,434 ac (1,389 ha) in Monroe
County. This unit is composed of Federal lands within Crocodile Lake
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (702 ac (284 ha)); State lands within
Dagny Johnson Botanical State Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State
Park, and the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area (2,331 ac
(943 ha)); lands owned by Monroe County (17 ac (7 ha)); and parcels in
private or other ownership (384 ac (155 ha)). This unit extends from
near the northern tip of Key Largo, along the length of Key Largo,
beginning at the south shore of Ocean Reef Harbor near South Marina
Drive and the intersection of County Road (CR) 905 and Clubhouse Road
on the west side of CR 905, and between CR 905 and Old State Road 905,
then extending to the shoreline south of South Harbor Drive. The unit
then continues on both sides of CR 905 through the Crocodile Lake NWR,
Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park, and John
Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. The unit then terminates near the
junction of U.S. 1 and CR 905 and Garden Cove Drive. The unit resumes
on the east side of U.S. 1 from South Andros Road to Key Largo
Elementary; then from the intersection of Taylor Drive and Pamela
Street to Avenue A; then from Sound Drive to the intersection of Old
Road and Valencia Road; then resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 from
Hibiscus Lane and Ocean Drive. The unit continues south near the Port
Largo Airport from Poisonwood Road to Bo Peep Boulevard. The unit
resumes on the west side of U.S. 1 from the intersection of South Drive
and Meridian Avenue to Casa Court Drive. The unit then continues on the
west side of U.S. 1 from the point on the coast directly west of Peace
Avenue south to Caribbean Avenue. The unit also includes a portion of
El Radabob Key in Largo Sound located directly east of Avenue A,
extending south to a point directly east of Mahogany Drive.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species and
the rockland hammock and buttonwood forest primary constituent
elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats of
nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The CCP for Crocodile Lake
NWR promotes the enhancement of wildlife populations by maintaining and
enhancing a diversity and abundance of habitats for native plants and
animals, especially imperiled species that are found only in the
Florida Keys, but does not identify Consolea corallicola because it
does not presently occur on the Refuge. The Management Plan for Dagny
Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park calls for the protection
and restoration of habitats and to continue conservation efforts
already under way for C. corallicola. The Service and FDEP conduct
nonnative species control on their

[[Page 3874]]

respective lands on Key Largo. FDEP monitors the reintroduced C.
corallicola at Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park for
population trends and Cactoblastis moth damage. In addition, assisted
migration of the cacti to the highest elevations on these lands is
needed because the population already shows the effects of increased
soil salinity and is partially inundated by high tides.

Unit FSC3: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida

Unit FSC3 consists of approximately 772 ac (313 ha) in Monroe
County. This unit is composed of Federal land within the National Key
Deer Refuge (NKDR) (508 ac (205 ha)); State land managed as part of the
NKDR (172 ac (70 ha)); lands owned by Monroe County (11 ac (5 ha)); and
parcels in private or other ownership (81 ac (33 ha)). This unit
extends from near the northern tip of Big Pine Key along the eastern
shore to the vicinity of Hellenga Drive and Watson Road; from Gulf
Boulevard south to West Shore Drive; Big Pine Avenue and Elma Avenues
on the east, Coral and Yacht Club Road, and U.S. 1 on the north, and
Industrial Avenue on the east from the southeastern tip of Big Pine Key
to Avenue A.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species and
the coastal berm, rockland hammock, and buttonwood forest primary
constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The CCP for the
Lower Florida Keys NWRs (NKDR, Key West NWR, and Great White Heron NWR)
promotes the enhancement of wildlife populations by maintaining and
enhancing a diversity and abundance of habitats for native plants and
animals, and provides specifically for maintaining and expanding
populations of candidate plant species including C. corallicola. The
Service conducts nonnative species control in areas that could support
C. corallicola.

Unit FSC4: Little Torch Key, Monroe County, Florida

Unit FSC4 consists of approximately 168 ac (68 ha) in Monroe
County. This unit is composed of State lands (47 ac (19 ha)); lands
owned by Monroe County (10 ac (4 ha)); and parcels in private and other
ownership (111 ac (45 ha)). This unit extends along State Highway 4A,
from Coral Shores Road, south to County Road, resuming at Linda Street
and extending south to the Overseas Highway. South of the Overseas
Highway, the unit includes areas west of Kings Cove Road, and an area
comprising the southern tip of Little Torch Key that includes portions
of The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) John J. Pescatello Torchwood Hammock
Preserve.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species and
the coastal hardwood hammock and buttonwood forest primary constituent
elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats of
nonnative plant species and sea level rise. TNC's 1994 Management Plan
calls for monitoring, Cactoblastis control, vegetation management, and
basic research on Consolea corallicola and threats to the species. TNC
monitors C. corallicola at the Torchwood Hammock Preserve and conducts
nonnative plant and animal species control. The Preserve is fenced, and
potential visitors must request access to enter the site. Assisted
migration to the highest elevations in the Preserve may be needed in
the future to conserve the population if the area supporting the
existing population shows indications of increased soil salinity and
population decline due to sea level rise.

Physical or Biological Features for Harrisia aboriginum

We have determined that the following physical or biological
features are essential to the conservation of Harrisia aboriginum.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Plant Community and Competitive Ability. Harrisia aboriginum occurs
in communities classified as coastal strand, coastal grasslands,
coastal berms, maritime hammocks, and shell mounds (Bradley et al.
2004, pp. 4, 14). Detailed descriptions of these communities and their
associated native plant species are provided in the Status Assessment
for Harrisia aboriginum section of the proposed and final listing
rules. These habitats and their associated plant communities provide
vegetation structure that provides adequate growing space, sunlight,
and a competitive regime that is required for H. aboriginum to persist
and spread. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
upland habitats consisting of coastal strand, coastal grasslands,
coastal berms, maritime hammocks, and shell mounds to be a physical or
biological feature for H. aboriginum.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Climate (temperature and precipitation). Harrisia aboriginum
requires adequate rainfall and does not tolerate freezing temperatures.
The climate of south Florida where H. aboriginum occurs is
characterized by distinct wet and dry seasons, a monthly mean
temperature above 18 [deg]C (64.4[emsp14][deg]F) in every month of the
year, and annual rainfall averaging 75 to 150 cm (30 to 60 in) (Gabler
et al. 1994, p. 211). Freezes can occur in the winter months, but are
very infrequent at this latitude in Florida. Therefore, based on the
information above, we determined this type of climate to be a physical
or biological feature for H. aboriginum.
Soils. Substrates supporting Harrisia aboriginum include sand and
calcareous shell material (Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 4, 14). These
substrates provide anchoring spots, nutrients, moisture regime, and
suitable soil chemistry for H. aboriginum, and facilitate a community
of associated plant species that create a competitive regime that
allows H. aboriginum to persist and spread. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify substrates derived from calcareous sand
or shell material to be a physical or biological feature for H.
aboriginum.
Hydrology. Harrisia aboriginum requires upland habitats that occur
above the daily tidal range, but are potentially subject to flooding by
seawater during extreme tides and storm surge. H. aboriginum will not
tolerate hydric or saline soils, and these soil conditions may also
cause these habitats to transition to a community of species that will
outcompete H. aboriginum for space. Maritime hammocks occur on high
ground that does not regularly flood, but can be inundated during storm
surges (FNAI 2010h, p. 3). Some sites that support H. aboriginum show
indications that soil salinization is driving changes in the plant
community toward salt-tolerant species, and will eventually lead to
conditions unsuitable for H. aboriginum. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify upland habitats at elevations not
affected by soil salinization due to sea level rise to be physical or
biological features for H. aboriginum.

[[Page 3875]]

Cover or Shelter
Harrisia aboriginum occurs in open canopy and semi-open to closed
canopy habitats. The amount and frequency of open canopy areas varies
by habitat type and time since the last disturbance, such as a
hurricane, caused canopy openings. In maritime hammocks, suitable areas
will often be found near the hammock edge or where there are openings
in the forest canopy. More open communities (e.g., coastal berm,
coastal strand, and coastal grasslands) provide more abundant and
temporally consistent suitable habitat than communities capable of
establishing a dense canopy (e.g., maritime hammocks, shell mounds).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify habitats that
have a vegetation composition and structure that allows for adequate
sunlight and space for individual growth and population expansion to be
a physical or biological feature for H. aboriginum.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The habitats identified above as physical or biological features
also provide a plant community with associated plant species that
foster a competitive regime that is suitable for Harrisia aboriginum
and contain adequate open space for the recruitment of new plants.
Associated plant species in these habitats attract and provide cover
for generalist pollinators (e.g., bees, butterflies, and beetles) that
pollinate H. aboriginum.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
Harrisia aboriginum continues to occur in habitats that are
protected from human-generated disturbances and are representative of
the species' historical, geographical, and ecological distribution
although its range has been reduced. The species is still found in its
representative plant communities of coastal strand, coastal grassland,
coastal berm, maritime hammock, and shell mound habitat. As described
above, these habitats provide a community of associated plant and
animal species that are compatible with H. aboriginum, vegetation
structure that provides adequate sunlight levels and open space for
plant growth and regeneration, and substrates with adequate moisture
availability and suitable soil chemistry. In addition, representative
communities are located on Federal, State, local, and private
conservation lands that implement conservation measures benefitting the
species. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify habitat
of sufficient size and connectivity that can support species growth,
distribution, and population expansion to be a physical or biological
feature for H. aboriginum.
Disturbance Regime. Coastal strand, coastal berm, coastal
grassland, maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats that support
Harrisia aboriginum depend on natural disturbance regimes from
hurricanes or tidal inundation to reduce the canopy in order to provide
light levels sufficient to support the species. The historical
frequency and magnitude of hurricanes and tidal inundation has allowed
for the persistence of H. aboriginum by occasionally creating areas of
open canopy. In the absence of disturbance, some of these habitats may
have closed canopies, resulting in areas lacking enough available
sunlight to support H. aboriginum. However, too frequent or severe
disturbance that transitions the habitat toward more saline conditions
could result in the decline of the species in the area. In addition,
fires are rare to nonexistent in coastal strand, coastal grassland,
coastal berm, maritime hammocks, and shell mound communities (FNAI
2010a, p. 2; FNAI 2010f, p. 2; FNAI 2010g, p. 2; FNAI 2010h, p. 3; FNAI
2010i, p. 2). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
habitats that have disturbance regimes, including hurricanes, and
infrequent inundation events that maintain the habitat suitability to
be physical or biological features for H. aboriginum.

Primary Constituent Elements for Harrisia aboriginum

Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to Harrisia aboriginum are:
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal strand, coastal
grassland, coastal berm, maritime hammocks, and shell mounds.
(A) Coastal strand habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
(2) Substrate of sand and shell fragments of stabilized coastal
dunes.
(B) Coastal grassland habitat that contains:
(1) No canopy and an open understory; and
(2) Substrate of sand and shell fragments.
(C) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, storm-deposited sediment.
(D) Maritime hammock habitat that contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate of calcareous sand and shell fragments.
(E) Shell mound habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
(2) Substrate of soil derived from calcareous shells deposited by
Native Americans during prehistoric times.
(ii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation with no
invasive, nonnative animal or plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Harrisia
aboriginum.
(iii) Canopy openings in coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal
berm, maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats that are created by
the effects of strong winds or saltwater inundation from storm surge or
infrequent tidal inundation.
(iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient size to sustain
viable populations in coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm,
maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats.
(v) Habitats that provide populations of the generalist pollinators
that visit the flowers of Harrisia aboriginum.

Special Management Considerations or Protection for Harrisia aboriginum

Management considerations or protection are necessary throughout
the critical habitat units to avoid further degradation or destruction
of the habitat that provides those features essential to the species'
conservation. The primary threats to the physical or biological
features that Harrisia aboriginum depends on include:
(1) Habitat destruction and modification by development and sea
level rise;
(2) Competition with nonnative, invasive plant species;
(3) Herbivorous nonnative animal species;
(4) Wildfire; and
(5) Hurricanes and storm surge.
Some of these threats can be addressed by special management
considerations or protection while others (e.g., sea level rise,
hurricanes, storm surge) are beyond the control of landowners and
managers. However, even when landowners or land managers may not be
able to control all the threats, they may be able to address the
results of the threats.

[[Page 3876]]

Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include
the monitoring and minimization of impacts from recreational
activities, nonnative species control, and protection from development.
Precautions are needed to avoid the inadvertent trampling of Harrisia
aboriginum in the course of management activities and public use.
Development of recreational facilities or programs should avoid
impacting these habitats directly or indirectly. Ditching should be
avoided because it alters the hydrology and species composition of
these habitats. Sites that have shown increasing encroachment of woody
species over time may require efforts to maintain the open nature of
the habitat, which favors these species. Nonnative species control
programs are needed to reduce competition, predation, and prevent
habitat degradation. The reduction of these threats will require the
implementation of special management actions within each of the
critical habitat areas identified in this final rule. All critical
habitat units require active management to address the ongoing threats
above and those presented in the Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species sections in the proposed and final listing rules.
The Service, State of Florida, and Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte,
and Lee Counties own and manage conservation lands within the
historical range of Harrisia aboriginum. The CCP for J.N. `Ding'
Darling National Wildlife Refuge (JDDNWR) promotes the enhancement of
wildlife populations by maintaining and enhancing a diversity and
abundance of habitats for native plants and animals, especially
imperiled species. This CCP provides specifically for maintaining
populations of H. aboriginum. The State Management Plans for Charlotte
Harbor Preserve, Cayo Costa, Stump Pass Beach, Delnor-Wiggins Pass, and
Gasparilla Island State Parks and Bocilla Preserve promote the
protection of habitats and native species. The Service, State of
Florida, and Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee Counties conduct
nonnative species control efforts on sites that support, or have
suitable habitat for, H. aboriginum. The Service monitors the
population of H. aboriginum at JDDNWR. FDEP monitors the H. aboriginum
population at Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park.
Nonnative species control is currently lacking at Manasota Beach
Park and Kitchen Key in areas that support H. aboriginum. Poaching,
vandalism, and wildfire have been observed at Manasota Beach Park. Most
populations are at elevations close to sea level and may require
assisted migration as sea level rise continues to drive the transition
toward salt-tolerant plant species in these areas. Reintroduction is
needed to restore the species' historical distribution on Cayo Costa
and Madira Bickell Mound State Historical Park. Augmentation of small
populations at Longboat Key, Terra Ceia, Lemon Bay Preserve, Kitchen
Key, Gasparilla Island, and Cayo Pelau would reduce the risk of
population loss to hurricanes, storm surge, or wildfire.
Harrisia aboriginum is listed on the Regulated Plant Index as
endangered under chapter 5B-40, Florida Administrative Code. Florida
Statutes 581.185 sections (3)(a) and (b) prohibit any person from
willfully destroying or harvesting any species listed as endangered or
threatened on the Regulated Plant Index, or growing such a plant on the
private land of another, or on any public land, without first obtaining
the written permission of the landowner and a permit from the Florida
Department of Plant Industry.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for Harrisia aboriginum

We are designating critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by Harrisia aboriginum at the time of
listing in 2013. We also are designating specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that
were historically occupied, but are presently unoccupied, because such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
We have determined that all areas known to be occupied at the time
of listing meet the definition of critical habitat and are needed for
the conservation of the species. However, we determined that occupied
habitat is not adequate for the conservation of Harrisia aboriginum
(see our rationale below). We used habitat and historical occurrence
data to identify unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of
the species. To determine the location and boundaries of both occupied
and unoccupied critical habitat, the Service used the following sources
of data and information for H. aboriginum that include the following:
(1) FNAI population records and ArcGIS software to spatially depict
the location and extent of documented populations of Harrisia
aboriginum (FNAI 2011b, pp. 1-28);
(2) Reports prepared by botanists with the IRC and the Service
(Some of these were funded by the Service; others were requested or
volunteered by biologists with the Service.);
(3) Historical records found in reports and associated voucher
specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are also referenced in the
above-mentioned reports from the IRC and FNAI;
(4) Digitally produced habitat maps provided by FNAI; and
(5) Aerial images of Manatee, Charlotte, Sarasota, and Lee
Counties. The presence of primary constituent elements was determined
through the interpretation of aerial imagery. The areas that contain
primary constituent elements follow predictable landscape patterns and
have a recognizable signature in the aerial imagery.
Only approximately 300 to 500 individuals and 12 populations of
Harrisia aboriginum are known to exist. All but 2 of these populations
consist of fewer than 100 individuals, with 7 populations having 10 or
fewer individuals (low redundancy). Most populations occur on coastal
barrier islands where the amount of suitable remaining habitat is
limited (low resiliency), and much of the remaining habitat will be
lost to sea level rise over the next century. We have addressed
representation through our primary constituent elements (as discussed
above) and by providing habitat for H. aboriginum. For adequate
redundancy and resiliency, it is essential for the conservation of H.
aboriginum for additional populations to be established and existing
populations to be augmented. Therefore, we have designated two
unoccupied areas as critical habitat units where H. aboriginum was
historically recorded, but has since been extirpated.
The current distribution of Harrisia aboriginum is reduced from its
historical distribution, with no populations remaining in Manatee
County, at the northern extent of the species' range. We anticipate
that recovery will require continued protection of the remaining extant
population and habitat, as well as establishing populations in
additional areas that more closely approximate its historical
distribution in order to ensure there are adequate numbers of plants in
stable populations and that these populations occur over a wide
geographic area. This will help to ensure that catastrophic events,
such as storms, cannot simultaneously affect all known populations.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

The occupied critical habitat units were delineated around
documented extant populations. These units include the mapped extent of
the population that contains one or more of the physical or biological
features. We considered the following when

[[Page 3877]]

identifying occupied areas of critical habitat:
(1) The delineation included space to allow for the successional
nature of the occupied habitats (i.e., gain and loss of areas with
sufficient light availability due to disturbance of the tree canopy
driven by natural events such as inundation and hurricanes), and
habitat transition or loss due to sea level rise.
(2) Some areas will require special management to be able to
support a higher density of the plant within the occupied space. These
areas generally are habitats where some of the primary constituent
elements have been lost through natural or human causes. These areas
would help to offset the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat
occurring or expected from the effects of climate change (such as sea
level rise) or due to development.

Areas Outside the Geographic Area Occupied at the Time of Listing

After completing the above analysis, we determined that occupied
areas were not sufficient for the conservation of the species for the
following reasons: (1) Restoring the species to its historical range
and reducing its vulnerability to stochastic events such as hurricanes
and storm surge requires reintroduction to areas where it occurred in
the past but has since been extirpated; (2) providing increased
connectivity for populations and areas for small populations to expand
requires currently unoccupied habitat; and (3) reintroduction or
assisted migration to reduce the species vulnerability to sea level
rise and storm surge requires higher elevation sites that are currently
unoccupied by Harrisia aboriginum. Therefore, we looked for unoccupied
areas that may be essential for the conservation of the species.
The unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the
species because they:
(1) Represent the historical range of Harrisia aboriginum. H.
aboriginum has been extirpated from two locations where it was
previously recorded. Of those areas found in reports, we are
designating critical habitat only for those that are well-documented
and essential for the conservation of the species (i.e., Terra Ceia,
Cayo Costa) (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 77; Bradley et al. 2004, p. 4).
These areas also still retain some or all of the elements of the
physical or biological features.
(2) Provide areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem processes
for populations of Harrisia aboriginum. These areas are essential for
the conservation of the species because they will provide areas for
population expansion and growth. Large contiguous parcels of habitat
are more likely to be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance
and succession, and support viable populations of H. aboriginum. The
unoccupied areas selected were at least 30 ac (12 ha) or greater in
size.
The amount and distribution of designated critical habitat will
allow Harrisia aboriginum to:
(1) Maintain its existing distribution;
(2) Expand its distribution into historically occupied areas
(needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
(3) Use habitat depending on habitat availability (response to
changing nature of coastal habitat including sea level rise) and
support genetic diversity;
(4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the
threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties
are diminished; and
(5) Maintain its ability to withstand local or unit-level
environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
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 Harrisia aboriginum. 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 rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates, plot points, or both on
which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0057, on our Internet
site, http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
above).

Critical Habitat Designation for Harrisia aboriginum

We are designating 11 units as critical habitat for Harrisia
aboriginum. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for H. aboriginum. The 11 areas we designate as critical
habitat are:
(1) Unit APA1 Terra Ceia, Manatee County, Florida;
(2) Unit APA2 Longboat Key, Sarasota County, Florida;
(3) Unit APA3 Osprey, Sarasota County, Florida;
(4) Unit APA4 Manasota Key, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties,
Florida;
(5) Unit APA5 Charlotte Harbor, Charlotte County, Florida;
(6) Unit APA6 Gasparilla Island North, Charlotte and Lee Counties,
Florida;
(7) Unit APA7 Gasparilla Island South, Lee County, Florida;
(8) Unit APA8 Cayo Pelau, Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida;
(9) Unit APA9 Cayo Costa, Lee County, Florida;
(10) Unit APA10 Bocilla Island, Lee County, Florida; and
(11) Unit APA11 Sanibel Island and Buck Key, Lee County, Florida.

Land ownership within the designated critical habitat consists of
Federal (11 percent), State (48 percent), County (15 percent), and
private and other (26 percent). Table 2 summarizes these units.

Table 2--Harrisia Aboriginum Critical Habitat Units
[All areas rounded to the nearest whole number, except where less than 1 acre (ac) or hectare (ha)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal ac County ac Private/Other
Unit Total ac (ha) (ha) State ac (ha) (ha) ac (ha) Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APA1 Terra Ceia............................ 222 (90) 0 66 (27) 70 (28) 87 (35) No.
APA2 Longboat Key.......................... 54 (22) 0 0 0 54 (22) Yes.
APA3 Osprey................................ 116 (47) 0 0 50 (20) 66 (27) Yes.

[[Page 3878]]

APA4 Manasota Key.......................... 415 (168) 0 58 (23) 111 (45) 245 (99) Yes.
APA5 Charlotte Harbor...................... 51 (21) 0 51 (21) 0 0 Yes.
APA6 Gasparilla North...................... 98 (40) 0 0.06 (0.02) 22 (9) 77 (31) Yes.
APA7 Gasparilla South...................... 92 (37) 3 (1) 69 (28) 12 (5) 8 (3) Yes.
APA8 Cayo Pelau............................ 25 (10) 0 0 25 (10) 0 Yes.
APA9 Cayo Costa............................ 1,702 (689) 0 1,379 (558) 94 (38) 230 (93) No.
APA10 Bocilla.............................. 33 (13) 0 0 32 (13) 0.7 (0.3) Yes.
APA11 Sanibel Island and Buck Key.......... 635 (257) 373 (151) 47 (19) 90 (36) 126 (51) Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. 3,444 (1,394) 376 (152) 1,669 (676) 505 (204) 893 (361) ...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total................... 100 11 48 15 26 ...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

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

Unit APA1: Terra Ceia, Manatee County, Florida

Unit APA1 consists of approximately 222 ac (90 ha) in Manatee
County, Florida. This unit is composed of State lands within Madira
Bickel Mound State Historical Park, Terra Ceia Preserve State Park,
Cockroach Bay State Buffer Preserve, and the Tampa Bay Estuarine System
(66 ac (27 ha)); Manatee County lands at Emerson Point Preserve and
parcels owned by the Manatee County Port Authority (70 ac (28 ha)); and
parcels in private or other ownership (87 ac (35 ha)). This unit
includes lands west of Highway 41 extending from just south of South
Dock Street south to Snead Island. The unit also includes areas of
Harbor Key, Mariposa Key, Horseshoe Key, Joe Island, Skeet Key,
Paradise Island, Ed's Key, and Rattlesnake Key.
This unit was not occupied at the time the species was listed but
is essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historic distribution of the species in
Manatee County, and will provide population redundancy in the case of
stochastic events that otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the
species from the one or more locations where it is presently found.
The Management Plan for Madira Bickel Mound State Historical Park,
Terra Ceia Preserve State Park, Cockroach Bay State Buffer Preserve,
and the Tampa Bay Estuarine System calls for the protection and
restoration of habitats, but does not identify actions specific to
Harrisia aboriginum. The FDEP conducts nonnative species control on
their lands within the unit. Reintroduction of H. aboriginum within
Madira Bickel Mound State Historical Park, Terra Ceia Preserve State
Park, and the Tampa Bay Estuarine System is needed to restore the
species to its historical distribution in Manatee County and reduce the
risks to the species associated with hurricanes, storm surge, and sea
level rise.

Unit APA2: Longboat Key, Sarasota County, Florida

Unit APA2 consists of approximately 54 ac (22 ha) in Sarasota
County, Florida. This unit is composed entirely of parcels in private
or other ownership. This unit includes lands west of Gulf of Mexico
Drive, extending from 0.40 miles (mi) (0.6 kilometers (km)) south of
the intersection of Bay Isles Parkway and Gulf of Mexico Drive, to the
southern tip of Longboat Key. It also includes lands on the north side
of Gulf of Mexico Drive, east of Longboat Club Key Drive, on the
northwest tip of Longboat Key.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species, and
the primary constituent elements of coastal strand, coastal berm, and
maritime hammock. The physical or biological features in this unit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. Augmentation of
the Harrisia aboriginum population within the unit is needed to restore
the species to its historical abundance and reduce the risks associated
with small population size, hurricanes, storm surge, and sea level
rise.

Unit APA3: Osprey, Sarasota County, Florida

Unit APA3 consists of approximately 116 ac (47 ha) in Sarasota
County, Florida. This unit is composed of Sarasota County lands within
Palmer Point County Park (50 ac (20 ha)) and parcels in private or
other ownership (66 ac (27 ha)). This unit extends along the barrier
island (Casey Key) from the south terminus of Blind Pass Road, south
for approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) along North Casey Key Road. On the
mainland, the unit includes lands bordered on the north by Vamo Way, to
the east by Highway 41, and to the south by Palmetto Avenue.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains the biological or physical features including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and
contains coastal strand, coastal berm, maritime hammock, and shell
mound primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features
in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of nonnative plant species, and sea level
rise. Augmentation of the Harrisia aboriginum population within the
unit is needed to restore the species to its historical abundance and
reduce the risks associated with small population size, hurricanes,
storm surge, and sea level rise.

Unit APA4: Manasota Key, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, Florida

Unit APA4 consists of approximately 415 ac (168 ha) in Sarasota and
Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit is composed of State lands
within Stump Pass Beach State Park (58 ac (23 ha));

[[Page 3879]]

County lands within Blind Pass Park, Brohard Beach and Paw Park,
Manasota Beach Park, Casperson Beach Park, and Service Club Park (111
ac (45 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership (245 ac (99
ha)). This unit extends from Beach Road in the City of Venice, south
along Manasota Key to the barrier islands southern tip, including a
portion of Peterson Island.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and
contains coastal strand, coastal berm, and maritime hammock primary
constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The Management
Plan for Stump Pass Beach State Park calls for the protection and
restoration of habitats, but does not identify actions specific to
Harrisia aboriginum. The FDEP conducts nonnative species control on
their lands within the unit. Augmentation of the H. aboriginum
population within the unit is needed to restore the species to its
historical abundance and reduce the risks associated with small
population size, hurricanes, storm surge, and sea level rise.

Unit APA5: Charlotte Harbor, Charlotte County, Florida

Unit APA5 consists of approximately 51 ac (21 ha) in Charlotte
County, Florida. This unit is composed entirely of State lands within
the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. This unit includes the Big
Mound, Boggess Ridge, and a shell mound located on the east side of
Charlotte Harbor, south of the City of Charlotte Park. This unit was
occupied at the time the species was listed and contains all the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and contains coastal berm and shell mound primary constituent
elements.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats of
nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The Management Plan for
Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park calls for the protection and
restoration of habitats, and identifies actions specific to Harrisia
aboriginum. The FDEP conducts nonnative species control and monitors
the H. aboriginum population in Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park.
Augmentation of the H. aboriginum population within the unit is needed
to restore the species to its historical abundance and reduce the risks
associated with small population size, hurricanes, storm surge, and sea
level rise.

Unit APA6: Gasparilla North, Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida

Unit APA6 consists of approximately 98 ac (40 ha) in Charlotte and
Lee Counties, Florida. This unit is composed of State land (0.006 ac
(0.02 ha)), county land (22 ac (9 ha)), and parcels in private or other
ownership (77 ac (31 ha)). This unit includes most of Kitchen Key (Live
Oak Key) and the area east of Gasparilla Road, from the intersection of
Grouper Hole Road and Grouper Hole Court, south to 0.15 mi (0.24 km)
north of Snail Island Court, from approximately 0.10 mi (0.21 km) south
of 35th Street to 23rd Street, including the small island separated
from Gasparilla Island by a canal; and from 22nd Street to 20th Street.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains the physical or biological features including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and
contains coastal berm and maritime hammock primary constituent
elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats of
nonnative plant species and sea level rise. Augmentation of the
Harrisia aboriginum population within the unit is needed to restore the
species to its historical abundance and reduce the risks associated
with small population size, hurricanes, storm surge, and sea level
rise.

Unit APA7: Gasparilla South, Lee County, Florida

Unit APA7 consists of approximately 92 ac (37 ha) in Lee County,
Florida. This unit is composed of Federal land owned by the Service and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (3 ac (1 ha)), State lands within
Gasparilla Island State Park (69 ac (28 ha)), Lee County lands (12 ac
(5 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership (8 ac (3 ha)). This
unit includes lands located from south of 1st Street to the southern
tip of Gasparilla Island.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and
contains coastal strand, coastal berm, and maritime hammock primary
constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The Management
Plan for Gasparilla Island State Park calls for the protection and
restoration of habitats, but does not identify actions specific to
Harrisia aboriginum. The FDEP conducts nonnative species control on its
lands within the unit. Augmentation of the H. aboriginum population
within the unit is needed to restore the species to its historical
abundance and reduce the risks associated with small population size,
hurricanes, storm surge, and sea level rise.

Unit APA8: Cayo Pelau, Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida

Unit APA8 consists of approximately 25 ac (10 ha) in Charlotte and
Lee Counties, Florida. This unit is composed of Lee County lands within
Cayo Pelau Preserve, and parcels in private or other ownership (0.6 ac
(0.2 ha)). This unit includes lands located from 0.13 mi (0.21 km)
south of the northern tip of Cayo Pelau, extending south to the
southeastern tip of Cayo Pelau.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains the physical or biological features including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and
contains coastal berm and shell mound primary constituent elements. The
physical or biological features in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative
plant species and sea level rise. Augmentation of the Harrisia
aboriginum population within the unit is needed to restore the species
to its historical abundance and reduce the risks associated with small
population size, hurricanes, storm surge, and sea level rise.

Unit APA9: Cayo Costa, Lee County, Florida

Unit APA9 consists of approximately 1,702 ac (689 ha) in Lee
County, Florida. This unit is composed of State lands within Cayo Costa
State Park (1,379 ac (558 ha)), lands owned by Lee County (94 ac (38
ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership (230 ac (93 ha)). This
unit includes lands located from the northern tip to the southern tip
of Cayo Costa.
This unit was not occupied at the time the species was listed but
is

[[Page 3880]]

essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, maintain
populations throughout the historic distribution of the species in
Manatee County, and provide population redundancy in the case of
stochastic events that otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the
species from the one or more locations where it is presently found. The
Management Plan for Cayo Costa State Park calls for the protection and
restoration of habitats and identifies actions specific to Harrisia
aboriginum. The FDEP conducts nonnative species control and monitored
the population at Cayo Costa State Park until the last plant died in
2007. Reintroduction of H. aboriginum within Cayo Costa State Park is
needed to restore the species to its historical distribution and reduce
the risks to the species associated with hurricanes, storm surge, and
sea level rise.

Unit APA10: Bocilla, Lee County, Florida

Unit APA10 consists of approximately 33 ac (13 ha) in Lee County,
Florida. This unit is composed of Lee County lands within the Bocilla
Preserve (32 ac (13 ha)) and parcels in private or other ownership (0.7
ac (0.3 ha)). This unit includes lands located on the undeveloped
portion of Bokeelia Island from 0.02 mi (0.03 km) west of the terminus
of Ebbtide Way, extending south and west to the northwest and southeast
corners of Bokeelia Island.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and
contains the coastal berm primary constituent element. The physical or
biological features in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant
species and sea level rise. The Management Plan for Bocilla Preserve
calls for the protection and restoration of habitats and identifies
actions specific to Harrisia aboriginum.

Unit APA11: Sanibel Island and Buck Key, Lee County, Florida

Unit APA11 consists of approximately 635 ac (257 ha) in Lee County,
Florida. This unit is composed of Federal lands owned by the Bureau of
Land Management, and Service lands within the JDDNWR (373 ac (151 ha)),
State lands (47 ac (13 ha)), lands owned by Lee County (90 ac (36 ha)),
and parcels in private or other ownership (126 ac (51 ha)). This unit
includes lands on Buck Key, Runyan Key, and Sanibel Island. On Sanibel
Island, the unit includes a portion of Bowman's Beach, from just south
of Silver Key to the western terminus of Water's Edge Lane; uplands
within JDDNWR; and a shell mound located near the northern terminus of
Tarpon Bay Road.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and
contains the physical or biological features, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and
contains the maritime hammock primary constituent elements. The
physical or biological features in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative
plant species and sea level rise. The CCP for JDDNWR promotes the
protection and restoration of habitats, and identifies actions specific
to Harrisia aboriginum. The Service conducts nonnative species control
and monitors the population at JDDNWR.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

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

[[Page 3881]]

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 Consolea corallicola and
Harrisia aboriginum. 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 the Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum.
These activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology or
substrate, such as ditching or filling. Such activities may include,
but are not limited to, road construction or maintenance, and
residential, commercial, or recreational development.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of roads,
residential and commercial development, and recreational facilities,
and trails.
(3) Actions that would introduce nonnative species that would
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and
commercial development and road construction.

Exemptions

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

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the critical
habitat for Consolea corallicola or Harrisia aboriginum.

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

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

Consideration of Economic Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which together with our
narrative and interpretation of effects we consider our draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2014, entire). The
analysis, dated October 15, 2014, was made available for public review
from January 22, 2015, through March 23, 2015 (80 FR 3316). The DEA
addressed probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation for
Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. Following the close of
the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted
during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the
probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat
designation. We did not receive any comments regarding the DEA;
therefore, we consider the DEA to be the final economic analysis.
Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic
impacts of critical habitat designation for the Consolea corallicola
and Harrisia aboriginum is summarized below and available in the
screening analysis for these species (IEc 2014), available at http://www.regulations.gov.
The following provides a summary of the DEA. For more information
regarding the Service's economic analysis process, please see
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act in the
proposed rule (80 FR 3316, 3331-3334).
In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that
may result from the designation of critical habitat for Consolea
corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum, first we identified, in the IEM
dated July 30, 2014, probable incremental economic impacts associated
with the following categories of activities:
(1) Federal lands management (NPS, Service, BLM);
(2) Roadway and bridge construction;
(3) Dredging;
(4) Commercial or residential development;
(5) Recreation (including construction of recreation
infrastructure).
We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally,
we considered whether these activities have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not
have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. In areas where Consolea corallicola or Harrisia
aboriginum is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult
with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the species. Once
critical habitat is designated, consultations to avoid the destruction
or

[[Page 3882]]

adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process. Therefore, disproportionate impacts to
any geographic area or sector are not likely as a result of this
critical habitat designation.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that 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 Consolea
corallicola's and Harrisia aboriginum's critical habitat. Because the
designation of critical habitat for Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum was proposed soon after 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 essential physical or biological features
identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the
life requisites of the species and (2) any actions that would result in
sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to Consolea
corallicola or Harrisia aboriginum would also likely adversely affect
the essential physical or biological features of critical habitat. The
IEM outlined our rationale concerning this limited distinction between
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for these species. This evaluation of
the incremental effects was used as the basis to evaluate the probable
incremental economic impacts of the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat.

Consolea corallicola

The critical habitat designation for Consolea corallicola totals
approximately 4,411 ac (1,785 ha) across four units in Miami-Dade and
Monroe Counties, Florida, all of which was occupied by the species at
the time of listing. The critical habitat includes lands under Federal
(28 percent), State (58 percent), county (1 percent), and private or
other (13 percent) ownership. In these areas any actions that may
affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated critical
habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts
would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over
and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of C. corallicola. Therefore, only administrative
costs are expected in the critical habitat designation. While this
additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal
action agency and the Service, in most circumstances, these costs would
predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
Based on the available information, we anticipate no more than
three consultations per year within the critical habitat units.
Communications with affected entities indicate that critical habitat
designation is likely to result in no more than a few consultations,
with minor conservation efforts that would likely result in relatively
low probable economic impacts. Unit costs of such administrative
efforts range from approximately $410 to $5,000 per consultation (2014
dollars, total cost for all parties participating in a single
consultation) (IEc 2014, p. 10). Applying these unit cost estimates,
this analysis conservatively estimates that the administrative cost of
considering adverse modification in section 7 consultation will result
in incremental costs of up to $7,100 (2014 dollars) in a given year for
Consolea corallicola (IEc 2014, pp. 10-11).
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to
section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some
cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities.
Activities we expect will be subject to consultations that may involve
private entities as third parties are residential and commercial
development that may occur on private lands. However, based on
coordination efforts with State and local agencies, the cost to private
entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor
(administrative costs of $5,000 or less per consultation effort) and,
therefore, would not be significant.
The probable incremental economic impacts of Consolea corallicola
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional
administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts
resulting from a small number of future section 7 consultations. This
estimation is due to two factors: (1) The critical habitat units are
all considered to be occupied by the species, and incremental economic
impacts of critical habitat designation, other than administrative
costs, are unlikely; and (2) few actions are anticipated that will
result in section 7 consultation or associated project modifications.

Harrisia aboriginum

The critical habitat designation for Harrisia aboriginum totals
approximately 3,444 ac (1,394 ha) across 11 units in Manatee, Sarasota,
Charlotte, and Lee County. Nine of these units (approximately 44
percent of the area) were occupied by the species at the time of
listing; the remaining two units (approximately 56 percent of the area)
were unoccupied. The critical habitat includes lands under Federal (11
percent), State (48 percent), county (15 percent), and private or other
(26 percent) ownership.
Based on the available information, we anticipate no more than four
consultations per year within the occupied critical habitat units. In
the occupied areas, any actions that may affect the species or its
habitat would also affect designated critical habitat and it is
unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended
to address the adverse modification standard over and above those
recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence
of Harrisia aboriginum. Therefore, only administrative costs are
expected in approximately 44 percent of the critical habitat
designation. While this additional analysis will require time and
resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, in most
circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in
nature and would not be significant. Unit costs of such administrative
efforts range from approximately $410 to $5,000 per consultation (2014
dollars, total cost for all parties participating in a single
consultation) (IEc 2014, p. 10). Applying these unit cost estimates to
the occupied units, this analysis conservatively estimates that the
administrative cost of considering adverse modification in section 7
consultation will result in incremental costs of up to $7,000 (2014
dollars) in a given year for H. aboriginum (IEc 2014, p. 11).
In the unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated
probable impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to
the critical habitat designation. However, within the unoccupied
critical habitat, few actions are expected to occur that will result in
section 7 consultations or associated project modifications because no
Federal lands are included in these units. Based on the results from
past consultation history for these areas and communications with
potentially affected entities, we anticipate that an additional six
projects will result in section 7 consultation (two formal and

[[Page 3883]]

four informal) within the unoccupied units per year, with minor
conservation efforts that would likely result in relatively low
probable economic impacts. Unit costs of such administrative efforts
range from approximately $1,200 to $15,000 per consultation (2014
dollars, total cost for all parties participating in a single
consultation) (IEc 2014, p. 10). Applying these unit cost estimates to
the unoccupied units, this analysis conservatively estimates that the
administrative cost of considering adverse modification in section 7
consultation will result in incremental costs of up to $60,000 (2014
dollars) in a given year for H. aboriginum (IEc 2014, pp. 10-11).
Therefore, the estimate of incremental costs for all units (occupied
and unoccupied) is $67,000 (2014 dollars) in a given year for H.
aboriginum (IEc 2014, pp. 10-11).
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to
section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some
cases, third parties which will most frequently be State agencies or
municipalities. Activities that we expect will be subject to
consultations that may involve private entities as third parties are
residential and commercial development that may occur on private lands.
However, based on coordination efforts with State and local agencies,
the cost to private entities within these sectors is expected to be
relatively minor (administrative costs of less than $5,000 (occupied)
or $15,000 (unoccupied) per consultation effort), and any costs from
required conservation measures, therefore, would not be significant.
The probable incremental economic impacts of Harrisia aboriginum
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional
administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts
resulting from a small number of future section 7 consultations. This
estimation is due to two factors: (1) Incremental economic impacts of
critical habitat designation, other than administrative costs, are
unlikely; and (2) in units that are not occupied by H. aboriginum (56
percent), few actions are anticipated that will result in section 7
consultation or associated project modifications.
For both species, the DEA also discusses the potential for
incremental costs to occur outside of the section 7 consultation
process, including costs associated with the potential triggering of
additional requirements or project modifications under State laws or
regulations, and perceptional effects on markets. It is unlikely that
the designation of critical habitat will trigger additional State or
local restrictions (IEc 2014, pp. 11-12). Public perception of critical
habitat may result in landowners or buyers believing that the rule will
restrict land or water use activities in some way and, therefore,
valuing the resource less than they would have absent critical habitat.
This is a perceptional, or stigma, effect of critical habitat on
markets. Costs resulting from public perception of the impact of
critical habitat, if they occur, are more likely to occur on private
lands. However, based on the economic analysis, ``possible costs
resulting from public perception of the effect of critical habitat
designation, when combined with section 7 costs, are unlikely to exceed
the threshold for an economically significant rulemaking under
[Executive Order] 12866'' (IEc 2014, p. 13). Under Executive Order
12866, agencies must assess the potential costs and benefits of
regulatory actions and quantify those costs and benefits if that action
may have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more annually.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

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 Consolea corallicola or
Harrisia aboriginum 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
Office (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that no lands within the designation of critical habitat for
Consolea corallicola or Harrisia aboriginum are owned or managed by the
Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently,
the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas
from this final designation based on impacts on national security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other
relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We
consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have
developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether
there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we
look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government
relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also
consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
We have determined that the Monroe County HCP for Big Pine and No
Name Keys is the only HCP or other management plan that will be
affected by either species' critical habitat designation. The Monroe
County HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys, which covers a portion of
unit FSC3, does not include Consolea corallicola as a ``Covered
Species,'' and C. corallicola is not mentioned specifically anywhere in
the HCP document. Further, the critical habitat designation does not
include any tribal lands or trust resources. Therefore, we anticipate
no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or other HCPs from this final
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 (E.O.) 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.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for

[[Page 3884]]

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 the 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 required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of
rulemaking only 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 the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not
directly regulated. Therefore, because no small entities are directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certified, in the proposed
rule, that, if promulgated, the final critical habitat designation
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
During the development of this final rule we reviewed and evaluated
all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to
our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our
certification that this final critical habitat designation will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

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

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

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for

[[Page 3885]]

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 would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The government lands being
designated as critical habitat are owned by the Town of Longboat Key,
the State of Florida, and BLM, NPS, and the Service. None of these
government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' Consequently, we do not believe that the critical
habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required.

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 Consolea corallicola or Harrisia
aboriginum in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above,
the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions.
Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do
not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental
take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. Due to current public knowledge of the species
protections and the prohibition against take of the species both within
and outside of the designated areas, we do not anticipate that property
values will be affected by the critical habitat designation. Based on
the best available information, the takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Consolea
corallicola or Harrisia aboriginum does not pose significant takings
implications.

Federalism--E.O. 13132

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we request information from, and coordinated
development of, this critical habitat designation with appropriate
State resource agencies in Florida. We received comments from FDACS DPI
and have addressed them in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations
section of the 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 or 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--E.O. 12988

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, the rule
identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species. 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 tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. As discussed above, we have

[[Page 3886]]

determined that there are no tribal lands occupied by Consolea
corallicola or Harrisia aboriginum at the time of listing that contain
the physical or biological features essential to conservation of these
species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by C. corallicola or H.
aboriginum that are essential for the conservation of the species.

References Cited

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

Authors

The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
South Florida Ecological Services 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--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), revise the entries for ``Consolea corallicola
Cactus, Florida semaphore'' and ``Harrisia aboriginum Prickly-apple,
aboriginal'' 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

* * * * * * *
Consolea corallicola............. Cactus, Florida U.S.A. (FL)........ Cactaceae.......... E 826 17.96(a) NA
semaphore.

* * * * * * *
Harrisia aboriginum.............. Prickly-apple, U.S.A. (FL)........ Cactaceae.......... E 826 17.96(a) NA
aboriginal.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by adding entries for ``Consolea corallicola
(Florida semaphore cactus)'' and ``Harrisia aboriginum (aboriginal
prickly-apple)'' in alphabetical order under the family Cactaceae, to
read as follows:

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Cactaceae: Consolea corallicola (Florida semaphore cactus)

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Monroe
Counties, Florida, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Consolea corallicola are:
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, rockland
hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(A) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, and storm-deposited sediment.
(B) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the limestone.
(C) Buttonwood forest habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
(2) Substrate with calcareous marl muds, calcareous sands, or
limestone rock.
(ii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation with no
invasive, nonnative animal or plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Consolea
corallicola.
(iii) A disturbance regime, due to the effects of strong winds or
saltwater inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation,
that creates canopy openings in coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and
buttonwood forest.
(iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient size to sustain
viable populations in coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood
forest.
(v) Habitats that provide populations of the generalist pollinators
that visit the flowers of Consolea corallicola.
(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 that exists within the legal boundaries
on February 22, 2016.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
developed using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial
data layers. ArcGIS was also used to calculate area. The projection
used in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the
units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates,
plot points, or both on which each map is based are available to the
public at the Service's Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/,
at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0057, 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 3887]]

(5) Index map of all critical habitat units for Consolea
corallicola follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.000

(6) Unit FSC1: Swan Key, Biscayne National Park, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit FSC1 consists of 37 ac (15 ha) in
Miami-Dade County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal
ownership, 100 percent of which are located on Swan Key within Biscayne
National Park. The unit includes all upland rockland hammock habitat on
Swan Key, most of which is located on the eastern side of Swan Key,
surrounded by the island's mangrove fringe. A second, smaller area is
located on the island's elongate western half and is also surrounded by
mangroves.

[[Page 3888]]

(ii) Map of Unit FSC1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.001

(7) Unit FSC2: Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit FSC2 consists of 3,434 ac (1,389 ha)
in Monroe County. This unit is composed of Federal lands within
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (702 ac (284 ha)); State
lands within Dagny Johnson Botanical State Park, John Pennekamp Coral
Reef State Park, and the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area
(2,331 ac (943 ha)); lands owned by Monroe County (17 ac (7 ha)); and
parcels in private or other ownership (384 ac (155 ha)). This unit
extends from near the northern tip of Key Largo, along the length of
Key Largo, beginning at the south shore of Ocean Reef Harbor near South
Marina Drive and the intersection of County Road (CR) 905 and Clubhouse
Road on the west side of CR 905, and between CR 905 and Old State Road
905, then extending to the shoreline south of South Harbor Drive. The
unit then continues on both sides of CR 905 through the Crocodile Lake
NWR, Dagny

[[Page 3889]]

Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park, and John Pennekamp
Coral Reef State Park. The unit then terminates near the junction of
U.S. 1 and CR 905 and Garden Cove Drive. The unit resumes on the east
side of U.S. 1 from South Andros Road to Key Largo Elementary; then
from the intersection of Taylor Drive and Pamela Street to Avenue A,
then from Sound Drive to the intersection of Old Road and Valencia
Road, then resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 from Hibiscus Lane and
Ocean Drive. The unit continues south near the Port Largo Airport from
Poisonwood Road to Bo Peep Boulevard. The unit resumes on the west side
of U.S. 1 from the intersection of South Drive and Meridian Avenue to
Casa Court Drive. The unit then continues on the west side of U.S. 1
from the point on the coast directly west of Peace Avenue south to
Caribbean Avenue. The unit also includes a portion of the barrier
island (El Radabob Key) in Largo Sound located directly east of Avenue
A, extending south to a point directly east of Mahogany Drive.
(ii) Index map of Unit FSC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.002

[[Page 3890]]

(iii) Map A of Unit FSC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.003

[[Page 3891]]

(iv) Map B of Unit FSC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.004

[[Page 3892]]

(v) Map C of Unit FSC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.005

[[Page 3893]]

(vi) Map D of Unit FSC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.006

[[Page 3894]]

(vii) Map E of Unit FSC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.007

[[Page 3895]]

(viii) Map F of Unit FSC2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.008

(8) Unit FSC3: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit FSC3 consists of 772 ac (313 ha) in
Monroe County. This unit is composed of Federal land within the
National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) (508 ac (205 ha)), State land managed
as part of the NKDR (172 ac (70 ha)), lands owned by Monroe County (11
ac (5 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership (81 ac (33 ha)).
This unit extends from near the northern tip of Big Pine Key along the
eastern shore to the vicinity of Hellenga Drive and Watson Road; from
Gulf Boulevard south to West Shore Drive; Big Pine Avenue and Elma
Avenues on the east, Coral and Yacht Club Road, and U.S. 1 on the
north, and Industrial Avenue on the east from the southeastern tip of
Big Pine Key to Avenue A.

[[Page 3896]]

(ii) Index map of Unit FSC3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.009

[[Page 3897]]

(iii) Map A of Unit FSC3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.010

[[Page 3898]]

(iv) Map B of Unit FSC3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.011

[[Page 3899]]

(v) Map C of Unit FSC3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.012

[[Page 3900]]

(vi) Map D of Unit FSC3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.013

[[Page 3901]]

(vii) Map E of Unit FSC3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.014

(9) Unit FSC4: Little Torch Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit FSC4 consists of 168 ac (68 ha) in
Monroe County. This unit is composed of State lands (47 ac (19 ha)),
lands owned by Monroe County (10 ac (4 ha)), and parcels in private and
other ownership (111 ac (45 ha)). This unit extends along State Highway
4A, from Coral Shores Road, south to County Road, resuming at Linda
Street and extending south to the Overseas Highway. South of the
Overseas Highway, the unit includes areas west of Kings Cove Road, and
an area comprising the southern tip of Little Torch Key that includes
portions of the John J. Pescatello Torchwood Hammock Preserve.

[[Page 3902]]

(ii) Index map of Unit FSC4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.015

[[Page 3903]]

(iii) Map A of Unit FSC4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.016

[[Page 3904]]

(iv) Map B of Unit FSC4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.017

* * * * *
Family Cactaceae: Harrisia aboriginum (aboriginal prickly-apple)

(1) Critical habitat units for Harrisia aboriginum are depicted for
Manatee, Charlotte, Sarasota, and Lee Counties, Florida, on the maps
below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Harrisia aboriginum are:
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal strand, coastal
grassland, coastal berm, maritime hammocks, and shell mounds.
(A) Coastal strand habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory, and
(2) Substrate of sand and shell fragments of stabilized coastal
dunes.
(B) Coastal grassland habitat that contains:
(1) No canopy and an open understory, and

[[Page 3905]]

(2) Substrate of sand and shell fragments.
(C) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory, and
(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, storm-deposited sediment.
(D) Maritime hammock habitat that contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate of calcareous sand and shell fragments.
(E) Shell mound habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory, and
(2) Substrate of soil derived from calcareous shells deposited by
Native Americans during prehistoric times.
(ii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation with no
invasive, nonnative animal or plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Harrisia
aboriginum.
(iii) Canopy openings in coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal
berm, maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats that are created by
the effects of strong winds or saltwater inundation from storm surge or
infrequent tidal inundation.
(iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient size to sustain
viable populations in coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm,
maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats.
(v) Habitats that provide populations of the generalist pollinators
that visit the flowers of Harrisia aboriginum.
(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 that exists within the legal boundaries
on February 22, 2016.
(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 area. 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 http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0057, 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 3906]]

(5) Index map of all critical habitat units for Harrisia aboriginum
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.018

[[Page 3907]]

(6) Unit APA1: Terra Ceia, Manatee County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA1 consists of approximately 222 ac
(90 ha) in Manatee County, Florida. This unit is composed of State
lands within Madira Bickel Mound State Historical Park, Terra Ceia
Preserve State Park, Cockroach Bay State Buffer Preserve, and the Tampa
Bay Estuarine System (66 ac (27 ha)); Manatee County lands at Emerson
Point Preserve and parcels owned by the Manatee County Port Authority
(70 ac (28 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership (87 ac (35
ha)). This unit includes lands west of Highway 41 extending from just
south of South Dock Street south to Snead Island. The unit also
includes areas of Harbor Key, Mariposa Key, Horseshoe Key, Joe Island,
Skeet Key, Paradise Island, Ed's Key, and Rattlesnake Key.
(ii) Index map of Unit APA1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.019

[[Page 3908]]

(iii) Map A of Unit APA1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.020

[[Page 3909]]

(iv) Map B of Unit APA1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.021

(7) Unit APA2: Longboat Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
(i) General description: Unit APA2 consists of approximately 54 ac
(22 ha) in Sarasota County, Florida. This unit is composed entirely of
parcels in private or other ownership. This unit includes lands west of
Gulf of Mexico Drive, extending from 0.40 mi (0.6 km) south of the
intersection of Bay Isles Parkway and Gulf of Mexico Drive, to the
southern tip of Longboat Key. It also includes lands on the north side
of Gulf of Mexico Drive, east of Longboat Club Key Drive, on the
northwest tip of Longboat Key.

[[Page 3910]]

(ii) Map of Unit APA2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.022

(8) Unit APA3: Osprey, Sarasota County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA3 consists of approximately 116 ac
(47 ha) in Sarasota County, Florida. This unit is composed of Sarasota
County lands within Palmer Point County Park (50 ac (20 ha)) and
parcels in private or other ownership (66 ac (27 ha)). This unit
extends along the barrier island (Casey Key) from the south terminus of
Blind Pass Road, south for approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) along North
Casey Key Road. On the mainland, the unit includes lands bordered on
the north by Vamo Way, to the east by Highway 41, and to the south by
Palmetto Avenue.

[[Page 3911]]

(ii) Map of Unit APA3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.023

(9) Unit APA4: Manasota Key, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties,
Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA4 consists of approximately 415 ac
(168 ha) in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit is
composed of State lands within Stump Pass Beach State Park (58 ac (23
ha)); County lands within Blind Pass Park, Brohard Beach and Paw Park,
Manasota Beach Park, Casperson Beach Park, and Service Club Park (111
ac (45 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership (245 ac (99
ha)). This unit extends from Beach Road in the City of Venice, south
along Manasota Key to the barrier islands southern tip, including a
portion of Peterson Island.

[[Page 3912]]

(ii) Index map of Unit APA4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.024

[[Page 3913]]

(iii) Map A of Unit APA4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.025

[[Page 3914]]

(iv) Map B of Unit APA4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.026

[[Page 3915]]

(v) Map C of Unit APA4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.027

(10) Unit APA5: Charlotte Harbor, Charlotte County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA5 consists of 51 ac (21 ha) in
Charlotte County, Florida. This unit is composed entirely of State
lands within the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. This unit
includes the Big Mound, Boggess Ridge, and a shell mound located on the
east side of Charlotte Harbor, south of the City of Charlotte Park.

[[Page 3916]]

(ii) Map of Unit APA5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.028

(11) Unit APA6: Gasparilla North, Charlotte and Lee Counties,
Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA6 consists of approximately 98 ac
(40 ha) in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. This unit is composed
of State land (0.006 ac (0.02 ha)), county land (22 ac (9 ha)), and
parcels in private or other ownership (77 ac (31 ha)). This unit
includes most of Kitchen Key (Live Oak Key) and the area east of
Gasparilla Road, from the intersection of Grouper Hole Road and Grouper
Hole Court, south to 0.15 mi (0.24 km) north of Snail Island Court,
from approximately 0.10 mi (0.21 km) south of 35th Street to 23rd
Street, including the small island separated from Gasparilla Island by
a canal; and from 22nd Street to 20th Street.

[[Page 3917]]

(ii) Map of Unit APA6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.029

(12) Unit APA7: Gasparilla South, Lee County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA7 consists of approximately 92 ac
(37 ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is composed of Federal land
owned by the Service and Bureau of Land Management (3 ac (1 ha)), State
lands within Gasparilla Island State Park (69 ac (28 ha)), Lee County
lands (12 ac (5 ha), and parcels in private or other ownership (8 ac (3
ha)). This unit includes lands located from south of 1st Street to the
southern tip of Gasparilla Island.

[[Page 3918]]

(ii) Map of Unit APA7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.030

(13) Unit APA8: Cayo Pelau, Lee County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA8 consists of approximately 25 ac
(10 ha) in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. This unit is composed
of Lee County lands within Cayo Pelau Preserve, and parcels in private
or other ownership (0.6 ac (0.2 ha)). This unit includes lands located
from 0.13 mi (0.21 km) south of the northern tip of Cayo Pelau,
extending south to the southeastern tip of Cayo Pelau.

[[Page 3919]]

(ii) Map of Unit APA8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.031

(14) Unit APA9: Cayo Costa, Lee County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA9 consists of approximately 1,702
ac (689 ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is composed of State
lands within Cayo Costa State Park (1,379 ac (558 ha)), lands owned by
Lee County (94 ac (38 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership
(230 ac (93 ha)). This unit includes lands located from the northern
tip to the southern tip of Cayo Costa.

[[Page 3920]]

(ii) Map of Unit APA9 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.032

(15) Unit APA10: Bocilla, Lee County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA10 consists of approximately 33 ac
(13 ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is composed of Lee County
lands within the Bocilla Preserve (32 ac (13 ha)) and parcels in
private or other ownership (0.7 ac (0.3 ha)). This unit includes lands
located on the undeveloped portion of Bokeelia Island from 0.02 mi
(0.03 km) west of the terminus of Ebbtide Way, extending south and west
to the northwestern and southeastern corners of Bokeelia Island.

[[Page 3921]]

(ii) Map of Unit APA10 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.033

(16) Unit APA11: Sanibel Island and Buck Key, Lee County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit APA11 consists of approximately 635
ac (257 ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is composed of Federal
lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management, and Service lands within
the J.N. `Ding' Darling National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (373 ac (151
ha)), State lands (47 ac (19 ha)), lands owned by Lee County (90 ac (36
ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership (126 ac (51 ha)). This
unit includes lands on Buck Key, Runyan Key, and Sanibel Island. On
Sanibel Island, the unit includes a portion of Bowman's Beach, from
just south of Silver Key to the western terminus of Water's Edge Lane;
uplands within J.N. `Ding' Darling NWR; and a shell mound located near
the northern terminus of Tarpon Bay Road.

[[Page 3922]]

(ii) Index map of Unit APA11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.034

[[Page 3923]]

(iii) Map A of Unit APA11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.035

[[Page 3924]]

(iv) Map B of Unit APA11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.036

[[Page 3925]]

(v) Map C of Unit APA11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA16.037

* * * * *

Dated: January 6, 2016.
Karen Hyun,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016-01141 Filed 1-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C