[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62502-62562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21587]



[[Page 62501]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 198

October 14, 2022

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 Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine Partridge 
Pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge Spurge), Linum 
arenicola (Sand Flax), and Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's 
Silverbush); Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 62502]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0116; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE51


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine 
Partridge Pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge Spurge), 
Linum arenicola (Sand Flax), and Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's 
Silverbush)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big 
Pine partridge pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (wedge 
spurge), Linum arenicola (sand flax), and Argythamnia blodgettii 
(Blodgett's silverbush) under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In 
total, approximately 1,462 acres (592 hectares) for Big Pine partridge 
pea and approximately 1,379 acres (558 hectares) for wedge spurge, in 
Monroe County, Florida, and approximately 5,090 acres (2,060 hectares) 
for sand flax and 16,635 acres (6,732 hectares) for Blodgett's 
silverbush in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designations. If we 
finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections 
to the species' critical habitat. We also announce the availability of 
a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for these four plant species.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 13, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 
eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public 
hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT by November 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2022-0116, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking action. Then, click on 
the Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side 
of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2022-0116, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: For the proposed critical 
habitat designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which 
the maps are generated are included in the decision file and are 
available at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2022-0116. Any supporting information that we developed for this 
critical habitat designation will be available on the Service's website 
or at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Classification and 
Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 
Jacksonville, FL 32256; by telephone 904-731-3134; or by facsimile 904-
731-3045. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, 
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a proposed rule. Under the Act, when we 
determine that any species is a threatened or endangered species, we 
must designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only 
be completed by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act 
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    What this document does. This document proposes to designate 
critical habitat for three plant species, Big Pine partridge pea, wedge 
spurge, and sand flax, listed as endangered species under the Act, and 
one plant species, Blodgett's silverbush, listed as a threatened 
species under the Act (September 29, 2016 (81 FR 66842)).
    The basis for our action. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 
critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, 
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for 
the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 
the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of the best 
scientific data available and after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
    Draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the probable economic impacts 
of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors. In 
this document, we announce the availability of the draft economic 
analysis and seek additional public review and comment.
    Public comment. We are seeking comments and soliciting information 
from the public on our proposed designation to make sure we consider 
the best scientific and commercial information available in developing 
our final designation. Because we will consider all comments and 
information we receive during the comment period, our final 
determination may differ from this proposal. We will respond to 
substantive comments we receive during the comment period in our final 
rule.
    Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and 
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of 
peer review of determinations under section 4 of the Act, including 
listing determinations and critical habitat designations, we are 
seeking comments from independent specialists. The purpose of peer 
review is to ensure that our critical habitat

[[Page 62503]]

designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the biology, habitat, 
and threats to the species addressed herein. We have invited these peer 
reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions in 
this critical habitat proposal during the public comment period for 
this proposed rule (see DATES, above).

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information regarding the following factors that the 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or
    (b) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not 
limited to: whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Big Pine partridge pea, wedge 
spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush habitat.
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species, 
i.e., south and central Florida peninsula and the Florida Keys, that 
should be included in the designation because they (i) were occupied at 
the time of listing in 2016 and contain the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations, or (ii) were unoccupied 
at the time of listing, and are essential for the conservation of the 
species, because they have potential to successfully support introduced 
or reintroduced populations of these species.
    (c) While we seek comments on any additional areas under (b)(i) and 
(ii) above, we particularly seek comments on the following unoccupied 
areas, including information on whether these areas have the potential 
to support introduced or reintroduced populations: No Name Key, Upper 
and Lower Sugarloaf Keys, Cudjoe Key, and Little Pine Key in Monroe 
County, Florida; and Trinity Pinelands, Nixon Smiley, Quail Roost 
Pineland, and Navy Wells in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (d) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change.
    (e) Whether we have appropriately identified the physical or 
biological features that are essential to the conservation for each 
species.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and 
Blodgett's silverbush and proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable 
estimate of the likely economic impacts and any additional information 
regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
    (6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think we should exclude any 
additional areas, please provide information regarding the existence of 
a meaningful economic or other relevant impact supporting a benefit of 
exclusion.
    (7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please 
note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the 
action under consideration without providing supporting information, 
although noted, will not be considered in making a final critical 
habitat determination. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs that the 
Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best 
scientific information data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final designation may differ from this 
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on 
that new information), our final designation may not include all areas 
proposed, may include some additional areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we find the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. Such final decisions 
would be a logical outgrowth of this proposal, as long as we: (1) base 
the decisions on the best scientific and commercial data available 
after considering all of the relevant factors; (2) do not rely on 
factors Congress has not intended us to consider; and (3) articulate a 
rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made, 
including why we changed our conclusion.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the

[[Page 62504]]

Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is 
consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Acronyms Used in This Document

    For the convenience of the reader, we provide this list of some of 
the acronyms used in this proposed rule:

CCAA = candidate conservation agreements with assurances
CCP = comprehensive conservation plan
DoD = Department of Defense
ENP = Everglades National Park
FKWEA = Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area
FNAI = Florida Natural Areas Inventory
HARB = Homestead Air Reserve Base
HCP = habitat conservation plan
INRMP = integrated natural resources management plan
KWNAS = Key West Naval Air Station
NKDR = National Key Deer Refuge
NWRs = National Wildlife Refuges
SHA = safe harbor agreements
SOCSO = Special Operations Command South
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture

Previous Federal Actions

    On September 29, 2015, we proposed to list Big Pine partridge pea, 
wedge spurge, and sand flax as endangered species and Blodgett's 
silverbush as a threatened species under the Act (80 FR 58536). On 
September 29, 2016, we finalized the listing (81 FR 66842). At the time 
of our proposal, we determined that critical habitat was prudent, but 
not determinable because we lacked specific information on the impacts 
of our designation. In our final listing rule, we stated we were in the 
process of obtaining information on the impacts of the designation (81 
FR 66842). All previous Federal actions for Big Pine partridge pea, 
wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush are described in 
detail in our final rule listing the four plant species as endangered 
and threatened species under the Act (81 FR 66842).
    It is our intent to discuss in this proposed rule only those topics 
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush. For 
more information on the taxonomy, life history, habitat, population 
descriptions, and factors affecting the species, please refer to the 
September 29, 2015, proposed listing rule for these species (80 FR 
58536) and the September 29, 2016, final listing rule (81 FR 66842).

Critical Habitat

Background

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for threatened and 
endangered species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in 
50 CFR parts 17 and 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
threatened and endangered species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August 
27, 2019). At the same time the Service also issued final regulations 
that, for species listed as threatened species after September 26, 
2019, eliminated the Service's general protective regulations 
automatically applying to threatened species the prohibitions that 
section 9 of the Act applies to endangered species (collectively, the 
2019 regulations).
    However, on July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California vacated the 2019 regulations (Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. 
Cal. July 5, 2022) (CBD v. Haaland)), reinstating the regulations that 
were in effect before the effective date of the 2019 regulations as the 
law governing species classification and critical-habitat decisions. 
Accordingly, in developing the analysis contained in this proposal, we 
applied the pre-2019 regulations, which may be reviewed in the 2018 
edition of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 and 
424.12(a)(1) and (b)(2). Because of the ongoing litigation regarding 
the court's vacatur of the 2019 regulations, and the resulting 
uncertainty surrounding the legal status of the regulations, we also 
undertook an analysis of whether the proposal would be different if we 
were to apply the 2019 regulations. That analysis, which we described 
in a separate memo in the decisional file and posted on https://www.regulations.gov, concluded that we would have reached the same 
proposal if we had applied the 2019 regulations. For the four plants, 
we find that critical habitat is prudent under either regulatory scheme 
because we determined that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to all 
four species. In addition, in the final listing rule (81 FR 66842; 
September 29, 2016), illegal collection of any of the four Florida Keys 
plants was not identified as a threat under Factor B, and 
identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to 
initiate any such threat. We also determined the occupied areas may be 
adequate to ensure the conservation of these species. For Blodgett's 
silverbush, the amount and distribution of critical habitat we are 
proposing for designation in occupied areas would allow existing and 
future established populations to maintain their existing 
distributions; expand their distributions into suitable nearby areas 
(needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation); increase the size of 
each population to a level where the threats of genetic, demographic, 
and normal environmental uncertainties are diminished; and maintain 
their ability to withstand local or unit-level environmental 
fluctuations or catastrophic events. Accordingly, we have not 
identified unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of 
this species at this time. For Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, 
and sand flax, we identified areas of remaining pine rockland habitat 
that we are considering whether these areas meet the definition of 
unoccupied critical habitat for these three species.
    On September 21, 2022, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit stayed the district court's July 5, 2022, order vacating 
the 2019 regulations until a pending motion for reconsideration before 
the district court is resolved (In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-
70194). The effect of the stay is that the 2019 regulations are 
currently the governing law. Because a court order requires us to 
submit this proposal to the Federal Register by September 30, 2022, it 
is not feasible for us to revise the proposal in response to the Ninth 
Circuit's decision. Instead, we hereby adopt the analysis in the 
separate memo that applied the 2019 regulations as our primary 
justification for the proposal. However, due to the continued 
uncertainty resulting from the ongoing litigation, we also retain the 
analysis in this preamble that applies the pre-2019 regulations and we 
conclude that, for the reasons stated in our separate memo analyzing 
the 2019 regulations, this proposal would have been the same if we had 
applied the 2019 regulations.
    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

[[Page 62505]]

    (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.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    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. Designation also does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands, nor does designation 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 Federal agency would be required to consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in 
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the 
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the 
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they 
must 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 that occur in specific occupied areas, 
we focus on those features that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, 
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat 
characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific 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 from the listing process for the species. Additional 
information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, 
criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; 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 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 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 the 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of those planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations

[[Page 62506]]

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that a designation 
of critical habitat is not prudent when any of the following situations 
exist:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or
    (ii) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial 
to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    As discussed in the final listing rule (81 FR 66842), there is 
currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or 
vandalism identified under Factor B for these species, and 
identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to 
initiate or increase the degree of any such threat. In our listing 
determination for these species, we determined that the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range is a threat to these species. Accordingly, the designation of 
critical habitat is likely to be beneficial. Therefore, because none of 
the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) 
have been met, we have determined that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, 
and Blodgett's silverbush.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation of critical habitat is prudent 
for each species, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find 
whether critical habitat for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand 
flax, and Blodgett's silverbush is determinable. Our regulations at 50 
CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when 
one or both of the following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the 
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    At the time of our proposal, we determined that critical habitat 
was prudent, but not determinable because we lacked specific 
information on the impacts of our designation (80 FR 58536). In our 
final listing rule, we stated we were in the process of obtaining 
information on the impacts of the designation (81 FR 66842). We 
reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs 
of the species and habitat characteristics where these species are 
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data 
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand 
flax, and Blodgett's silverbush.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features'' 
as the features that support the life-history needs of the species, 
including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, 
geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or 
other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a 
more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may 
include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic 
habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to 
principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution 
distances, and connectivity. For example, physical features essential 
to the conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular 
size required for spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, 
protective cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire 
that maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. 
Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses, 
specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic 
fungi, or absence of a particular level of nonnative species consistent 
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be 
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the 
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a 
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, 
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat 
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, 
and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not 
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, 
reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats 
that are protected from disturbance.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's 
silverbush from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life 
history as described below. Additional information can be found in the 
September 29, 2015, proposed listing rule (80 FR 58536) and the 
September 29, 2016, final listing rule (81 FR 66842) for these species. 
We have determined that the following physical or biological features 
are essential to the conservation of Big Pine partridge pea, wedge 
spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush.

Big Pine Partridge Pea, Wedge Spurge, and Sand Flax

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

Plant Community and Competitive Ability
    Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax occur in the 
lower Florida Keys in Monroe County in communities classified as pine 
rockland and on disturbed sites adjacent to pine rocklands, such as 
roadside and mowed areas still dominated by native species (see more 
detailed description of disturbed sites below). In addition, sand flax 
occurs on the Miami Rock Ridge in Miami-Dade County in pine rockland, 
on disturbed sites adjacent to pine rockland, and on two canal banks 
that likely incorporated pine rockland substrate as fill (Bradley and 
Gann 1999, p. 61; Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 37). These communities 
and their associated native plant species are described in the 
Background section of the September 29, 2015, proposed listing rule (80 
FR 58536) and in the September 29, 2016, final listing rule (81 FR 
66842) for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax. These 
habitats and their associated plant communities provide

[[Page 62507]]

vegetation structure that allows for adequate growing space, moisture, 
sunlight, pollinators, and a competitive regime that is required for 
Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax to persist and 
spread.
    Pine rocklands are a fire-maintained ecosystem characterized by an 
open canopy, understory, and a limestone substrate (often exposed). 
Open canopy conditions are required to allow sufficient sunlight to 
reach the herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering of Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax (Ross and Ruiz 1996, pp. 5-
6; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4). These species also require a 
calcareous limestone substrate that varies from nearly bare to thin 
layers or small pockets of shallow soil to provide suitable growing 
conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, and proper drainage). As a 
result of these marginal soil conditions, plants such as Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax rely on sparse competition 
and periodic disturbance to thrive and persist. This combination of 
ecosystem characteristics (i.e., open canopy with a partially exposed 
limestone substrate and periodic disturbance) occurs only in pine 
rockland habitats (as opposed to rockland hammock, which occurs in 
conjunction with pine rockland and has a limestone substrate but a 
closed canopy).
    Disturbed areas that support Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, 
and sand flax consist of sites that formerly were pine rocklands, but 
in most cases have no remaining pine canopy because of previous 
disturbance from clearing or scraping. In addition, some disturbed 
areas that support sand flax are sites where pine rockland substrate 
was used as fill. These include roadsides, firebreaks, and other areas 
that are infrequently mowed, or have no pine canopy but retain native 
pine rockland herbs, grass species, and substrate (Bradley and van der 
Heiden 2013, pp. 7-12; Bradley 2006, p. 37: Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 
61).
    Sand flax occurrences reported from marl prairie are at sites that 
have been artificially drained (Bradley and Van Der Heiden 2013, p. 11) 
or are scraped pine rocklands that function more like marl prairie 
(Kernan and Bradley 1996, p. 11). As with disturbed roadside habitats, 
it is possible that dry marl prairies have become refugia for the sand 
flax as fire regimes and natural areas were altered and destroyed over 
the last century. However, the Service does not consider marl prairie 
to be a primary habitat for sand flax.
    The total remaining area of pine rockland in the lower Florida Keys 
(Monroe County) is now approximately 1,899 acres (ac) (769 hectares 
(ha)), most of which is on Big Pine Key (1,480 ac (599 ha)) (U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) 2019). In mainland south Florida (Miami-Dade 
County), development and agriculture have reduced pine rockland habitat 
by 90 percent. Recent vegetation mapping in Everglades National Park 
(ENP) indicates there are a total of 14,211 ac (5,751 ha) of pine 
rocklands remaining in ENP, which includes the largest remaining area 
of pine rockland (approximately 10,895 ac (4,409 ha)) in Florida (Long 
Pine Key) (Ruiz 2022). Outside of ENP, pine rockland habitat decreased 
from approximately 185,329 ac (75,000 ha) in the early 1900s to only 
3,707 ac (1,500 ha) in 2014 (Possley et al. 2014, p. 154) and 2,275 ac 
(921 ha) in 2019 (USGS 2019), leaving only about 1.2 percent of the 
pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge remaining, and much of what is 
left are small remnants scattered throughout the Miami metropolitan 
area, isolated from other natural areas (Herndon 1998, p. 1). Based on 
the data presented above, outside of ENP the total remaining area of 
pine rockland in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties is now 4,174 ac (1,689 
ha) (approximately 2,275 ac (921 ha) in Miami-Dade County and 1,899 ac 
(769 ha) in the Florida Keys (Monroe County)). The extreme rarity of 
high-quality pine rockland habitat supporting Big Pine partridge pea, 
wedge spurge, and sand flax elevates the importance of disturbed 
remnant sites that still retain some pine rockland species.
    We consider pine rockland to be the primary habitat for Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax. However, adjacent disturbed 
areas currently supporting the species are considered essential when 
adjacent pine rocklands do not support an existing population or are of 
insufficient size or connectivity to support a population of Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax. Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify upland habitats consisting of pine 
rocklands and adjacent disturbed areas to be a physical or biological 
feature essential to the conservation of these species.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

Climate (Temperature and Precipitation)
    Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax require 
adequate rainfall and do not tolerate prolonged freezing temperatures. 
The climate of south Florida where these species occur is characterized 
by distinct wet and dry seasons, a monthly mean temperature above 
64.4[deg]F (F) (18[deg] Celsius (C)) in every month of the year, and 
annual rainfall averaging 30 to 60 inches (in) (75 to 150 centimeters 
(cm)) (Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). Rainfall within the range of sand 
flax varies from an annual average of 60-65 in (153-165 cm) in the 
northern portion of the Miami Rock Ridge to an average of 35-40 in (89-
102 cm) in the lower Florida Keys (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 238). Areas 
of pine rockland that are adjacent to wetlands may experience prolonged 
flooded periods lasting up to 60 days, while those at higher elevation 
have shorter or no annual flooding period (Florida Natural Areas 
Inventory (FNAI) 2010a, p. 2). Freezes can occur in the winter months 
but are very infrequent at this latitude in Florida. Therefore, based 
on the information above, we determined a subtropical humid (Miami-Dade 
County) or tropical humid (Monroe County) climate to be an essential 
physical feature for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand 
flax.
Soils
    Substrates supporting Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and 
sand flax are composed of oolitic limestone that is at or very near the 
surface. Solution holes occasionally form where the surface limestone 
is dissolved by organic acids. There is typically very little soil 
development, consisting primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient 
sand, marl, clayey loam, and organic debris found in solution holes, 
depressions, and crevices on the limestone surface (FNAI 2010a, p. 62). 
However, extensive sandy pockets can be found at the northern end of 
the Miami Rock Ridge, beginning from approximately North Miami Beach 
and extending south to approximately SW 216 Street (which runs east-
west approximately one-half mile south of Quail Roost Pineland) 
(Service 1999, p. 3-162).
    These substrates provide anchoring, nutrients, moisture regime, and 
suitable soil chemistry for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and 
sand flax; they facilitate a community of associated plant species that 
creates competition which allows Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, 
and sand flax to persist and spread. Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify substrates derived from calcareous 
limestone (often exposed with little soil development) that provide 
nutritional requirements and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, 
nutrients, anchoring and drainage) to be an essential physical feature 
for Big Pine

[[Page 62508]]

partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax.

Cover or Shelter

    As mentioned previously, Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and 
sand flax occur in pine rocklands and adjacent disturbed areas in the 
lower Florida Keys (Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 17-18; Bradley 2006, p. 
21). In addition, sand flax occurs in pine rocklands on the Miami Rock 
Ridge in Miami-Dade County. These pine rocklands are characterized by 
an open canopy of Pinus elliottii var. densa (South Florida slash 
pine). The shrub/understory layer is also characteristically open, 
although the height and density of the shrub layer varies based on fire 
frequency, with understory plants growing taller and denser as time 
since fire increases. The open canopy and understory of pine rocklands 
are required to allow sufficient sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer 
and permit growth and flowering of Big Pine partridge pea, wedge 
spurge, and sand flax (Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 17-18; Bradley 2006, 
p. 37).
    Disturbed areas that are adjacent to pine rocklands that support 
Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax may have little to 
no pine canopy, but an herbaceous layer dominated by native herbs and 
grasses. Usually, these are former (remnant) pine rocklands that have a 
history of disturbance (clearing or scraping). These sites tend to be 
infrequently (every 2-3 months) mowed areas adjacent to existing pine 
rocklands, such as roadsides and fields. These areas can provide the 
open conditions required by Big Pine partridge pea, wedge surge, and 
sand flax (Bradley 2006, p. 37).
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify vegetation 
composition and structure characterized by an open canopy of South 
Florida slash pine and understory that allows for sufficient sunlight 
and space for individual growth and population expansion to be an 
essential feature for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand 
flax.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring

    Big Pine partridge pea reproduction is sexual, and flowers require 
insect visitation for pollination. Though many types of insects visit 
Big Pine partridge pea flowers, effective pollination can be performed 
only by buzz-pollinating bees (Liu and Koptur 2003, pp. 1184-1186). 
Seed production is higher when cross-pollination occurs. In addition, 
seed germination rates are higher from cross-pollinated flowers, 
suggesting that inbreeding depression occurs in seeds produced through 
self-pollination (Liu and Koptur 2003, pp. 1184-1186). Taken together, 
these findings indicate that insect pollination is crucial to the 
plant's reproduction and progeny fitness. Declines in pollinator 
visitation may cause decreased seed production, which could lead to 
lower seedling establishment and numbers of mature plants.
    The biology and demography of wedge spurge have received 
considerable study. Small groups of the plant are scattered widely 
across the pine rocklands of Big Pine Key (Herndon 1993, in Bradley and 
Gann 1999, p. 31), with a population estimated at 368,557 in 2014 
(Bradley et al. 2015, p. 21). The population was confirmed to still be 
present in 2019 (Lange et al. 2019, p. 16). Wedge spurge reproduction 
is sexual and likely requires insect visitation for pollination. Other 
species of Chamaesyce are completely reliant on insects for pollination 
and seed production while others are capable of self-pollination. 
Pollinators may include bees, flies, ants, and wasps (Ehrenfeld 1976, 
pp. 95-97, 406).
    Little is known about the life history of sand flax, including 
pollination biology, seed production, or dispersal. Sand flax 
reproduction is sexual, with new plants generated from seeds. A recent 
study found that pollinators are important in fruit production of sand 
flax (Harris and Koptur 2022, pp. 7-8). Effective pollination has been 
found from small bees and flies that visit the flowers of sand flax 
(Harris and Koptur 2022, pp. 4-6). This recent information suggests 
that insect pollination is important to the species' reproduction. 
Therefore, like Big Pine partridge pea and wedge spurge, declines in 
pollinator visitation may cause decreased seed or fruit production of 
sand flax, which could lead to lower seedling establishment and numbers 
of mature plants.
    The pine rocklands and adjacent disturbed habitats identified above 
as essential physical or biological features provide a plant community 
with associated plant species that foster a competitive regime suitable 
to Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax and contain 
adequate open space for the recruitment of new plants. Associated plant 
species in these habitats attract and provide cover for insect 
pollinators required for Big Pine partridge pea pollination, wedge 
spurge, and sand flax.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine 
rockland habitat and adjacent disturbed areas containing the presence 
of native pollinators for natural pollination and reproduction to be an 
essential feature for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand 
flax.

Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological 
Distributions of the Species

    Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax continue to 
occur in habitats that are representative of the species' historical, 
geographical, and ecological distribution, although their current 
ranges have been reduced. These species are currently found in pine 
rocklands, and they also occur in adjacent disturbed areas, such as 
roadsides. As described above, these habitats provide a community of 
associated plant and animal species that are compatible with Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax. In addition, these habitats 
provide the 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 needed for 
these species. Representative communities are located on Federal, 
State, local, and private conservation lands that implement 
conservation measures benefitting these species.
Disturbance Regime
    Pine rockland habitat that could support or currently supports Big 
Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax depend on a disturbance 
regime of wild or prescribed fire to open the canopy in order to 
provide light levels sufficient to support these species. Fire return 
intervals of 5 to 7 years generate the lowest extinction and population 
decline probabilities for Big Pine partridge pea (Liu et al. 2005, p. 
210). The historical frequency and magnitude of fire allowed for the 
persistence of Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax by 
maintaining an open canopy and understory and preventing succession 
(transition) of pine rocklands to hardwood-dominated community 
(rockland hammock). In the absence of fire, some areas of pine rockland 
may have closed canopies, resulting in areas lacking enough available 
sunlight to support Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand 
flax. Most of these areas can be enhanced if habitats are managed with 
a combination of mechanical hardwood removal and prescribed fire. 
Disturbed sites that support Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and 
sand flax are typically maintained by infrequent mowing. Mowing is 
similar in effect to fire in that

[[Page 62509]]

it limits encroachment of hardwood species and maintains open canopy 
conditions suitable for these species. We consider wildfire to be the 
natural disturbance factor for pine rocklands and Big Pine partridge 
pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax. In adjacent disturbed areas currently 
supporting the species, mowing serves some of the ecological function 
of fire and maintains suitable habitat conditions (open canopy) for 
these species.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify periodic 
natural (e.g., fire) or nonnatural (e.g., prescribed fire, mowing) 
disturbance regimes to maintain open canopy conditions in South Florida 
pine rocklands, to be an important process to maintain essential 
features for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax.

Summary of Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of Big Pine Partridge Pea, Wedge Spurge, and Sand Flax

    Based on the best available science related to the life history and 
ecology of these species, as outlined in the discussion above, we have 
determined that the following physical or biological features are 
essential to the conservation of Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, 
and sand flax:
    South Florida pine rockland habitat and adjacent disturbed areas:
    (1) Consisting of calcareous limestone substrate (often exposed 
with little soil development) that provides nutritional requirements 
and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring and 
drainage);
    (2) Characterized by an open canopy of Pinus elliottii var. densa 
(South Florida slash pine) and understory with a high proportion of 
native pine rockland plant species to provide for sufficient sunlight 
to permit growth and flowering;
    (3) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the 
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County and tropical 
humid classification in Monroe County in every month of the year and 
short hydroperiods ranging of up to 60 days each year;
    (4) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire) or nonnatural (e.g., 
prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance regimes to maintain open canopy 
conditions; and
    (5) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.

Blodgett's Silverbush

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

Plant Community and Competitive Ability
    Blodgett's silverbush occurs in the Florida Keys in Monroe County 
and on the Miami Rock Ridge in Miami-Dade County in communities 
classified as pine rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm, as 
well as disturbed sites adjacent to these habitats, such as roadsides 
and mowed areas still dominated by native species (Bradley and Gann 
1999, p. 3). These communities and their associated native plant 
species are described in the final listing rule for Blodgett's 
silverbush published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2016 (81 
FR 66842). These habitats and their associated plant communities 
provide vegetation structure that allows for adequate growing space, 
moisture, sunlight, pollinators, and a competitive regime that is 
required for Blodgett's silverbush to persist and spread. As discussed 
above for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax, pine 
rocklands are a fire-maintained ecosystem characterized by an open 
canopy and understory and a limestone substrate (often exposed). 
Rockland hammock is a species-rich tropical hardwood forest on upland 
sites in areas where limestone is very near the surface and often 
exposed. Coastal berms are landscape features found along low-energy 
coastlines in south Florida and the Florida Keys. Coastal berm is a 
short forest or shrub thicket found on long, narrow, storm-deposited 
ridges (sand dunes) of loose sediment formed by a mixture of coarse 
shell fragments, pieces of coralline algae, and other coastal debris.
    Similar to the other species, open canopy conditions are required 
to allow sufficient sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer and permit 
growth and flowering of Blodgett's silverbush. These conditions are 
maintained by fire in pine rocklands. In rockland hammocks, only the 
edges and canopy disruption in the interior provide enough sunlight for 
Blodgett's silverbush. Canopy disruption on rockland hammocks can occur 
due to natural events such as hurricanes and storm surge. Human 
disturbance, especially mowing, also maintains suitable conditions in 
disturbed areas, as discussed above for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge 
spurge, and sand flax. The plant also requires a calcareous limestone 
substrate that varies from nearly bare to thin layers or small pockets 
of shallow soil in pine rocklands, to shallow organic soils over 
calcareous limestone in rockland hammocks, and deep, calcareous sandy 
soils typical of coastal berm to provide suitable growing conditions 
(e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, and proper drainage). As a result of 
these marginal soil conditions, plants such as Blodgett's silverbush 
rely on sparse competition and periodic disturbance to thrive and 
persist. This combination of ecosystem characteristics (i.e., open 
canopy and limestone substrate) occurs in pine rocklands, along edges 
and gaps in rockland hammocks, and in coastal berm.
    Disturbed areas that support Blodgett's silverbush consist of sites 
that formerly were pine rocklands or rockland hammocks, but in most 
cases have no remaining pine or hardwood canopy because of previous 
disturbance (clearing or scraping). These include roadsides, 
firebreaks, and other areas that are infrequently mowed or have no tree 
canopy but retain native herbs, grass species, and substrate (Bradley 
2006, p. 37: Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 61).
    Loss of pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade and Monroe County is 
discussed above for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand 
flax. In addition, modification and destruction from residential and 
commercial development have severely impacted rockland hammocks and 
coastal berm that support Blodgett's silverbush. Rockland hammocks were 
once abundant in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties but are now considered 
imperiled locally and globally (FNAI 2010b, pp. 24-26). The tremendous 
development and agricultural pressures in south Florida have resulted 
in significant reductions of rockland hammock (Phillips 1940, p. 167; 
Snyder et al. 1990, pp. 271-272; FNAI 2010b, pp. 24-26).
    The extreme rarity of high-quality pine rockland, rockland hammock, 
and coastal berm habitat supporting Blodgett's silverbush in Miami-Dade 
and Monroe Counties elevates the importance of disturbed remnant sites 
that still retain some habitat values.
    We consider pine rocklands, edges or gaps in rockland hammocks, and 
coastal berm to be the primary habitats for Blodgett's silverbush. 
However, adjacent disturbed areas currently supporting the species are 
considered more important when adjacent pine rocklands, rockland 
hammocks, or coastal berm do not support an existing population, or are 
of insufficient size or connectivity to support a population of 
Blodgett's silverbush. Therefore, based on the information above, we 
identify upland

[[Page 62510]]

habitats consisting of pine rocklands, rockland hammocks, coastal 
berms, and adjacent disturbed areas to be physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of Blodgett's silverbush.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

Climate (Temperature and Precipitation)
    Blodgett's silverbush requires adequate rainfall and does not 
tolerate prolonged freezing temperatures. The climate of south Florida 
where Blodgett's silverbush occurs is classified as subtropical humid 
(Miami-Dade County) and tropical humid (Monroe County), as described 
above for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax. Rainfall 
within the range of Blodgett's silverbush varies from an annual average 
of 60-65 in (153-165 cm) in the northern portion of the Miami Rock 
Ridge to an average of 35-40 in (89-102 cm) in the lower Florida Keys 
(Snyder et al. 1990, p. 238). Areas of pine rockland that are adjacent 
to wetlands may experience prolonged flooded periods lasting up to 60 
days, while those at higher elevation have shorter or no annual 
flooding period (FNAI 2010a, p. 2). 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 an essential physical feature for Blodgett's silverbush.
Soils
    Substrates supporting Blodgett's silverbush are composed of oolitic 
limestone that is at or very near the surface. Solution holes 
occasionally form where the surface limestone is dissolved by organic 
acids. In pine rocklands, there is typically very little soil 
development, consisting primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient 
sand, marl, clayey loam, and organic debris found in solution holes, 
depressions, and crevices on the limestone surface (FNAI 2010a, p. 62). 
However, extensive sandy pockets can be found at the northern end of 
the Miami Rock Ridge, beginning from approximately North Miami Beach 
and extending south to approximately SW 216 Street (which runs east-
west approximately one-half mile south of Quail Roost Pineland) 
(Service 1999, p. 3-162). Rockland hammock occurs on a thin layer of 
highly organic soil covering limestone on high ground that does not 
regularly flood (FNAI 2010b p. 1). In coastal berms, deep, calcareous 
sandy soils are the typical substrate of this habitat.
    These substrates provide anchoring, nutrients, moisture regime, and 
suitable soil chemistry for Blodgett's silverbush; and facilitate a 
community of associated plant species that create a competitive regime 
that allows Blodgett's silverbush to persist and spread. Therefore, 
based on the information above, we identify substrates derived from 
calcareous limestone (often exposed with little soil development in 
pine rocklands; with a thin to thick organic soil layer in the case of 
rockland hammocks; deep, calcareous soils in coastal berm) that provide 
nutritional requirements and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, 
nutrients, anchoring and drainage) to be an essential physical feature 
for Blodgett's silverbush.

Cover or Shelter

    As previously mentioned, Blodgett's silverbush occurs in pine 
rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats in the lower 
Florida Keys in Monroe County and the Miami Rock Ridge in Miami-Dade 
County; and adjacent disturbed areas (Bradley and Gann, 1999, p. 3). 
Pine rocklands of the Florida Keys are characterized by an open canopy 
of South Florida slash pine. The shrub/understory layer is also 
characteristically open, although the height and density of the shrub 
layer varies based on fire frequency, with understory plants growing 
taller and denser as time since fire increases. The open canopy and 
understory of pine rocklands are required to allow sufficient sunlight 
to reach the herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering of 
Blodgett's silverbush (Ross and Ruiz 1996, pp. 5-6; Bradley and Saha 
2009, p.4).
    Rockland hammock forest floor is largely covered by leaf litter and 
may have an organic soil layer of variable depth. Rockland hammocks 
typically have larger, more mature trees and deep organic soil layer in 
the interior, while the margins can be almost impenetrable in places 
with dense growth of smaller shrubs, trees, and vines and shallow 
organic soil layer. Mature hammocks may be open beneath a tall, well-
defined canopy and subcanopy. More commonly, in less mature or 
disturbed hammocks, dense woody vegetation of varying heights from 
canopy to short shrubs is often present. Herbaceous species are 
occasionally present and generally sparse in coverage (FNAI 2010b p. 
1).
    Coastal berm is a short forest or shrub thicket found on long, 
narrow, storm-deposited ridges (sand dunes). Structure and composition 
of the vegetation is variable depending on height and time since the 
last storm event. The most stable berms may share some tree species 
with rockland hammocks, but generally have a greater proportion of 
shrubs and herbs. This is a structurally variable community that may 
appear in various stages of succession following storm disturbance, 
from scattered herbaceous beach colonizers to a dense stand of tall 
shrubs (FNAI 2010c, p. 2).
    Disturbed areas that are adjacent to pine rocklands, rockland 
hammocks, and coastal berms that support Blodgett's silverbush may have 
little to no pine or hardwood canopy, but an herbaceous layer dominated 
by native herbs and grasses. Usually these are former (remnant) pine 
rocklands or rockland hammocks that have a history of disturbance 
(clearing or scraping). These sites tend to be infrequently (every 2-3 
months) mowed areas adjacent to existing pine rocklands or rockland 
hammocks, such as roadsides and fields. These areas provide the open 
conditions required by Blodgett's silverbush (Bradley 2006, p. 37).
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify vegetation 
composition and structure characterized by an open canopy and 
understory that allows for sufficient sunlight, and space for 
individual growth and population expansion, to be an essential feature 
for Blodgett's silverbush.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring

    Little is known about the life history of Blodgett's silverbush, 
including pollination biology, seed production, or dispersal. 
Blodgett's silverbush reproduction is sexual, with new plants generated 
from seeds. This species likely requires insect visitation for 
pollination, although there is limited information on this.
    The pine rocklands, rockland hammocks, coastal berms, and adjacent 
disturbed habitats identified above as physical or biological features 
provide a plant community with associated plant species that foster a 
competitive regime suitable to Blodgett's silverbush and contain 
adequate open space for the recruitment of new plants. Associated plant 
species in these habitats attract and provide cover for insect 
pollinators required for Blodgett's silverbush pollination.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine 
rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitat and adjacent 
disturbed areas containing the presence of native pollinators for 
natural pollination and reproduction to be an essential feature for 
Blodgett's silverbush.

[[Page 62511]]

Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological 
Distributions of the Species

    Blodgett's silverbush continues to occur in habitats that are 
representative of the species' historical, geographical, and ecological 
distribution although its range has been reduced. The species is 
currently found in pine rocklands, rockland hammocks, and coastal 
berms, and it also occurs in adjacent disturbed areas. As described 
above, these habitats provide a community of associated plant and 
animal species that are compatible with Blodgett's silverbush, 
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.

Disturbance Regime

    Pine rockland habitat that could or currently support Blodgett's 
silverbush depend on a disturbance regime of wild or prescribed fire to 
open the canopy and provide light levels sufficient to support 
Blodgett's silverbush. The historical frequency and magnitude of fire 
allowed for the persistence of Blodgett's silverbush, maintaining an 
open canopy and understory, and preventing succession (transition) of 
pine rocklands to hardwood-dominated community (rockland hammock). In 
the absence of fire, some areas of pine rockland may have closed 
canopies, resulting in areas lacking enough available sunlight to 
support Blodgett's silverbush. Most of these areas can be restored if 
habitats are managed with a combination of mechanical hardwood removal 
and prescribed fire.
    Rockland hammock is susceptible to fire, frost, canopy disruption, 
and ground water reduction. Rockland hammock can be the advanced 
successional stage of pine rockland, especially in cases where rockland 
hammock is adjacent to pine rockland. In such cases, when fire is 
excluded from pine rockland for 15 to 25 years, it can succeed to 
rockland hammock vegetation. Historically, rockland hammocks in south 
Florida evolved with fire in the landscape, fire most often 
extinguished near the edges when it encountered the hammock's moist 
microclimate and litter layer. However, rockland hammocks are 
susceptible to damage from fire during extreme drought or when the 
water table is lowered. In these cases, fire can cause tree mortality 
and consume the organic soil layer. Rockland hammocks are also 
sensitive to the strong winds and storm surge associated with 
hurricanes (FNAI 2010b p. 2).
    Coastal berms are deposited by storm waves along low-energy coasts. 
Their distance inland depends on the height of the storm surge. Coastal 
berms that are deposited far enough inland and remain undisturbed may 
in time succeed to hammock. This is a structurally variable community 
that may appear in various stages of succession following storm 
disturbance, from scattered herbaceous beach colonizers to a dense 
stand of tall shrubs (FNAI 2010c, p. 2).
    The sparsely vegetated edges or interior portions laid open by 
canopy disruption are the areas of rockland hammock and coastal berm 
that have light levels sufficient to support Blodgett's silverbush. 
However, the dynamic nature of the habitat means that areas not 
currently open may become open in the future as a result of canopy 
disruption from hurricanes, while areas currently open may develop 
denser canopy over time, eventually rendering that portion of the 
hammock unsuitable for Blodgett's silverbush.
    Disturbed sites that support Blodgett's silverbush are typically 
maintained by infrequent mowing. Mowing is similar in effect to fire in 
that it limits encroachment of hardwood species and maintains open 
canopy conditions suitable for Blodgett's silverbush. We consider 
wildfire to be the natural disturbance factor for pine rocklands. 
Periodic hurricanes and storm surge are the natural disturbance factors 
for rockland hammock and coastal berm. In adjacent disturbed areas 
currently supporting the species, mowing serves some of the ecological 
function of fire and maintains suitable habitat conditions (open 
canopy) for the species.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify periodic 
natural (e.g., fire, hurricanes) or nonnatural (e.g., prescribed fire, 
mowing) disturbance regimes that maintain open canopy conditions to be 
essential features for Blodgett's silverbush.

Summary of Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of Blodgett's Silverbush

    Based on the best available science related to the life history and 
ecology of the species, as outlined in the discussion above, we have 
determined that the following physical or biological features are 
essential to the conservation of Blodgett's silverbush:
    South Florida pine rockland, rockland hammock, or coastal berm 
habitats and adjacent disturbed areas:
    (1) Consisting of limestone substrate that provides nutritional 
requirements and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, 
anchoring and drainage);
    (2) Characterized by an open canopy and understory with a high 
proportion of native plant species to provide for sufficient sunlight 
to permit growth and flowering;
    (3) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the 
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County and tropical 
humid classification in Monroe County in every month of the year, with 
short hydroperiods ranging of up to 60 days each year;
    (4) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire, hurricanes, storm 
surge) or nonnatural (e.g., prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance 
regimes to maintain open canopy conditions; and
    (5) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
threats related to habitat loss, fragmentation, and modification 
primarily due to development; inadequate fire management; nonnative 
plants; hurricanes and storm surge; changes in disturbance regime; and 
sea level rise. For an in-depth discussion of threats, see Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species in our September 29, 2015, proposed 
listing rule (80 FR 58536) and September 29, 2016, final listing rule 
(81 FR 66842).
    Some of these threats (e.g., habitat loss, inadequate fire 
management) can be addressed by special management considerations or 
protection while others (e.g., sea level rise, hurricanes, storm surge) 
may be 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 or ameliorate the effects of the 
threats. Habitat loss is a primary threat to Big Pine partridge pea, 
wedge spurge, sand

[[Page 62512]]

flax, and Blodgett's silverbush. Loss of pine rocklands, rockland 
hammock, and coastal berm to development has reduced these habitats in 
Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties.
    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). For example, decreases in Big Pine partridge pea seed production 
near urban areas due to increased seed predation, compared with areas 
away from development have been reported (Liu and Koptur 2003, p. 
1184).
    Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's 
silverbush occur on a mix of private and publicly owned lands, most of 
which are managed for conservation. Populations that occur on private 
land or non-conservation public land are vulnerable to habitat loss, 
while populations on conservation lands are vulnerable to the effects 
of habitat degradation if disturbance regimes are disrupted (e.g., 
through inadequate fire management or change in management practices on 
disturbed sites that support the species). Prolonged lack of fire in 
pine rockland typically results in succession to rockland hammock, and 
displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often 
occurs. Changes in management practices at disturbed sites may include 
changes in mowing frequency or height, herbicide use, deposition of 
fill material, and sodding. Further development and degradation of pine 
rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm increase fragmentation and 
decrease the conservation value of the remaining functioning habitats. 
In addition, pine rocklands are expected to be further degraded and 
fragmented due to anticipated sea level rise, which would fully or 
partially inundate most pine rocklands and increase salinity of the 
water table and soils. These impacts are likely to cause vegetation 
shifts in additional pine rocklands, particularly in the lower Florida 
Keys. Some existing pine rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm 
areas are also projected to be developed for housing as the human 
population grows and adjusts to rising sea levels.
    In summary, the features essential to the conservation of Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
threats and conserve these features. Actions that could ameliorate 
threats include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Increase habitat restoration and management efforts, including 
fire management and nonnative plant control;
    (2) Protect, restore, or enhance inland or higher elevation 
habitats where these species occur and are predicted to be unaffected 
or less affected by sea level rise;
    (3) Augment existing small populations; and
    (4) Conduct annual or seasonal monitoring efforts, or monitoring 
conducted prior to, but coordinated with habitat and fire management 
planning to refine management efforts over time.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat.
    We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the 
geographical area occupied by these species at the time of listing in 
2016. At this time, we have not identified specific areas outside the 
geographical range occupied by the species that are essential for the 
species' conservation. However, as discussed below, we are considering 
whether areas outside the geographical range of the Big Pine Partridge 
Pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax at the time of listing meet the 
definition of critical habitat. If we determine some or all of those 
areas are critical habitat for these species, we will include them in 
our final designation.
    We anticipate that full recovery for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge 
spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush will require continued 
protection of the remaining extant populations and habitat and 
augmenting existing small populations. Recovery of Big Pine partridge 
pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax may also require reestablishing 
populations in additional areas (i.e., unoccupied areas) to approximate 
more closely the species' historical distribution to ensure adequate 
numbers of plants exist in stable populations and these populations 
occur over their entire geographic range. This scenario could help to 
reduce the chance that catastrophic events, such as storms, will 
simultaneously affect all known populations. However, some of the 
historical locations no longer contain suitable habitat, and thus are 
not proposed.
    Small plant populations or those with limited distributions, such 
as Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax, 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, such as 
Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax, may include the 
creation of new sites or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects.
    In considering our proposal of critical habitat, we identified the 
following conservation strategy and goals for Big Pine partridge pea, 
wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush:
    (1) Conserve existing viable populations with sufficient native 
habitat;
    (2) Work with partners to conserve existing populations, and 
implement efforts that will benefit the species and its habitat; and
    (3) Augment existing populations and facilitate establishment/
reestablishment of populations into suitable protected habitat.
    To facilitate the application of our conservation strategy and 
goals for these species, we utilized the Shaffer and Stein (2000, 
entire) methodology for

[[Page 62513]]

conserving the resiliency, representation, and redundancy of imperiled 
species. Resiliency is the ability to sustain populations through the 
natural range of favorable and unfavorable conditions. Representation 
ensures adaptive capacity within a species and allows it to respond to 
environmental changes. This can be facilitated by conserving not just 
genetic diversity, but also the species' associated habitat type and 
plant communities. Redundancy ensures an adequate number of sites with 
resilient populations such that the species has the ability to 
withstand catastrophic events. Implementation of this methodology has 
been widely accepted as a reasonable conservation strategy (Tear et al. 
2005, p. 841).

Big Pine Partridge Pea

    Big Pine partridge pea is endemic to the lower Florida Keys in 
Monroe County, Florida. Historical records exist for occurrences in 
pine rocklands on five islands: Big Pine Key, Ramrod Key, Cudjoe Key, 
No Name Key, and Lower Sugarloaf Key (Hodges and Bradley 2006, pp. 20-
21). At the time of listing and currently, native populations of the 
plant occur only on Big Pine Key and Cudjoe Key since the species has 
been extirpated from Ramrod Key and Lower Sugarloaf Key (Bradley and 
Gann 1999, p. 18; Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 21; Lange et al. 2019). 
In 2019, a population was successfully introduced in NKDR on No Name 
Key. Except for Ramrod Key, all these Keys still contain pine rockland 
habitat. While the Big Pine Key population is relatively large, 
estimated at 313,914 plants in 2013 (Bradley et al. 2015, p. 21), the 
Cudjoe Key population was relatively small, consisting of approximately 
150 individuals ((Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 21), and recent surveys 
did not find the species there (Lange et al. 2019, p. 16). Therefore, 
if the species is not found at Cudjoe Key during future surveys, 
reintroductions may be needed at Cudjoe Key.
    Given the species occurs only within the lower Florida Keys, it has 
inherently low redundancy; with only two extant populations at the time 
of listing, the current redundancy of native populations has been even 
further reduced from historical levels. In addition, because there 
currently are three populations (two native and one reintroduced) 
across the naturally limited historical range of the species, Big Pine 
partridge pea is vulnerable to stochastic extinction events from 
natural or other disturbances (such as hurricanes or storm surge) that 
could affect the entire geographic range of the species. Both natural 
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. 
Therefore, we are proposing critical habitat units that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and that support both extant populations at the time of 
listing.
    Additionally, we acknowledge that areas unoccupied at the time of 
listing may be essential for the conservation of the Big Pine partridge 
pea. We are considering whether areas of remaining pine rockland 
habitat on Little Pine Key, No Name Key, and Sugarloaf Keys meet the 
definition of critical habitat. The area on Little Pine Key consists of 
approximately 97 ac (39 ha) of pine rockland habitat in Monroe County 
and is comprised entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of 
which are located within NKDR. Pine rocklands cover about two-thirds of 
the interior portion of the island. We note that this area wholly 
overlaps with designated critical habitat for silver rice rat and 
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The area on No Name Key includes 
approximately 123 ac (50 ha) of pine rockland habitat in Monroe County 
comprised of a combination of Federal lands within NKDR, State lands, 
County lands, and property in private or other ownership). State lands 
are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge. 
We note that this area wholly overlaps with designated critical habitat 
for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. Finally, on Sugarloaf Keys, 
we are considering approximately 73 ac (30 ha) of pine rockland habitat 
north of U.S. 1, comprised of a combination of Federal lands within 
NKDR, County lands, and property in private or other ownership. We note 
that these areas on Sugarloaf Keys wholly overlap with the areas being 
proposed as critical habitat for the sand flax and the endangered key 
deer occurs throughout this area. We will determine whether these areas 
are essential to protect habitat needed to recover the species and 
establish new populations within the range of the species such that 
they meet the definition of critical habitat. If we decide some or all 
of these areas are essential to the conservation of the Big Pine 
partridge pea, we will include them in our final critical habitat 
determination (see also Information Requested, above).

Wedge Spurge

    Wedge spurge is endemic to the lower Florida Keys in Monroe County, 
Florida. Its historical range encompassed pine rocklands on Big Pine 
Key. At the time of listing and currently, the only native population 
of the plant currently occurs on Big Pine Key, with small groups of 
plants scattered widely across the island. The Big Pine population is 
relatively large, estimated at 368,557 individuals in 2014 (Bradley et 
al. 2015, pp. 24-25); the presence of this population was verified in 
2019 (Lange et al. 2019, p. 16). However, since the time the species 
was listed, a population was successfully introduced in NKDR on No Name 
Key. While the Big Pine Key population is relatively large, estimated 
at 368,557 individuals in 2014 (Bradley et al. 2015, pp. 24-25), it is 
the only extant native population.
    Given the species occurs within the lower Florida Keys, it has 
inherently low redundancy; with only one extant populations at the time 
of listing, the current redundancy of native population has been 
reduced from historical levels. Because there currently are only two 
populations (one native and one introduced) across the naturally 
limited historical range, wedge spurge is vulnerable to stochastic 
extinction events from natural or other disturbances (such as 
hurricanes or storm surge) that could affect the entire geographic 
range of wedge spurge. The sole natural population occurs on a small 
island where the amount of suitable habitat is limited (low resiliency) 
and much of that habitat may be lost to sea level rise over the next 
century. Therefore, the resiliency of the population and redundancy of 
the wedge spurge will continue to be limited by the amount of pine 
rockland habitat remaining in the lower Florida Keys. We are proposing 
a critical habitat unit that contains the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and supports the 
single native population on Big Pine Key extant at the time of listing.
    Additionally, we acknowledge that areas unoccupied at the time of 
listing may be essential for the conservation of the wedge spurge. We 
are considering whether areas of remaining pine rockland habitat on 
Little Pine Key, No Name Key, Cudjoe Key, and Sugarloaf Keys of the 
wedge spurge meet the definition of critical habitat. The area on 
Little Pine Key consists of approximately 97 ac (39 ha) of pine 
rockland habitat in Monroe County and is comprised entirely of lands in 
Federal ownership, 100 percent of which are located within NKDR. Pine 
rocklands cover about two-thirds of the interior portion of the island. 
We note that this area wholly overlaps with designated critical habitat 
for silver rice rat and

[[Page 62514]]

Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The area on No Name Key includes 
approximately 123 ac (50 ha) of pine rockland habitat in Monroe County 
comprised of a combination of Federal lands within NKDR, State lands, 
County lands, and property in private or other ownership. State lands 
are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge. 
We note that this area wholly overlaps with designated critical habitat 
for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The area on Cudjoe Key 
consists of approximately 88 ac (33 ha) of pine rockland habitat in 
Monroe County and is comprised of a combination of Federal lands within 
NKDR, State lands, County lands, and property in private or other 
ownership. State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed 
as part of the Refuge. We note that this area wholly overlaps with 
designated critical habitat for silver rice rat. Finally, on Sugarloaf 
Keys, we are considering approximately 73 ac (30 ha) of pine rockland 
habitat north of U.S. 1, comprised of a combination of Federal lands 
within NKDR, County lands, and property in private or other ownership. 
We note that these areas on Sugarloaf Keys wholly overlap with the 
areas being proposed as critical habitat for the sand flax and the 
endangered key deer occurs throughout this area. We will determine 
whether these areas are essential to protect habitat needed to recover 
the species and establish new populations within the range of the 
species such that they meet the definition of critical habitat. If we 
decide some or all of these areas are essential for the conservation of 
the wedge spurge, we will include them in our final critical habitat 
determination (see also Information Requested, above).

Sand Flax

    Sand flax has a historical range consisting of central and southern 
Miami-Dade County and Monroe County in the lower Florida Keys (Bradley 
and Gann 1999, p. 61). At the time of listing and currently, there were 
twelve extant populations of sand flax, with eight extant populations 
in Miami-Dade County and four extant populations in the Florida Keys. 
In Miami-Dade County, historical records for the species were 
widespread from the Coconut Grove area to the southern part of the 
county, close to what is now the main entrance to ENP and Turkey Point 
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 61). In 2013, sand flax populations were 
found at six sites, containing an estimated total of 107,060 plants 
(Bradley and van der Heiden 2013, p. 4). In Miami-Dade County, recent 
observations include confirmation of the species' continued presence at 
the Richmond Pinelands, Martinez Pineland Preserve, Department of 
Defense (DoD) Special Operations Command South (SOCSO) and Homestead 
Air Reserve Base (HARB), and the C-102 and L-31E canal levee 
populations. Additionally, a new population was established at Rockdale 
Pineland in 2019 (Possley, pers. comm. 2019). The four largest 
populations of sand flax include Homestead, Florida (located on the 
HARB and SOCSO DoD sites), estimated at 96,037 individuals; the C-102 
canal levee and L-31E canal levee sites, estimated at 1,000 to 10,000 
plants, respectively; and Big Pine Key, estimated at 2,676 individuals. 
All other sites have fewer than 100 individuals, except Martinez 
pinelands (100-200 individuals) and Lower Sugarloaf Key (531 
individuals). Two populations occupy levees that cannot be restored to 
pine rockland habitat, rendering sand flax vulnerable to stochastic 
extinction events from natural or other disturbances (such as 
hurricanes or storm surge) that could affect the entire geographic 
range of sand flax.
    In the Florida Keys (Monroe County), there are historical records 
of the species from Big Pine Key, Ramrod Key, Upper and Lower Sugarloaf 
Keys, Park Key, Boca Chica Key, Middle Torch Key (Bradley and Gann 
1999, p. 61), and Big Torch Key (Hodges 2010, p. 10). The current 
distribution of sand flax includes four islands: Big Pine Key, Upper 
and Lower Sugarloaf Keys, and Big Torch Key. Additionally, a population 
was successfully introduced in NKDR on No Name Key since the time of 
listing.
    Resiliency of sand flax will continue to be limited by the reduced 
amount of pine rockland habitat remaining in Florida. All Miami-Dade 
populations are on small remnant pine rockland sites and adjacent 
disturbed areas, while all Monroe County populations occur on small 
islands. In both cases, 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. Therefore, we are proposing 
critical habitat units that contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and support the seven 
extant populations at the time of listing.
    Additionally, we acknowledge that areas unoccupied at the time of 
listing may be essential for the conservation of the sand flax. We are 
considering whether areas of remaining pine rockland habitat on Little 
Pine Key, No Name Key, Cudjoe Key, and Sugarloaf Keys of the wedge 
spurge meet the definition of critical habitat. The area on Little Pine 
Key consists of approximately 97 ac (39 ha) of pine rockland habitat in 
Monroe County and is comprised entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 
100 percent of which are located within NKDR. Pine rocklands cover 
about two-thirds of the interior portion of the island. We note that 
this area wholly overlaps with designated critical habitat for silver 
rice rat and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The area on No Name 
Key includes approximately 123 ac (50 ha) of pine rockland habitat in 
Monroe County comprised of a combination of Federal lands within NKDR, 
State lands, County lands, and property in private or other ownership. 
State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of 
the Refuge. We note that this area wholly overlaps with designated 
critical habitat for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The area on 
Cudjoe Key consists of approximately 88 ac (33 ha) of pine rockland 
habitat in Monroe County and is comprised of a combination of Federal 
lands within NKDR, State lands, County lands, and property in private 
or other ownership. State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and 
managed as part of the Refuge. We note that this area wholly overlaps 
with designated critical habitat for silver rice rat. The area of 
Trinity Pinelands consists of approximately 48 ac (19 ha) of pine 
rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County and is comprised of a combination 
of State lands, County lands, and property in private or other 
ownership. We note that this area wholly overlaps with designated 
critical habitat for Carter's small-flowered flax (Linum carteri var. 
carteri) and Florida brickell-bush. The area of Nixon Smiley consists 
of approximately 264 ac (107 ha) of pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade 
County comprised of a combination of State lands, County lands, and 
property in private or other ownership. We note that this area wholly 
overlaps with designated critical habitat for Carter's small-flowered 
flax and Florida brickell-bush. The area of U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) Subtropical Horticulture Research Station consists 
of approximately 297 ac (120 ha) of pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade 
County and is comprised of a combination of Federal lands, State lands, 
and property in private or other ownership. We note that this area 
wholly overlaps with designated critical habitat for Carter's small-
flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush. The area of Quail's Roost 
consists of approximately 256 ac (104 ha) of pine rockland habitat in 
Miami-Dade County and is comprised

[[Page 62515]]

of a combination of State lands, County lands, and property in private 
or other ownership. We note that this area wholly overlaps with 
designated critical habitat for Carter's small-flowered flax, Florida 
brickell-bush, and Bartram's scrub hairstreak butterfly. The area of 
Navy Wells consists of approximately 558 ac (226 ha) of pine rockland 
habitat in Miami-Dade County and is comprised of a combination of State 
lands, County lands, and property in private or other ownership. We 
note that this area wholly overlaps with designated critical habitat 
for Carter's small-flowered flax, Florida brickell-bush, Bartram's 
scrub hairstreak butterfly, and Florida leafwing butterfly. We will 
determine whether these areas are essential to protect habitat needed 
to recover the species and establish new populations within the range 
of the species such that they meet the definition of critical habitat. 
If we decide some or all of these areas are essential for the 
conservation of the wedge spurge, we will include them in our final 
critical habitat determination (see also Information Requested, above).

Blodgett's Silverbush

    Blodgett's silverbush historically occurred from central and 
southern Miami-Dade County from Brickell Hammock to Long Pine Key in 
ENP, and in Monroe County throughout the Florida Keys (Monroe County) 
from Totten Key south to Key West (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 2). At the 
time of listing and currently, the Blodgett's silverbush consists of 20 
extant populations in Miami-Dade County and Monroe County in the 
Florida Keys. Blodgett's silverbush is currently known from central 
Miami-Dade County from Coral Gables and southern Miami-Dade County to 
Long Pine Key in ENP, and from nine islands in the Florida Keys, from 
Windley Key (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 3) southwest to Boca Chica Key 
(Hodges and Bradley 2006, pp. 10, 43). At least eight of the 20 extant 
populations of Blodgett's silverbush consist of fewer than 100 
individuals. These small populations are at risk of adverse effects 
from reduced genetic variation, an increased risk of inbreeding 
depression, and reduced reproductive output. Many of these populations 
are small and isolated from each other, decreasing the likelihood that 
they could be naturally reestablished if extinction from one location 
occurred.
    Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of 
pine rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal habitat remaining in 
Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. All Miami-Dade County populations are 
on small remnant pine rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm 
sites and adjacent disturbed areas, while all Monroe County populations 
occur on small islands. In both cases, 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. Therefore, we are 
proposing to designate critical habitat units within the historical 
range of Blodgett's silverbush and that contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, where 
the species was extant at the time of listing.
    The amount and distribution of critical habitat being proposed for 
designation would allow existing (native) populations of Blodgett's 
silverbush to:
    (1) Maintain their existing distribution;
    (2) Expand their distribution into suitable nearby 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.

Sources of Data to Identify Critical Habitat Boundaries

    We have determined that all areas known to be occupied at the time 
of listing should be proposed for critical habitat designation because 
all occupied sites are necessary to conserve the species. To determine 
the location and boundaries of occupied critical habitat, the Service 
used sources of data and information for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge 
spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush that include the 
following:
    (1) Species occurrence spatial data and ArcGIS geographic 
information system software to spatially depict the location and extent 
of documented populations of the species;
    (2) Reports prepared by FNAI, Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden, 
Institute for Regional Conservation, National Park Service, and Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection;
    (3) Historical records found in reports and associated voucher 
specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are referenced in the above-
mentioned reports;
    (4) Digitally produced habitat maps provided by Miami-Dade and 
Monroe Counties; and
    (5) Aerial images of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The presence 
of pine rocklands 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 
from Monroe County identifies pine rockland habitat. Habitat data for 
Miami-Dade County were developed by Miami-Dade Department of 
Environmental Protection for the Natural Forest Community program and 
include pine rocklands and rockland hammocks. Pine rockland, rockland 
hammock, and coastal berm habitat follow predictable landscape patterns 
and have a recognizable signature in the aerial imagery. Aerial imagery 
was utilized to identify disturbed areas adjacent to pine rocklands, 
rockland hammock, and coastal berm.
    We delineated critical habitat unit boundaries for these species 
using the following criteria:
    (1) The delineation included space to allow for the successional 
nature of the habitats (i.e., gain and loss of areas with sufficient 
light availability due to disturbance of the vegetation, driven by 
natural events such as inundation and hurricanes, or through natural or 
prescribed fire) and habitat transition or loss due to sea level rise.
    (2) All areas (i.e., physical or biological features) will require 
special management to be able to support a higher density of plants 
within the occupied space. These areas generally are habitats where 
some of the habitat features have been degraded or 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 development.
    (3) The areal extent of a plant population is dynamic over time 
within suitable habitat, while a survey represents a snapshot in time. 
Unsurveyed areas near mapped populations likely support plants 
currently or did in the past.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

    The proposed occupied critical habitat designation for Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush 
focuses on areas within the historical range that have retained the 
necessary habitat characteristics that will allow for the maintenance 
and expansion of existing

[[Page 62516]]

populations, and the establishment or reestablishment of populations 
through reintroduction (i.e., Cudjoe Key for Big Pine partridge pea). 
The proposed occupied critical habitat units were delineated based on 
documented extant populations at the time of listing. These units 
include the mapped extent of the population and nearby areas that 
contain one or more of the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species.
    In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by Big 
Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax at the time of listing, 
we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries using the following 
criteria:
    (1) Pine rockland habitat that was occupied by the species at the 
time of listing;
    (2) Presence of suitable pine rockland habitat and sufficient 
essential features; and
    (3) Whether the pine rockland habitat is natural versus human-made 
habitat that was not historically pine rockland.
    For Big Pine partridge pea, two occupied units (Big Pine Key and 
Cudjoe Key) are proposed as critical habitat. We consider pine rockland 
to be the primary habitat for Big Pine partridge pea. Adjacent 
disturbed areas currently supporting the species are also considered 
essential when adjacent pine rocklands do not support an existing 
population or are of insufficient size or connectivity to support a 
population of the species. While pine rockland habitat occurs on 
numerous other Keys, including nearby Sugarloaf Keys and Little Pine 
Key, none support existing populations of Big Pine partridge pea now 
nor did they at the time of listing. As mentioned previously, after the 
time of listing, a population of Big Pine partridge pea was introduced 
on No Name Key, which has high-quality pine rockland habitat and 
currently supports the reintroduced population. Plants and seeds were 
introduced in 2019 by Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden, in 
cooperation with NKDR and the Florida Department of Agriculture and 
Consumer Services. This action aligns with the recovery strategy that 
the Service will seek to implement for this species. We are considering 
whether areas on these Keys may be essential for the conservation of 
the Big Pine partridge pea. If we determine they are, they will be 
included in our final designation.
    For wedge spurge, one unit (one population: Big Pine Key) is 
proposed as critical habitat. We consider pine rockland to be the 
primary habitat for wedge spurge. Adjacent disturbed areas currently 
supporting the species are also considered essential when adjacent pine 
rocklands do not support an existing population or are of insufficient 
size or connectivity to support a population of the species. Even 
though pine rockland habitat is present on numerous other Keys, 
including nearby Little Pine Key, Cudjoe Key, and Sugarloaf Keys, none 
support existing populations of the species now, nor did they at the 
time of listing or historically. As mentioned previously, after the 
time of listing, a population of wedge spurge was introduced on No Name 
Key. We are considering whether areas on these Keys may be essential 
for the conservation of the wedge spur. If we determine they are, they 
will be included in our final designation.
    For sand flax, five units containing seven populations are proposed 
for critical habitat. We consider pine rockland to be the primary 
habitat for sand flax. While pine rockland habitat occurs on numerous 
other keys in Monroe County and other areas in Miami-Dade County, these 
do not support existing populations of sand flax now, nor did they 
historically or at the time of listing, and are therefore not proposed 
as critical habitat. Adjacent disturbed areas currently supporting the 
species are also considered essential when adjacent pine rocklands do 
not support an existing population or are of insufficient size or 
connectivity to support a population of sand flax. Such is the case for 
the area we are proposing as critical habitat on Sugarloaf Key (see 
below).
    Two well-maintained levees in Miami-Dade County support large 
populations of sand flax, which were established when fill used to 
construct the levees included pine rockland substrate and the seeds of 
pine rockland species, such as sand flax. While these levees support 
robust populations of sand flax, they are not included in proposed 
critical habitat because the habitat is human-made, and these 
populations are not natural populations or purposefully established. In 
addition, we do not expect these areas to support the needs of the 
species long-term, as the maintenance of these areas may not be 
compatible with the species over time. In addition, there are roadside 
areas on Middle Torch Key, Big Torch Key, and Lower Sugarloaf Keys that 
support sand flax, but are not associated with an adjacent pine 
rockland. These populations may also have been established at these 
sites through the deposition of fill. Because these areas are mowed 
occasionally, they provide the open conditions required by sand flax 
(Bradley 2006, p. 37). However, these areas are not included in 
proposed critical habitat, because the habitat is human-made, do not 
contain the physical or biological features (i.e., these disturbed 
areas are not adjacent to native pine rockland and are not 
characterized by an open canopy and understory with a high proportion 
of native plant species occurring in pine rockland habitat), and they 
are not adjacent to pine rockland that would facilitate expansion of 
the population into natural habitat.
    As mentioned previously, there is remaining pine rockland habitat 
on numerous other Keys, including Little Pine Key and Cudjoe Key, and 
areas in Miami-Dade County, including Trinity Pinelands, Nixon Smiley, 
Quail's Roost, Navy Wells, and USDA Horticulture Research Station, but 
these areas do not currently or at the time of listing support existing 
populations of sand flax. No Name Key currently supports a reintroduced 
populations of sand flax in NKDR. We are considering whether these 
areas may be essential for the conservation of the sand flax. If so, we 
will include them in our final designation.
    For Blodgett's silverbush, for areas within the geographic area 
occupied at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following criteria:
    (1) Pine rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats that 
were occupied by Blodgett's silverbush at the time of listing;
    (2) Presence of suitable pine rockland, rockland hammock, and 
coastal berm habitats and sufficient essential features; and
    (3) Whether the pine rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm 
habitats are natural versus human-made habitat that was not 
historically pine rockland, rockland hammock, or coastal berm.
    For Blodgett's silverbush, 13 occupied units contain 18 populations 
are proposed as critical habitat for the species. We consider pine 
rockland to be one of the primary habitats for Blodgett's silverbush. 
In addition, we consider rockland hammock and coastal berm to be 
primary habitats for the species. Adjacent disturbed areas currently 
supporting the species are also considered essential when adjacent pine 
rocklands, rockland hammocks, or coastal berms do not support an 
existing population or are of insufficient size or connectivity to 
support a population of sand flax. While pine rockland habitat, 
rockland hammock, and coastal berm occurs on numerous other Keys and 
areas in Miami-Dade County, these do not support existing populations 
of Blodgett's silverbush now, nor did they

[[Page 62517]]

historically or at the time of listing, and therefore, are not proposed 
as critical habitat. We have not identified any specific areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
that are essential for the conservation of the species. Accordingly, we 
are not proposing any unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
    In summary, for areas within the geographical area occupied by Big 
Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax at the time of listing, 
we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by evaluating habitat 
suitability of pine rockland habitat within the historical range of the 
plant and retained those areas that contain some or all of the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management. For areas within the geographical 
area occupied by Blodgett's silverbush at the time of listing, we 
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by evaluating habitat 
suitability of pine rockland, rockland hammocks, and coastal berm 
habitats within the historical range of the plant and retained those 
areas that contain some or all of the physical or biological essential 
to the conservation of the species and that may require special 
management.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, 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 essential to the conservation of these 
species, nor are they essential to the conservation of the species 
themselves. 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 proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, 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.
    We are proposing for designation as critical habitat those lands 
that we have determined were occupied at the time of listing and which 
contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are 
essential to support life-history processes of the species. For Big 
Pine partridge pea, two units are proposed for designation based on one 
or more of the physical or biological features being present to support 
the specie's life-history processes. Both units contain all of the 
identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. For wedge spurge, one unit is proposed for 
designation based on one or more of the physical or biological features 
being present to support wedge spurge's life-history processes. The 
unit contains all of the identified physical or biological features and 
supports multiple life-history processes. For sand flax, five units are 
proposed for designation based on one or more of the physical or 
biological features being present to support sand flax's life-history 
processes. Some units contain all of the identified physical or 
biological features and support multiple life-history processes. Some 
units contain only some of the physical or biological features 
necessary to support sand flax particular use of that habitat. For 
Blodgett's silverbush, 13 units are proposed for designation based on 
one or more of the physical or biological features being present to 
support Blodgett's silverbush's life-history processes. Some units 
contain all of the identified physical or biological features and 
support multiple life-history processes. Some units contain only some 
of the physical or biological features necessary to support Blodgett's 
silverbush's particular use of that habitat.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include 
more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2022-0116, on our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library and at the field office responsible for the 
designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Big Pine Partridge Pea

    We are proposing to designate approximately 1,462 ac (592 ha) in 
two units as critical habitat for Big Pine partridge pea. The critical 
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment 
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Big Pine 
partridge pea. The two areas we propose as critical habitat are:
    (1) BPP1--Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida, and
    (2) BPP2--Cudjoe Key in Monroe County, Florida.
    Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of 
Federal (67 percent), State (16 percent), County (10 percent), and 
private and other (7 percent). Other lands include areas for which 
ownership information is unclear or unavailable. Table 1 shows each 
critical habitat unit by area, land ownership, and occupancy.

                                           Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Big Pine Partridge Pea
             [Includes total area, area by land ownership, and occupancy. All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Private/other ac
                  Critical habitat unit                      Total ac (ha)     Federal ac (ha)     State ac (ha)      County ac (ha)          (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPP1--Big Pine Key.......................................        1,379 (558)          912 (369)           228 (92)           144 (58)            96 (39)
BPP2--Cudjoe Key.........................................            83 (33)            66 (27)              3 (1)            1 (0.5)             12 (5)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................        1,462 (592)          978 (396)           231 (93)           145 (59)           108 (44)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of Total.................................  .................                67%                16%                10%                 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies. Both units are occupied by the species.

    Nearly all the lands (99.7 percent; all except approximately 4 ac 
(2 ha)) contained within units proposed as critical habitat for Big 
Pine partridge pea are designated critical habitat for other federally 
listed species.

[[Page 62518]]

    We present brief descriptions of each proposed critical habitat 
unit and the justification for why each meets the definition of 
critical habitat for Big Pine partridge pea, below.
Unit BPP1: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BPP1 consists of 1,379 ac (558 ha) in Monroe County, Florida. 
This unit includes Federal lands within NKDR (912 ac (369 ha)), State 
lands (228 ac (92 ha)), County lands (144 ac (58 ha)), and property in 
private or other ownership (96 ac (39 ha)). State lands are 
interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Big Pine Partridge pea population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Big Pine partridge pea.
    The unit is part of lands contained within the Lower Florida Keys 
National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), which includes NKDR, Key West NWR, 
and Great White Heron NWR. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 
for the Lower Florida Keys NWRs 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 plant species including Big 
Pine partridge pea. The Service conducts nonnative species control and 
prescribed fire in areas that could support Big Pine partridge pea.
    Unit BPP1 is also designated critical habitat for the Florida 
leafwing (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak 
(Strymon acis bartrami) butterflies.
Unit BPP2: Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BPP2 consists of 83 ac (33 ha) in Monroe County, Florida. This 
unit includes Federal lands within NKDR (66 ac (27 ha)), State lands (3 
ac (1 ha)), County lands (1 ac (0.5 ha)), and property in private or 
other ownership (12 ac (5 ha)). State lands are interspersed within 
NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed, but the 
population here may have since been extirpated (Possley 2020, pers. 
comm.). The unit does, however, still contain 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Big Pine partridge pea.
    The unit is part of lands contained within the Lower Florida Keys 
NWRs, which includes NKDR, Key West NWR, and Great White Heron NWR. The 
CCP for the Lower Florida Keys NWRs 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 plant species 
including Big Pine partridge pea. The Service conducts nonnative 
species control in areas that could support Big Pine partridge pea.
    The entirety of Unit BPP2 is also designated critical habitat for 
the silver rice rat (Oryzomys palustris natator).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Wedge Spurge

    We are proposing to designate approximately 1,379 ac (558 ha) in 
one unit as critical habitat for wedge spurge. The critical habitat 
area we describe below constitutes our current best assessment of lands 
that meet the definition of critical habitat for wedge spurge. The area 
we propose as critical habitat is: WS1--Big Pine Key, Monroe County, 
Florida.
    Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of 
Federal (66 percent), State (16 percent), County (10 percent), and 
private and other (7 percent). Other lands include areas for which 
ownership information is unclear or unavailable. Table 2 shows these 
units by land ownership, area, and occupancy.

                                                Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Unit for Wedge Spurge
                [Includes area, area by land ownership, and occupancy. All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Private/other ac
                  Critical habitat unit                      Total ac (ha)     Federal ac (ha)     State ac (ha)      County ac (ha)          (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WS1--Big Pine Key........................................        1,379 (558)          912 (369)           228 (92)           144 (58)            96 (39)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................        1,379 (558)          912 (369)           228 (92)           144 (58)            96 (39)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of Total.................................  .................                66%                16%                10%                 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies. The one unit is occupied by the species.

    Nearly all the lands (99.7 percent; all except approximately 4 ac 
(2 ha)) contained within units proposed as critical habitat for wedge 
spurge are designated critical habitat for other federally listed 
species. Additionally, the lands in Unit WS1--Big Pine Key are the same 
lands proposed for Big Pine partridge pea in BPP1, above.
    We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat unit 
and the justification for why it meets the definition of critical 
habitat for wedge spurge, below.
Unit WS1: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit WS1 consists of 1,379 ac (558 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
includes Federal lands within NKDR (912 ac (369 ha)), State lands (228 
ac (92 ha)), County land (144 ac (58 ha)), and property in private or 
other ownership (96 ac (39 ha)). State lands are interspersed within 
NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one wedge spurge

[[Page 62519]]

population. This unit 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports wedge spurge.
    The unit is part of lands contained within the Lower Florida Keys 
NWRs, which includes NKDR, Key West NWR, and Great White Heron NWR. The 
CCP for the Lower Florida Keys NWRs 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 wedge spurge. The Service conducts nonnative 
species control and prescribed fire in areas that support wedge spurge.
    Nearly all (99.7 percent; all except 4 ac (2 ha)) of unit WS1 is 
also designated critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak butterflies.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Sand Flax

    We are proposing to designate approximately 5,090 ac (2,060 ha) in 
five units as critical habitat for sand flax. The critical habitat 
areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat for sand flax.
    The five areas we propose as critical habitat are:
    (1) SF1--Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida;
    (2) SF2--Upper and Lower Sugarloaf Keys, Monroe County, Florida;
    (3) SF3--Richmond Pinelands, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
    (4) SF4--Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
    (5) SF5--Homestead, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    We have determined that these five areas meet the definition of 
critical habitat. While Unit 5 meets the definition of critical 
habitat, a portion of the lands and features contained therein are on 
lands of SOCSO and covered by their INRMP, and as a result the SOCSO 
lands within this unit are being exempted from critical habitat (please 
refer to the Exemptions: Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 
section of this proposed rule).
    Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of 
Federal (49 percent), State (6 percent), County (35 percent), and 
private and other (10 percent). Table 3 shows these units by land 
ownership, area, and occupancy.

                                                 Table 3--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Sand Flax
               [Includes area, area by land ownership, and occupancy. All areas rounded to the nearest whole acres (ac) and hectares (ha)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Private/other ac
                  Critical habitat unit                      Total ac (ha)     Federal ac (ha)     State ac (ha)      County ac (ha)          (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF1--Big Pine Key........................................        1,379 (558)          912 (369)           228 (92)           144 (58)            96 (39)
SF2--Upper and Lower Sugarloaf Keys......................           116 (47)            63 (25)            38 (15)             10 (4)              6 (2)
SF3--Richmond Pinelands..................................          987 (399)           191 (77)              0 (0)          609 (247)           187 (76)
SF4--Camp Owaissa Bauer..................................          315 (128)              0 (0)            49 (20)           154 (62)           113 (46)
SF5--Homestead...........................................        2,292 (928)        1,334 (540)              0 (0)          867 (351)            91 (37)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................      5,090 (2,060)      2,499 (1,011)          314 (127)        1,783 (722)          493 (199)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of Total.................................  .................                49%                 6%                35%                10%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies. All 5 units are occupied by the species.

    The Big Pine Key unit (SF1) proposed for sand flax in the Florida 
Keys comprises the same lands proposed for Big Pine partridge pea 
(BPP1) and wedge spurge (WS1) above. Of the five units, two are 
currently designated under the Act as critical habitat for the silver 
rice rat; five are designated as critical habitat for the Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak butterfly; three are designated as critical habitat 
for the Florida leafwing butterfly; and two are designated as critical 
habitat for the Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia mosieri) and Carter's 
small-flowered flax (Linum carteri ssp. smallii).
    Approximately half of the lands contained within units proposed as 
critical habitat for sand flax (52 percent; 2,660 ac (1,076 ha)) are 
designated critical habitat for other federally listed species.
    We present brief descriptions of each proposed critical habitat 
unit and the justification for why each meets the definition of 
critical habitat for sand flax, below.
Unit SF1: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit SF1 consists of 1,379 ac (558 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
includes Federal lands within NKDR (912 ac (369 ha)), State lands (228 
ac (92 ha)), County land (144 ac (58 ha), and property in private or 
other ownership (96 ac (39 ha)). State lands are interspersed within 
NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one sand flax population. This unit 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports sand flax.
    The unit is part of lands contained within the Lower Florida Keys 
NWRs, which includes NKDR, Key West NWR, and Great White Heron NWR. The 
CCP for the Lower Florida Keys NWRs 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 sand flax. The Service conducts nonnative 
species control and

[[Page 62520]]

prescribed fire in areas that support sand flax.
    The entirety of unit SF1 is also designated critical habitat for 
the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies.
Unit SF2: Sugarloaf Keys, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit SF2 consists of 116 ac (47 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
includes Federal lands within NKDR (63 ac (25 ha)), State lands (38 ac 
(15 ha)), County lands (10 ac (4 ha)), and property in private or other 
ownership (6 ac (2 ha)).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one sand flax population. This unit 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of lack of fire; nonnative plant 
and animal species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports sand flax. The unit is part of 
lands contained within the Lower Florida Keys NWRs, which includes 
NKDR, Key West NWR, and Great White Heron NWR. The CCP for the Lower 
Florida Keys NWRs 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 sand flax. 
The Service conducts nonnative species control in areas that could 
support sand flax.
    Unit SF2 is not designated critical habitat for any other species.
Unit SF3: Richmond Pinelands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida
    Unit SF3 consists of approximately 987 ac (399 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit comprises Federal lands owned by the U.S. Coast Guard 
(USCG), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Federal Bureau of Prisons 
(FBP), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (191 
ac (77 ha)); County lands within and adjacent to Larry and Penny 
Thompson Park, Martinez Preserve, Zoo Miami, and Eachus Pineland (609 
ac (247 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership (187 ac (76 
ha)), including the onsite preserve and offsite mitigation areas 
associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP (110 ac (44.5) ha)).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by two sand flax populations. This unit 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports sand flax.
    Sand flax is a covered species under the Coral Reef Commons HCP. 
Because sand flax is a covered species under this HCP and the preserves 
included within this proposed critical habitat unit are being managed 
for the conservation of the species and pine rockland habitat, the 
onsite preserve and the offsite mitigation area are being considered 
for exclusion from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
(please refer to Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act section of this proposed rule).
    The entirety of unit SF3 is also designated critical habitat for 
Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush; significant 
portions are designated for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly and 
Florida leafwing butterfly.
Unit SF4: Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida
    Unit SF4 consists of approximately 315 ac (128 ha) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. The unit comprises State lands within Owaissa Bauer 
Pineland Addition, Ingram Pineland, West Biscayne Pineland, and Fuchs 
Hammock Addition (49 ac (20 ha)); County lands including Camp Owaissa 
Bauer, Pine Island Lake Park, Seminole Wayside Park, and Northrop 
Pineland (154 ac (62 ha)); and parcels in private and other ownership 
(113 ac (46 ha)), including the private conservation area, Pine Ridge 
Sanctuary.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one sand flax population. This unit 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports sand flax.
    The entirety of unit SF4 is also designated critical habitat for 
Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush; and large 
portions of unit SF4 are designated critical habitat for Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak butterfly and Florida leafwing butterfly.
Unit SF5: Homestead and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit SF5 consists of approximately 2,292 ac (928 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit comprises Federal lands owned by DoD (1,334 ac (540 
ha)), lands owned by Miami-Dade County (867 ac (351 ha)), and parcels 
in private or other ownership (91 ac (37 ha)).
    A portion (approximately 25 ac (10 ha)) of the lands and features 
contained within this unit are on lands of SOCSO and covered by their 
updated and signed INRMP, and as a result, the SOCSO lands within this 
unit are being exempted from critical habitat (please refer to the 
Exemptions: Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act section of this 
proposed rule). The HARB is working with the Service to incorporate 
additional conservation measures for sand flax in revisions to their 
INRMP, but the revised INRMP is currently being drafted and has not yet 
been approved and signed. Therefore, lands that are part of HARB that 
have been determined to be essential to the conservation of sand flax 
are not being exempted and are included in this proposal. If the 
revised INRMP is approved and signed before we finalize this 
designation, we would exempt this area in the final designation.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by two sand flax populations. This unit 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports sand flax.
    Unit SF5 does not contain previously designated critical habitat, 
but the

[[Page 62521]]

endangered Small's milkpea (Galactia smallii) occurs throughout the 
unit.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Blodgett's Silverbush

    We are proposing to designate approximately 16,667 ac (6,745 ha) in 
13 units as critical habitat for Blodgett's silverbush. The critical 
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment 
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Blodgett's 
silverbush. The 13 areas we propose as critical habitat are:
    (1) BS1--Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida;
    (2) BS2--Plantation Key, Monroe County, Florida;
    (3) BS3--Windley Key, Monroe County, Florida;
    (4) BS4--Lignumvitae Key, Monroe County, Florida;
    (5) BS5--Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida;
    (6) BS6--Marathon, Monroe County, Florida;
    (7) BS7--Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida;
    (8) BS8--Big Munson Island, Monroe County, Florida;
    (9) BS9--U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Subtropical 
Horticulture Research Station, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
    (10) BS10--Richmond Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
    (11) BS11--Quail Roost Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
    (12) BS12--Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
    (13) BS13--Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    We have determined that these 13 areas meet the definition of 
critical habitat. While the habitat within Key West Naval Air Station 
(KWNAS) meets the definition of critical habitat, the lands and 
features contained therein are covered under the KWNAS INRMP that 
provides benefits to Blodgett's silverbush and its habitat and 
therefore will be exempted from critical habitat (see Exemptions: 
Application of Section 4(a) (3) of the Act, below).
    Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of 
Federal (64 percent), State 17 (19 percent), County (7 percent), and 
private and other (9 percent). Table 4 shows these units by land 
ownership, area, and occupancy.

                                           Table 4--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Blodgett's Silverbush
               [Including area, area by land ownership, and occupancy. All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Private/other ac
                  Critical habitat unit                      Total ac (ha)     Federal ac (ha)     State ac (ha)      County ac (ha)          (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS1--Key Largo...........................................      3,060 (1,238)          595 (241)        2,024 (819)           214 (86)           227 (92)
BS2--Plantation Key......................................           175 (71)              0 (0)            26 (10)            33 (13)           116 (47)
BS3--Windley Key.........................................            30 (12)              0 (0)            28 (11)              1 (1)              0 (0)
BS4--Lignumvitae Key.....................................           159 (64)              0 (0)           157 (64)              2 (1)              0 (0)
BS5--Lower Matecumbe Key.................................            64 (26)              0 (0)            27 (11)              6 (3)            31 (13)
BS6--Marathon............................................           103 (42)              0 (0)            66 (27)              0 (0)            38 (15)
BS7--Big Pine Key........................................        1,867 (756)        1,259 (509)          328 (133)           160 (65)           122 (49)
BS8--Big Munson Island...................................            28 (11)              0 (0)              0 (0)              0 (0)            28 (11)
BS9--USDA Subtropical Horticulture Research Station......          630 (255)           155 (63)          253 (103)           182 (74)            40 (16)
BS10--Richmond Pinelands.................................          987 (399)           191 (77)              0 (0)          609 (247)           187 (76)
BS11--Quail Roost Pineland...............................          412 (167)              0 (0)           174 (70)           100 (40)           139 (56)
BS12--Camp Owaissa Bauer.................................          392 (159)              0 (0)            69 (28)           184 (74)           139 (56)
BS13--Everglades National Park...........................      8,728 (3,532)      8,595 (3,478)              0 (0)              0 (0)           133 (54)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................     16,635 (6,732)     10,794 (4,368)      3,151 (1,275)        1,490 (603)        1,199 (485)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of Total.................................  .................                64%                19%                 7%                 9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies. All 13 units are occupied by the species.

    Many of the lands contained within units proposed as critical 
habitat for Blodgett's silverbush (15,247 ha (6,170 ha), or 91.5 
percent) are designated critical habitat for other federally listed 
species.
    We present brief descriptions of each proposed critical habitat 
unit and the justification for why each meets the definition of 
critical habitat for Blodgett's silverbush, below.
Unit BS1: Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BS1 consists of 3,060 ac (1,238 ha) in Monroe County. This 
unit includes Federal lands within Crocodile Lake NWR (595 ac (241 
ha)), State lands within Dagny Johnson Botanical State Park, John 
Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and the Florida Keys Wildlife and 
Environmental Area (FKWEA) (2,024 ac (819 ha)), County lands (214 ac 
(86 ha)), and property in private or other ownership (227 ac (92 ha)).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by two Blodgett's silverbush populations. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    Part of the unit is within the Crocodile Lake NWR. 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 and provides specifically for maintaining and 
expanding populations of plant species including Blodgett's silverbush. 
The Service conducts nonnative species control in areas that could 
support the species.
    The entirety of unit BS1 is included in designated critical habitat 
for the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), Cape Sable thoroughwort 
(Chromolaena frustrata), and Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea 
corallicola).

[[Page 62522]]

Unit BS2: Plantation Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BS2 consists of 175 ac (71 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
includes State lands within the FKWEA (26 ac (10 ha)), County lands (33 
ac (13 ha)), and property in private or other ownership (116 ac (47 
ha)).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Blodgett's silverbush population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of Unit BS2 is designated critical habitat for the 
American crocodile.
Unit BS3: Windley Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BS3 consists of 30 ac (12 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
includes State lands within Windley Key Fossil Reef Geologic State Park 
(28 ac (11 ha)) and County property (1 ac (0.5 ha)). The unit is 
located on Windley Key on the north side of the Overseas Highway.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Blodgett's silverbush population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of Unit BS3 includes designated critical habitat for 
the American crocodile.
Unit BS4: Lignumvitae Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BS4 consists of 159 ac (64 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
comprises State lands in Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park (157 ac 
(64 ha)) and County property (1 ac (0.5 ha)). This unit includes the 
entire upland area of Lignumvitae Key.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Blodgett's silverbush population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The management activities implemented by Florida State Parks 
promote the enhancement of wildlife populations by maintaining and 
enhancing a diversity and abundance of habitats for native plants and 
animals. Florida State Parks conducts nonnative species control in 
areas that could support Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of unit BS4 is included in designated critical habitat 
for the American crocodile and Cape Sable thoroughwort.
Unit BS5: Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BS5 consists of 64 ac (26 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
includes State lands that are part of Lignumvitae Key Botanical State 
Park (27 ac (11 ha)), County property (6 ac (3 ha)), and property in 
private or other ownership (31 ac (13 ha)).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Blodgett's silverbush population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The management activities implemented by Florida State Parks in 
part of this unit promote the enhancement of wildlife populations by 
maintaining and enhancing a diversity and abundance of habitats for 
native plants and animals. Florida State Parks conducts nonnative 
species control in areas that support Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of unit BS5 is included in designated critical habitat 
for the American crocodile and Cape Sable thoroughwort.
Unit BS6: Marathon, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BS6 consists of 103 ac (42 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
includes State lands within FKWEA (66 ac (27 ha)) and property in 
private or other ownership, including land owned by The Florida Keys 
Land and Sea Trust (38 ac (15 ha)).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Blodgett's silverbush population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    Unit BS6 does not include any designated critical habitat for other 
species.
Unit BS7: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BS7 consists of 1,867 ac (756 ha) in Monroe County. This unit 
includes Federal lands within NKDR (1,259 ac (509 ha)), State lands 
(328 ac (133 ha)), County lands (160 ac (65 ha)), and property in 
private or other ownership (122 ac (49 ha)).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by two Blodgett's silverbush populations. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that

[[Page 62523]]

help improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The unit is part of lands contained within the Lower Florida Keys 
NWRs, which includes NKDR, Key West NWR, and Great White Heron NWR. The 
CCP for the Lower Florida Keys NWRs 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 plant species 
including Blodgett's silverbush. The Service conducts nonnative species 
and prescribed fire control in areas that support Blodgett's 
silverbush.
    The entirety of unit BS7 is designated critical habitat for the 
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies; Cape Sable 
thoroughwort; and Florida semaphore cactus. The endangered Key Deer 
occurs through the unit, but no critical habitat is designated for that 
species.
Unit BS8: Big Munson Island, Monroe County, Florida
    Unit BS8 consists of 28 ac (11 ha) in Monroe County. This unit is 
composed entirely of lands owned by the Boy Scouts of America. The unit 
includes all of the coastal berm and rockland hammock habitat on the 
island.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Blodgett's silverbush population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of unit BS8 is designated critical habitat for the 
Cape Sable thoroughwort. The endangered Key deer occurs through the 
unit, but no critical habitat is designated for that species.
Unit BS9: USDA Subtropical Horticulture Research Station and 
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit BS9 consists of approximately 630 ac (255 ha) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. The unit comprises Federal lands within the USDA 
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station (155 ac (63 ha)); State lands 
within the R. Hardy Matheson Preserve, Ludlam Pineland, Deering Estate 
at Cutler, and Deering Estate South Addition (253 ac (103 ha)); County 
lands within Bill Sadowski Park and Matheson Hammock (182 ac (74 ha)), 
and parcels in private ownership (40 ac (16 ha)).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by two Blodgett's silverbush populations. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of unit BS9 includes designated critical habitat for 
the Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Unit BS10: Richmond Pinelands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida
    Unit BS10 consists of approximately 987 ac (399 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit comprises Federal lands owned by the USCG, USACE, FBP, 
and NOAA (191 ac (77 ha)); County lands within and adjacent to Larry 
and Penny Thompson Park, Martinez Preserve, Zoo Miami, and Eachus 
Pineland (609 ac (247 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership 
(187 ac (76 ha)), including the onsite preserve and offsite mitigation 
areas associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP (110 ac (44.5) ha).
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Blodgett's silverbush population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    Blodgett's silverbush is a covered species under the Coral Reef 
Commons HCP. Because Blodgett's silverbush is a covered species under 
this HCP and the preserves included within this proposed critical 
habitat unit are being managed for the conservation of the species and 
pine rockland habitat, the onsite preserve and the offsite mitigation 
area are being considered for exclusion from critical habitat under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (please refer to Consideration of Impacts 
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section of this proposed rule).
    The entirety of unit BS10 is designated critical habitat for 
Carter's small-flowered flax, Florida brickell-bush, Bartram's scrub 
hairstreak butterfly, and Florida leafwing butterfly.
Unit BS11: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida
    Unit BS11 consists of approximately 412 ac (167 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit comprises State lands within Quail Roost Pineland, 
Goulds Pineland and Addition, Silver Palm Groves Pineland, Castellow 
Hammock, Ross Hammock, Hardin Hammock, and Silver Palm Hammock (174 ac 
(70 ha)); County/local lands including Medsouth Park, Black Creek 
Forest, and Rock Pit #46 (100 ac (40 ha)); and parcels in private 
ownership (139 ac (56 ha)), including Porter-Russell Pineland owned by 
the Tropical Audubon Society.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one possibly extirpated Blodgett's silverbush 
population and one population with uncertain status. This unit 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of unit BS11 is designated critical habitat for the 
Carter's small-flowered flax, Florida brickell-bush, and Bartram's 
scrub hairstreak butterfly.
Unit BS12: Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida
    Unit BS12 consists of approximately 392 ac (159 ha) of habitat in 
Miami-

[[Page 62524]]

Dade County. The unit comprises State lands within Owaissa Bauer 
Pineland Addition, West Biscayne Pineland, Ingram Pineland, Fuchs 
Hammock Addition, and Meissner Hammock (69 ac (28 ha)); County lands, 
including Camp Owaissa Bauer, Pine Island Lake Park, Seminole Wayside 
Park, Northrop Pineland, Hattie Bauer Hammock, and Fuchs Hammock (184 
ac (74 ha)); and parcels in private ownership (139 ac (56 ha)), 
including the private conservation area, Pine Ridge Sanctuary.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by three Blodgett's silverbush populations. This 
unit 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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of Unit BS12 is designated critical habitat for 
Carter's small-flowered flax, Florida brickell-bush, and Bartram's 
scrub hairstreak butterfly.
Unit BS13: Everglades National Park--Pine Island and Surrounding Areas, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit BS13 consists of approximately 8,728 ac (3,532 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit comprises Federal lands in ENP (8,595 ac (3,478 
ha)) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54 ha)). The 
unit includes pine rocklands and numerous rockland hammocks in the 
vicinity of Long Pine Key in ENP.
    This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and is 
currently occupied by one Blodgett's silverbush population. This unit 
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.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address lack of fire; nonnative plant and animal 
species; and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, prescribed 
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions that help 
improve habitat that supports Blodgett's silverbush.
    The entirety of unit BS13 is designated critical habitat for 
Bartram's scrub hairstreak butterfly and Florida leafwing butterfly.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214) (although we 
also published a revised definition after that (on August 27, 2019. 
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, 
but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or 
significantly delay development of such features.
    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, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require 
section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
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 Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, if 
subsequent to the previous consultation: (a) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (c) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (d) if a new 
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected 
by the identified action. In such situations, Federal agencies 
sometimes may need to

[[Page 62525]]

request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also 
specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation 
on specific land management plans after subsequently listing a new 
species or designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a 
description of those exceptions.

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the 
conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, the role of 
critical habitat is to support physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of a listed 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 violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and 
Blodgett's silverbush 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, 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 geographical areas owned or controlled by the DoD, or 
designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural 
resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under section 101 of the 
Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a) (Sikes Act), if the 
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to 
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.
    The Sikes Act required each military installation that includes 
land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural 
resources to complete an INRMP by November 17, 2001. An INRMP 
integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation 
with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP 
includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act, if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge 
spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush to determine if they meet 
the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) 
of the Act. The following areas are DoD lands with completed, Service-
approved INRMPs within the proposed critical habitat designation for 
Blodgett's silverbush: KWNAS and SOCSO.

Approved INRMPs

    Key West Naval Air Station (KWNAS). We have determined that 
approximately 133 ac (54 ha) of coastal berm and pine rocklands habitat 
on Boca Chica Key contain the physical or biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of Blodgett's silverbush. These specific 
lands are owned and managed by DoD as part of the KWNAS. In July 2020, 
KWNAS, in coordination with the Service, updated their INRMP to 
included management and protective measures that provide a conservation 
benefit to Blodgett's silverbush and its habitat. The Service has 
approved these management and protective measures, and the INRMP has 
been signed. As a result, the DoD lands on KWNAS that we have 
determined contain the physical or biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of Blodgett's silverbush are being 
exempted from inclusion in critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 
of the Act. Therefore, these specific lands within this installation 
are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of 
the Act. We are not including approximately 133 ac (54 ha) of habitat 
in this proposed critical habitat designation for Blodgett's silverbush 
because of this exemption.
    Special Operations Command South (SOCSO). We have determined that 
approximately 25 ac (10 ha) pine rocklands habitat located within SOCSO 
contain physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of Blodgett's silverbush. These specific lands are owned 
and managed by DoD. In July 2020, SOCSO in coordination with the 
Service, updated their INRMP to included management and protective 
measures that provide a conservation benefit to Blodgett's silverbush 
and its habitat. The Service has approved these management and 
protective measures, and the INRMP has been signed. As a result, the 
DoD lands on SOCSO that we have determined contain the physical or 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of 
Blodgett's silverbush are being exempted from inclusion in critical 
habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. Therefore, these 
specific lands within this installation are exempt from critical 
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not 
including approximately 25 ac (10 ha) of habitat in this proposed 
critical habitat

[[Page 62526]]

designation for Blodgett's silverbush because of this exemption.
    Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB). We have determined that 
approximately 1,309 ac (530 ha) of pine rocklands and adjacent 
disturbed areas of habitat on HARB contain physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of sand flax. These 
specific lands are owned and managed by DoD as part of the HARB. In 
July 2020, HARB, in coordination with the Service, began discussions 
about revising their INRMP to include management and protective 
measures that provide a conservation benefit to sand flax and its 
habitat. The Service will review these management and protective 
measures. If the revised INRMP is approved and signed before we 
finalize this designation, we would exempt this area in the final 
designation.

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 designated critical habitat based on 
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant 
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Endangered Species Act, 81 FR 7226 (Feb. 11, 2016) (2016 Policy)--
both of which were developed jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 Department of the Interior 
Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The Secretary's Authority to Exclude 
Areas from a Critical Habitat Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act'' (M-37016). We explain each decision to exclude 
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to demonstrate that the 
decision is reasonable.
    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the 
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the 
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may 
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would 
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the 
determination to exclude a particular area, 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. We describe below the process that we undertook for 
taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of 
the relevant impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of 
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act 
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless 
of whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical 
habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts associated 
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. 
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not 
be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the 
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable 
solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the 
baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits 
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final 
designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. 
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 identifies four criteria when a regulation 
is considered a ``significant'' rulemaking, and requires additional 
analysis, review, and approval if met. The criterion relevant here is 
whether the designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect 
of greater than $100 million in any given year (section 3(f)(1)). 
Therefore, our consideration of economic impacts uses a screening 
analysis to assess whether a designation of critical habitat for these 
species is likely to exceed the economically significant threshold.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of 
critical habitat for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, 
and Blodgett's silverbush (IEc 2021, entire). We began by conducting a 
screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in 
order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to 
result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening 
analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of critical 
habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, 
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In 
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., 
absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic 
impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, 
land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that 
protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of 
the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our 
analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur 
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation.
    The presence of the listed species in occupied areas of critical 
habitat means

[[Page 62527]]

that any destruction or adverse modification of those areas will also 
likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Therefore, 
designating occupied areas as critical habitat typically causes few if 
any incremental impacts above and beyond the impacts of listing the 
species. Accordingly, the screening analysis focuses on areas of 
unoccupied critical habitat. The screening analysis also assesses 
whether units are unoccupied by the species and thus may require 
additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the 
critical habitat designation for the species; these additional efforts 
may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis 
combined with the information contained in our IEM are what we consider 
our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat 
designation for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and 
Blodgett's silverbush; our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
    As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of 
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas that may 
be affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of 
the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Big Pine partridge pea, 
wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated September 15, 2021, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities:
    (1) Land management and restoration (including, but not limited to, 
nonnative species control, prescribed fire, and hydrologic 
restoration);
    (2) Roadway and bridge construction and maintenance;
    (3) Right-of-way maintenance;
    (4) Commercial or residential development; and
    (5) Recreation (including construction and maintenance of 
recreation infrastructure).
    We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, 
we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. 
Critical habitat designations generally 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 Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, 
sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush are 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. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, 
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation 
process. 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 Big Pine 
partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush 
critical habitat. Because the designation of critical habitat for these 
species is being proposed several years following the listing of these 
species, data, such as from consultation history, is available to help 
us discern which conservation efforts are attributable to these species 
being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of 
critical habitat. 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 likely adversely affect the essential physical or biological 
features of occupied critical habitat are also likely to adversely 
affect these species. The IEM outlines 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 has been used as 
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
proposed designation of critical habitat.
    Approximately 1,462 ac (592 ha) in two units in Monroe County, 
Florida, are being proposed for designation as critical habitat for the 
Big Pine partridge pea. Both units are occupied by the Big Pine 
partridge pea. Approximately 1,379 ac (558 ha) in one unit in Monroe 
County, Florida, is being proposed for designation as critical habitat 
for the wedge spurge; the unit is occupied by the species. 
Approximately 5,090 ac (2,060 ha) in five units in Monroe and Miami-
Dade Counties, Florida, are being proposed for designation as critical 
habitat for sand flax. All five units are occupied by sand flax. 
Approximately 16,635 ac (6,732 ha) in 13 units in Miami-Dade and Monroe 
Counties, Florida, are being proposed for designation as critical 
habitat for the Blodgett's silverbush. All 13 units are occupied by the 
Blodgett's silverbush. Land ownership across the units for all four 
plants includes Federal lands (64 percent), State of Florida lands (17 
percent), county lands (12 percent), and private lands (7 percent). 
Approximately 83 percent of the total proposed designated critical 
habitat area for all four plants overlaps with existing designated 
critical habitat for other species.
    Because all of the area proposed for designation is occupied, most 
actions that may affect these species 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 these four plants. Therefore, 
only administrative costs are expected in the proposed critical habitat 
designation. While the analysis for adverse modification of critical 
habitat will require time and resources by both the Federal action 
agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, 
these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would 
not be significant.
    The economic costs of critical habitat designation for these 
species will most likely be limited to additional administrative 
efforts to consider adverse modification in section 7 consultations. 
This finding is based on the following factors: (1) All of the proposed 
critical habitat units for the four plants are considered occupied by 
the species; (2) A number of additional baseline protections exist for 
the species due to the presence of other listed species and designated 
critical habitats, with approximately 83 percent of the proposed 
critical habitat overlapping with designated critical habitat for other 
pine rockland habitat species; and (3) A number of management plans and 
conservation plans also provide baseline protections to the species in 
proposed critical habitat areas. Additionally, if we finalize critical 
habitat to include areas that are unoccupied by the Big Pine partridge 
pea, wedge spurge, and sand flax, those areas under consideration 
wholly overlap with other federally listed species or designated 
critical habitat for other listed species. Accordingly, the costs 
associated with designation of unoccupied areas would also likely be 
limited to additional administrative efforts to consider adverse 
modification in section 7 consultations.
    In total, approximately 2 formal consultations, 39 informal 
consultations, and 2 technical assistance efforts that will include 
these species are anticipated to occur during the next 10 years in 
proposed critical habitat

[[Page 62528]]

areas, with costs to the Service and action agencies of approximately 
$11,500 annually. Although the specific geographic distribution of 
these costs is uncertain, it appears likely that most costs would occur 
in the ENP unit, which comprises 46 percent of proposed critical 
habitat for these four plants. Any costs that would be associated with 
unoccupied critical habitat would not significantly increase this 
amount.
    Potential private property value effects are possible due to public 
perception of impacts to private lands. The designation of critical 
habitat may cause some developers or landowners to perceive those 
private lands will be subject to use restrictions or litigation from 
third parties, resulting in costs. However, any costs associated with 
public perception are speculative and not possible to quantify. 
Further, only seven percent of the proposed critical habitat 
designation is privately owned land, leading to, at most, nominal 
incremental costs potentially arising from changes in public perception 
of lands included in the designation.
    The total annual incremental costs of critical habitat designation 
for these four plants are anticipated to be approximately $11,500 per 
year, and economic benefits are also anticipated to be small. 
Therefore, critical habitat designation for these four plants is 
unlikely to generate costs or benefits exceeding $100 million in a 
single year, and this proposed rule is unlikely to meet the threshold 
for an economically significant rule, with regard to costs under E.O. 
12866.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above, as well as on all aspects of this proposed rule and 
our required determinations. During the development of a final 
designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and 
any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the 
public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be 
considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation 
under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 
50 CFR 424.19. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we 
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits 
of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of this species.

Exclusions

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we prepared an analysis of the probable 
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and 
related factors. At this time, we are not considering any exclusions 
based on economic impacts.
    During the development of a final designation, we will consider any 
additional economic impact information received through the public 
comment period, and as such areas may be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly 
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular 
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security 
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of 
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security, 
including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to 
consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat. 
Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another 
Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of 
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise 
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from 
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have 
reason to consider excluding those areas.
    However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD, 
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat 
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, it must 
provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental impact on 
national security that would result from the designation of that 
specific area as critical habitat. That justification could include 
demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing border-
security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in training or 
facility construction, as a result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does not provide us 
with a reasonably specific justification, we will contact the agency to 
recommend that it provide a specific justification or clarification of 
its concerns relative to the probable incremental impact that could 
result from the designation. If we conduct an exclusion analysis 
because the agency provides a reasonably specific justification or 
because we decide to exercise the discretion to conduct an exclusion 
analysis, we will defer to the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another 
Federal agency as to: (1) Whether activities on its lands or waters, or 
its activities on other lands or waters, have national-security or 
homeland-security implications; (2) the importance of those 
implications; and (3) the degree to which the cited implications would 
be adversely affected in the absence of an exclusion. In that 
circumstance, in conducting a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis, we will give great weight to national-security and homeland-
security concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
    We have evaluated whether any of the lands within the proposed 
designation of critical habitat are owned by DoD or DHS or could lead 
to national-security or homeland-security impacts if designated. In 
this section, we describe the areas within the proposed designation 
that are owned by DoD or DHS or for which designation could lead to 
national-security or homeland-security impacts. For each area, we 
describe the available information indicating whether we have reason to 
consider excluding the area from the designation. If, during the 
comment period, we identify or receive information about additional 
areas for which designation may result in incremental national-security 
or homeland-security impacts, then we may consider conducting a 
discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those 
additional areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

DHS Land Parcel

    We have determined that some lands within the Richmond Pinelands 
and surrounding areas units (Units SF3 and BS10) of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for sand flax and Blodgett's silverbush 
are owned, managed, or used by the USCG, which is part of the DHS.
    The USCG property is separated into two main areas: the 
Communication Station (COMMSTA) Miami and the Civil Engineering Unit 
(CEU). The COMMSTA houses transmitting and receiving antennas. The CEU 
plans and executes projects at regional shore

[[Page 62529]]

facilities, such as construction and post-disaster assessments.
    The USCG parcel contains approximately 100 ac (40 ha) of standing 
pine rocklands. The remainder of the site, outside of the developed 
areas, is made up of scraped pine rocklands that are mowed three to 
four times per year for maintenance of a communications antenna field. 
While disturbed, this scraped area maintains sand substrate and many 
native pine rockland species, including documented occurrences of sand 
flax and Blodgett's silverbush. As of the drafting of this document, 
the USCG parcel has a draft management plan that includes management of 
pine rockland habitats, including vegetation control and prescribed 
fire and protection of lands from further development or degradation. 
This management plan is anticipated to be finalized in late 2022. In 
addition, the standing pine rockland area is partially managed through 
an active recovery grant to the Institute for Regional Conservation. 
Under this grant, up to 39 ac (16 ha) of standing pine rocklands will 
undergo invasive vegetation control.
    Based on a review of the specific mission of the USCG facility in 
conjunction with the measures and efforts set forth in the draft 
management plan to preserve pine rockland habitat and protect sensitive 
and listed species, we have determined that it is unlikely that the 
critical habitat, if finalized as proposed, would negatively impact the 
facility or its operations. As a result, we do not anticipate any 
impact on national security. However, if through the public comment 
period we receive information regarding impacts on national security or 
homeland security from designating this area as critical habitat, then 
as part of developing the final designation of critical habitat, we 
will conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to 
exclude these areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

DoD Land Parcel

    As discussed above, we have determined that the USACE, a branch of 
the Department of Defense, retains ownership over a 121-ac (49-ha) 
parcel in Units SF3 and BS10 of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for sand flax and Blodgett's silverbush, respectively. More 
than 85 ac (34 ha) of this parcel are forested but not managed for 
preservation of natural resources. The USACE does not have an INRMP or 
any specific management plan for sand flax or Blodgett's silverbush or 
their habitat covering these lands. Activities conducted on this site 
are unknown; however, we do not anticipate any impact on national 
security.
    Following our process for coordinating with Federal partners, we 
contacted the DoD and DHS about this designation and shared the IEM for 
their feedback. Neither agency identified any potential national-
security impact, nor requested an exclusion from critical habitat based 
on potential national-security impacts. However, if through the public 
comment period we receive information regarding impacts on national 
security or homeland security from designating particular areas as 
critical habitat, then as part of developing the final designation of 
critical habitat, we may consider conducting a discretionary exclusion 
analysis to determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Considerations of Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that may 
affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors, 
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the 
species in the area--such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or 
candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs)--or whether 
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that 
may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. 
In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or 
partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government 
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected 
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, social, or other 
impacts that might occur because of the designation. When analyzing 
other relevant impacts of including a particular area in a designation 
of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts relative to the 
conservation value of the particular area. To determine the 
conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a 
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional 
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection 
from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a 
Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat 
for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result 
from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to 
critical habitat.
    In the case of these species, the benefits of critical habitat 
include public awareness of the presence of these species and the 
importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, 
habitat protection for these species due to protection from destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued implementation 
of an ongoing management plan that provides conservation equal to or 
more than the protections that result from a critical habitat 
designation would reduce those benefits of including that specific area 
in the critical habitat designation.
    We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering 
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including, 
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for 
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features; 
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will 
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in 
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a 
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in 
response to new information.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction of the species. If excluding an area from critical habitat 
will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.

Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits 
Under Section 10 of the Act

    HCPs for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act provide for partnerships with non-Federal entities to minimize and 
mitigate impacts to listed species and their habitat. In some cases, 
HCP permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species and 
their habitats on private lands than designation of critical habitat 
would provide alone. We place great value on the partnerships that are 
developed during the preparation and implementation of HCPs.

[[Page 62530]]

    CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve 
candidate and listed species, respectively, on non-Federal lands. In 
exchange for actions that contribute to the conservation of species on 
non-Federal lands, participating property owners are covered by an 
``enhancement of survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act, which authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may 
result from implementation of conservation actions, specific land uses, 
and, in the case of SHAs, the option to return to a baseline condition 
under the agreements. The Service also provides enrollees assurances 
that we will not impose further land-, water-, or resource-use 
restrictions, or require additional commitments of land, water, or 
finances, beyond those agreed to in the agreements.
    When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis based on permitted conservation plans (e.g., CCAAs, SHAs, and 
HCPs), we anticipate consistently excluding such areas if incidental 
take caused by the activities in those areas is covered by the permit 
under section 10 of the Act and the CCAA/SHA/HCP meets all of the 
following three factors (see the 2016 Policy for additional details):
    a. The permittee is properly implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and is 
expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. A CCAA/
SHA/HCP is properly implemented if the permittee is and has been fully 
implementing the commitments and provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, 
implementing agreement, and permit.
    b. The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a 
covered species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very similar in its habitat 
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Services 
extend to such an agreement depends on the degree to which the 
conservation measures undertaken in the CCAA/SHA/HCP would also protect 
the habitat features of the similar species.
    c. The CCAA/SHA/HCP specifically addresses that species' habitat 
and meets the conservation needs of the species in the planning area.
    The proposed critical habitat designation includes areas that are 
covered by the following permitted plan providing for the conservation 
of sand flax and Blodgett's silverbush: Coral Reef Commons HCP.

Coral Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan

    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that lands 
associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP within Unit SF3 for sand 
flax and Unit BS10 for Blodgett's silverbush (Richmond Pinelands and 
surrounding areas) are included within the boundaries of the proposed 
critical habitat.
    Coral Reef Commons is a mixed-use community, which consists of 900 
apartments, retail stores, restaurants, and parking. In 2017, an HCP 
and associated permit under section 10 of the Act was developed and 
issued for the Coral Reef Commons development.
    As part of the HCP and permit, an approximately 53-ac (21-ha) 
onsite preserve (same as the area for proposed critical habitat 
designation) was established under a conservation encumbrance that will 
be managed in perpetuity for pine rockland habitat and sensitive and 
listed species, including sand flax and Blodgett's silverbush.
    The Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing site 
is an offsite mitigation area for Coral Reef Commons comprising 57 ac 
(23 ha). Both the onsite preserve and the offsite mitigation area are 
being managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat using invasive, 
exotic plant management, mechanical treatment, and prescribed fire, 
addressing both the habitat and conservation needs of the species. 
Since initiating the Coral Reef Commons HCP, pine rockland restoration 
efforts have been conducted within all of the management units in both 
the onsite preserve and the offsite mitigation area. A second round of 
prescribed fire began in February 2021. Currently, the onsite preserve 
meets or exceeds the success criteria described for proper 
implementation of the HCP.
    Critical habitat within Units SF3 and BS10 that is associated with 
the Coral Reef Commons HCP is limited to the onsite preserve and 
offsite mitigation area. Based on a cursory review of the HCP and 
proposed critical habitat for sand flax and Blodgett's silverbush, we 
do not anticipate requesting any additional conservation measures for 
these species beyond those that are currently in place. Therefore, at 
this time, we are considering excluding those specific lands associated 
with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in the preserve and off-site 
mitigation area from the final designation of critical habitat for sand 
flax and Blodgett's silverbush. However, we will more thoroughly review 
the HCP, its implementation of the conservation measures for sand flax 
and Blodgett's silverbush and their habitat therein, and public comment 
on this issue prior to finalizing critical habitat, and if appropriate, 
exclude from critical habitat for sand flax and Blodgett's silverbush 
those lands associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in the 
preserves and offsite mitigation area.

Monroe County HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys

    Lands within the Monroe County HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys 
are included within proposed critical habitat for Big Pine partridge 
pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush. However, we 
have determined that the Monroe County HCP for Big Pine and No Name 
Keys does not include Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, 
and Blodgett's silverbush as ``covered species,'' and they are not 
mentioned specifically anywhere in the HCP document. Because they are 
not covered species, the HCP will not trigger surveys or conservation 
measures for these species. We are requesting comments on the benefit 
to Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's 
silverbush from the Monroe County HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys; 
however, at this time, we are not proposing the exclusion of any areas 
within the HCP from the proposed critical habitat.
    We have determined that there are no additional HCPs or other 
management plans for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, 
and Blodgett's silverbush.

Tribal Lands

    Several Executive orders, Secretarial orders, and policies concern 
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our 
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign 
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of 
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service 
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
    A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--Secretarial Order 3206, 
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)--is the most 
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal 
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail 
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition 
to the general direction discussed above, the Appendix to S.O. 3206 
explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in any 
listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal trust 
resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat. Section

[[Page 62531]]

3(b)(4) of the Appendix requires the Service to consult with affected 
Tribes ``when considering the designation of critical habitat in an 
area that may impact Tribal trust resources, Tribally-owned fee lands, 
or the exercise of Tribal rights.'' That provision also instructs the 
Service to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat 
designation unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species, 
and it requires the Service to ``evaluate and document the extent to 
which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by 
limiting the designation to other lands.''
    Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy 
are consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary 
exclusion analysis, in accordance with S.O. 3206 we consult with any 
Tribe whose Tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee lands, or Tribal 
rights may be affected by including any particular areas in the 
designation, and we evaluate the extent to which the conservation needs 
of the species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other 
areas. When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis, we always consider exclusion of Tribal lands, and give great 
weight to Tribal concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion. 
However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory requirement of 
designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we must consult with 
any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may affect Tribal 
lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas that meet the 
definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied at the time of 
listing that contain the essential physical or biological features that 
may require special management or protection and unoccupied areas that 
are essential to the conservation of a species), without regard to land 
ownership. While S.O. 3206 provides important direction, it expressly 
states that it does not modify the Secretary's statutory authority 
under the Act or other statutes.
    The proposed critical habitat designation does not include any 
Tribal lands.

Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments we receive, we will evaluate 
whether areas in the proposed critical habitat units are appropriate 
for exclusion from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act. If our analysis indicates that the benefits of excluding lands 
from the final designation outweigh the benefits of designating those 
lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may exercise her 
discretion to exclude the lands from the final designation. At this 
time, we are considering excluding those specific lands associated with 
the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in the preserve and offsite 
mitigation area from the final designation of critical habitat for sand 
flax and Blodgett's silverbush (units SF3 and BS10). In conclusion, we 
specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such 
areas.
    During the development of a final designation, we will consider any 
information currently available or received during the public comment 
period regarding other relevant impacts of the proposed designation and 
will determine whether these or any other specific areas should be 
considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation 
under authority of section 4(b)(2), our implementing regulations at 50 
CFR 424.19, and the 2016 Policy.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

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

[[Page 62532]]

this designation as well as types of project modifications that may 
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant 
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies 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 out 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 would be directly 
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. The 
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities 
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small 
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final 
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would 
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available 
information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed critical 
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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. We do not foresee any energy development projects, 
supply distribution, or use that may affect or be affected by the 
proposed critical habitat for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, 
sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush. Further, in our evaluation of 
potential economic impacts, we did not find that this proposed critical 
habitat designation would 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 finding:
    (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In 
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or 
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this proposed rule would significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. The government lands being 
proposed for critical habitat designation are owned by the State of 
Florida, DoD, National Park Service, and the Service. None of these 
government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a small government agency plan is not 
required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and 
Blodgett's silverbush in a takings implications assessment. The Act 
does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private 
lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat 
designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land 
ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of 
critical habitat 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. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Big Pine partridge pea, 
wedge spurge, sand flax, and Blodgett's silverbush, and it concludes 
that, if

[[Page 62533]]

adopted, this designation of critical habitat does not pose significant 
takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 for 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 State and local 
governments in long-range planning because they 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) of the Act would be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, 
this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed 
areas of designated critical habitat are presented on maps, and the 
proposed 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 proposed rule does not contain information collection 
requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are 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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of 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)).

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 (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 
Impacts), we have determined that there are no Tribal lands that were 
occupied by Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and 
Blodgett's silverbush at the time of listing that contain the features 
essential for conservation of the species, and no Tribal lands 
unoccupied by Big Pine partridge pea, wedge spurge, sand flax, and 
Blodgett's silverbush that are essential for the conservation of the 
species. As a result, there are no Tribal lands affected by the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for these species.

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to 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 in paragraph (h), revise the entries for 
``Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush)'', ``Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge spurge)'', ``Chamaecrista lineata var. 
keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea)'', and ``Linum arenicola (Sand 
flax)'', under ``Flowering Plants'' in the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

[[Page 62534]]

    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
          Scientific name                Common name          Where listed        Status    and applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Flowering Plants
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Argythamnia blodgettii............  Blodgett's            Wherever found......          T   81 FR 66842, 9/29/
                                     silverbush.                                             2016; 50 CFR
                                                                                             17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis  Big Pine partridge    Wherever found......          E   81 FR 66842, 9/29/
                                     pea.                                                    2016; 50 CFR
                                                                                             17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp.           Wedge spurge........  Wherever found......          E   81 FR 66842; 9/29/
 serpyllum.                                                                                  2016; 50 CFR
                                                                                             17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Linum arenicola...................  Sand flax...........  Wherever found......          E   81 FR 66842, 9/29/
                                                                                             2016;50 CFR
                                                                                             17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.96 in paragraph (a) by adding entries in alphabetical 
order under Family Euphorbiaceae for ``Argythamnia blodgettii 
(Blodgett's silverbush)'' and ``Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum 
(wedge spurge)'', under Family Fabaceae for ``Chamaecrista lineata var. 
keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea)'', and under Family Linaceae for 
``Linum arenicola (sand flax)'', to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Euphorbiaceae: Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's Silverbush)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Monroe 
Counties, Florida, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Argythamnia blodgettii consist of 
south Florida pine rockland, rockland hammock, or coastal berm habitats 
and adjacent disturbed areas that:
    (i) Consist of limestone substrate that provides nutritional 
requirements and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, 
anchoring, and drainage);
    (ii) Are characterized by an open canopy and understory with a high 
proportion of native plant species to provide for sufficient sunlight 
to permit growth and flowering;
    (iii) Are subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of 
the subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County and tropical 
humid classification in Monroe County in every month of the year and 
short hydroperiods ranging of up to 60 days each year;
    (iv) Are subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire, hurricanes) or 
nonnatural (e.g., prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance regimes to 
maintain open canopy conditions; and
    (v) Contain the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software. The projection used was 
Albers Conical Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), NAD 1983 
HARN. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. Shapefiles for the critical habitat units are available to 
the public at the Service's internet site, https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and a list of coordinates 
outlining the units are available at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0116, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the field office responsible for 
this designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Note: Index maps of all critical habitat units for Argythamnia 
blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) follow:

Figure 1 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 62535]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.005

Figure 2 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(5)

[[Page 62536]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.006

    (6) Unit 1: BS1--Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 3,060 ac (1,238 ha). This unit extends 
from near the northern tip of Key Largo, along the length of the island 
to the southern tip. It is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean 
and on the west by Florida Bay. The unit also includes a portion of El 
Radabob Key.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 3 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(6)(ii)

[[Page 62537]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.007

    (7) Unit 2: BS2--Plantation Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 175 ac (71 ha). The unit originates on 
the north end of Plantation Key just south of Ocean Drive and continues 
intermittently until the south end of the island. The unit is bordered 
on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by Florida Bay.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 4 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(7)(ii)

[[Page 62538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.008

    (8) Unit 3: BS3--Windley Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 30 ac (12 ha). The unit is located on 
Windley Key on the north side of the Overseas Highway.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 5 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(8)(ii)

[[Page 62539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.009

    (9) Unit 4: BS4--Lignumvitae Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 159 ac (64 ha). This unit includes the 
entire upland area of Lignumvitae Key.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 6 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(9)(ii)

[[Page 62540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.010

    (10) Unit 5: BS5--Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 64 ac (26 ha). This unit extends from the 
east side of U.S. 1 from 0.14 mi (0.2 km) from the north edge of Lower 
Matecumbe Key, situated across U.S. 1 from Davis Lane and Tiki Lane. 
The unit continues on either side of U.S. 1 approximately 0.4 mi (0.6 
km) from the north edge of Lower Matecumbe Key for approximately 0.6 mi 
(0.9 km).
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 7 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(10)(ii)

[[Page 62541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.011

    (11) Unit 6: BS6--Marathon, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 103 ac (42 ha). The unit consists of 
several areas along the Overseas Highway. Starting at Crawl Key to the 
north, proceeding southward encompassing hardwood hammock areas on Long 
Point Key, Fat Deer Key, and Vaca Key; and coastal berm on the south 
shore of Boot Key.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 8 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(11)(ii)

[[Page 62542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.012

    (12) Unit 7: BS7--Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 1,867 ac (756 ha). This unit extends from 
near the northern tip of Big Pine Key to its southern shore, 
encompassing most of the undeveloped pine rocklands and rockland 
hammock habitat remaining on Big Pine Key.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:

Figure 9 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(12)(ii)

[[Page 62543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.013

    (13) Unit 8: BS8--Big Munson Island, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 28 ac (11 ha). The unit includes all 
coastal berm and rockland hammock habitat on the island.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:

Figure 10 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(13)(ii)

[[Page 62544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.014

    (14) Unit 9: BS9--U.S. Department of Agriculture, Subtropical 
Horticulture Research Station, and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 630 ac (255 ha). This unit 
is bordered on the north by SW 112 Street, on the south by the 
intersection of Old Cutler Road and Franjo Road (County Road (CR) 977), 
on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by U.S. 1 (South 
Dixie Highway).
    (ii) Map of Unit BS9 follows:

Figure 11 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(14)(ii)

[[Page 62545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.015

    (15) Unit 10: BS10--Richmond Pinelands and surrounding areas, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 987 ac (399 ha). This unit 
is bordered on the north by SW 152 Street (Coral Reef Drive), on the 
south by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/SR 994), on the east by U.S. 1 (South 
Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
    (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:

Figure 12 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(15)(ii)

[[Page 62546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.016

    (16) Unit 11: BS11--Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 412 ac (167 ha). This unit 
is bordered on the north by SW 200 St (Quail Drive/SR 994), on the 
south by SW 248 Street, on the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on the 
west by SW 194 Avenue.
    (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:

Figure 13 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(16)(ii)

[[Page 62547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.017

    (17) Unit 12: BS12--Camp Owaissa Bauer and surrounding areas, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 392 ac (159 ha). This unit 
is bordered on the north by SW 248 Street, on the south by SW 312 
Street, on the east by SW 112 Avenue, and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
    (ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:

Figure 14 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(17)(ii)

[[Page 62548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.018

    (18) Unit 13: BS13--Everglades National Park, Long Pine Key and 
surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 8,728 ac (3,532 ha). This 
unit is located within the boundary of Everglades National Park.
    (ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:

Figure 15 to Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's silverbush) paragraph 
(18)(ii)

[[Page 62549]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.019

    Family Euphorbiaceae: Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (wedge 
spurge)
    (1) Critical habitat is depicted for Monroe County, Florida, on the 
map below.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum 
consist of South Florida pine rockland habitat and adjacent disturbed 
areas that:
    (i) Consist of calcareous limestone substrate (often exposed with 
little soil development) that provides nutritional requirements and 
suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, and 
drainage);
    (ii) Are characterized by an open canopy of Pinus elliottii var. 
densa (South Florida slash pine) and understory with a high proportion 
of native pine rockland plant species to provide for sufficient 
sunlight to permit growth and flowering;
    (iii) Are subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of 
the subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County and tropical 
humid classification in Monroe County in every month of the year and 
short hydroperiods ranging of up to 60 days each year;
    (iv) Are subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire) or nonnatural 
(e.g., prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance regimes to maintain open 
canopy conditions; and
    (v) Contain the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].

[[Page 62550]]

    (4) Critical habitat map unit. Data layers defining the map unit 
were created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software. The projection used 
was Albers Conical Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), NAD 
1983 HARN. The map in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. Shapefiles for the critical habitat unit are available to 
the public at the Service's internet site, https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and a list of coordinates 
outlining the proposed Units are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0116, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the 
field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field 
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional 
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Unit 1: WS1--Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 1,379 ac (558 ha). The unit begins on 
northern Big Pine Key on the southern side of Gulf Boulevard, continues 
south on both sides of Key Deer Boulevard (CR 940) to the vicinity of 
Osprey Lane on the western side of CR 940 and Tea Lane to the east of 
CR 940; then resumes on both sides of CR 940 from Osprey Lane to south 
of Driftwood Lane; then resumes south of Osceola Street, between Fern 
Avenue to the west and Baba Lane to the east; then resumes north of 
Watson Boulevard in the vicinity of Avenue C; then continues south on 
both sides of Avenue C to South Street; then resumes on both sides of 
CR 940 south to U.S. 1 between Ships Way to the west and Sands Street 
to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 from Newfound Boulevard to 
the west and Deer Run Trail to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 
from Palomino Horse Trail to the west and Industrial Road to the east.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 1 to Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (wedge spurge) 
paragraph (5)(ii)

[[Page 62551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.020

* * * * *
    Family Fabaceae: Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine 
partridge pea)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Monroe County, Florida, 
on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis 
consist of South Florida pine rockland habitat and adjacent disturbed 
areas that:
    (i) Consist of calcareous limestone substrate (often exposed with 
little soil development) that provides nutritional requirements and 
suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring and 
drainage);
    (ii) Are characterized by an open canopy of Pinus elliottii var. 
densa (South Florida slash pine) and understory with a high proportion 
of native pine rockland plant species to provide for sufficient 
sunlight to permit growth and flowering;
    (iii) Are subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of 
the subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County and tropical 
humid classification in Monroe County in every month of the year and 
short hydroperiods ranging of up to 60 days each year;
    (iv) Are subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire) or nonnatural 
(e.g., prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance regimes to maintain open 
canopy conditions; and

[[Page 62552]]

    (v) Contain the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software. The projection used was 
Albers Conical Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), NAD 1983 
HARN. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. Shapefiles for the critical habitat units are available to 
the public at the Service's internet site, https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and a list of coordinates 
outlining the units are available at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0116, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the field office responsible for 
this designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Note: Index map of all critical habitat units for Chamaecrista 
lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea) follows:

Figure 1 to Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea) 
paragraph (5)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.021


[[Page 62553]]


    (6) Unit 1: BPP1--Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 1,379 ac (558 ha). The unit begins on 
northern Big Pine Key on the southern side of Gulf Boulevard, continues 
south on both sides of Key Deer Boulevard (CR 940) to the vicinity of 
Osprey Lane on the western side of CR 940 and Tea Lane to the east of 
CR 940; then resumes on both sides of CR 940 from Osprey Lane to south 
of Driftwood Lane; then resumes south of Osceola Street, between Fern 
Avenue to the west and Baba Lane to the east; then resumes north of 
Watson Boulevard in the vicinity of Avenue C; then continues south on 
both sides of Avenue C to South Street; then resumes on both sides of 
CR 940 south to U.S. 1 between Ships Way to the west and Sands Street 
to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 from Newfound Boulevard to 
the west and Deer Run Trail to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 
from Palomino Horse Trail to the west and Industrial Road to the east.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea) 
paragraph (6)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.022

    (7) Unit 2: BPP2--Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 83 ac (33 ha). The unit is north of U.S. 
1 and extends east from Blimp Avenue to Cutthroat Drive.

[[Page 62554]]

    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine partridge pea) 
paragraph (7)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.023

* * * * *
    Family Linaceae: Linum arenicola (sand flax)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Monroe 
Counties, Florida, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Linum arenicola consist of South 
Florida pine rockland habitat and adjacent disturbed areas that:
    (i) Consist of calcareous limestone substrate (often exposed with 
little soil development) that provides nutritional requirements and 
suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, and 
drainage);
    (ii) Are characterized by an open canopy of Pinus elliottii var. 
densa (South Florida slash pine) and understory with a high proportion 
of native pine rockland plant species to provide for sufficient 
sunlight to permit growth and flowering;
    (iii) Are subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of 
the subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County and tropical 
humid classification in Monroe County in

[[Page 62555]]

every month of the year and short hydroperiods ranging of up to 60 days 
each year;
    (iv) Are subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire) or nonnatural 
(e.g., prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance regimes to maintain open 
canopy conditions; and
    (v) Contain the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software. The projection used was 
Albers Conical Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), NAD 1983 
HARN. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. Shapefiles for the critical habitat units are available to 
the public at the Service's internet site, https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and a list of coordinates 
outlining the units are available at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0116, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the field office responsible for 
this designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Note: Index maps of all critical habitat units for Linum 
arenicola (sand flax) follow:

Figure 1 to Linum arenicola (sand flax) paragraph (5)

[[Page 62556]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.024

Figure 2 to Linum arenicola (sand flax) paragraph (5)

[[Page 62557]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.025

    (6) Unit 1: SF1--Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 1,379 ac (558 ha). The unit begins on 
northern Big Pine Key on the southern side of Gulf Boulevard, continues 
south on both sides of Key Deer Boulevard (CR 940) to the vicinity of 
Osprey Lane on the western side of CR 940 and Tea Lane to the east of 
CR 940; then resumes on both sides of CR 940 from Osprey Lane to rest 
south of the vicinity of Driftwood Lane; then resumes south of Osceola 
Street, between Fern Avenue to the west and Baba Lane to the east; then 
resumes north of Watson Boulevard in the vicinity of Avenue C; then 
continues south on both sides of Avenue C to South Street; then resumes 
on both sides of CR 940 south to U.S. 1 between Ships Way to the west 
and Sands Street to the east; then resumes south of U.S. 1 from 
Newfound Boulevard to the west and Deer Run Trail to the east; then 
resumes south of U.S. 1 from Palomino Horse Trail to the west and 
Industrial Road to the east.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 3 to Linum arenicola (sand flax) paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 62558]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.026

    (7) Unit 2: SF2--Upper and Lower Sugarloaf Keys, Monroe County, 
Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of 116 ac (47 ha). On Upper Sugarloaf Key, 
the unit is located north of U.S. 1, extending for approximately 0.5 mi 
(0.8 km) along both sides of Crane Boulevard, starting approximately 
0.8 mi (1.3 km) from the intersection of Crane Road and Rosalind Road. 
A second area extends south from Pelico Road for approximately 0.2 mi 
(0.4 km). On Lower Sugarloaf Key, two disturbed roadside areas that 
support sand flax are along either side of Sugarloaf Boulevard and 
Square Circle, between Caymen Drive and County Road 939.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 4 to Linum arenicola (sand flax) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 62559]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.027

    (8) Unit 3: SF3--Richmond Pinelands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 987 ac (399 ha). This unit 
is bordered on the north by SW 152 Street (Coral Reef Drive), on the 
south by SW 200 St. (Quail Drive/SR 994), on the east by U.S. 1 (South 
Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue).
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 5 to Linum arenicola (sand flax) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 62560]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.028

    (9) Unit 4: SF4--Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 315 ac (128 ha). This unit 
is bordered on the north by SW 248 Street, on the south by SW 312 
Street, on the east by SW 112 Avenue, and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 6 to Linum arenicola (sand flax) paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 62561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.029

    (10) Unit 5: SF5--Homestead and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 2,292 ac (928 ha). The unit 
closely follows the Homestead Air Reserve Base property line to the 
east of SW 137th Avenue and extends north to SW 288th Street, roughly 
along the Homestead Air Reserve Base boundary. North of SW 288th 
Street, the unit includes the large undeveloped area extending east 
from SW 278th Street to 1 mi (1.6 km) west of SW 112th Avenue and 
bounded to the north by SW 268th Street.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 7 to Linum arenicola (sand flax) paragraph (10)(ii)

[[Page 62562]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.030

* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-21587 Filed 10-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C