[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62564-62611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21604]



[[Page 62563]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 198

October 14, 2022

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades 
bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass), Chamaesyce 
deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat), and Dalea carthagenensis 
var. floridana (Florida prairie-clover); Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 62564]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0125; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE48


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense 
(Everglades bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass), 
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland sandmat), and Dalea 
carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida prairie-clover)

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 Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida 
pineland crabgrass), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland 
sandmat), and Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida prairie-
clover) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In 
total, approximately 179,680 acres (72,714 hectares) for Everglades 
bully, 177,879 acres (71,985 hectares) for Florida pineland crabgrass, 
8,867 acres (3,588 hectares) for pineland sandmat, and 179,300 acres 
(72,560 hectares) for Florida prairie-clover in Monroe, Collier, and 
Miami-Dade 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 habitats. We also announce the availability of a draft 
economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designations 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: 
    Written comments: 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-2022-0125, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. 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 or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2022-0125; 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 the Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: For the proposed critical 
habitat designations, the coordinates or plot points or both from which 
the maps are generated are included in the decision file for these 
critical habitat designations and are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0125 and on the 
Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library. Additional supporting information that we developed 
for these critical habitat designations will be available on the 
Service's website, at https://www.regulations.gov, or both.

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 rule. Under the Act, when we determine 
that any species is an endangered or threatened 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.
    What this document does. This document proposes to designate 
critical habitat for one plant species, Florida prairie-clover, that is 
listed as an endangered species under the Act and for three plant 
species, Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland 
sandmat that are listed as threatened species under the Act (see 
listing rule at 82 FR 46691, October 6, 2017).
    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 and commercial 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 designations of critical 
habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the probable economic impacts 
of the proposed critical habitat designations 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 designations to make sure we consider 
the best scientific and commercial information available in developing 
our final designations. Because we will consider all comments and 
information we receive during the comment period, our final 
determinations 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 determination

[[Page 62565]]

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 designations are based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the 
biology, habitat, and threats to the species addressed in this proposed 
rule. 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 Everglades bully, Florida 
pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover 
habitat;
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species, 
i.e., south and central Florida, that should be included in the 
designations because they (i) are occupied at the time of listing 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) are 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) 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; and
    (d) 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 Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover 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) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designations, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think we should exclude any 
additional areas, please provide information supporting a benefit of 
exclusion.
    (8) 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 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 designations may differ from this 
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on 
that new information), our final designations 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.

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 
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 regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 11, 2016, we proposed to list Florida prairie-clover as 
an endangered species and Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
and

[[Page 62566]]

pineland sandmat as threatened species under the Act (81 FR 70282). On 
October 6, 2017, we published our final determination in the Federal 
Register (82 FR 46691) and added Florida prairie-clover as an 
endangered species and Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
and pineland sandmat as threatened species to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12(h). 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 (82 FR 46691; October 6, 2017), 
we stated we were in the process of obtaining information on the 
impacts of the designation. All previous Federal actions for Everglades 
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida 
prairie-clover are outlined in our proposed listing rule for the four 
plant species (81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016).
    It is our intent to discuss in this proposed rule only those topics 
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Everglades 
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida 
prairie-clover. For more information on the taxonomy, life history, 
habitat, population descriptions, and factors affecting the species for 
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and 
Florida prairie-clover, please refer to the October 11, 2016, proposed 
listing rule (81 FR 70282) and the October 6, 2017, final listing rule 
(82 FR 46691) for these species.

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).
    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 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 because under either regulatory scheme we 
find that critical habitat is prudent for the four plant species and 
that the occupied areas proposed for critical habitat are adequate to 
ensure the conservation of the species. The amount and distribution of 
critical habitat we are proposing for designation in occupied areas 
would allow existing and future established populations of Everglades 
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida 
prairie-clover 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 the species at this time.
    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
    (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

[[Page 62567]]

ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the 
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not 
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the 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 
likely 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 data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    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 rules and information developed during 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; articles in peer-reviewed 
journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; 
scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other 
unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
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 (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)) currently in effect 
state that a designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or 
both 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.''
    No imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism 
was identified under Factor B for these species in the final listing 
rule (82 FR 46691; October 6, 2017), nor has such a threat been 
identified since, 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. Therefore, because none 
of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(1) has been met, we have determined that the designation of 
critical habitat is prudent for Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover.

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 Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover 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.''

[[Page 62568]]

    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 (81 FR 70282; October 11, 
2016). In our final listing rule, we stated we were in the process of 
obtaining information on the impacts of the designation (82 FR 46691; 
October 6, 2017). We reviewed the available information pertaining to 
the biological needs of the species and habitat characteristics where 
these species are located. At this time, we are proposing to designate 
critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent, for Everglades bully, 
Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-
clover.

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 
which may require special management considerations or protection. 
Following vacatur of the 2019 regulations, our regulations now in 
effect 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, alkaline 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 features 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 
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and 
Florida prairie-clover from studies of these plants' habitat, ecology, 
and life history as described below. Additional information can be 
found in the October 11, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and 
October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR 46691) for these species. We 
have determined that the following physical or biological features are 
essential to the conservation of Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie.

Everglades Bully, Florida Pineland Crabgrass, and Pineland Sandmat

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Plant Community and Competitive Ability--Everglades bully and 
Florida pineland crabgrass occur in pine rockland and marl prairies, as 
well as the ecotone between these habitats in Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties (Gann et al. 2006, p. 12; Bradley et al. 2013, p. 4; 
Gann 2015, p. 30; Maschinski et al. 2002, p. 79), whereas pineland 
sandmat occurs only in communities classified as pine rockland habitat 
in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 24). 
Detailed descriptions of these communities and their associated native 
plant species for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and 
pineland sandmat are provided under Background in the October 11, 2016, 
proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and under Summary of Biological 
Status and Threats in the October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR 
46691). 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 
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat to 
persist and spread. Pine rocklands and marl prairies are fire-
maintained ecosystems characterized by an open canopy and 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 Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat (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 Everglades bully, Florida 
pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat 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) and marl prairie habitats.
    In Miami-Dade County, development and agriculture have reduced pine 
rockland habitat by 90 percent in mainland south Florida. Recent 
vegetation mapping in Everglades National Park (ENP) indicates there 
are a total of 14,211 acres (ac) (5,751 hectares (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 et al. 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, p. 28), leaving only about 1.2 
percent of the pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge remaining. 
Further, much of what is left are small remnants scattered throughout 
the Miami metropolitan area, isolated from other natural areas

[[Page 62569]]

(Herndon 1998, p. 1). The extreme rarity of high-quality pine rockland 
habitat supporting Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and 
pineland sandmat and marl prairie habitat supporting Everglades bully 
and Florida pineland crabgrass elevates the importance of disturbed 
remnant sites that still retain some pine rockland species.
    We consider pine rockland and adjacent ecotonal areas to be primary 
habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland 
sandmat. Similarly, we also consider marl prairie and adjacent ecotonal 
areas to be primary habitat for Everglades bully and Florida pineland 
crabgrass. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify 
upland habitats consisting of pine rocklands and adjacent ecotonal 
areas to be a physical or biological feature essential to the 
conservation of Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and 
pineland sandmat. Additionally, we identify upland habitats consisting 
of marl prairie and adjacent ecotonal areas to be a physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of Everglades bully 
and Florida pineland crabgrass.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Climate (Temperature and Precipitation)--Everglades bully, Florida 
pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat require adequate rainfall and 
do not tolerate prolonged freezing temperatures. The climate of south 
Florida where Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and 
pineland sandmat occur is characterized by distinct wet and dry 
seasons, a monthly mean temperature above 64.4 degrees ([deg]) 
Fahrenheit (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). 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) 2010, 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 climate (Miami-Dade County) or tropical 
humid climate (Collier and Monroe Counties) to be an essential physical 
feature for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland 
sandmat.
    Soils--Substrates supporting Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat are composed of oolitic limestone that 
is at or very near the surface (Kernan and Bradley 1996, p. 2). 
Solution holes occasionally form where the surface limestone is 
dissolved by organic acids. There is typically very little soil 
development, consisting primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient 
sand, marl, clayey loam, and organic debris found in solution holes, 
depressions, and crevices on the limestone surface (FNAI 2010, p. 62). 
However, these species can be found at the northern end of the Miami 
Rock Ridge, where the substrate includes extensive sandy pockets, 
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's Roost Pineland) (Service 1999, p. 3-162).
    These substrates provide anchoring, nutrients, moisture regime, and 
suitable soil chemistry for Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat; they facilitate a community of 
associated plant species that creates competition, which allows these 
species 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 
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat.
    Hydrology--Pine rocklands occur on relatively flat, moderately to 
well drained terrain from 6 to 21 feet (ft) (2 to 7 meters (m)) above 
sea level. Drainage varies according to the porosity of the limestone 
substrate but is generally rapid. Consequently, most sites are wet for 
only short periods following heavy rains. During the rainy season, 
however, some sites may be shallowly inundated by slow-flowing surface 
water for up to 60 days each year (hydroperiods) (FNAI 2010, p. 62). 
Marl prairies also are dependent on short hydroperiods (up to 60 days). 
Longer hydroperiods favor the development of peat and the dominance of 
sawgrass while shorter hydroperiods permit the invasion of woody 
species (FNAI 2010, p. 108). Therefore, based on the information above, 
we identify pine rockland habitat with short hydroperiods (up to 60 
days) to be an essential feature for Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat. Additionally, we identify marl prairie 
habitat with short hydroperiods (up to 60 days) to be an essential 
habitat feature for Everglades bully and Florida pineland crabgrass.
Cover or Shelter
    Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat 
occur in open to semi-open canopy habitats. Pine rockland is 
characterized by an open canopy of Pinus elliottii var. densa (South 
Florida slash pine), with a limited subcanopy (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 
253). Marl prairie is characterized by a sparsely vegetated, grass-
dominated community. Although the vegetative community is diverse, most 
marl prairie plant species contribute little cover, and over 90 percent 
of the cover is contributed by only two or three dominant species in 
any given area (FNAI 2010, p. 108). The spatial and temporal 
distribution of open canopy areas varies in these habitats based on 
time since the last disturbance, such as fire, caused canopy openings.
    An open canopy and understory are required to allow sufficient 
sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering 
of Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat. 
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify vegetation 
composition and structure characterized by an open to semi-open canopy 
that allows for sufficient sunlight and space for individual growth and 
population expansion to be an essential feature for Everglades bully, 
Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Little is known about the life history of Everglades bully, Florida 
pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat, including pollination 
biology, seed production, or dispersal. Reproduction is sexual, with 
new plants generated from seeds. Therefore, insect pollination is 
likely important to these species' reproduction, and declines in 
pollinator visitation may cause decreased seed or fruit production of 
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat, 
which could lead to lower seedling establishment and numbers of mature 
plants.
    The pine rocklands, marl prairies, and adjacent ecotonal habitats 
identified above as essential features provide a plant community with 
associated plant species that foster a competitive regime suitable to 
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat and 
contain adequate open space for the recruitment of new plants. 
Associated plant species in these habitats attract and provide cover 
for

[[Page 62570]]

insect pollinators required for Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat pollination (for more information, see 
Background in the October 11, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) 
and Summary of Biological Status and Threats in the October 6, 2017, 
final listing rule (82 FR 46691)).
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine 
rockland and adjacent ecotonal areas containing the presence of native 
pollinators for natural pollination and reproduction to be an essential 
feature for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland 
sandmat. Additionally, we identify marl prairie and adjacent ecotonal 
areas containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction to be an essential feature for Everglades 
bully and Florida pineland crabgrass.
Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological 
Distributions of the Species
    Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat 
continue to occur in habitats that are protected from incompatible 
human disturbance, which are habitats representative of the species' 
historical, geographical, and ecological distributions, although their 
ranges have been reduced. These species are still found in pine 
rocklands, and, in addition, Everglades bully and Florida pineland 
crabgrass are still found in marl prairies, along with the ecotonal 
regions between these two habitat types. As described above, these 
habitats provide a community of associated plant and animal species 
that are compatible with Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
and pineland sandmat. 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 the species.
    Disturbance Regime--Pine rockland and marl prairie habitats that 
could or currently support Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, and pineland sandmat depend on natural disturbance regimes 
from hurricanes or fires to open the canopy in order to provide light 
levels sufficient to support the species. The historical frequency and 
magnitude of hurricanes and fire have allowed for the persistence of 
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat by 
occasionally creating areas of open canopy. In the absence of 
disturbance, these habitats may have closed canopies, resulting in 
areas lacking enough available sunlight to support Everglades bully, 
Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat. Most of these areas 
can be restored if habitats are managed with a combination of 
mechanical hardwood removal and prescribed fire. We consider wildfire 
to be the natural disturbance factor for pine rocklands, marl prairies, 
and adjacent ecotonal areas. Therefore, we identify habitats that are 
subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or unnatural 
(e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open canopy 
conditions in pine rocklands, marl prairies, and adjacent ecotonal 
areas as essential habitat features for Everglades bully, Florida 
pineland crabgrass, and pineland sandmat.
Summary of Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of Everglades Bully, Florida Pineland Crabgrass, and 
Pineland Sandmat
    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 Everglades bully and Florida pineland 
crabgrass:
    South Florida pine rockland, marl prairie, and adjacent ecotonal 
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 to semi-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 or the tropical 
humid classification in Collier and Monroe Counties and short 
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
    (4) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or 
unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open 
canopy conditions; and
    (5) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.
    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 pineland sandmat:
    South Florida pine rockland and adjacent ecotonal 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 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 short 
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
    (4) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or 
unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open 
canopy conditions; and
    (5) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.

Florida Prairie-Clover

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Plant Community and Competitive Ability--Florida prairie-clover 
occurs in Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties in communities 
classified as pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and 
coastal berm, in addition to disturbed sites adjacent to these 
habitats, such as roadsides and mowed areas still dominated by native 
species (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 3; Gann 2015, p. 26). These 
communities and their associated native plant species are described in 
the October 11, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and the 
October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR 46691). 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 Florida prairie-clover to 
persist and spread. The plant also requires 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 Florida prairie-clover rely on 
sparse competition and periodic disturbance to thrive and persist.
    As discussed above for Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, and

[[Page 62571]]

pineland sandmat, pine rocklands and marl prairies are fire-maintained 
ecosystems 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.
    Like Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and pineland 
sandmat, open canopy conditions are required to allow sufficient 
sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer and permit growth and flowering 
of Florida prairie-clover. These conditions are maintained by fire in 
pine rocklands and marl prairies. In rockland hammocks, only the edges 
and canopy disruption in the interior provide enough sunlight for 
Florida prairie-clover. 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. The plant also requires a limestone substrate to 
provide suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, anchoring, 
and proper drainage). This combination of ecosystem characteristics 
(i.e., open canopy and limestone substrate) occurs in pine rocklands, 
along edges and gaps in rockland hammocks, and in coastal berm.
    Disturbed areas that support Florida prairie-clover 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, levees, and other areas that are infrequently mowed, or 
have no tree canopy but retain native herbs and grass species (Bradley 
2006, p. 37: Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 61).
    Loss of pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties is 
discussed above for the other three species. Habitat modification and 
destruction from residential and commercial development have severely 
impacted rockland hammocks and coastal berm that support Florida 
prairie-clover. Rockland hammocks were once abundant in Miami-Dade and 
Monroe Counties but are now considered imperiled locally and globally 
(FNAI 2010, pp. 24-26). 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 2010, pp. 
24-26).
    The extreme rarity of high-quality pine rockland, rockland hammock, 
and coastal berm habitat supporting Florida prairie-clover in Miami-
Dade and Monroe Counties elevates the importance of disturbed remnant 
sites that still retain some habitat values. We consider pine 
rocklands; marl prairies; edges or gaps in rockland hammocks; and 
coastal berm to be the primary habitats for Florida prairie-clover. 
However, adjacent disturbed areas currently supporting the species are 
considered more important when adjacent pine rocklands, marl prairie, 
rockland hammocks, or coastal berm do not support an existing 
population, or are of insufficient size or connectivity to support a 
population of Florida prairie-clover. Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify upland habitats consisting of pine 
rocklands, marl prairie, rockland hammocks, coastal berm, and adjacent 
disturbed areas to be an essential habitat feature for Florida prairie-
clover.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Climate (Temperature and Precipitation)--Florida prairie-clover 
requires adequate rainfall and does not tolerate prolonged freezing 
temperatures. The climate of south Florida where Florida prairie-clover 
occurs is classified as tropical humid and subtropical humid, as 
described above for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and 
pineland sandmat. Rainfall within the range of Florida prairie-clover 
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). 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 habitat feature for Florida prairie-
clover.
    Soils--Substrates supporting Florida prairie-clover are composed of 
oolitic limestone that is at or very near the surface. Solution holes 
occasionally form where the surface limestone is dissolved by organic 
acids. There is typically very little soil development, consisting 
primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient sand, marl, clayey loam, and 
organic debris found in solution holes, depressions, and crevices on 
the limestone surface (FNAI 2010, p. 62). However, Florida prairie-
clover can be found at the northern end of the Miami Rock Ridge, where 
the substrate includes extensive sandy pockets, 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 2010, pp. 24-26). 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 Florida prairie-clover, and they facilitate 
a community of associated plant species that create a competitive 
regime that allows Florida prairie-clover 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) that provide 
anchoring and nutritional requirements to be an essential feature for 
Florida prairie-clover.
    Hydrology--Pine rocklands occur on relatively flat, moderately to 
well drained terrain from 2 to 7 meters above sea level. Drainage 
varies according to the porosity of the limestone substrate but is 
generally rapid. Consequently, most sites are wet for only short 
periods following heavy rains. During the rainy season, however, some 
sites may be shallowly inundated by slow-flowing surface water for up 
to 60 days each year (FNAI 2010, p. 62). Marl prairies also are 
dependent on short hydroperiods up to 60 days. Longer hydroperiods 
favor the development of peat and the dominance of sawgrass; shorter 
hydroperiods permit the invasion of woody species (FNAI 2010, p. 108). 
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rockland, 
rockland hammock, marl prairie, and coastal berm habitats with short 
hydroperiods (up to 60 days) to be an essential habitat feature for 
Florida prairie-clover.
Cover or Shelter
    As previously mentioned, Florida prairie-clover occurs in pine 
rocklands,

[[Page 62572]]

marl prairies, rockland hammocks, and coastal berms, and in adjacent 
disturbed areas, in Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties (Bradley and Gann 
1999, p. 3). Pine rockland is characterized by an open canopy of South 
Florida slash pine, with a limited subcanopy (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 
253). Marl prairie is a sparsely vegetated, grass-dominated community. 
Although the vegetative community is diverse, most marl prairie plant 
species contribute little cover and over 90 percent of the cover is 
contributed by only two or three dominant species in any given area 
(FNAI 2010, p. 107). The open canopy and understory of pine rocklands 
and marl prairies allow sufficient sunlight to reach the herbaceous 
layer and permit growth and flowering of Florida prairie-clover (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 in the interior 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 
2010, pp. 24-26).
    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 2010, pp. 73-74).
    Disturbed areas that are adjacent to pine rocklands, marl prairies, 
rockland hammocks, and coastal berms that support Florida prairie-
clover may have little to no pine or hardwood canopy, but may have 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 to 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 Florida prairie-
clover (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 adequate sunlight and space for individual 
growth and population expansion, to be an essential habitat feature for 
Florida prairie-clover.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Little is known about the life history of Florida prairie-clover, 
including pollination biology, seed production, or dispersal. 
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, marl prairies, 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 Florida prairie-
clover 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 Florida prairie-clover 
pollination (for more information, see Background in the October 11, 
2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and Summary of Biological 
Status and Threats in the October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR 
46691)).
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine 
rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats, 
and adjacent disturbed areas, containing the presence of native 
pollinators for natural pollination and reproduction to be essential 
habitat features for Florida prairie-clover.
Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological 
Distributions of the Species
    Florida prairie-clover 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, marl prairies, 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 Florida prairie-clover, 
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 that 
currently supports Florida prairie-clover depends on a disturbance 
regime of wild or prescribed fire to open the canopy in order to 
provide light levels sufficient to support Florida prairie-clover. The 
historical frequency and magnitude of fire allowed for the persistence 
of Florida prairie-clover 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 Florida prairie-clover. 
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 
infrequent hurricanes (FNAI 2010, p. 25).
    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 long-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

[[Page 62573]]

colonizers to a dense stand of tall shrubs (FNAI 2010, p. 73).
    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 Florida prairie-clover. 
However, the dynamic nature of these habitats means that areas not 
currently open may become open in the future because of canopy 
disruption from hurricanes, while areas currently open may develop 
denser canopy over time, eventually rendering those portions of 
rockland hammock or coastal berm unsuitable for Florida prairie-clover.
    Disturbed sites that support Florida prairie-clover 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 Florida prairie-clover. We consider fire 
to be the natural disturbance factor for pine rocklands and marl 
prairie; 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, and storm surge) or unnatural (e.g., 
prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance regimes that maintain open canopy 
conditions to be essential habitat features for Florida prairie-clover.
Summary of Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of Florida Prairie-Clover
    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 Florida prairie-clover:
    South Florida pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and 
coastal berm habitat 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 or the tropical 
humid classification in Collier and Monroe Counties and short 
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
    (4) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire, hurricanes, and 
storm surge) or unnatural (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 Everglades 
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida 
prairie-clover 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 Biological Status and Threats in the October 
11, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282) and Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species in the October 6, 2017, final listing rule (82 FR 
46691)).
    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) 
are beyond the control of landowners and managers. However, even when 
landowners or land managers may not be able to control all the threats, 
they may be able to address the results of the threats. Habitat loss is 
a primary threat to Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover. For example, in Miami-
Dade County, development and agriculture have reduced pine rockland 
habitat by 90 percent in mainland south Florida. Recent vegetation 
mapping in 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 et al. 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, p. 28), 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). Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover occur on a mix 
of private and publicly owned lands, most of which are managed for 
conservation.
    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).
    Populations of these species 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. While Florida prairie-clover also occurs in rockland hammocks, 
the change from pine is a significant concern because pine rocklands 
are an extremely rare habitat. 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 rocklands, marl prairies, rockland 
hammock, and coastal berm increase fragmentation and decrease the 
conservation value of the remaining functioning habitats. In addition, 
pine rocklands and marl

[[Page 62574]]

prairies are expected to be further degraded and fragmented due to 
anticipated sea level rise, which would fully or partially inundate 
these habitats, and cause increases in the salinity of the water table 
and soils resulting in vegetation shifts in additional pine rocklands 
in South Florida. Some existing pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland 
hammock, and coastal berm areas are also projected to be developed for 
housing as the human population grows and adjusts to changing sea 
levels.
    In summary, the features essential to the conservation of 
Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and 
Florida prairie-clover 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 conduct 
monitoring 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 and commercial 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 their 
listing in 2017. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by these species at the time of 
listing in 2017 because we have not identified any unoccupied areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat.

Ranges

Everglades Bully
    The historical range of Everglades bully includes Collier, Miami-
Dade, and Monroe Counties, Florida. There are currently 14 extant 
populations of Everglades bully across these 3 counties. In Miami-Dade 
County, of 13 historical records for Everglades bully, 11 populations 
were extant at the time of listing, while 2 (Grant Hammock and Nixon-
Smiley Preserve) were extirpated at the time of listing (Bradley et al. 
2013, p. 1). The largest population (10,000-100,000 individuals) of 
Everglades bully in Miami-Dade County occurs at Long Pine Key in ENP 
(Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 42; Gann et al. 2006, p. 11; Gann 2015, p. 
9). In Monroe and Collier Counties, of two historical records for 
Everglades bully, two populations were extant at the time of listing in 
the Lostman's Pines section of Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP; 
Monroe County). Since listing, an additional population was discovered 
in BCNP (extending into Collier County) that owing to the size and 
maturity of plants, was clearly extant at the time of listing (Lange et 
al. 2022, pp. 7-8).
    The species was historically collected as far south as Key Largo, 
in the Florida Keys, but was extirpated at the time of listing and is 
still extirpated from the island. The species was not found during 
recent surveys of pine rocklands on Key Largo (Hodges and Bradley 2006, 
p. 42) or elsewhere in the Florida Keys (Gann et al. 2002, p. 526; 
Corogin and Judd 2014, p. 412).
    Six out of 14 extant Everglades bully populations have fewer than 
100 individuals (low resiliency). 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 re-established if extinction 
from one location occurred.
Florida Pineland Crabgrass
    The historical range of Florida pineland crabgrass consists of 
central and southern Miami-Dade County along the Miami Rock Ridge, from 
the southern Miami to Long Pine Key region of ENP (Bradley and Gann 
1999, p. 49) and BCNP in mainland Monroe County (Bradley et al. 2013, 
p. 2). The current range of Florida pineland crabgrass includes two 
extant populations, one in ENP (Miami-Dade County) and another in BCNP 
(mainland Monroe County). Since listing, surveys in BCNP have revealed 
that the population is more extensive than was known at the time of 
listing (Lange et al. 2022, p. 8). Outside these areas, of five 
historical records for Florida pineland crabgrass on Miami Rock Ridge, 
all were extirpated at the time of listing and remain extirpated.
    The extant Florida pineland crabgrass population in ENP has 
100,000-200,000 individuals (Gann 2015, p. 142; Maschinki and Lange 
2015, p. 18), and the extant population in BCNP has more than 10,000 
individuals (Bradley 2005 pers comm.), which suggests some level of 
resiliency. However, these two populations are isolated from one 
another, and redundancy is reduced from historical levels as several 
populations in Miami-Dade County have been extirpated. This increases 
the risk from catastrophic events and decreases the likelihood that 
they could naturally re-establish if extinction from one location 
occurred.
Pineland Sandmat
    The historical range of pineland sandmat includes Miami-Dade 
County, Florida, specifically within the southern portion of the Miami 
Rock Ridge, from the Richmond Pine Rocklands of southern Miami to the 
Long Pine Key region of ENP (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 24). The current 
range of pineland sandmat includes 20 extant populations in Miami-Dade 
County, although 98 percent of the pine rocklands outside of the ENP 
have been lost to development. In Miami-Dade County, of 21 historical 
records for pineland sandmat, 20 populations were extant at the time of 
listing, while 1 (Larry Penny Thompson Park) was extirpated at the time 
of listing (J. Possley 2011, pers. comm.). The largest population of 
pineland sandmat in Miami-Dade County occurs at ENP.
    Ten out of 20 extant pineland sandmat populations have fewer than 
100 individuals (low resiliency). 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 re-established in the event 
that extinction from one location would occur.
Florida Prairie-Clover
    The historical range of Florida prairie-clover includes Miami-Dade, 
Monroe, Collier, and Palm Beach Counties (Gann et al. 2015, pp. 25-26). 
There have been no reports of this plant from Palm Beach County since 
1918 (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 42).

[[Page 62575]]

    In Miami-Dade County, of 12 historical records for Florida prairie-
clover, 7 populations were extant at the time of listing, while 4 
(Castellow Hammock, the Coral Gables area, Cox Hammock, and ENP) were 
considered extirpated at the time of listing (Bradley and Gann 1999, 
pp. 42-43; Maschinski et al. 2014, p. 39), and the status of one 
population (Pineland south of Miami River) was unknown (Bradley 2005 
pers. comm.). In the final listing rule (82 FR 46691), the ENP 
populations were considered extirpated because the last official record 
was from 1964. Surveys were sporadic since that time, however, suitable 
habitat remained, and the species was recorded at ENP in 2018. Given 
the dynamic nature of this species and its response to localized 
disturbances, it likely occurs somewhat cryptically until mowing or 
fire produces suitable conditions for the species to be readily 
observed. Therefore, since Florida prairie-clover was found at ENP in 
2018, only a year after listing, and was not introduced, we assume the 
species occurred at ENP at the time of listing in 2017.
    The largest populations of Florida prairie-clover in Miami-Dade 
County occur at Crandon Park, Charles Deering Estate, and R. Hardy 
Matheson Preserve, with population sizes ranging from 98 to 500 plants 
(Maschinski et al. 2015, pp. 30-32) at each location.
    In Monroe and Collier Counties, Florida prairie-clover is extant 
only within BCNP, where there is at least one population (Pernas 2021, 
pers. comm.).
    The current range of Florida prairie-clover consists of 9 extant 
populations; 8 in Miami-Dade County, including at least one in ENP, and 
at least one extant population in Monroe and Collier Counties in BCNP 
(Pernas 2021, pers comm.). Many of these populations are small and 
isolated from each other, decreasing the likelihood that they could be 
naturally re-established if extinction from one location occurred.
    We anticipate that full recovery for Everglades bully, Florida 
pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover will 
require continued protection of the remaining extant populations and 
habitat and augmenting extant populations. It may also require 
reestablishing populations in occupied areas to provide connectivity 
among populations to there are adequate numbers of plants and stable 
populations. This will 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 as designated 
critical habitat. Accordingly, we have not identified unoccupied areas 
that are essential for the conservation of the species at this time.

Conservation Strategy

    In considering our proposal of critical habitat, we identified the 
following conservation strategy for Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover:
    (1) Conserve existing 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/re-
establishment of populations into suitable protected habitat.
    To facilitate the application of our conservation strategy and 
goals for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland 
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover, we utilized the Shaffer and Stein 
(2000) methodology for conserving imperiled species known as the `three 
Rs': representation, resiliency, and redundancy. 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).
    The amount and distribution of critical habitat we are proposing 
for designation in occupied areas would allow existing and future 
established populations of Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover to:
    (1) Maintain their existing distributions;
    (2) Expand their distributions 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 catastrophic events.
Everglades Bully
    Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of 
pine rockland and marl prairie habitats remaining in Miami-Dade, 
Collier, and Monroe Counties. All Everglades bully populations, outside 
of ENP and BCNP, are on small remnant pine rockland and marl prairie 
and adjacent ecotonal areas (less than 1,000 ac (404 ha)) in Miami-Dade 
County. Therefore, the resiliency of the populations and redundancy of 
the species will continue to be influenced by the amount of habitat 
remaining in the Monroe, Collier, and Miami-Dade Counties. We are 
proposing to designate critical habitat units that contain the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that support extant populations at the time of listing. 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.
Florida Pineland Crabgrass
    Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of 
pine rockland and marl prairie habitats remaining in Miami-Dade, 
Collier, and Monroe Counties. All habitat for the historical Florida 
pineland crabgrass populations, outside of ENP and BCNP, is now on 
small remnant pine rockland, marl prairie, and ecotonal areas in Miami-
Dade County. We are proposing critical habitat units that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and supported extant populations at the time of listing. 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 
unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
Pineland Sandmat
    Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of 
pine rockland habitat remaining in Miami-Dade County. Most of the 
pineland sandmat populations, outside of ENP, are on small remnant pine 
rockland sites and adjacent ecotonal areas. Therefore, the resiliency 
of the populations and redundancy of the species will continue

[[Page 62576]]

to be influenced by the amount of habitat remaining in the Miami-Dade 
County. We are proposing to designate as critical habitat for the 
pineland sandmat all pine rocklands remaining within the historical 
range of the species where the species was extant at the time of 
listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species. 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.
    Resiliency will continue to be limited by the reduced amount of 
pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berms 
habitats remaining in Miami-Dade, Collier, and Monroe Counties. Most 
Florida prairie-clover populations are on small remnant pine rockland 
sites and adjacent disturbed areas, with population sizes only ranging 
from the tens to hundreds of individuals. Five of the eight extant 
population have fewer than 25 individuals. Therefore, the resiliency of 
the populations and redundancy of the species will continue to be 
influenced by the amount of habitat remaining in the Monroe, Collier, 
and Miami-Dade Counties. We are proposing critical habitat units that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species and supported extant populations at the 
time of listing. 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.

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 the following sources of data and information for Everglades 
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida 
prairie-clover:
    (1) Species occurrence spatial data and ArcGIS geographic 
information system (GIS) software to spatially depict the location and 
extent of documented populations of Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover;
    (2) Reports prepared by FNAI, Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden 
(FTBG), Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC), National Park 
Service (NPS), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
(FDEP);
    (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, 
Collier, and Monroe Counties; and
    (5) Aerial images of Miami-Dade, Collier, and Monroe Counties. The 
presence of pine rocklands and marl prairie was determined using GIS 
and spatial data depicting the current habitat status. These habitat 
data for Miami-Dade County were developed by Miami-Dade Department of 
Environmental Protection (DERM), for the Natural Forest Community (NFC) 
program, and include pine rocklands and marl prairie. 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 these habitats in Monroe and 
Collier Counties and disturbed areas adjacent to marl prairie, pine 
rocklands, rockland hammock, and coastal berm.
    We delineated critical habitat unit boundaries 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 and through prescribed 
fire), and habitat transition or loss due to sea level rise.
    (2) All areas (i.e., physical or biological features) may require 
special management to be able to support a higher density of the 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 due to 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 Everglades 
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida 
prairie-clover focuses on areas within the plants' historical ranges 
that have retained the essential habitat features that will allow for 
the maintenance and expansion of existing populations. The proposed 
occupied critical habitat units were delineated around extant 
populations at the time of listing. These units include the mapped 
extent of the population that contains one or more of the essential 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    For areas within the geographic area occupied by Everglades bully 
and Florida pineland crabgrass at the time of listing, we delineated 
critical habitat unit boundaries using the following criteria:
    (1) Pine rockland and marl prairie habitat, and the transitional 
areas (ecotones) between these and other vegetation types that was 
occupied by the species at the time of listing; and
    (2) Presence of suitable habitat and physical or biological 
essential features.
    For Everglades bully, five occupied units are being proposed as 
critical habitat. These five units encompass the 14 extant populations 
of Everglades bully in Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties. We 
consider pine rockland and marl prairies to be the primary habitat for 
Everglades bully. Adjacent ecotonal areas currently supporting the 
species are also considered essential when adjacent pine rocklands and 
marl prairies do not support an existing population or are of 
insufficient size or connectivity to support a population of the 
species. 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 unoccupied critical habitat for the Everglades bully.
    For Florida pineland crabgrass, two occupied units are being 
proposed as critical habitat. These two units encompass the two extant 
populations of Florida pineland crabgrass in Monroe and Miami-Dade 
Counties. We consider pine rockland and marl prairies to be the primary 
habitat for Florida pineland crabgrass. Adjacent ecotonal areas 
currently supporting the species are also considered essential when 
adjacent pine rocklands and marl prairies do not support an existing 
population or are of insufficient size or connectivity to support a 
population of the species. 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

[[Page 62577]]

the species. Accordingly, we are not proposing unoccupied critical 
habitat for the Florida pineland crabgrass.
    For areas within the geographic area occupied by pineland sandmat 
at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries 
using the following criteria:
    (1) Pine rockland habitat and the transitional areas (ecotones) 
between pine rocklands and adjacent habitat that was occupied by the 
species at the time of listing;
    (2) Pine rockland habitat that is currently occupied by the 
species; and
    (3) Presence of essential physical or biological features.
    For pineland sandmat, three occupied units are being proposed as 
critical habitat. These three units encompass the 20 extant populations 
of pineland sandmat in Miami-Dade County. We consider pine rockland to 
be the primary habitat for pineland sandmat. Adjacent ecotonal 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. 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 unoccupied critical habitat for the pineland sandmat.
    For areas within the geographic area occupied by Florida prairie-
clover at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following criteria:
    (1) Pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berm 
habitat and the transitional areas (ecotones) between these and other 
vegetation types that was occupied by the species at the time of 
listing;
    (2) Pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berm 
habitat that is currently occupied by the species; and
    (3) Presence of essential physical or biological features.
    For Florida prairie-clover, four occupied units are being proposed 
as critical habitat. These four units encompass the eight extant 
populations of Florida prairie-clover in Collier and Miami-Dade 
Counties. We consider pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, 
and coastal berm to be the primary habitats for Florida prairie-clover. 
Adjacent disturbed areas currently supporting the species are also 
considered essential when adjacent pine rockland, marl prairie, 
rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats do not support an existing 
population or are of insufficient size or connectivity to support a 
population of the species. In addition, because we have determined that 
occupied habitat is sufficient to conserve the species, we did not 
propose any unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
    In summary, for areas within the geographical area occupied by 
Everglades bully and Florida pineland crabgrass, at the time of 
listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries around extant 
populations at the time of listing and also evaluating habitat 
suitability of pine rockland and marl prairie habitats within the 
historical range of the plants. We retained those areas that contain 
some or all of the essential 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 pineland 
sandmat at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries around extant populations at the time of listing and also 
evaluating habitat suitability of pine rockland habitat within the 
historical range of the plant. We retained those areas that contain 
some or all of the essential 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 Florida 
prairie-clover at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat 
unit boundaries around extant populations at the time of listing and 
also evaluating habitat suitability of pine rockland, marl prairie, 
rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats within the historical range 
of the plant. We retained those areas that contain some or all of the 
essential physical or biological features 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 the 
plants, 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.
    The critical habitat designations are 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 critical habitat 
designations 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-
2022-0125, on our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the field office responsible for 
the designations (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Everglades Bully

    We are proposing to designate approximately 179,680 ac (72,714 ha) 
in five units as critical habitat for Everglades bully. The critical 
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment 
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Everglades 
bully. All areas with known extant populations at the time of listing 
are proposed for designation as critical habitat. Some units currently 
may contain multiple populations, but the number can vary over a 1- to 
5-year period due to the dynamic nature of this species in response to 
disturbance. The five areas we propose as critical habitat are:
    (1) EB1, Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties, Florida;
    (2) EB2, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
    (3) EB3, Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
    (4) EB4, Quail Roost Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
    (5) EB5, Navy Wells, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of 
Federal (86 percent), State (0.1 percent), County (13 percent), and 
private and other (1 percent). Other lands include areas for which 
ownership information is unclear or unavailable. Table 1 shows these 
units by land ownership, area, and occupancy.

[[Page 62578]]



               Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Everglades Bully, Including Total Area, Area by Land Ownership, and Occupancy
                                          [All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Private/ other
                  Unit                     Total  ac (ha)    Federal  ac (ha)   State  ac (ha)  County  ac (ha)      ac (ha)             Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB1--Big Cypress National Preserve.....   169,885 (68,750)   146,014 (59,090)            0 (0)   22,411 (9,070)      1,460 (591)  Yes.
EB2--Everglades National Park..........      7,994 (3,235)      7,860 (3,181)            0 (0)            0 (0)         133 (54)  Yes.
EB3-- Richmond Pine Rocklands..........          987 (399)           191 (77)            0 (0)        609 (247)         187 (76)  Yes.
EB4--Quail Roost Pineland..............          256 (104)              0 (0)         103 (42)          47 (19)         107 (43)  Yes.
EB5--Navy Wells........................          558 (226)              0 (0)          74 (30)        324 (131)         160 (65)  Yes.
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................   179,680 (72,714)   154,065 (62,348)         177 (72)   23,391 (9,467)      2,048 (829)  ......................
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of Total...............  .................                 86              0.1               13                1  ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies.

    Approximately 5.4 percent (9,763 ac (3,951 ha)) of the lands 
contained within units proposed as critical habitat for Everglades 
bully are already designated critical habitat for other federally 
listed species. Most of the lands proposed in this rule that are not 
designated as critical habitat for other federally listed species occur 
in the BCNP.
    We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat 
units and the justification for why they meet the definition of 
critical habitat for Everglades bully, below. All proposed critical 
habitat units were occupied at the time of listing and are currently 
occupied. All units 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.
Unit EB1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties, Florida
    Unit EB1 consists of approximately 169,885 ac (68,750 ha) in 
Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties, Florida. The unit is 
comprised of lands in BCNP, including Federal lands in BCNP (146,014 ac 
(59,090 ha)) and County lands (22,411 ac (9,070 ha)) and parcels in 
private or other ownership (1,460 ac (591 ha)) within BCNP.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, off-road vehicle use, oil and gas exploration 
and extraction, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully.
    This unit is part of lands contained within the BCNP. Within this 
unit, as part of their 2019 Fire Management Plan (NPS 2019), the NPS 
conducts nonnative species control and prescribed fire in areas that 
could support Everglades bully.
    Unit EB1 does not contain previously designated critical habitat. 
The federally threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), 
federally endangered Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi), 
and federally endangered Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) occur 
in this unit.
Unit EB2: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit EB2 consists of approximately 7,994 ac (3,235 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands in ENP (ENP) (7,860 
ac (3,181 ha)) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54 
ha)). The unit includes Long Pine Key and some of the surrounding areas 
in ENP.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully.
    This unit is part of lands contained within the ENP. Within this 
unit, as part of their General Management Plan (NPS 2015), the NPS 
conducts nonnative species control and prescribed fire in areas that 
support or could support Everglades bully.
    The entirety of Unit EB2 is designated critical habitat for the 
federally endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak (Strymon acis bartrami) 
and Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) butterflies. The 
federally threatened eastern indigo snake occurs in this unit.
Unit EB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida
    Unit EB3 consists of approximately 987 ac (399 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands owned by the U.S. Coast 
Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (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, including the preserve and 
mitigation area associated with the Coral Reef Commons Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) (187 ac (76 ha)).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully. Within this 
unit, the Miami-Dade DERM conducts nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands owned by 
Miami-Dade County. The U.S. Coast Guard also conducts nonnative species 
control and mechanical vegetation treatments on their property in this 
unit. The actions help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully.
    Within this unit, approximately 109.3 ac (44.2 ha) of land owned by 
Coral Reef Commons is proposed for critical habitat designation for 
Everglades bully. Everglades bully is a covered species under the Coral 
Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan. Because Everglades bully is a 
covered species under the Coral Reef Commons HCP and the preserve and 
mitigation area within this

[[Page 62579]]

proposed critical habitat unit are being managed for the conservation 
of the species and pine rockland habitat, the on-site preserve and the 
off-site 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, below).
    The entirety of unit EB3 is designated critical habitat for the 
following federally endangered species: Carter's small-flowered flax 
(Linum carteri var. carteri), Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia 
mosieri), and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing 
butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake and 
federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in this unit.
Unit EB4: Quail Roost Pineland and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida
    Unit EB4 consists of approximately 256 ac (104 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit is comprised of State lands within Quail Roost 
Pineland, Goulds Pineland and Addition, and Silver Palm Groves Pineland 
(103 ac (42 ha)); County lands, including Medsouth Park, Black Creek 
Forest, and Rock Pit #46 (47 ac (19 ha)); and parcels in private 
ownership (107 ac (43 ha)), including Porter-Russell Pineland owned by 
the Tropical Audubon Society.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully. Within this 
unit, DERM conducts nonnative species control, prescribed fire, and 
mechanical vegetation treatments on lands owned by Miami-Dade County.
    The entirety of unit EB4 is designated critical habitat for the 
federally endangered Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-
bush, and much of the area is designated critical habitat for the 
federally endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The 
federally threatened eastern indigo snake and federally endangered 
Florida bonneted bat occur in this unit.
Unit EB5: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida
    Unit EB5 consists of approximately 558 ac (226 ha) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. The unit is comprised of State lands within Florida 
City Pineland, Palm Drive Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland Preserve 
(portion), and Navy Wells Pineland #39 (74 ac (30 ha)); County/local 
lands, including Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (portion) and Sunny Palms 
Pineland (324 ac (131 ha)); and parcels in private ownership (160 ac 
(65 ha)).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Everglades bully. Within this 
unit, DERM conducts nonnative species control, prescribed fire, and 
mechanical vegetation treatments on lands owned by Miami-Dade County.
    The entirety of unit EB5 is designated critical habitat for the 
following federally endangered species: Carter's small-flowered flax, 
Florida brickell-bush, and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida 
leafwing butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake and 
federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in this unit.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Florida Pineland Crabgrass

    We are proposing to designate approximately 177,879 ac (71,985 ha) 
in two units as critical habitat for Florida pineland crabgrass. The 
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best 
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for 
Florida pineland crabgrass. The two areas we propose as critical 
habitat are:
    (1) FPCG1, Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties, Florida; and
    (2) FPCG2, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of 
Federal (86 percent), County (13 percent), and private and other (1 
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 Units for Florida Pineland Crabgrass, Including Area, Area by Land Ownership, and Occupancy
                                         [All areas rounded to the nearest whole acres (ac) and hectares (ha).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Private/ other
                  Unit                     Total  ac (ha)    Federal  ac (ha)   State  ac (ha)  County  ac (ha)      ac (ha)             Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPCG1--Big Cypress National Preserve...   169,885 (68,750)   146,014 (59,090)            0 (0)   22,411 (9,070)      1,460 (591)  Yes.
FPCG2--Everglades National Park........      7,994 (3,235)      7,860 (3,181)            0 (0)            0 (0)         133 (54)  Yes.
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................   177,879 (71,985)   153,874 (62,271)            0 (0)   22,411 (9,070)      1,593 (645)  ......................
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of Total...............  .................                 86                0               13                1  ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies.

    Approximately 5 percent (8,894 ac (3,599 ha)) of the area proposed 
as critical habitat for Florida pineland crabgrass is also currently 
designated under the Act as critical habitat for the federally 
endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing butterflies.
    We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat 
units and the justification for why they meet the definition of 
critical habitat for Florida pineland crabgrass, below.
    Unit FPCG1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties, Florida. All proposed critical habitat units were 
occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied. All units 
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.
    Unit FPCG1 consists of approximately 169,885 ac (68,750 ha) in 
Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties. The unit is comprised of 
Federal lands in BCNP (146,014 ac (59,090 ha)), County

[[Page 62580]]

lands (22,411 ac (9,070 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership 
(1,460 ac (591 ha)).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, off-road vehicle use, oil and gas exploration 
and extraction, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Florida pineland crabgrass.
    This unit is part of lands within BCNP. Within this unit, as part 
of their 2019 Fire Management Plan (NPS 2019), the NPS conducts 
nonnative species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or 
could support Florida pineland crabgrass.
    Unit FPCG1 does not contain previously designated critical habitat. 
The federally threatened eastern indigo snake, federally endangered 
Florida panther, and federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in 
this unit.
Unit FPCG2: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit FPCG2 consists of approximately 7,994 ac (3,235 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands in ENP (7,860 ac 
(3,181 ha) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54 ha)). 
The unit includes Long Pine Key and some of the surrounding areas in 
ENP.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Florida pineland crabgrass.
    This unit is part of lands within ENP. Within this unit, as part of 
their General Management Plan (NPS 2015), the NPS conducts nonnative 
species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or could 
support Florida pineland crabgrass.
    The entirety of unit FPCG2 is designated critical habitat for the 
federally endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing 
butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake, federally 
endangered Florida panther, and federally endangered Florida bonneted 
bat occur in this unit.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Pineland Sandmat

    We are proposing to designate approximately 8,867 ac (3,588 ha) in 
three units as critical habitat for pineland sandmat. The critical 
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment 
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for pineland 
sandmat. All areas with known extant populations at the time of listing 
are proposed for designation as critical habitat. The units currently 
may contain multiple populations, but the number can vary over a 1- to 
5-year period due to the dynamic nature of this species in response to 
disturbance. The three areas we propose as critical habitat are:
    (1) PS1, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
    (2) PS2, Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
    (3) PS3, Navy Wells, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of 
Federal (89 percent), State (1 percent), County (5 percent), and 
private and other (5 percent). Other lands include areas for which 
ownership information is unclear or unavailable. Table 3 shows these 
units by land ownership, area, and occupancy.

                  Table 3--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Pineland Sandmat, Including Area, Area by Land Ownership, and Occupancy
                                          [All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Private/ other
                  Unit                     Total  ac (ha)    Federal  ac (ha)   State  ac (ha)  County  ac (ha)      ac (ha)             Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS1--Everglades National Park..........      7,994 (3,235)      7,860 (3,181)            0 (0)            0 (0)         133 (54)  Yes.
PS2--Camp Owaissa Bauer................          315 (127)              0 (0)          49 (20)         145 (59)         122 (49)  Yes.
PS3--Navy Wells........................          558 (226)              0 (0)          74 (30)        310 (125)         174 (70)  Yes.
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      8,867 (3,588)      7,860 (3,181)         123 (50)        455 (184)        429 (173)  ......................
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of Total...............  .................                 89                1                5                5  ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or small mapping discrepancies.

    Approximately 99.9 percent (8,854 ac (3,583 ha)) of the lands 
contained within units proposed as critical habitat for pineland 
sandmat are already designated critical habitat for other federally 
listed species.
    We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat 
units and the justification for why they meet the definition of 
critical habitat for pineland sandmat, below. All proposed critical 
habitat units were occupied at the time of listing and are currently 
occupied. All units 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.
Unit PS1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit PS1 consists of approximately 7,994 ac (3,235 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands in ENP (7,860 ac 
(3,181 ha)) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54 ha)). 
The unit includes Long Pine Key and some of the surrounding areas in 
ENP.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports pineland sandmat.
    This unit is part of lands within ENP. Within this unit, as part of 
their General Management Plan (NPS 2015), the NPS conducts nonnative 
species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or could 
support pineland sandmat.
    The entirety of unit PS1 is designated critical habitat for the 
federally endangered Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing 
butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake, federally 
endangered Florida panther, and federally endangered Florida bonneted 
bat occur in this unit.

[[Page 62581]]

Unit PS2: Camp Owaissa Bauer and Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, 
Florida
    Unit PS2 consists of approximately 315 ac (127 ha) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. The unit is comprised of State lands within Owaissa 
Bauer Pineland Addition, West Biscayne Pineland, Ingram 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 (145 ac (59 ha)); and parcels in private ownership 
(122 ac (49 ha)), including the Pine Ridge Sanctuary (a private 
conservation area).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports pineland sandmat.
    The entirety of unit PS2 is designated critical habitat for the 
following federally endangered species: Carter's small-flowered flax, 
Florida brickell-bush, and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The 
federally threatened eastern indigo snake occurs in this unit.
Unit PS3: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and Surrounding Areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida
    Unit PS3 consists of approximately 558 ac (226 ha) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. The unit is comprised of State lands within Florida 
City Pineland, Palm Drive Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (a 
portion), and Navy Wells Pineland #39 (74 ac (30 ha)); County lands, 
including Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (a portion) and Sunny Palms 
Pineland (310 ac (125 ha)); and parcels in private ownership (174 ac 
(70 ha)).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports pineland sandmat.
    The entirety of unit PS3 is designated critical habitat for the 
following federally endangered species: Carter's small-flowered flax, 
Florida brickell-bush, and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and Florida 
leafwing butterflies. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake 
occurs in this unit.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Florida Prairie-Clover

    We are proposing to designate approximately 179,300 ac (72,560 ha) 
in four units as critical habitat for Florida prairie-clover. The 
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best 
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for 
Florida prairie-clover. All areas with known extant populations at the 
time of listing are proposed for designation as critical habitat. Some 
units currently contain multiple populations, but the number can vary 
over a 1- to 5-year period due to the dynamic nature of this species in 
response to disturbance. The four areas we propose as critical habitat 
are:
    (1) FPC1, Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties, Florida;
    (2) FPC2, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
    (3) FPC3, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Subtropical 
Horticultural Research Station, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
    (4) FPC4, Crandon Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of 
Federal (86.2 percent), State (0.7 percent), County (12.6 percent), and 
private and other (0.5 percent). Other lands include areas for which 
ownership information is unclear or unavailable. Table 4 shows these 
units by land ownership, area, and occupancy.

               Table 4--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Florida Prairie-Clover, Including Area, Area by Land Ownership, and Occupancy
                                           [All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Private/
                  Unit                      Total ac (ha)      Federal ac (ha)    State ac (ha)    County ac (ha)     other ac           Occupied
                                                                                                                        (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPC1--Big Cypress National Preserve....    169,885 (68,750)    146,014 (59,090)            0 (0)    22,411 (9,070)  1,460 (591)  Yes.
FPC2--Everglades National Park.........       8,728 (3,532)       8,595 (3,478)            0 (0)             0 (0)     133 (54)  Yes.
FPC3--USDA.............................           630 (255)            145 (58)        253 (103)          192 (78)      40 (16)  Yes.
FPC4--Crandon Park.....................             57 (23)               0 (0)            0 (0)           57 (23)        0 (0)  Yes.
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................    179,300 (72,560)    154,754 (62,627)        253 (103)    22,660 (9,170)  1,633 (661)
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of Total...............  ..................                 86%               1%               13%           1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding or minor mapping discrepancies.

    Approximately 4.6 percent of the lands (8,310 ac (3,363 ha)) 
contained within units proposed as critical habitat for Florida 
prairie-clover are designated critical habitat for other federally 
listed species.
    We present brief descriptions of the proposed critical habitat 
units and the justification for why they meet the definition of 
critical habitat for Florida prairie-clover, below. All proposed 
critical habitat units were occupied at the time of listing and are 
currently occupied. All units 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.
Unit FPC1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties, Florida
    Unit FPC1 consists of approximately 169,885 ac (68,750 ha) in 
Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe County. The unit is comprised of 
Federal lands in BCNP (146,014 ac (59,090 ha)), County land (22,411 ac 
(9,070 ha), and parcels in private or other ownership (1,460 ac (591 
ha)).

[[Page 62582]]

    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, off-road vehicle use, oil and gas exploration 
and extraction, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Florida prairie-clover.
    This unit is part of lands within BCNP. Within this unit, as part 
of their 2019 Fire Management Plan (NPS 2019), the NPS conducts 
nonnative species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or 
could support Florida prairie-clover.
    Unit FPC1 does not contain previously designated critical habitat. 
The federally threatened eastern indigo snake, federally endangered 
Florida panther, and federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in 
this unit.
Unit FPC2: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit FPC2 consists of approximately 8,728 ac (3,532 ha) in Miami-
Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands in ENP (8,595 ac 
(3,478 ha) and parcels in private or other ownership (133 ac (54 ha)). 
The unit includes Long Pine Key and some of the surrounding areas in 
ENP.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Florida prairie-clover.
    This unit is part of lands within ENP. Within this unit, as part of 
their General Management Plan (NPS 2015), the NPS conducts nonnative 
species control and prescribed fire in areas that support or could 
support pineland sandmat. Most (91.6 percent) of unit FPC2 is 
designated critical habitat for the federally endangered Bartram's 
scrub-hairstreak and Florida leafwing butterflies. The federally 
threatened eastern indigo snake, federally endangered Florida panther, 
and federally endangered Florida bonneted bat occur in this unit.
Unit FPC3: USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station and 
Surrounding Areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit FPC3 consists of approximately 630 ac (255 ha) of habitat in 
Miami-Dade County. The unit is comprised of Federal lands within the 
USDA Subtropical Horticultural Research Station (145 ac (58 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 (192 ac (78 
ha)); and parcels in private ownership (40 ac (16 ha)).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Florida prairie-clover.
    The entirety of unit FPC3 is designated critical habitat for the 
federally endangered Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-
bush. The federally threatened eastern indigo snake occurs in this 
unit.
Unit FPC4: Crandon Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida
    Unit FPC4 consists of approximately 57 ac (23 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit is comprised entirely of land owned by Miami-Dade 
County. The unit includes coastal berm and rockland hammock on the east 
side of County Road 913 to the shoreline, from the vicinity of the 
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Biscayne Nature Center to near the northern 
tip of the island.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address threats of nonnative plant and animal 
species, lack of fire, and sea level rise. Nonnative species control, 
prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments are all actions 
that help improve habitat that supports Florida prairie-clover.
    Unit FPC4 does not contain previously designated critical habitat. 
The federally threatened eastern indigo snake occurs in this unit.

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). (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,

[[Page 62583]]

    (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, 
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 request reinitiation of consultation with us, but 
Congress also enacted some exceptions in 2018 to the requirement to 
reinitiate consultation on certain land management plans on the basis 
of a new species listing or new designation of critical habitat that 
may be affected by the subject Federal action (see the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141), Division O, 132 Stat. 1059 
(2018)).

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 Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland 
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover 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 Department 
of Defense (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. No DOD lands with a completed INRMP are 
within the proposed critical habitat designations for Everglades bully, 
Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, or Florida prairie-
clover.

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 (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, 
February 11, 2016), 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 activities 
for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas

[[Page 62584]]

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 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 these particular designations, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from the proposed designations 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 Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover (IEc 2021, entire). We 
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designations 
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 that any destruction or adverse modification of those 
areas is also likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. Therefore, designating occupied areas as critical habitat 
typically causes little 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 
designations for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland 
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover; 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 likely 
affected by the critical habitat designations. In our evaluation of the 
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designations of critical habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated August 30, 2021, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities:
    (1) Federal lands management (National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 
Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers);
    (2) Roadway and bridge construction and maintenance;
    (3) Oil and gas exploration and extraction;
    (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 designation 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 Everglades bully, Florida pineland 
crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover 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 Everglades 
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida 
prairie-clover. Because the designation of critical habitat for these 
species is being proposed several years after these species were listed 
under the Act, data from our consultation history are available to help 
us discern which

[[Page 62585]]

conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and 
those which will result solely from the designation of critical 
habitat. The following specific circumstances 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 these proposed 
designations of critical habitat.
    Approximately 179,680 ac (72,714 ha) in five units in Collier, 
Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, are being proposed for 
designation as critical habitat for the Everglades bully. All five 
units are occupied by Everglades bully. Approximately 177,879 ac 
(71,985 ha) in two units in Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties, 
Florida, are being proposed for designation as critical habitat for 
Florida pineland crabgrass; both units are occupied by the species. 
Approximately 8,867 ac (3,588 ha) in three units in Miami-Dade County, 
Florida, are being proposed for designation as critical habitat for 
pineland sandmat. All three units are occupied by pineland sandmat. 
Approximately 179,300 ac (72,560 ha) in four units in Collier, Monroe, 
and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, are being proposed for designation as 
critical habitat for Florida prairie-clover. All four units are 
occupied by Florida prairie-clover. Land ownership across the units for 
all four plants includes Federal lands (85 percent), State of Florida 
lands (less than 1 percent), county lands (13 percent), and private 
lands (1 percent). The majority of the proposed area for Everglades 
bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and Florida prairie-clover is within 
BCNP. Approximately 6 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 adversely affect designated critical habitat would 
also adversely affect the species, 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 four 
plants 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 6 percent of the proposed 
critical habitat overlapping with designated critical habitat for other 
species; and (3) nearly 100 percent of the proposed critical habitat is 
occupied by other federally listed species, including Florida panther 
and Florida bonneted bat. Several management plans and conservation 
plans also provide baseline protections to the species in proposed 
critical habitat areas.
    In total, approximately 20 formal consultations, 123 informal 
consultations, and 29 technical assistance efforts that will include 
the four plants are anticipated to occur during the next 10 years in 
proposed critical habitat areas, with costs to the Service and Federal 
action agencies of approximately $43,600 annually. Although the 
specific geographic distribution of these costs is uncertain, it 
appears likely that most costs would occur in the BCNP units, which 
comprises 94 percent of proposed critical habitat in total for these 
four plants.
    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 that 
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 1 percent of the proposed critical habitat designations 
is privately owned land, leading to at-most nominal incremental costs 
arising from changes in public perception of lands included in the 
designations.
    The total annual incremental costs of critical habitat designation 
for these four plants are anticipated to be approximately $43,600 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 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 all aspects of this proposed rule and our 
required determinations. During the development of final designations, 
we will consider the information presented in the DEA and any 
additional information on economic impacts received during the public 
comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designations 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 these 
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 designations and 
related factors. At this time, we are not considering any exclusions 
based on economic impacts.
    During the development of final designations, 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 designations 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

[[Page 62586]]

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 
designations of critical habitat are owned by DOD or DHS or could lead 
to national-security or homeland-security impacts if designated. Below, 
we describe the areas within the proposed designations 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 designations. If, during the comment period, we identify 
or receive information about additional areas for which designations 
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) of the Act and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
DHS Land Parcel
    We have determined that some lands within the Richmond Pine 
Rocklands and surrounding areas unit (Unit EB3) of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Everglades bully are owned, 
managed, or utilized by the U.S. Coast Guard, which is part of the DHS.
    The U.S. Coast Guard 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 facilities, such as 
construction and post-disaster assessments.
    The U.S. Coast Guard 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 Everglades bully. As of the drafting of this proposed 
rule, the U.S. Coast Guard 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, and 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 U.S. Coast Guard 
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. Consequently, the Secretary 
does not intend to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from 
the final designations based on impacts on national security. We will, 
however, review this determination, in light of any new information and 
public comments we receive prior to making a decision in the final 
rule.
DOD Land Parcel
    As discussed above, we have determined that the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps), a branch of the DOD, retains ownership over a 121-ac 
(49-ha) parcel in Unit EB3 of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for Everglades bully. More than 85 ac (34 ha) of this parcel 
are forested but not managed for preservation of natural resources. The 
Corps does not have an INRMP or any specific management plan for the 
Everglades bully or its habitat covering these lands. Activities 
conducted on this site are unknown, but 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. Consequently, the Secretary 
does not intend to exercise her discretion to exclude any areas from 
the final designations based on impacts on national security. 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 designations 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) of the Act and our

[[Page 62587]]

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Consideration 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, 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 Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the presence of these four plant 
species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal 
nexus exists, habitat protection for the four 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.
    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 exclusion of 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.
    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 designations include areas that are 
covered by the following permitted plan providing for the conservation 
of Everglades bully: 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 EB3 for Everglades bully (Richmond Pine 
Rocklands 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, a 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) on-
site 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 Everglades bully.
    The Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing 
(CSTARS) site is an offsite mitigation area for Coral Reef Commons 
comprised of 57 ac (23 ha). Both the on-site preserve and the off-site 
mitigation area are being managed to maintain healthy pine rockland 
habitat through the use of invasive, exotic plant management; 
mechanical treatment; and prescribed fire. Since initiating the Coral 
Reef Commons HCP, pine rockland restoration efforts have been conducted 
within all of the management units in both the on-site preserves and 
the off-site mitigation area. A second round of prescribed fire began 
in February 2021. Currently, the on-site preserves meet or exceed the 
success criteria described in the HCP.

[[Page 62588]]

    Critical habitat within (EB3) that is associated with the Coral 
Reef Commons HCP is limited to the on-site preserves and off-site 
mitigation area. Based on a cursory review of the HCP and proposed 
critical habitat for Everglades bully, we do not anticipate requesting 
any additional conservation measures for this 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 Everglades bully. However, we 
will more thoroughly review the HCP, its implementation of the 
conservation measures for Everglades bully and its habitat therein, and 
public comment on this issue prior to finalizing critical habitat, and, 
if appropriate, in the final rule, exclude from critical habitat for 
Everglades bully those lands associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP 
that are in the on-site preserves and off-site mitigation area.
    We have determined that there are no additional HCPs or other 
management plans for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, 
pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover.
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 
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 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.
    There are no Tribal lands in the proposed critical habitat 
designations for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland 
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover.

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

    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 Everglades bully (unit ES3). In conclusion, we specifically solicit 
comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such areas.
    During the development of final designations, we will consider any 
information currently available or received during the public comment 
period regarding other relevant impacts of the proposed designations 
and will determine whether these or any other specific areas should be 
considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designations 
under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 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 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

[[Page 62589]]

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 these 
proposed designations as well as types of project modifications that 
may result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is 
meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    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 designations. 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 designations will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designations 
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 designations would 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 pineland sandmat. There may be energy 
development projects (i.e., oil and gas exploration and extraction 
activities) at BCNP that may affect or be affected by the proposed 
critical habitat for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and 
Florida prairie-clover. However, in our evaluation of potential 
economic impacts, we did not find that the proposed critical habitat 
designations for Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, and 
Florida prairie-clover 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

[[Page 62590]]

funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that 
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive 
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The government lands being proposed 
for critical habitat designation are owned by the State of Florida, 
Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, and numerous Federal agencies (USCG, 
NOAA, Corps, FBP, USDA, and NPS). 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 Everglades bully, Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland 
sandmat, and Florida prairie-clover 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 designations of critical habitat for Everglades bully, 
Florida pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, and Florida prairie-
clover, and it concludes that, if adopted, the designations of critical 
habitat do not pose significant takings implications for lands within 
or affected by the designations.

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 the proposed critical habitat designations 
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 Federal government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The proposed designations 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 E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that this proposed 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 physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of 
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 rulemaking 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 designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that

[[Page 62591]]

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 ``Tribal Lands'' under Exclusions), we have 
determined that no Tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the 
proposed critical habitat designations for Everglades bully, Florida 
pineland crabgrass, pineland sandmat, or Florida prairie-clover, so no 
Tribal lands would be affected by the proposed designations 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.

Signing Authority

    Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
approved this action on September 20, 2022, for publication. On 
September 30, 2022, Martha Williams authorized the undersigned to sign 
the document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal 
Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.

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, amend paragraph (h) by revising the entries for 
``Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum'', ``Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana'', ``Digitaria pauciflora'', and ``Sideroxylon reclinatum 
ssp. austrofloridense'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
under FLOWERING PLANTS, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
         Scientific name                Common name          Where listed         Status        and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp.          Pineland sandmat....  Wherever found......            T   82 FR 46691, 10/6/
 pinetorum.                                                                                   2017; 50 CFR
                                                                                              17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Dalea carthagenensis var.          Florida prairie-      Wherever found......            E   82 FR 46691, 10/6/
 floridana.                         clover.                                                   2017; 50 CFR
                                                                                              17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Digitaria pauciflora.............  Florida pineland      Wherever found......            T   82 FR 46691, 10/6/
                                    crabgrass.                                                2017; 50 CFR
                                                                                              17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp.        Everglades bully....  Wherever found......            T   82 FR 46691, 10/6/
 austrofloridense.                                                                            2017; 50 CFR
                                                                                              17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by:
0
a. Adding an entry for ``Family Euphorbiaceae: Chamaesyce deltoidea 
ssp. pinetorum, (pineland sandmat)'' following the entry for ``Family 
Ericaceae: Gonocalyx concolor'';
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Family Fabaceae: Dalea carthagenensis var. 
floridana (Florida prairie-clover)'' following the entry for ``Family 
Fabaceae: Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura Marsh 
milk-vetch)'';
0
c. Adding an entry for ``Family Poaceae: Digitaria pauciflora (Florida 
pineland crabgrass)'' following the entry for ``Family Plantaginaceae: 
Penstemon debilis (Parachute penstemon)''; and
0
d. Adding an entry for ``Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully)'' following the entry for ``Family 
Rubiaceae: Catesbaea melanocarpa (no common name)''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Euphorbiaceae: Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (pineland 
sandmat)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade County, 
Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the pineland sandmat are South Florida 
pine rockland and adjacent ecotonal areas:
    (i) 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);
    (ii) Characterized by an open canopy and understory with a high 
proportion of native pine rockland plant species to

[[Page 62592]]

provide for sufficient sunlight to permit growth and flowering;
    (iii) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the 
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County and short 
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
    (iv) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or 
unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open 
canopy conditions; and
    (v) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include human-made 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 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS 
mapping software. The projection used was Albers Conical Equal Area 
(Florida Geographic Data Library), North American Datum (NAD) 1983 High 
Accuracy Reference Network (HARN). The maps in this entry, as modified 
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the 
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on 
which each map is based are available to the public at the Service's 
internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-
0125, and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may 
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the 
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 
2.2.
    (5) Index map of critical habitat units for pineland sandmat 
follows:

Figure 1 to Family Euphorbiaceae: Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 
(pineland sandmat) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.031

    (6) PS1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit PS1 consists of approximately 7,994 acres (ac) (3,235 
hectares (ha)) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit is comprised of 
lands on Long Pine Key

[[Page 62593]]

and surrounding areas in Everglades National Park.
    (ii) Map of Unit PS1 follows:

Figure 2 to Family Euphorbiaceae: Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 
(pineland sandmat) paragraph (6)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.032

    (7) PS2: Camp Owaissa Bauer and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida.
    (i) Unit PS2 consists of approximately 315 ac (127 ha) of habitat 
in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 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 PS2 follows:

Figure 3 to Family Euphorbiaceae: Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum 
(pineland sandmat) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 62594]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.033

    (8) PS3: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit PS3 consists of approximately 558 ac (226 ha) of habitat 
in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit is bordered on the north by SW 
320 Street, on the south by SW 368 Street, on the east by U.S. 1 (South 
Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
    (ii) Map of Unit PS3 follows:

    Figure 4 to Family Euphorbiaceae: Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. 
pinetorum (pineland sandmat) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 62595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.034

* * * * *
Family Fabaceae: Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida prairie-
clover)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Collier, Miami-Dade 
County, and Monroe Counties, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Florida prairie-clover are South 
Florida pine rockland, marl prairie, rockland hammock, and coastal berm 
habitat and adjacent disturbed areas:
    (i) Consisting of limestone substrate that provides nutritional 
requirements and suitable growing conditions (e.g., pH, nutrients, 
anchoring, and drainage);
    (ii) 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) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the 
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County or the tropical 
humid classification in Collier and Monroe Counties and short 
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
    (iv) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., fire, hurricanes, and 
storm surge) or unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire, mowing) disturbance 
regimes to maintain open canopy conditions; and
    (v) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include human-made 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 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS 
mapping software. The projection used was Albers Conical Equal Area 
(Florida Geographic Data Library), North American Datum (NAD) 1983 High 
Accuracy Reference Network (HARN). The maps in this entry, as modified 
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the 
critical

[[Page 62596]]

habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which 
each map is based are available to the public at the Service's internet 
site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services, at 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0125, and at 
the field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field 
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional 
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map of all critical habitat units for Florida prairie-
clover follows:

Figure 1 to Family Fabaceae: Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
(Florida prairie-clover) paragraph (5)

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.035


[[Page 62597]]


    (6) FPC1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit FPC1 consists of approximately 169,885 acres (ac) (68,750 
hectares (ha)) in Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe County, Florida. The 
unit is comprised of lands primarily in Big Cypress National Preserve.
    (ii) Map of Unit FPC1 follows:

Figure 2 to Family Fabaceae: Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
(Florida prairie-clover) paragraph (6)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.036

    (7) FPC2: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit FPC2 consists of approximately 8,728 ac (3,532 ha) in 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit is comprised of lands on Long 
Pine Key and surrounding areas in Everglades National Park.
    (ii) Map of Unit FPC2 follows:

Figure 3 to Family Fabaceae: Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
(Florida prairie-clover) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 62598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.037

    (8) FPC3: U.S. Department of Agriculture Subtropical Horticultural 
Research Station and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit FPCG3 consists of approximately 630 ac (255 ha) of habitat 
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (ii) Map of Unit FPC3 follows:

Figure 4 to Family Fabaceae: Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
(Florida prairie-clover) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 62599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.038

    (9) Unit FPC4: Crandon Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit FPC4 consists of approximately 57 ac (23 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. The unit includes coastal berm and rockland hammock on 
the east side of County Road 913 to the shoreline, from the vicinity of 
the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Biscayne Nature Center to near the 
northern tip of the island.
    (ii) Map of Unit FPC4 follows:

Figure 5 to Family Fabaceae: Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana 
(Florida prairie-clover) paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 62600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.039

* * * * *
Family Poaceae: Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland crabgrass)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Collier, Miami-Dade, 
and Monroe Counties, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Florida pineland crabgrass are 
South Florida pine rockland, marl prairie, and adjacent ecotonal areas:
    (i) 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);
    (ii) Characterized by an open to semi-open canopy and understory 
with a high proportion of native plant species to provide for 
sufficient sunlight to permit growth and flowering;
    (iii) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the 
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County or the tropical 
humid classification in Collier and Monroe Counties and short 
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
    (iv) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or 
unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open 
canopy conditions; and
    (v) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.

[[Page 62601]]

    (3) Critical habitat does not include human-made 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 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS 
mapping software. The projection used was Albers Conical Equal Area 
(Florida Geographic Data Library), North American Datum (NAD) 1983 High 
Accuracy Reference Network (HARN). The maps in this entry, as modified 
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the 
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on 
which each map is based are available to the public at the Service's 
internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-
0125, and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may 
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the 
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 
2.2.
    (5) Index map of all critical habitat units for Florida pineland 
crabgrass follows:

Figure 1 to Family Poaceae: Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland 
crabgrass) paragraph (5)

[[Page 62602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.040

    (6) FPCG1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, and 
Monroe Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit FPCG1 consists of approximately 169,885 acres (ac) (68,750 
hectares (ha)) in Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties, Florida. 
This unit is comprised of lands primarily in Big Cypress National 
Preserve.
    (ii) Map of Unit FPCG1 follows:

Figure 2 to Family Poaceae: Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland 
crabgrass) paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 62603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.041

    (7) FPCG2: Everglades National Park, Monroe County, Florida.
    (i) Unit FPCG2 consists of approximately 7,994 ac (3,235 ha) in 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit is comprised of lands on Long 
Pine Key and surrounding areas in Everglades National Park.
    (ii) Map of Unit FPCG2 follows:

Figure 3 to Family Poaceae: Digitaria pauciflora (Florida pineland 
crabgrass) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 62604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.042

* * * * *
Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense 
(Everglades bully)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Collier, Miami-Dade, 
and Monroe Counties, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Everglades bully are South Florida 
pine rockland, marl prairie, and adjacent ecotonal areas:
    (i) 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);
    (ii) Characterized by an open to semi-open canopy and understory 
with a high proportion of native plant species to provide for 
sufficient sunlight to permit growth and flowering;
    (iii) Subjected to a monthly mean temperature characteristic of the 
subtropical humid classification in Miami-Dade County or the tropical 
humid classification in Collier and Monroe Counties and short 
hydroperiods ranging up to 60 days each year;
    (iv) Subjected to periodic natural (e.g., hurricanes, fire) or 
unnatural (e.g., prescribed fire) disturbance regimes to maintain open 
canopy conditions; and
    (v) Containing the presence of native pollinators for natural 
pollination and reproduction.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include human-made structures (such 
as

[[Page 62605]]

buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS 
mapping software. The projection used was Albers Conical Equal Area 
(Florida Geographic Data Library), North American Datum (NAD) 1983 High 
Accuracy Reference Network (HARN). The maps in this entry, as modified 
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the 
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on 
which each map is based are available to the public at the Service's 
internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2022-0125, and at the field office responsible for this designation. 
You may obtain field office location information by contacting one of 
the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 
CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index maps of all critical habitat units for Everglades bully 
follows:

Figure 1 to Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully) paragraph (5)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.043

Figure 2 to Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully) paragraph (5)

[[Page 62606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.044

    (6) Unit EB1: Big Cypress National Preserve, Collier, Miami-Dade, 
and Monroe Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit EB1 consists of 169,885 ac (68,750 ha) in Collier, Miami-
Dade, and Monroe County, Florida. The unit is comprised of lands 
primarily in Big Cypress National Preserve.
    (ii) Map of Unit EB1 follows:

Figure 3 to Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully) paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 62607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.045

    (7) Unit EB2: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit EB2 consists of approximately 7,994 ac (3,235 ha) in 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit is comprised of lands on Long 
Pine Key and surrounding areas in Everglades National Park.
    (ii) Map of Unit EB2 follows:

Figure 4 to Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 62608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.046

    (8) Unit EB3: Richmond Pinelands and surrounding areas, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida.
    (i) Unit EB3 consists of approximately 987 ac (399 ha) in Miami-
Dade County, Florida. 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 EB3 follows:

Figure 5 to Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 62609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.047

    (9) Unit EB4: Quail Roost Pineland and surrounding areas, Miami-
Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit EB4 consists of approximately 256 ac (104 ha) in Miami-
Dade County, Florida. 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 EB4 follows:

Figure 6 to Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully) paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 62610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.048

    (10) Unit EB5: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and surrounding areas, 
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit EB5 consists of approximately 558 ac (226 ha) of habitat 
in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit is bordered on the north by SW 
320 Street, on the south by SW 368 Street, on the east by U.S. 1 (South 
Dixie Highway), and on the west by SW 217 Avenue.
    (ii) Map of Unit EB5 follows:

Figure 7 to Family Sapotaceae: Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. 
austrofloridense (Everglades bully) paragraph (10)(ii)

[[Page 62611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC22.049

* * * * *

Madonna Baucum,
Chief, Policy and Regulations Branch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-21604 Filed 10-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C