[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65124-65160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17271]



[[Page 65123]]

Vol. 89

Thursday,

No. 153

August 8, 2024

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Cedar Key Mole Skink and Designation of Critical Habitat; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 65124]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH41


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Cedar Key Mole Skink and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the Cedar Key mole skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis), a lizard 
subspecies from the Cedar Keys, Florida, as an endangered species under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
listing this subspecies is warranted. We also propose to designate 
critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink under the Act. In total, 
approximately 2,713 acres (1,098 hectares) in Levy County, Cedar Keys, 
Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. In addition, we announce the availability of an economic 
analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cedar 
Key mole skink. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend 
the Act's protections to this subspecies and its designated critical 
habitat.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
October 7, 2024. 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 a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by September 23, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053, 
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 to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as 
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's 
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library and at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2024-0053. For the proposed critical habitat designation, the 
coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated 
are included in the decision file for this critical habitat designation 
and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2024-0053 and on the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Division Manager, 
Classification and Recovery, Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 
7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; 
[email protected]; telephone 352-749-2462. 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. 
Please see Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an 
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a 
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and 
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. We have determined that the Cedar Key mole skink 
meets the Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are 
proposing to list it as endangered and proposing a designation of its 
critical habitat. Both listing a species as an endangered or threatened 
species and making a critical habitat designation can be completed only 
by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking 
process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. We propose to list the Cedar Key mole 
skink as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose the 
designation of critical habitat for the subspecies.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the Cedar Key mole skink 
is endangered due to threats associated with climate change, 
specifically sea level rise, increased high tide flooding, and 
increased intensity of storm events (Factor E).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species. 
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time 
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features 
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may 
require special management considerations or protections; and (ii) 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation 
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national 
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat.

[[Page 65125]]

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 subspecies' biology, range, and population trends, 
including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the subspecies, 
including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional populations of this subspecies;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the subspecies, 
including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the 
subspecies, which may include habitat modification or destruction, 
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or humanmade factors;
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this subspecies; and
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to this subspecies.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of this subspecies.
    (4) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Cedar Key mole skink habitat;
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the 
subspecies, the Cedar Keys in Levy County, Florida, that should be 
included in the critical habitat designation because they (i) are 
occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or biological 
feature that is essential to the conservation of the subspecies and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, or 
(ii) are unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the 
conservation of the subspecies;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in the critical habitat areas we are proposing, including 
managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) Whether areas not occupied at the time of listing qualify as 
habitat for the species and are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    (5) Land use designations and current or planned activities and 
their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (7) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of 
the likely economic impacts and any additional information regarding 
probable economic impacts that we should consider.
    (8) 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.
    (9) 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, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available, and 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.
    Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we 
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well 
as any information that may become available after the publication of 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and, if 
relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that 
the subspecies is threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude 
that the subspecies does not warrant listing as either an endangered 
species or a threatened species. For critical habitat, our final 
designation may not include all areas proposed, may include some 
additional areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, or may 
exclude some areas if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion and exclusion will not result in the extinction 
of the subspecies. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our 
rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made 
changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.

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

[[Page 65126]]

hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity to list the Cedar Key mole skink as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act. On July 1, 2015, we published in 
the Federal Register (80 FR 37568) a 90-day finding that the petition 
provided substantial information indicating that listing the Cedar Key 
mole skink may be warranted. On December 19, 2018, we published in the 
Federal Register (83 FR 65127) a 12-month finding that the Cedar Key 
mole skink did not warrant listing under the Act. On January 26, 2022, 
the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the Service, 
alleging the Service did not use the best available scientific data 
regarding sea level rise and its impacts to Cedar Key mole skink 
habitat in its 12-month finding. In May 2022, the Service agreed to 
submit a new finding to the Federal Register by July 31, 2024. This 
finding and proposed rule reflect the updated assessment of the status 
of the Cedar Key mole skink based on the best available science, 
including an updated species status assessment for the subspecies 
(Service 2023, entire).

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Cedar Key mole skink. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report 
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available concerning the status of the subspecies, including the 
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and 
beneficial) affecting the subspecies.
    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 in 
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent 
scientific review of the information contained in the Cedar Key mole 
skink SSA report. We sent the SSA report to six independent peer 
reviewers and received one response. Results of this structured peer 
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services. In preparing this 
proposed rule, we incorporated the results of this review, as 
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this 
proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from one 
peer reviewer on the draft SSA report. We reviewed the comments for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the contents of the 
SSA report. The peer reviewer generally concurred with our methods and 
conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and 
suggestions, including clarifications in terminology and other 
editorial suggestions.
    The peer reviewer suggested that our statement that ``rafting is 
rare, but does occur'' was inappropriate. The peer reviewer noted that 
there is no evidence that rafting occurs in the Cedar Key mole skink 
(or any mole skink subspecies) and that, in fact, genetic evidence 
suggests the opposite (that there is no movement of mole skinks among 
islands). We updated the SSA report to indicate that rafting is 
unlikely.
    The peer reviewer also commented that our analysis of ``potential 
habitat'' on the two developed islands, Way Key and Airstrip Island, 
was an overrepresentation of the amount of habitat truly available to 
the Cedar Key mole skink. In our initial analysis, we included high 
intensity and low intensity urban data layers for these islands as part 
of our calculation of potential habitat available because skinks have 
been found in backyards, in parking lots, along roadsides, and in other 
disturbed or developed areas. However, these data layers also included 
roads, buildings, and other developed areas, which are not considered 
habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink. As a result, our use of these 
data layers increased what we had identified as potential habitat on 
Airport Island from 1.00 acre (0.40 hectares) to 52.43 acres (21.0 
hectares), and on Way Key from 2.65 acres (1.07 hectares) to 266.14 
acres (107.70 hectares). We agree with the peer reviewer that the use 
of the urban areas in our analysis overestimated the amount of habitat 
truly available to the Cedar Key mole skink. Thus, we restricted our 
analysis of these two islands to only include the preferred habitat 
data layers that included beaches, dunes, and coastal hammock. We 
included the additional analysis focused on high-intensity and low-
intensity urban areas on Way Key and Airport Island as part of appendix 
A in the SSA report.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Cedar Key mole skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) is presented in 
the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 2-16). The Cedar Key mole skink is 
one of five distinct subspecies of mole skinks in Florida, all in the 
genus Plestiodon (previously Eumeces) (Brandley et al. 2005, pp. 387-
388), and is endemic to the Cedar Keys, Florida. This subspecies 
represents a unique genetic lineage that is distinct from the other 
four mole skink subspecies (Brandley et al. 2005, pp. 387-388; 
Parkinson et al. 2016, entire). The Cedar Key mole skink is the largest 
of the five subspecies, approaching 15 centimeters (5.9 inches), with 
the tail accounting for two-thirds of the length.
    The Cedar Key mole skink is semi-fossorial (adapted to digging, 
burrowing, and living underground) and cryptic in nature. The Cedar Key 
mole skink is a cold-blooded reptile and therefore highly dependent air 
and soil temperature to thermoregulate (maintain body core temperature) 
(Mount 1963, p. 362). Ground cover moderates soil temperatures and 
provides shade to assist in the skinks' thermoregulation in hot 
climate. The optimum temperature range for the mole skink species 
(Plestiodon egregius) is 26 to 34 degrees Celsius (C) (78.8 to 93.2 
degrees Fahrenheit (F)) with a mean of 29.5 C (85.1 F) (Mount 1963, p. 
363). Mole skinks are considered thermoconformers, lacking the capacity 
to adjust or regulate to changes in temperature outside of this stable 
and relatively narrow thermal range in which it occurs (Gallagher et al 
2015, p. 62).
    The specific diet of Cedar Key mole skink is unknown, but in 
general, skinks in the genus Plestiodon are known to eat ants, spiders, 
crickets, beetles, termites, small bugs, mites, and butterfly larva 
(Hamilton and Pollack 1958, p, 26). Native snakes are considered 
natural predators of mole skinks (Hamilton and Pollack 1958, p. 28, 
Mount 1963, p. 356) and domestic and feral cats on some islands in the 
Cedar Keys are known to prey on skink populations (Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Commission (FWC) 2013, p.5). The Cedar Key mole skink relies 
on dry, unconsolidated soils for movement, cover, and nesting, and it 
needs detritus, leaves, wrack, and other ground cover for shelter, 
temperature regulation, and food (insects and arthropods found in 
ground cover).
    The Cedar Keys are a coastal complex of islands, tidal creeks, 
bays, and salt marsh, located along 10 miles (16 kilometers) of 
Florida's central Gulf of Mexico coast in Levy County. The Cedar Key 
mole skink has been found in small numbers on 10 islands of the Cedar

[[Page 65127]]

Keys archipelago (see figure 1, below). Eight of these islands are 
currently considered occupied (skink detections documented between 2000 
to 2022), and two of these islands are considered to have uncertain 
status (skink detections documented prior to 1999, but not resurveyed) 
(Mount 1963, entire; Mount 1965 entire; FWC 2023, entire). In total, 
215 Cedar Key mole skinks have been detected, with 62 individuals 
documented since 2000. Within this limited range, the Cedar Key mole 
skink is found most frequently in sand beach and coastal dune habitats. 
The estimated home range of a Cedar Key mole skink is approximately a 
328-ft (100-meter) radius (Service 2023, p. 12).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.017


[[Page 65128]]


    The Cedar Keys archipelago is a relatively small coastal ecosystem 
of 30 or more, mostly undeveloped islands of varying size and 
elevations. Of the eight current islands with known Cedar Key mole 
skink occurrence, only one island, Airstrip Island, is developed. Deer 
Island, also occupied by the Cedar Key mole skink, is privately owned 
with one dwelling and could be further developed with a small number of 
(off-the-grid) dwellings. Way Key, the largest island within the Cedar 
Keys, where the City of Cedar Key is located, is mostly developed, but 
the Cedar Key mole skink population status there is uncertain. The 
remaining islands with known populations of the Cedar Key mole skink 
are undeveloped and largely protected as part of the Cedar Keys 
National Wildlife Refuge. There are other islands of the Cedar Keys 
archipelago that contain suitable habitat and soils for the Cedar Key 
mole skink, but they have unknown occupancy due to lack of survey 
efforts. Many of these islands are also protected as conservation 
lands, and some are privately owned (all or in part) but remain 
undeveloped.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    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 endangered and 
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, we issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when 
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same 
day, we published a final rule revising our protections for endangered 
species and threatened species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919). These final 
rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the current 
regulations.
    The Act defines a ``species'' as including any subspecies of fish 
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. 
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, 
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the 
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve 
the further application of standards within the Act and its 
implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess the Cedar Key mole skink's viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the subspecies to withstand environmental 
and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years);

[[Page 65129]]

redundancy is the ability of the subspecies to withstand catastrophic 
events (for example, droughts, large pollution events); and 
representation is the ability of the subspecies to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, the 
subspecies' viability will increase with increases in resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation. Using these principles, we identified 
the subspecies' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction 
at the individual, population, and subspecies levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the subspecies' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the subspecies' individual and 
population life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of 
the historical and current condition of the subspecies' demographics 
and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the 
subspecies arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA 
involved making predictions about the subspecies' responses to positive 
and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all 
of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of the subspecies to sustain populations in 
the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2024-0053 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
subspecies and its resources, and the threats that influence the 
subspecies' current and future condition, in order to assess the 
subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Subspecies Needs

    The SSA report contains a detailed discussion of the Cedar Key mole 
skink's individual and population requirements (Service 2023, pp. 2-
16); we provide a summary here. Based upon the best available 
scientific and commercial information, and acknowledging existing 
ecological uncertainties, the resource and demographic needs for 
breeding, feeding, sheltering, and dispersal of the Cedar Key mole 
skink are characterized as:
     Beaches, dunes, and coastal hammock habitats that provide 
ground cover in the form of leaf litter and wrack material, that the 
Cedar Key mole skink needs for nesting, arthropod and insect food 
sources, and cover; and
     Dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable (crumbly in 
texture) soils for digging of nest cavities and movement, as all 
portions of the Cedar Key mole skink's life cycle occur within or on 
the surface of the soil.
    The Cedar Key mole skink's abundance, distribution, and life-
history behaviors (e.g., nesting, breeding) are limited to, and defined 
by, the availability of these resources in the areas of beach, dune, 
and coastal hammock habitats.

Threats

    The main threats affecting the Cedar Key mole skink are related to 
shifts in climate as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. 
Sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding (increase of tides above 
the mean high tide), and increasing intensity of storm events (such as 
hurricanes) are the predominant threats to the Cedar Key mole skink and 
its habitat. We also evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms and 
ongoing conservation measures. In the SSA report, we considered 
additional threats: habitat loss and degradation that result from 
development and habitat disturbance; overutilization due to 
recreational, educational, and scientific use; disease; oil spills; and 
nonnative species. We concluded that, as indicated by the best 
available scientific and commercial information, these additional 
threats are currently having little to no impact on the Cedar Key mole 
skink, and thus their overall effect now and into the future is 
expected to be minimal. For full descriptions of all threats and how 
they impact the Cedar Key mole skink, please see the SSA report 
(Service 2023, pp. 16-31).
Climate Change
    The predominant threats currently affecting the Cedar Key mole 
skink and its habitat are the rapid and intense shifts in climate 
occurring as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The 
entire Cedar Key archipelago is being affected by sea level rise, more 
frequent high tide flooding, and increased intensity of tropical storms 
and hurricanes. In the SSA report and this proposed rule, we discuss 
the effects of climate change on the Cedar Key mole skink in terms of 
increasing sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding, and increased 
intensity of storm events.
    Sea level rise--Within Florida, sea level rise is increasing at a 
faster rate than globally, making this subspecies especially vulnerable 
to impacts from sea level rise across its entire range (Carter et al. 
2014, pp. 401-403; Park and Sweet 2015, entire; Sweet et al. 2017, p. 
25). Accelerated sea level rise in Florida is attributed to shifts in 
the Florida Current due to added ocean mass brought on by the melting 
Antarctic and Greenland ice packs and thermal expansion from warming 
oceans (Park and Sweet 2015, entire; Rahmstorf et al. 2015, entire; 
Deconto and Pollard 2016, p. 596; Sweet et al. 2017, p. 14). Tidal 
gauges around Florida have shown approximately 25 centimeters (10 
inches) of sea level rise since 1920. However, from 2006 to 2016 alone, 
there was a 12-centimeter (5-inch) sea level rise in southeast Florida 
(Sweet et al. 2017, p. 41; SeaLevelRise.org 2023, p. 1).
    The majority of the Cedar Keys are low-lying sandy islands (see 
table 1, below), making them highly susceptible to erosion and 
flooding, and at risk of inundation and saltwater intrusion (Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 2012, p. 12; U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) 2017, unpaginated). As sea level rises, Cedar 
Key mole skink habitat becomes inundated and unusable due to saturation 
of the soils or direct loss of habitat. The Cedar Key mole skink 
utilizes coastal beach habitat and coastal maritime hammock habitat 
during all of its life stages, making it especially vulnerable to 
current and projected sea level rise across its entire range. The 
effects of rising sea levels (loss of beach habitat, coastal flooding, 
and saltwater intrusion) are currently being experienced along 
Florida's Gulf Coast, including the Cedar Keys, and these effects are 
projected to continue (see table 1, below; Carter et al. 2014, pp. 398-
400, 403; Wadlow 2016, entire; SeaLevelRise.org 2023, p. 1).
    High tide flooding--One of the most noticeable impacts from sea 
level rise is the increased frequency of high tide flooding (Sweet et 
al. 2020, p. v). High tide flooding begins when coastal water levels 
exceed the mean higher high-water level (increase of tides above the 
mean high tide) (Sweet et al. 2014, entire). Frequent flooding above 
the high tide line causes flooded areas to become unusable to the Cedar 
Key mole skink (individuals cannot easily move through wet sand; 
individuals or nests will be washed away). High tide flooding can 
result in beach erosion and

[[Page 65130]]

salinization of soils, even if high tide flooding is infrequent (Saha 
et al. 2011a, pp. 181-182; Saha et al. 2011b, pp. 82-84; Sweet et al. 
2020, pp. 1-4). Over time, habitat that is frequently impacted by high 
tide flooding is degraded as it becomes more intertidal, even prior to 
sea level rise inundation. Thus, high tide flooding is likely to result 
in removal of habitat, displacement of individuals landward to less 
suitable habitat, and potential loss of individual Cedar Key mole 
skinks due to drowning. Cedar Key mole skink populations are especially 
vulnerable when these impacts occur repeatedly without time to recover. 
Currently, the national high tide flooding frequency is estimated at 5 
days per year and is projected to increase to 7 to 15 days by 2030, and 
to 25 to 75 days by 2050, in much of coastal Florida and the Cedar Keys 
(Sweet et al. 2021, pp. 9-10).
    Storm events--Habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink can be degraded 
or removed by extreme storm events such as hurricanes, storm surges, 
and floods. Storm events are a natural part of the Cedar Keys ecosystem 
and can provide indirect benefits to Cedar Key mole skink habitat. 
Storms can deposit wrack and other debris that provide habitat for the 
subspecies' prey and shelter for Cedar Key mole skinks. However, 
hurricane activity has increased since the Atlantic Multi-Decadal 
Oscillation (the natural variability of the sea surface temperature in 
the Atlantic Ocean) went into its warm phase around 1992 (National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2019, p. 1), and the 
increased intensity of storms over the last several decades has likely 
had negative impacts on the Cedar Key mole skink's resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy.
    Information on direct impacts of hurricanes to the Cedar Key mole 
skink are lacking. However, there is information on impacts to habitat 
from recent hurricanes and other strong storms that have occurred in 
the region. Hurricane Hermine (Category 1) passed by the Cedar Keys in 
September 2016, causing widespread overwash and erosion to beach and 
coastal hammock habitats. Vegetation became buried, and the ground 
cover was greatly reduced from the resulting storm surge (Enge et al. 
2017, entire). As a result of Hurricane Hermine, the beachfront of 
North Key lost most of the vegetative cover required for the Cedar Key 
mole skink (Enge et al. 2017, entire). In August 2023, Hurricane Idalia 
(Category 3) made landfall in the Cedar Keys and caused a storm surge 
of up to 7 feet (2.1 meters), causing complete overwash of many 
islands. For example, Seahorse Key lost 20 to 30 feet (6 to 9 meters) 
of beach and the remaining sand was left compacted (Thomas 2023, pers. 
comm.). Overtime, the vegetative cover will likely return to beach and 
coastal hammock habitats, but when these storm impacts occur 
repeatedly, there is less time for Cedar Key mole skink populations to 
recover from any single event (e.g., temporary inundation of soils, 
loss of shelter and food resource, drowning), thus reducing overall 
resiliency when impacts by extreme and repetitive storm events occur 
(Service 2017, p. 7).
    The severity and duration of hurricane impacts to the Cedar Key 
mole skink and its habitat vary based on the intensity and scale of 
storm events. Localized impacts can vary greatly depending upon not 
only the strength of the storm but the direction of its approach and 
how quickly it moves through the area. Storm surges and their intensity 
can also vary depending on location. The increased intensity of storm 
events over the last several decades has likely led to a reduction in 
Cedar Key mole skink populations, thereby reducing overall population 
resiliency and the subspecies' redundancy.
    In summary, impacts from climate change have the potential to 
reduce survival of the Cedar Key mole skink at the individual, 
population, and subspecies level. Sea level rise can degrade existing 
habitat that supports the Cedar Key mole skink, reducing the habitat 
features that the subspecies needs and thus reducing population 
resiliency. Increased high tide flooding and increased intensity of 
storm events have the potential to further degrade Cedar Key mole skink 
habitat. Increased high tide flooding and storm events also have the 
potential to kill skinks directly or to reduce individual survival, 
which could then lead to a reduction in population resiliency and the 
subspecies' redundancy. An increase in the intensity of storms or a 
direct hit from a strong hurricane could significantly reduce 
subspecies abundance (reducing population resiliency) and potentially 
extirpate populations (limiting redundancy). There are no regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation measures that address the impacts of sea 
level rise, high tide flooding, or increased intensity of storm events.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Several local, State, and Federal government plans provide 
conservation actions that directly or indirectly benefit the Cedar Key 
mole skink and its habitat. Levy County has several plans for coastal 
management, emergency management, and land use management, including 
their Comprehensive Plan (Frank et al. 2014, entire; Levy County 2017, 
entire). Levy County has policies to limit incompatible future growth 
and development in coastal areas subject to flooding (Frank et al. 
2014, p. 69), which are areas where the Cedar Key mole skink's habitat 
occurs. The Comprehensive Plan also contains coastal setback 
guidelines, standards for construction near or on the shoreline, and 
policies for protecting environmentally sensitive land (Frank et al. 
2014, p. 69; Levy County 2017, p. 13). The Levy County Code of 
Ordinances (Levy County 2023, pp. 6-12) requires the protection of 
environmentally sensitive lands and coordination with Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Commission and the Service regarding potential impacts to 
endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
    The City of Cedar Key has a variety of land uses: residential, 
conservation, recreation, marsh, mixed use, commercial, and public 
(City of Cedar Key 2018, p. 145). City Code 4-3.2 states that ``the 
City shall protect native vegetation, including but not limited to 
trees, mangroves, and marsh grasses, and cooperate with Levy County in 
identifying, conserving, protecting or preserving unique vegetative 
communities in contiguous areas to assure that development does not 
degrade the environment, impair aesthetics, damage coastal resources or 
deny reasonable property rights and uses'' (City of Cedar Key 2018, p. 
169). City Code 4-8.1 states, ``a minimum coastal construction setback 
line of 50 feet (15 meters) from the mean high-water line will be 
maintained on any land adjoining all surface waters. In addition to the 
50 feet (15 meters) setback line, an additional setback may be required 
to protect water-dependent vegetation located landward of the coastal 
construction setback line'' (City of Cedar Key 2018, p. 172). These 
setbacks from beach habitat allow Cedar Keys mole skink habitat along 
the shoreline to remain intact. The city also has plans to manage and 
protect all ecological and wildlife communities (City of Cedar Key 
2018, pp. 271-273).
    The Florida Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank (Mitigation Bank) consists 
of approximately 1,587 acres (642 hectares) of habitat in Levy County 
owned and managed by the Mitigation Banking Group, Incorporated. The 
Mitigation Bank is characterized by coastal habitats, including 
maritime hammocks, coastal scrub, and both

[[Page 65131]]

freshwater and saltwater wetlands. The entire property is covered by a 
conservation easement. Habitat for several federally listed species 
(Florida salt marsh vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus, listed as Microtus 
pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli), Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma 
coerulescens), and wood stork (Mycteria americana)) is protected by the 
Mitigation Bank. Restoration and management activities include 
mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, and road removal to improve 
natural hydroperiods. Three of the proposed critical habitat units (see 
II. Critical Habitat, below) for the Cedar Key mole skink are located 
on Mitigation Bank property, and the protection and management of these 
areas will provide benefits to the Cedar Key mole skink.
    Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy (Conservancy) is a nonprofit 
land trust dedicated to acquiring land for preservation, conservation, 
and/or public recreation. The Conservancy has protected at least 11 
properties throughout the Cedar Keys and ensures sustainable land 
management protocols are in place for each. Two of the proposed 
critical habitat units (see II. Critical Habitat, below) for the Cedar 
Key mole skink are within the Conservancy's properties, and the 
protection and management of these areas will provide benefits to the 
Cedar Key mole skink.
    The Cedar Key mole skink also occurs within three State Parks, 
including Cedar Key Museum State Park, Cedar Key Scrub Wildlife 
Management Area, and Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve. Active management 
of these parks provides indirect benefits to the Cedar Key mole skink 
by protecting and providing habitat through beach restoration and 
nourishment and nonnative plant and animal control. Part of the active 
management of these parks includes the Florida Parks Service conducting 
nonnative plant and animal control that benefits Cedar Key mole skinks.
    The Cedar Key mole skink occurs within two National Wildlife 
Refuges: the Lower Suwanee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges. 
Specific management or conservation objectives for the Cedar Key mole 
skink are not identified in the management plans for these National 
Wildlife Refuges lands; however, ongoing management activities, 
including habitat restoration and nonnative species control, provide 
benefits to the Cedar Key mole skink and its habitat.

Cumulative Effects

    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the subspecies. To assess the current and future condition 
of the subspecies, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors 
that may be influencing the subspecies, including threats and 
conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework not only considers the 
presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence 
risk to the entire subspecies, our assessment integrates the cumulative 
effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects 
analysis.

Current Condition

Resiliency
    Due to the semi-fossorial and cryptic nature of the Cedar Key mole 
skink, abundance data are lacking, and no population trend data exist 
for this subspecies. There are also no data available regarding the 
population structure or demographics of the Cedar Key mole skink. There 
have been 215 detections of Cedar Key mole skinks on 10 islands, with 
62 individuals documented on 8 islands since 2000. Two of these island 
populations are considered to have uncertain status given the last 
detections were in 1988 and 1993. In total, 191 acres (77 hectares) of 
preferred habitats (this includes sand, beach, and coastal dune 
habitats) are currently estimated on all ten islands where Cedar Key 
mole skinks have been detected.
    Table 1, below, provides a summary of the projected magnitude of 
change in resiliency for populations of the Cedar Key mole skink for 
the 3-foot (ft) (0.9-meter) sea level rise scenario in 2040. In the 
``Population status'' column of table 1, ``current'' means occupied in 
2000-2022, and ``uncertain'' means occupied prior to 1999. In the 
``Year 2040 (3-ft sea level rise)'' column, we use symbols as follows:
     [darr] means a slight decrease in population resiliency 
(more than 10 percent but less than or equal to 50 percent);
     [darr][darr] means a moderate decrease in population 
resiliency (more than 50 percent but less than or equal to 75 percent);
     [darr][darr][darr] means a large decrease in population 
resiliency (more than 75 percent but less than or equal to 90 percent); 
and
     X means extirpated, based on more than 90 percent of the 
potential habitat being impacted regardless of population resiliency.

  Table 1--Projected Magnitude of Change in Resiliency for Populations of the Cedar Key Mole Skink for the 3-Ft
                                   Sea Level Rise Scenario in the Near Future
                                                   [Year 2040]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Current         Island
         Island group              habitat        elevation       Population        Number of    Year 2040 (3-ft
                                  (acres) *        (feet)           status           skinks      sea level rise)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airstrip Island..............               1              15  current.........              15          [darr]
Atsena Otie Key..............              26              20  current.........               2               X
Cedar Point..................               8              10  current.........               2    [darr][darr]
Deer Island..................               9              10  current.........               2               X
Dog Island...................               2              10  uncertain.......               0               X
North Key....................              49              15  current.........              22               X
Scale Key....................              24               5  current.........               1          [darr]
Seahorse Key.................              55              50  current.........              17  [darr][darr][da
                                                                                                            rr]
Snake Key....................              14               5  current.........               1               X
Way Key......................               3              35  uncertain.......               0          [darr]
                              ----------------                                  ----------------
    Total....................             191  ..............  ................              62  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.


[[Page 65132]]

    To date, sea level rise has resulted in the direct loss of habitat, 
as beaches have become inundated for long periods of time. Repeated 
high tide flooding has resulted in additional loss of habitat as 
frequently flooded areas become unusable to the Cedar Key mole skink 
(individuals cannot easily move through wet sand; individuals or nests 
are washed away). Within the near term (by 2040 or sooner), five of the 
eight current populations are projected to lose 75 to 90 percent or 
more of preferred habitat due to continued increases in sea level rise 
and high tide flooding (table 1). In addition, recent hurricanes 
(Hurricane Hermine in 2016 and Hurricane Idalia in 2023) have resulted 
in direct loss of habitat as well as higher storm surge and coastal 
flooding that has further reduced availability and quality of Cedar Key 
mole skink habitat. Future projections indicate an increase in the 
severity of these storms.
    Given the current impacts of sea level rise, high tide flooding, 
and hurricanes, and given the limited available habitat, the relatively 
low number of individuals documented, and the potential for repeated 
catastrophic storm events, the overall resiliency of the Cedar Key mole 
skink is considered low.
Redundancy
    Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic 
events. In the Cedar Keys, tropical storms and hurricanes are regular 
and common events. However, catastrophic events may include 
particularly strong or intense hurricanes or storms and the resulting 
winds, waves, and storm surges associated with these events. Increased 
intensity of such storms associated with climate change could further 
reduce the ability of Cedar Key mole skink populations to recover and 
could cause catastrophic impacts to the subspecies.
    Land mass in the Cedar Keys in general is limited, thus providing 
less redundancy or ``backup'' for the available habitat such that 
natural expansion of the subspecies is not possible. Given its small 
geographic range (eight islands within a length of 10 miles (16 
kilometers)), the entire subspecies is vulnerable to potential 
catastrophic events such as a storm or hurricane that would likely 
impact all islands.
Representation
    The Cedar Key mole skink has limited representation. There is no 
evidence of morphological or behavioral differences (or ``types'') 
among populations. The Cedar Key mole skink occurs across a narrow 
geographic and ecological range; there is no variation in habitat types 
across distance or elevations. Furthermore, dispersal of individuals 
across islands is considered very rare, and genetic evidence shows 
little to no sign of interbreeding between the identified island 
populations (Parkinson et al. 2016, entire).
    As part of the SSA, we also developed sea level rise and high tide 
flooding future condition scenarios projected out until the year 2100. 
Our scenarios included intermediate, intermediate-high, and high 
scenarios, which are aligned with emissions-based, conditional 
probabilistic and global model projections of global mean sea level 
rise (Service 2023, p. 42). Because we determined that the current 
condition of the Cedar Key mole skink is consistent with an endangered 
species (see Determination of Cedar Key Mole Skink's Status, below), we 
are not presenting the detailed results of the future scenarios in this 
proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) 
for the full analysis of future scenarios.

Determination of Cedar Key Mole Skink's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered 
species or a threatened species because of any of the following 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence.
    We presented summary evaluations of the primary threats analyzed in 
the SSA report including climate change, specifically sea level rise, 
increased high tide flooding, and increased intensity of storm events 
(Factor E). We also evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) 
and ongoing conservation measures. In the SSA report, we also 
considered additional threats: habitat loss and degradation that 
results from development (Factor A); overutilization due to 
recreational, educational, and scientific use (Factor B); disease 
(Factor C); oil spills (Factor E); and nonnative species (Factor E). We 
concluded that, as indicated by the best available scientific and 
commercial information, these additional threats currently have little 
to no impact on the Cedar Key mole skink and its habitat such that the 
overall effect now and into the future is expected to be minimal. 
However, we consider each of these threats in the determination for the 
subspecies, because although they may have low impacts on their own, 
combined with impacts of other threats, they could further reduce the 
already low number of Cedar Key mole skinks.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we have determined that the Cedar Key mole skink has limited 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to maintain viability over 
time. Only 62 skinks have been documented on eight islands in the last 
20 years. Given the historical and current impacts from sea level rise, 
high tide flooding, and hurricanes, habitat for the Cedar Key mole 
skink is limited. In total, approximately 191 acres (77 hectares) of 
preferred habitat are currently estimated on islands where the Cedar 
Key mole skink has been detected. Because the subspecies is limited to 
a relatively small area (eight islands within a length of 10 miles (16 
kilometers)), the subspecies is considered to have little redundancy. A 
single catastrophic event, such as a severe storm or hurricane, could 
result in the extinction of the subspecies. Additionally, given the 
subspecies' narrow range and limited-to-no island dispersal 
capabilities, we consider the subspecies to have low representation. 
The current and future projected increase in sea level rise, high tide 
flooding, and storm events exacerbates the current condition for the 
Cedar Key mole skink. We do not find that the Cedar Key mole skink 
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species because it already 
has shown declines in available habitat, has limited abundance, and its 
population's exhibit low resiliency. Because of the Cedar Key mole 
skink's low redundancy and limited representation, the subspecies is 
vulnerable to catastrophic storm events. Thus, after assessing the best 
available information, we conclude that the Cedar Key mole skink is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

[[Page 65133]]

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. We have determined that the Cedar Key mole skink is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did 
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. 
Because the Cedar Key mole skink warrants listing as endangered 
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with 
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. 
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant 
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as 
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Cedar Key mole skink meets the Act's 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
Cedar Key mole skink as an endangered species in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages 
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery 
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required 
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions 
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their ranges may occur primarily or solely on 
non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this subspecies is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Cedar Key mole skink. Information on 
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be 
found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Although the Cedar Key mole skink is only proposed for listing 
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this subspecies. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it 
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities 
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to confer with the Service on any 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 critical 
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the 
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to 
result in jeopardy or adverse modification,

[[Page 65134]]

action agencies may voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that 
may affect species proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to 
be designated. In the event that the subject species is listed or the 
relevant critical habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be 
adopted as a biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 
7(a)(2) of the Act.
    Examples of discretionary actions for the Cedar Key mole skink that 
may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 
7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal 
lands administered by the Service as well as 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. Federal agencies should coordinate with the 
local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with 
any specific questions on section 7 consultation and conference 
requirements.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be 
committed any of the following acts with regard to endangered wildlife: 
(1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which 
includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 
or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) within the 
United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on 
the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, 
by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken 
illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or 
(5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain 
exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the 
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land 
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for 
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the 
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The 
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which 
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    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 each Federal action agency 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 designated critical habitat. The designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation 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. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner 
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may 
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the 
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied 
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required 
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the 
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to 
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to 
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

[[Page 65135]]

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 SSA report 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; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) 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.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    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. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to 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 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we 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.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Cedar Key mole skink from studies of the 
subspecies' habitat, ecology, and life history as described above. 
Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2023, 
entire; available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2024-0053). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological feature is essential to the conservation of the Cedar Key 
mole skink: Natural habitats (including, but not limited to, beaches, 
dunes, and coastal hammocks) along the coast or within the interior of 
the Cedar Keys that contain:
    (a) Suitable soils (dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable soils) 
for movement and nesting; and
    (b) Sufficient, appropriate ground cover (including, but not 
limited to, tidal wrack deposited above the mean high-water line, leaf 
litter, and vegetative debris) for protection from predators and 
temperature extremes, sources of food (e.g., insects and arthropods), 
and areas for reproduction.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at the 
time of listing contain features which are essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies and which may require special management

[[Page 65136]]

considerations or protection. The feature essential to the conservation 
of the Cedar Key mole skink may require special management 
considerations or protection to reduce threats posed by climate change 
(sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding, and increasing intensity 
of storm events); recreational activities (beach cleaning to remove 
wrack and other vegetative material); and human-caused disasters and 
response activities. For an in-depth discussion of threats, see Summary 
of Biological Status and Threats, above, and the SSA report (Service 
2023, pp. 16-31).
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include 
(but are not limited to): maintaining and protecting suitable habitat 
within occupied areas; identifying areas where beach erosion is 
occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal 
wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing nourishment or 
restoration/protection activities; conducting restoration and debris 
cleanup after storms, while concurrently minimizing disturbance to 
Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establishing protocols and 
agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats (storms can create berms 
and dunes and can redeposit sand and wrack, which are all beneficial to 
the Cedar Key mole skink) to persist; coordinating with landowners and 
local managers to implement best management practices during regular 
beach cleaning activities; conducting public outreach and education at 
all occupied areas; and preparing disaster response plans and 
conducting trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and their 
habitat.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat.
    We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing. We 
also are proposing to designate specific areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the subspecies because we have determined that those 
areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies. By the year 
2040, five out of eight islands currently occupied by the Cedar Key 
mole skink are projected to lose 75 to 90 percent or more of their 
preferred habitat under the lowest projected sea level rise scenario of 
3.0 feet (0.9 meters) (see table 1, above). We identified suitable 
habitat on islands within the Cedar Keys that meet the definition of 
critical habitat and are considered essential to provide for subspecies 
redundancy into the future. These islands are considered areas with 
high resiliency to sea level rise (i.e., islands with higher elevation 
that are projected to have habitat remaining at 5.0 feet (1.5 meters) 
of sea level rise)). These unoccupied islands contain the physical and 
biological feature essential to the subspecies and are, therefore, 
considered habitat for the subspecies. All units (both occupied and 
unoccupied) are within the range of the subspecies and contain the 
physical and biological feature essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies.
    We developed the following criteria for determining the specific 
areas that contain the physical and biological feature essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies:
    (1) Genetic differentiation and geographic extent--To maintain 
viability in populations of Cedar Key mole skink that represent and 
conserve any genetic variation that may exist and habitat on each of 
the eight islands that has current populations (see Current Condition, 
above), critical habitat units should encompass all current populations 
ensuring that the entire range of the Cedar Key mole skink is 
represented.
    (2) Climate change resilience--To provide sufficient amounts of 
suitable habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink predicted to be less 
affected by sea level rise (Service 2023, pp. 41-50), critical habitat 
should include islands that are less vulnerable to sea level rise 
within the Cedar Keys.
    (3) Structural connectivity--To maintain, enhance, and establish 
connectivity within Cedar Key mole skink populations (see Summary of 
Biological Status and Threats, above), critical habitat units should 
incorporate corridors for connectivity, dispersal, and refuge areas 
during high tide flooding and storm events.
    Sources of data used for the delineation of critical habitat units 
included:
    (1) Confirmed presence data compiled in our Geographic Information 
System database from 1951 through 2022, and provided by multiple 
databases maintained by museums, universities, and State agencies in 
Florida; State agency reports; and numerous survey reports for projects 
throughout the subspecies' range.
    (2) Habitat and land use cover types from the Cooperative Land 
Cover map (version 3.5) developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FWC and 
FNAI 2021, entire) determined to be suitable for the subspecies based 
on peer-reviewed articles on this subspecies or similar subspecies, and 
gray literature by researchers involved in wildlife biology and 
conservation activities.
    (3) Levy County soil data layers from the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 
(USDA 2022, entire) determined to be suitable for the subspecies based 
on their official soil series descriptions.
    (4) Shoreline data representing the mean high-water line from the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Coastal 
Management (https://shoreline.noaa.gov/data/index.html).
    (5) Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United 
States from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
National Ocean Service Center for Operational Oceanographic Products 
and Services (Sweet et al. 2022, entire).
    (6) Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI's) 
Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage Geographical Information System 
(ArcPro) online basemap aerial imagery (2018 to 2020) to cross-check 
Cooperative Land Cover data and ensure the presence of the physical or 
biological feature.
    For areas within the geographical area occupied by the Cedar Key 
mole skink at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following criteria:
    (1) We determined occupied areas for this subspecies by reviewing 
the best available scientific and commercial data on occurrence 
records. As discussed above under I. Proposed Listing Determination, 
Background, Cedar Key mole skinks are cryptic and adapted to living 
underground. Because of their cryptic nature, we determined that, if 
suitable habitat containing the physical and biological feature is 
still present in an area where a Cedar Key mole skink was detected 
between 2000 and 2022, there is a high likelihood that the subspecies 
is still present. Therefore, based on the best available information, 
we defined occupied areas as islands with at least one current 
occurrence record ranging from 2000 to 2022.

[[Page 65137]]

    (2) We selected all suitable habitat that contains the physical or 
biological feature as determined using the data sources listed above on 
currently occupied islands. When the exact location of an occurrence 
record could not be determined for an island (a verified record, but 
only general location information, such as the name of the island, was 
provided), or the location was accurate but in unsuitable habitat 
(developed areas), all suitable habitat on the island was selected.
    (3) We selected additional suitable habitat within a 328-ft (100-
meter) radius (the estimated home range of Cedar Key mole skink; 
Service 2023, p. 12) on undeveloped islands to include corridors for 
greater dispersal due to population expansions, localized resource 
limitations, and sea level rise, storm surge, or tidal flooding refugia 
areas for the subspecies (e.g., for undeveloped islands, the full 
island was included).
    (4) On developed islands, we constrained the boundary of a critical 
habitat unit to areas of contiguous suitable habitat. Offshore 
boundaries of the critical habitat unit were delineated using a 
simplified buffered shoreline to include the full extent of each island 
complex, or to the farthest offshore feature (i.e., habitat boundary, 
mean high-water line, or shoreline visible in aerial imagery).
    For areas outside the geographical area currently occupied by the 
subspecies at the time of listing, we looked at islands considered 
recently occupied by, or that have an uncertain status (documented 
before 1999) for, the Cedar Key mole skink. We analyzed these uncertain 
status islands and all other islands within the Cedar Keys for those 
that contain suitable habitat and evaluated each site for its potential 
conservation contribution based on quality of habitat, vulnerability to 
climate change (specifically sea level rise and high tide flooding), 
and existing protections and management of the habitat and sites. Based 
on these criteria, we identified nine islands that contain appropriate 
habitat for the subspecies and are essential for the conservation of 
the subspecies but would be considered unoccupied at the time of 
listing. For areas outside the geographical area occupied by the Cedar 
Key mole skink at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat 
unit boundaries using the following criteria:
    (1) To ensure unoccupied areas would provide skink habitat into the 
future, we analyzed impacts to potential habitat on each island in the 
Cedar Keys and included only those that are projected to still have 
habitat remaining after 5.0 feet (1.5 meters) of sea level rise and 
high tide flooding by the year 2080 (Service 2023, p. 47).
    (2) We selected all suitable habitat that contains the physical or 
biological feature as determined using Criteria (2)-(4) outlined above 
for occupied units.
    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 necessary for the Cedar Key mole skink. 
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.
    Seventeen units are proposed for designation based on the physical 
or biological feature being present to support the Cedar Key mole 
skink's life-history processes. All units contain the identified 
physical or biological feature and support multiple life-history 
processes.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, 
as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end 
of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include 
more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2024-0053 and on our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate approximately 2,713 acres (1,098 
hectares) in 17 units as critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink 
(see table 2, below). The critical habitat areas we describe below 
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink. The 17 
areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Live Oak Key, (2) Cedar 
Point, (3) Scale Key, (4) Dog Island, (5) Atsena Otie Key, (6) Snake 
Key, (7) Seahorse Key, (8) North Key, (9) Airstrip Island, (10) Way Key 
South, (11) Way Key North, (12) Richards Island, (13) Seabreeze Island, 
(14) Shell Mound, (15) Raleigh and Horse Islands, (16) Deer Island, and 
(17) Clark Islands. Most of the units contain highly dynamic barrier 
beaches and intertidal seashore. This area has the potential to vary 
year-to-year. In other words, the precise location of the physical and 
biological feature in some locations may shift over time somewhat 
because of the intrinsically dynamic nature of shorelines and due to 
sea level rise and high tide flooding. Table 2 shows the proposed 
critical habitat units and the approximate area of each unit.

                                          Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Cedar Key Mole Skink
                                        [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Ownership * in acres [hectares]
              Unit                     Occupancy      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Total area * in
                                                           Federal          State           Local          Private        Other **      acres [hectares]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Live Oak Key.................  No.................         46 [19]               0               0         49 [20]          14 [6]           109 [44]
2. Cedar Point..................  Yes................         26 [11]               0               0          15 [6]               0            41 [17]
3. Scale Key....................  Yes................         95 [38]               0               0          21 [8]               0           116 [47]
4. Dog Island...................  No.................               0           8 [3]               0               0               0              8 [3]
5. Atsena Otie Key..............  Yes................               0        116 [47]               0               0         67 [27]           183 [74]
6. Snake Key....................  Yes................         39 [16]               0               0               0          17 [7]            57 [23]
7. Seahorse Key.................  Yes................        118 [48]               0               0               0         47 [19]           165 [67]
8. North Key....................  Yes................        129 [52]               0               0               0        107 [43]           236 [95]

[[Page 65138]]

 
9. Airstrip Island..............  Yes................               0               0          19 [8]          10 [4]               0            29 [12]
10. Way Key South...............  No.................               0         44 [18]               0               0               0            44 [18]
11. Way Key North...............  No.................               0           9 [4]          15 [6]               0               0            24 [10]
12. Richards Island.............  No.................         86 [35]               0               0               0          19 [8]           105 [42]
13. Seabreeze Island............  No.................        111 [45]               0               0               0         25 [10]           136 [55]
14. Shell Mound.................  No.................        167 [68]        194 [79]               0       688 [278]               0        1,050 [425]
15. Raleigh and Horse Islands...  No.................        171 [69]               0               0           5 [2]               0           176 [71]
16. Deer Island.................  Yes................           8 [3]               0               0         69 [28]         36 [15]           113 [46]
17. Clark Islands...............  No.................               0               0               0        121 [49]               0           121 [49]
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ...................       996 [403]       371 [150]         34 [14]       978 [396]       332 [134]      2,713 [1,098]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
** Includes suitable habitat of unknown or undefined ownership.

    We present brief descriptions of all proposed units, and reasons 
why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole 
skink, below.

Unit 1: Live Oak Key

    Unit 1 encompasses approximately 109 acres (44 hectares) of 
unoccupied habitat in Levy County and includes the entire island of 
Live Oak Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable 
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 46 acres (19 hectares) in Federal ownership, 49 acres (20 
hectares) in private ownership, and 14 acres (6 hectares) in other 
ownership (undefined ownership). The entirety of Unit 1 is included in, 
and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot 
(Calidris canutus rufa). Live Oak Key is approximately 2.5 miles (4 
kilometers) northeast of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The 
northern portion of the island is managed as the Florida Gulf Coast 
Mitigation Bank by a private entity and the southern portion is 
federally owned and managed by the Service as the part of the Cedar 
Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies. 
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because 
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of 
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or 
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable 
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one 
of its currently occupied locations.

Unit 2: Cedar Point

    Unit 2 encompasses approximately 41 acres (17 hectares) of occupied 
habitat in Levy County and includes the entire island of Cedar Point. 
This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable habitat that 
contains the physical or biological feature essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 26 acres (11 hectares) in Federal ownership and 15 acres 
(6 hectares) in private ownership. The entirety of Unit 2 is included 
in, and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red 
knot. Cedar Point is approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) northeast 
of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages most of the 
island as the part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. The 
eastern portion is managed by a private entity as part of the Florida 
Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank.
    The physical and biological feature in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas 
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove 
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement 
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration 
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing 
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish 
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; 
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response 
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and 
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level 
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters 
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).

Unit 3: Scale Key

    Unit 3 encompasses approximately 116 acres (47 hectares) of 
occupied habitat in Levy County and includes the entire island of Scale 
Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable habitat 
that contains the physical or biological feature essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 95 acres (38 hectares) in Federal ownership and 21 acres 
(8 hectares) in private ownership. The entirety of Unit 3 is included 
in, and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red 
knot. Scale Key is approximately 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) northeast of 
Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages most of the 
island as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. 
Approximately 14 acres (6 hectares) of the eastern portion are owned by 
Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy, and 5 acres (2 hectares) of the 
northern portion are managed by a private entity as part of the Florida 
Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank.
    The physical and biological feature in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas 
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove 
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement 
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration 
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing 
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish 
protocols and agreements to allow

[[Page 65139]]

storm-enhanced habitats to persist; conduct public outreach and 
education; and prepare disaster response plans and conduct trainings 
that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat to address 
threats from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding, 
and storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities 
(e.g., oil spills).

Unit 4: Dog Island

    Unit 4 encompasses approximately 8 acres (3 hectares) of unoccupied 
habitat in Levy County and includes the entire Dog Island. This unit is 
composed of protected lands with suitable habitat that contains the 
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies. Although Dog Island is currently considered unoccupied, 
Cedar Key mole skinks were documented here in the past (Enge 2023, 
pers. comm.; FWC 2023, entire), and it is possible that they are still 
present.
    Dog Island is approximately 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) to the east of 
Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. Lands within this unit are 
entirely within State ownership. The entirety of Unit 4 is included in, 
and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red 
knot.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies. 
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because 
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of 
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or 
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable 
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one 
of its currently occupied locations.

Unit 5: Atsena Otie Key

    Unit 5 encompasses approximately 183 acres (74 hectares) of 
occupied habitat in Levy County and includes the entire island of 
Atsena Otie Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable 
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 116 acres (47 hectares) in State ownership and 67 acres 
(27 hectares) in other ownership. Atsena Otie Key is approximately 1 
mile (1.6 kilometers) south of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The 
island is owned by the State of Florida and managed as part of the 
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge through a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) by the Service. The entirety of Unit 5 is included 
in, and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red 
knot.
    The physical and biological feature in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas 
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove 
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement 
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration 
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing 
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish 
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; 
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response 
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and 
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level 
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters 
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).

Unit 6: Snake Key

    Unit 6 encompasses approximately 57 acres (23 hectares) of occupied 
habitat within Levy County and includes the entire island of Snake Key. 
This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable habitat that 
contains the physical or biological feature essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 39 acres (16 hectares) in Federal ownership and 17 acres 
(7 hectares) in other ownership. Snake Key is approximately 2.5 miles 
(4 kilometers) south of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The island 
is managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife 
Refuge. The entirety of Unit 6 is included in, and thus overlaps with, 
proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
    The physical and biological feature in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas 
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove 
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement 
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration 
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing 
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish 
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; 
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response 
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and 
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level 
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters 
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).

Unit 7: Seahorse Key

    Unit 7 encompasses approximately 165 acres (67 hectares) of 
occupied habitat within Levy County and includes the entire island of 
Seahorse Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable 
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 118 acres (48 hectares) in Federal ownership and 47 acres 
(19 hectares) in other ownership. Seahorse Key is approximately 3 miles 
(5 kilometers) south and west of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. 
The island is managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National 
Wildlife Refuge. The entirety of Unit 7 is included in, and thus 
overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
    The physical and biological feature in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas 
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove 
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement 
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration 
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing 
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish 
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; 
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response 
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and 
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level 
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters 
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).

Unit 8: North Key

    Unit 8 encompasses approximately 236 acres (95 hectares) of 
occupied habitat within Levy County and includes the entire island of 
North Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable 
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 129 acres (52 hectares) in Federal ownership and 107 
acres (43 hectares) in other ownership. North Key is approximately 3 
miles (4.8 kilometers) to the west of Cedar Key within the Gulf of 
Mexico. The island is

[[Page 65140]]

managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife 
Refuge. The entirety of Unit 8 is included in, and thus overlaps with, 
proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
    The physical and biological feature in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas 
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove 
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement 
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration 
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing 
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish 
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; 
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response 
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and 
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level 
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters 
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).

Unit 9: Airstrip Island

    Unit 9 encompasses approximately 29 acres (12 hectares) of occupied 
habitat within Levy County on the island of Way Key. Lands within this 
unit include approximately 19 acres (8 hectares) in local government 
ownership and 10 acres (4 hectares) in private ownership. This unit is 
composed of the following five separate sections with suitable habitat 
that contains the physical or biological feature essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies: Airstrip Island Beach, Cedar Key 
Airport, Airport Island, Piney Point, and Robert Cull Nature Preserve. 
Airstrip Island Beach is 5 acres (2 hectares) of private shoreline 
along Daughtry Bayou, encompassing sandy beach from mean higher high-
water inland to dense vegetation, hardened structures, or roads, 
extending from the southern side of the Airport Road bridge to the 
south for approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers). Cedar Key Airport 
includes 16 acres (6 hectares) of unvegetated and vegetated sandy soils 
on the George T. Lewis Airport (also known as the Cedar Key Airport) 
that are owned by Levy County. Airport Island is a 2-acre (0.8-
hectare), unnamed island southwest of the airport, which is also owned 
by Levy County. Piney Point is a 3-acre (1-hectare), privately owned, 
undeveloped, vacant lot on the western side of Piney Point south of the 
airport. The fifth section is 2 acres (0.8 hectares) of protected land 
known as the Robert Cull Nature Preserve at the terminus of Piney Point 
that are owned and managed by Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy. 
Approximately 9 acres (4 hectares) of Unit 9 overlap with proposed 
critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
    The physical and biological feature in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas 
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove 
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement 
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration 
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing 
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish 
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; 
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response 
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and 
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level 
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters 
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).

Unit 10: Way Key South

    Unit 10 encompasses approximately 44 acres (18 hectares) of 
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Way Key. This unit is a series 
of undeveloped disconnected islands south of Way Key that contain the 
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies. The largest island, located between the airport and the 
developed portion of Way Key, is projected to be more resilient to sea 
level rise (due to its relatively higher elevation) and is composed of 
coastal scrub habitat with a sandy shoreline fringe. Also included in 
this unit are several primarily sand islands that occur seaward of the 
main island. This unit is entirely in State ownership. Approximately 41 
acres (17 hectares) of Unit 10 overlap with proposed critical habitat 
for the rufa red knot.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies. 
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because 
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of 
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or 
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable 
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one 
of its currently occupied locations.

Unit 11: Way Key North

    Unit 11 encompasses approximately 24 acres (10 hectares) of 
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Way Key. This unit is composed 
of protected lands with suitable habitat that contains the physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the subspecies. 
Lands within this unit include approximately 9 acres (4 hectares) in 
State ownership managed as the Cedar Key Museum State Park by the 
Florida Park Service, and 15 acres (6 hectares) in local government 
ownership managed as Cemetery Point Park by the City of Cedar Key. 
Although the unit is currently considered unoccupied, Cedar key mole 
skinks were documented here in the past (FWC 2023, entire), and it is 
possible that they are still present. Additionally, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies. 
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because 
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of 
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or 
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable 
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one 
of its currently occupied locations.

Unit 12: Richards Island

    Unit 12 encompasses approximately 105 acres (42 hectares) of 
unoccupied habitat within Levy County and includes the entirety of 
Richards Island. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable 
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to 
the conservation of the subspecies. Richards Island is undeveloped and 
projected to be more resilient to sea level rise due to higher 
elevation. Lands within this unit include approximately 86 acres (35 
hectares) in Federal ownership and 19 acres (8 hectares) in other 
ownership. Richards Island is approximately 3.3 miles (5.3 kilometers) 
northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The island is managed 
by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. 
Approximately 43 acres (17 hectares) of Unit 12 overlap with proposed 
critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the

[[Page 65141]]

subspecies. This unit is essential for the conservation of the 
subspecies because it will provide habitat for potential 
reintroductions in the case of sea level rise and high tide flooding 
(Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or stochastic events (such as hurricanes) 
should other areas of suitable habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key 
mole skink be extirpated from one of its currently occupied locations.

Unit 13: Seabreeze Island

    Unit 13 encompasses approximately 136 acres (55 hectares) of 
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Seabreeze Island. This unit is 
composed of protected lands with suitable habitat that contains the 
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies. Seabreeze Island is undeveloped and projected to be more 
resilient to sea level rise. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 111 acres (45 hectares) in Federal ownership and 25 acres 
(10 hectares) in other ownership. Seabreeze Island is approximately 4 
miles (6 kilometers) northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. 
The island is managed by the Service as part of the Lower Suwannee 
National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 8 acres (3 hectares) of Unit 13 
overlap with proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies. 
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because 
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of 
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or 
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable 
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one 
of its currently occupied locations.

Unit 14: Shell Mound

    Unit 14 encompasses approximately 1,050 ac (425 hectares) of 
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Shell Mound. The unit contains 
higher elevation lands, is projected to be more resilient to sea level 
rise, and has suitable habitat containing the physical or biological 
feature essential to the conservation of the subspecies. This unit 
extends from Dennis Creek north to Ericson Creek. Lands within this 
unit include approximately 167 acres (68 hectares) in Federal 
ownership, 194 acres (79 hectares) in State ownership, and 688 acres 
(278 hectares) in private ownership. The unit includes portions of the 
Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve managed by the Florida Park Service and 
the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge managed by the Service.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies. 
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because 
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of 
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or 
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable 
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one 
of its currently occupied locations.

Unit 15: Raleigh and Horse Islands

    Unit 15 encompasses approximately 176 acres (71 hectares) of 
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Raleigh and Horse Islands. The 
unit includes undeveloped islands projected to be more resilient to sea 
level rise and contains suitable habitat with the physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the subspecies. 
Lands within this unit include approximately 171 acres (69 hectares) in 
Federal ownership and 5 acres (2 hectares) in private ownership. The 
group of islands is approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers) northwest of 
Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages most of the 
islands as part of the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies. 
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because 
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of 
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or 
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable 
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one 
of its currently occupied locations.

Unit 16: Deer Island

    Unit 16 encompasses approximately 113 acres (46 hectares) of 
occupied habitat within Levy County and includes the entirety of Deer 
Island. The unit is composed of suitable habitat that contains the 
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies. Lands within the unit include approximately 8 acres (3 
hectares) in Federal ownership, 69 acres (28 hectares) in private 
ownership, and 36 acres (15 hectares) in other ownership. Deer Island 
is approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) northwest of Cedar Key within 
the Gulf of Mexico. The entirety of Unit 16 is included in, and thus 
overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
    The physical and biological feature in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas 
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove 
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement 
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration 
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing 
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish 
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist; 
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response 
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and 
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level 
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters 
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).

Unit 17: Clark Islands

    Unit 17 encompasses approximately 121 acres (49 hectares) of 
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on the Clark Islands complex. The 
unit includes undeveloped islands projected to be more resilient to sea 
level rise. The entirety of the unit is privately owned. The Clark 
Islands are approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) north-northwest of 
Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
    Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit 
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical 
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies. 
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because 
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of 
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or 
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable 
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one 
of its currently occupied locations.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

[[Page 65142]]

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.
    Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as 
a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act 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 formal consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species 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 consultation. Reinitiation of consultation is 
required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where 
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been 
retained or is authorized by law and: (1) If the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) 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; (3) 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 written 
concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. As provided 
in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new 
species listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to 
certain agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the 
Bureau of Land Management in certain circumstances).

Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat

    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 as a 
whole 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 that our Federal Register 
notices ``shall, to the maximum extent practicable also include a brief 
description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or 
private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may 
adversely modify [critical] habitat, or may be affected by such 
designation.'' Activities that may be affected by designation of 
critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink include those that may 
affect the physical or biological features of the Cedar Key mole 
skink's critical habitat (see Physical or Biological Features Essential 
to the Conservation of the Species, above).

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), 
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 designation.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on 
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant 
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Endangered Species Act (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).
    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. In our final rules, we explain any decision to exclude 
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to make clear the rational 
basis for our decision. We describe below the process that we use for 
taking into consideration each

[[Page 65143]]

category of impacts and any initial analyses of the relevant impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline 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 Order (E.O.) 14094 supplements and reaffirms E.O. 12866 
and E.O. 13563 and directs 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 regulatory action'' 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 $200 
million or more in any given year (section 3(f)(1) as amended by E.O. 
14094). Therefore, our consideration of economic impacts uses a 
screening analysis to assess whether a designation of critical habitat 
for the Cedar Key mole skink is likely to exceed the economically 
significant threshold.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of 
critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink (IEc 2023, entire). We 
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that 
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of 
the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographical 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 any probable 
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already 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. As a 
result, we generally focus the screening analysis on areas of 
unoccupied critical habitat (unoccupied units or unoccupied areas 
within occupied units). Overall, the screening analysis assesses 
whether the designation of critical habitat is likely to result in any 
additional management or conservation efforts that may incur 
incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the 
information contained in our IEM constitute what we consider to be our 
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the 
Cedar Key mole skink and 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 designation. In our evaluation of the 
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated August 22, 2023, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) residential and commercial development; (2) 
construction activities such as road and bridge construction and 
maintenance; (3) habitat management activities (such as beach 
nourishment, shoreline armoring, nonnative species control (including 
mechanical or herbicide applications), and prescribed fire); and (4) 
recreational activities and associated developments (such as 
campgrounds, trails, and visitor facilities), management activities 
(such as beach raking or other cleaning methods to remove wrack and 
debris), and airport management activities. 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; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only 
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. If we list the subspecies, in areas where the Cedar 
key mole skink is present, Federal agencies would be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the subspecies. If we 
list the subspecies and also finalize this proposed critical habitat 
designation, Federal agencies would be required to consider the effects 
of their actions on the designated habitat, and if

[[Page 65144]]

the Federal action may affect critical habitat, our consultations would 
include an evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that would result from the subspecies being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Cedar 
Key mole skink's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical 
habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink is being proposed concurrently 
with the listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult 
to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the 
subspecies being listed and those which will result solely from the 
designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific 
circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The 
essential physical or biological feature identified for critical 
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the 
subspecies, and (2) any actions that would likely adversely affect the 
essential physical or biological feature of occupied critical habitat 
are also likely to adversely affect the subspecies itself. The IEM 
outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between 
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the 
designation of critical habitat for this subspecies. This evaluation of 
the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the 
probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of 
critical habitat.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for the Cedar Key mole 
skink totals approximately 2,713 acres (1,098 hectares) in 17 units in 
Levy County, Florida (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation, 
above). Land ownership across the units includes Federal lands (37 
percent), State lands (14 percent), local lands (1 percent), private 
lands (36 percent), and lands with unknown/undefined ownership (12 
percent). Eight of the 17 units are currently occupied by the Cedar Key 
mole skink; the remaining 9 units are not known to be currently 
occupied. Approximately 42 percent of the proposed critical habitat for 
the Cedar Key mole skink overlaps with currently proposed critical 
habitat for the rufa red knot. Further, 100 percent of the proposed 
critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink intersects with existing 
ranges for six federally listed species (IEc 2023, p. 8).
    When an action is proposed in an area of designated critical 
habitat, and the proposed activity has a Federal nexus, the need for 
section 7 consultation is triggered. Any incremental costs associated 
with consideration of potential effects to the critical habitat are a 
result of this consultation process. For all occupied areas, the 
economic costs of critical habitat designations would most likely be 
limited to additional administrative efforts to consider adverse 
modification in section 7 consultations, as the listing of the 
subspecies is being proposed concurrently with critical habitat 
designation, and all occupied units would still need to undergo section 
7 consultation due to listing regardless of critical habitat 
designation. While this additional analysis would 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. For the 
unoccupied units, section 7 consultations would not occur if not for 
the presence of critical habitat, so additional costs would occur. In 
unoccupied habitat, the incremental cost associated with a new 
consultation considering only adverse modification during technical 
assistances, informal, formal, and programmatic consultations are 
estimated to be $1,300, $8,000, $17,000, and $31,000, respectively (IEc 
2023, p. 18). These estimates assume that consultation would not occur 
in the absence of critical habitat designation. In total, the estimated 
annual, incremental administrative costs for a Cedar Key mole skink 
critical habitat designation are estimated at $9,000 annually (IEc 
2023, p. 19). Overall, a critical habitat designation for the Cedar Key 
mole skink is unlikely to generate costs or benefits exceeding $200 
million in a single year. Because of the relatively small size of the 
critical habitat designation, the landownership (Federal, State, 
county, or private) of the proposed critical habitat units, the amount 
of land that is already being managed for conservation, and the 
significant overlap with the rufa red knot's proposed critical habitat, 
the numbers of section 7 consultations expected annually are modest 
(approximately 1 formal, 12 informal, and 5 technical assistance 
efforts annually across the designation) (IEc 2023, p. 15).
    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, due to the speculative 
nature of this perception, costs are not able to be quantified. 
Regardless, only 36 percent of the proposed critical habitat 
designation is privately owned land, leading to nominal incremental 
costs arising from changes in public perception of lands included in 
the designation.
    Incremental costs may occur outside of the section 7 consultation 
process if the designation of critical habitat triggers additional 
requirements or project modifications under State or local laws, 
regulations, or management strategies. These types of costs typically 
occur if the designation increases awareness of the presence of the 
subspecies or the need for protection of its habitat. Given that the 
Cedar Key mole skink is covered by existing State protection plans, 
project proponents may already be aware of the presence of the 
subspecies. For example, the Cedar Key mole skink is included in the 
State of Florida's State Wildlife Action Plan as a species of greatest 
conservation need. The subspecies is further protected through habitat 
management and conservation under Florida State Park management plans. 
Therefore, designating critical habitat is unlikely to provide 
information to State or local agencies that would result in new 
regulations or actions (IEc 2023, p. 20).
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the economic 
analysis discussed above (see Information Requested, above). During the 
development of a final designation, we will consider the information 
presented in the economic analysis and any additional information on 
economic impacts we receive during the public comment period to 
determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and the 2016 
Policy. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine 
that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of 
including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of this subspecies.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly 
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular 
area is not covered under section

[[Page 65145]]

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, 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, we 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) of the Act requires us to consider those impacts whenever we 
designate 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, we must 
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides 
information, including 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.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cedar Key 
mole skink are not owned or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, therefore, 
we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.

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 safe harbor agreements (SHAs), candidate 
conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or ``conservation 
benefit agreements'' or ``conservation agreements'' (CBAs) (CBAs are a 
new type of agreement replacing SHAs and CCAAs in use after April 2024 
(89 FR 26070; April 12, 2024)) or HCPs--or whether there are non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, 
Tribal resources, or government-to-government relationships of the 
United States with Tribal entities may be affected by the designation. 
We also consider any State, local, social, or other impacts that might 
occur because of the designation.

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

    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that no HCPs or 
other management plans for the Cedar Key mole skink currently exist, 
and the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust 
resources or any lands for which designation would have any economic or 
national security impacts. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on Tribal 
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat 
designation, and, thus, as described above, we are not considering 
excluding any particular areas on the basis of the presence of 
conservation agreements or impacts to trust resources.
    However, if through this proposed rule's public comment period (see 
DATES and Information Requested, above) we receive information that we 
determine indicates that there are potential economic, national 
security, or other relevant impacts from designating particular areas 
as critical habitat, then as part of developing the final designation 
of critical habitat, we will evaluate that information and may conduct 
a discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude 
those areas under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we receive a request for 
exclusion of a particular area and after evaluation of supporting 
information we do not exclude, we will fully describe our decision in 
the final rule for this action.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by E.O.s 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, 13563, and 
14094)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 
and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate 
agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, 
advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 
13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing 
Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the 
extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations 
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking 
process must allow for public participation and an open

[[Page 65146]]

exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.
    E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides 
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.

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 whether potential 
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered 
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under 
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may 
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant 
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly 
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. The 
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities 
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small 
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final 
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed 
critical habitat designation 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 ``to the extent 
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant 
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 
``significant energy action'' as an action that (i) is a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order; and (ii) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; April 
11, 2023). Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, 
and there is no requirement to prepare a statement of energy effects 
for this action.

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 are not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat under section 7. While

[[Page 65147]]

non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal 
entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal 
assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this proposed rule would significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a 
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. 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 the Cedar Key mole skink in a takings implications 
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private 
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of 
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not 
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on 
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation 
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not 
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of 
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to 
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go 
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, 
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed 
for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole 
skink, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical 
habitat does not pose significant takings implications for lands within 
or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

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

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with 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 rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

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

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County 
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this 
position.

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), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 
30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, 
December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 
DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate 
meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native 
Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-government basis. In accordance 
with Secretaries' 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

[[Page 65148]]

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to 
the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to 
Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We have 
determined that no Tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the 
proposed critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink, so no Tribal 
lands would be affected by the proposed designation.

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 Species Assessment Team and the 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 June 14, 2024, for publication. On July 31, 
2024, 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; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Skink, Cedar Key mole'' in 
alphabetical order under REPTILES to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
            Reptiles
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Skink, Cedar Key mole...........  Plestiodon          Wherever found....  E              [Federal Register
                                   egregius                                               citation when
                                   insularis.                                             published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.95(c).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (c) by adding an entry for ``Cedar 
Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)'' following the entry 
for ``Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS (Caretta 
caretta)'', to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (c) Reptiles.
* * * * *
    Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Levy County, Florida, 
on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological feature 
essential to the conservation of the Cedar Key mole skink consists of 
natural habitats (including, but not limited to, beaches, dunes, and 
coastal hammocks) along the coast or within the interior of the Cedar 
Keys that contain:
    (i) Suitable soils (dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable soils) 
for movement and nesting; and
    (ii) Sufficient, appropriate ground cover (including, but not 
limited to, tidal wrack deposited above the mean high-water line, leaf 
litter, and vegetative debris) for protection from predators and 
temperature extremes, sources of food (e.g., insects and arthropods), 
and areas for 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 Environmental 
Systems Research Institute's (ESRI's) Aeronautical Reconnaissance 
Coverage Geographical Information System (ArcPro) mapping software 
along with various spatial data layers. ArcPro was also used to 
calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection used in mapping and 
calculating distances and locations within the units was Albers Conical 
Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), North American Datum of 
1983 (NAD 83) 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-2024-0053, and at the field office responsible for this 
designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.

    (5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (5)

[[Page 65149]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.018

    (6) Unit 1: Live Oak Key; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 1 encompasses approximately 109 acres (44 hectares) and 
includes the entire island of Live Oak Key. Lands within this unit 
include approximately 46 acres (19 hectares) in Federal ownership, 49 
acres (20 hectares) in private ownership, and 14 acres (6 hectares) in 
other ownership. Live Oak Key is approximately 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) 
northeast of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The northern portion 
of the island is managed as the Florida Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank by a 
private entity and the southern portion is federally owned and managed 
by the Service as the part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Units 1 and 2 follow:

Figure 2 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 65150]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.019

    (7) Unit 2: Cedar Point; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 2 encompasses approximately 41 acres (17 hectares) and 
includes the entire island of Cedar Point. Lands within this unit 
include approximately 26 acres (11 hectares) in Federal ownership and 
15 acres (6 hectares) in private ownership. Cedar Point is 
approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) northeast of Cedar Key within 
the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages most of the island as the part 
of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. The eastern portion is 
managed by a private entity as part of the Florida Gulf Coast 
Mitigation Bank.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
    (8) Unit 3: Scale Key; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 3 encompasses approximately 116 acres (47 hectares) and 
includes the entire island of Scale Key. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 95 acres (38 hectares) in Federal ownership and 21 acres 
(8 hectares) in private ownership. Scale Key is approximately 1 mile 
(1.6 kilometers) northeast of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The 
Service manages most of the island as part of the Cedar Keys National

[[Page 65151]]

Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 14 acres (6 hectares) of the eastern 
portion are owned by Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy, and 5 acres (2 
hectares) of the northern portion are managed by a private entity as 
part of the Florida Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank.
    (ii) Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:

Figure 3 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (8)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.020

    (9) Unit 4: Dog Island; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 4 encompasses approximately 8 acres (3 hectares) and 
includes the entirety of Dog Island. Dog Island is approximately 1 mile 
(1.6 kilometers) to the east of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. 
Lands within this unit are entirely within State ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry.
    (10) Unit 5: Atsena Otie Key; Levy County, Florida.

[[Page 65152]]

    (i) Unit 5 encompasses approximately 183 acres (74 hectares) and 
includes the entire island of Atsena Otie Key. Lands within this unit 
include approximately 116 acres (47 hectares) in State ownership and 67 
acres (27 hectares) in other ownership. Atsena Otie Key is 
approximately 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) south of Cedar Key within the 
Gulf of Mexico. The island is owned by the State of Florida and managed 
as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge through a memorandum 
of understanding by the Service.
    (ii) Map of Units 5, 6, and 7 follows:

Figure 4 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (10)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.021

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (11) Unit 6: Snake Key; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 6 encompasses approximately 57 acres (23 hectares) and 
includes the

[[Page 65153]]

entire island of Snake Key. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 39 acres (16 hectares) in Federal ownership and 17 acres 
(7 hectares) in other ownership. Snake Key is approximately 2.5 miles 
(4 kilometers) south of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The island 
is managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife 
Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
    (12) Unit 7: Seahorse Key; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 7 encompasses approximately 165 acres (67 hectares) and 
includes the entire island of Seahorse Key. Lands within this unit 
include approximately 118 acres (48 hectares) in Federal ownership and 
47 acres (19 hectares) in other ownership. Seahorse Key is 
approximately 3 miles (5 kilometers) south and west of Cedar Key within 
the Gulf of Mexico. The island is managed by the Service as part of the 
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
    (13) Unit 8: North Key; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 8 encompasses approximately 236 acres (95 hectares) and 
includes the entire island of North Key. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 129 acres (52 hectares) in Federal ownership and 107 
acres (43 hectares) in other ownership. North Key is approximately 3 
miles (4.8 kilometers) to the west of Cedar Key within the Gulf of 
Mexico. The island is managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys 
National Wildlife Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:

Figure 5 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (13)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 65154]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.022

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (14) Unit 9: Airstrip Island; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 9 encompasses approximately 29 acres (12 hectares) on the 
island of Way Key. Lands within this unit include approximately 19 
acres (8 hectares) in local government ownership and 10 acres (4 
hectares) in private ownership. This unit is composed of five separate 
sections.
    (A) Airstrip Island Beach is 5 acres (2 hectares) of private 
shoreline along Daughtry Bayou, encompassing sandy beach from mean 
higher high-water inland to dense vegetation, hardened structures, or 
roads, extending from the southern side of the Airport Road bridge to 
the south for approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer).
    (B) Cedar Key Airport includes 16 acres (6.5 hectares) of 
unvegetated and vegetated sandy soils on the George T. Lewis Airport 
(also known as the Cedar Key Airport) that are owned by Levy County.
    (C) Airport Island is a 2-acre (0.8-hectare), unnamed island 
southwest of the airport that is owned by Levy County.

[[Page 65155]]

    (D) Piney Point is a 3-acre (1-hectare), privately owned, 
undeveloped, vacant lot on the western side of Piney Point south of the 
airport.
    (E) The Robert Cull Nature Preserve is 2 acres (0.8 hectare) of 
protected land at the terminus of Piney Point that are owned and 
managed by Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy.
    (ii) Map of Units 9 and 10 follows:

Figure 6 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (14)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.023

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (15) Unit 10: Way Key South; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 10 encompasses approximately 44 acres (18 hectares) on Way 
Key. This unit is a series of undeveloped, disconnected islands south 
of Way Key. The unit includes a large portion of the island located 
between the airport and the developed portion of Way Key and several

[[Page 65156]]

primarily sand islands that occur seaward of the main island. This unit 
is entirely in State ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 10 is provided at paragraph (14)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (16) Unit 11: Way Key North; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 11 encompasses approximately 24 acres (10 hectares) on Way 
Key. Lands within this unit include approximately 9 acres (4 hectares) 
in State ownership, managed as the Cedar Key Museum State Park by the 
Florida Park Service, and 15 acres (6 hectares) in local government 
ownership, managed as Cemetery Point Park by the City of Cedar Key.
    (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:

Figure 7 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (16)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.024

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

[[Page 65157]]

    (17) Unit 12: Richards Island; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 12 encompasses approximately 105 acres (42 hectares) and 
includes the entirety of Richards Island. Lands within this unit 
include approximately 86 acres (35 hectares) in Federal ownership and 
19 acres (8 hectares) in other ownership. Richards Island is 
approximately 3.3 miles (5.3 kilometers) northwest of Cedar Key within 
the Gulf of Mexico. The island is managed by the Service as part of the 
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Units 12 and 13 follows:

Figure 8 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (17)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.025

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (18) Unit 13: Seabreeze Island; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 13 encompasses approximately 136 acres (55 hectares)

[[Page 65158]]

on Seabreeze Island. Lands within this unit include approximately 111 
acres (45 hectares) in Federal ownership and 25 acres (10 hectares) in 
other ownership. Seabreeze Island is approximately 4 miles (6 
kilometers) northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The 
island is managed by the Service as part of the Lower Suwannee National 
Wildlife Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Unit 13 is provided at paragraph (17)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (19) Unit 14: Shell Mound; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 14 encompasses approximately 1,050 acres (425 hectares) on 
Shell Mound. This unit extends from Dennis Creek north to Ericson 
Creek. Lands within this unit include approximately 167 acres (68 
hectares) in Federal ownership, 194 acres (79 hectares) in State 
ownership, and 688 acres (278 hectares) in private ownership. The unit 
includes portions of the Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve managed by the 
Florida Park Service and the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge 
managed by the Service.
    (ii) Map of Units 14, 15, 16, and 17 follows:

Figure 9 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) 
paragraph (19)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 65159]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.026

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (20) Unit 15: Raleigh and Horse Islands; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 15 encompasses approximately 176 acres (71 hectares) on 
Raleigh and Horse Islands. Approximately 171 acres (69 hectares) are in 
Federal ownership and 5 acres (2 hectares) are in private ownership. 
The group of islands are approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers) 
northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages 
most of the islands as part of the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife 
Refuge.
    (ii) Map of Unit 15 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (21) Unit 16: Deer Island; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 16 encompasses approximately 113 acres (46 hectares) and 
includes the entirety of Deer Island. Lands within the unit include 
approximately 8 acres (3 hectares) in Federal ownership, 69 acres (28 
hectares) in private ownership, and 36 acres (15 hectares) in other 
ownership. Deer Island is approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) 
northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
    (ii) Map of Unit 16 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this 
entry.

[[Page 65160]]

    (22) Unit 17: Clark Islands; Levy County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 17 encompasses approximately 121 acres (49 hectares) in 
the Clark Islands complex. The entirety of the unit is privately owned. 
The Clark Islands are approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) north-
northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
    (ii) Map of Unit 17 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this 
entry.
* * * * *

Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk 
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-17271 Filed 8-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P