3316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2014–0057: 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AZ92 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Consolea corallicola 

(Florida Semaphore Cactus) and 

Harrisia aboriginum (Aboriginal 

Prickly-Apple) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose to designate 

critical habitat for Consolea corallicola 

(Florida semaphore cactus) and Harrisia 

aboriginum (aboriginal prickly-apple) 

under the Endangered Species Act (Act). 

In total, approximately 4,411 acres 

(1,785 hectares) for Consolea corallicola 

in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, 

Florida; and 3,444 acres (1,394 hectares) 

for Harrisia aboriginum in Manatee, 

Charlotte, Sarasota, and Lee Counties, 

Florida, fall within the boundaries of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designations. We also announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

of the proposed designation for these 

species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 23, 2015. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in ADDRESSES by March 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword 

box, enter FWS–R4–ES–2014–0057, 

which is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel 

on the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2014– 

0057; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 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 http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested below for more 

information). 

The coordinates, plot points, or both 

from which the maps are generated are 

included in the administrative record 

for this critical habitat designation and 

are available at http://www.fws.gov/

verobeach/, at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2014–0057, and at the 

South Florida Ecological Services Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Any additional tools or supporting 

information that we may develop for 

this critical habitat designation will also 

be available at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Web site and Field 

Office set out above, and may also be 

included in the preamble and/or at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Acting Field Supervisor Roxanna 

Hinzman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, South Florida Ecological 

Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero 

Beach, FL 32960; by telephone 772– 

562–3909; or by facsimile 772–562– 

4288. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act (Act), when 

we determine that any species is 

threatened or endangered, we must 

designate critical habitat, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. We listed 

Consolea corallicola (Florida semaphore 

cactus) and Harrisia aboriginum 

(aboriginal prickly-apple) as endangered 

species under the Act on October 24, 

2013 (78 FR 63795). 

What this rule contains. This rule 

consists of a proposed rule for 

designation of critical habitat for two 

endangered plant species, Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. 

The basis for our action. Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary shall designate critical habitat 

on the basis of the best available 

scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis of the proposed designations of 

critical habitat. We are preparing an 

analysis of the economic impacts of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and related factors. We hereby 

announce the availability of the draft 

economic analysis and seek additional 

public review and comment. 

We will seek peer review. We are 

seeking comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our critical 

habitat designation proposal is based on 

scientifically sound data and analyses. 

We have invited these peer reviewers to 

comment on our specific assumptions 

and conclusions in this critical habitat 

proposal. Because we will consider all 

comments and information received 

during the comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. 

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 concerned 

government agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether 

there are threats to these species from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat may not be prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Consolea corallicola and Harrisia 

aboriginum habitat, 

(b) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ within the 

geographical range currently occupied 

by the species, 

(c) What areas, that were occupied at 

the time of listing (or are currently 

occupied) and that contain features 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3317 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, should be included in the 

designation and why, 

(d) Special management 

considerations or protections that may 

be needed in the critical habitat areas 

we are proposing, including managing 

for the potential effects of climate 

change, and 

(e) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(4) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts of climate 

change on Consolea corallicola and 

Harrisia aboriginum and proposed 

critical habitat. 

(5) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation; in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families, and the benefits of including 

or excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts. 

(6) Information on the extent to which 

the description of economic impacts in 

the draft economic analysis is a 

reasonable estimate of the likely 

economic impacts. 

(7) The likelihood of adverse social 

reactions to the designation of critical 

habitat, as discussed in the associated 

documents of the draft economic 

analysis, and how the consequences of 

such reactions, if likely to occur, would 

relate to the conservation and regulatory 

benefits of the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

(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. 

(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. 

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. 

All comments submitted 

electronically via http://

www.regulations.gov will be presented 

on the Web site in their entirety as 

submitted. For comments submitted via 

hard copy, we will post your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—on http://

www.regulations.gov. You may request 

at the top of your document that we 

withhold personal information such as 

your street address, phone number, or 

email address from public review; 

however, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, South Florida Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Previous Federal Actions 

Previous Federal actions for Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum are 

outlined in our proposed and final rules 

to list both species as endangered 

species published in the Federal 

Register on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 

61836), and October 24, 2013 (78 FR 

63796), respectively. 

Summary of Biological Status for 

Consolea corallicola and Harrisia 

aboriginum 

It is our intent to discuss below only 

those topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Consolea corallicola and Harrisia 

aboriginum in this section of the 

proposed rule. For more information on 

C. corallicola and H. aboriginum 

taxonomy, life history, habitat, 

population descriptions, and factors 

affecting the species, please refer to the 

proposed listing rule published October 

11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), in the Federal 

Register, and the final listing rule 

published October 24, 2013 (78 FR 

63796), in the Federal Register. 

Consolea corallicola and Harrisia 

aboriginum (Family: Cactaceae) are large 

tree- or shrub-like cacti and are endemic 

to South Florida. C. corallicola occurs in 

Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties in 

coastal berms, rockland hammocks, and 

buttonwood forests on sandy or 

limestone rockland soils with little 

organic matter. H. aboriginum occurs in 

Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee 

Counties on coastal berms, coastal 

strand, coastal grasslands, and maritime 

hammocks, with a sand substrate. It also 

occurs on shell mounds with a 

calcareous shell substrate. 

Habitat 

Consolea corallicola occurs in 

rockland hammocks (Small 1930, pp. 

25–26; Benson 1982, p. 531), coastal 

berm, and buttonwood forests (Bradley 

and Gann 1999, p. 77; Gann et al. 2002, 

p. 480; Higgins 2007, pers. comm.). 

Consolea corallicola occurs on sandy 

soils and limestone rockland soils with 

little organic matter (Small 1930, pp. 

25–26) and seems to prefer areas where 

canopy cover and sun exposure are 

moderate (Grahl and Bradley 2005, p. 4). 

Detailed descriptions of these habitats 

are presented in the proposed listing 

rule for Chromolaena frustrata, 

Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia 

aboriginum (October 11, 2012; 77 FR 

61836), with a revised description of 

buttonwood forests provided in the final 

listing rule for these plants (October 24, 

2013; 78 FR 63796). 

Harrisia aboriginum occurs on coastal 

berms, coastal strand, coastal grasslands 

and maritime hammocks, with a sand 

substrate. It also occurs on shell mounds 

with a calcareous shell substrate 

(Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 4, 14). Detailed 

descriptions of these habitats are 

presented in the proposed listing rule 

for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea 

corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum 

(October 11, 2012; 77 FR 61836). 

Distribution and Range 

The current range of Consolea 

corallicola includes two naturally 

occurring populations and five 

reintroduced populations in MiamiDade and Monroe Counties, Florida. 

These populations account for fewer 

than 1,500 plants, and all are located on 

conservation lands. Wild populations, 

on Key Largo and Big Pine Key in the 

Florida Keys, were lost more than a 

decade ago by development and 

collecting by cactus enthusiasts. C. 

corallicola has subsequently been 

reintroduced to Key Largo and Big Pine 

Key. 

The current range of Harrisia 

aboriginum includes 12 populations in 

Charlotte, Sarasota, and Lee Counties, 

Florida. Plants occur in eight public and 

private conservation areas, as well as 

two County parcels not managed for 

conservation and at least three 

unprotected private parcels. In total, the 

species was represented by an estimated 

300 to 500 individuals in 2007, when 

population sizes were last estimated. 

Populations formerly known from Terra 

Ceia in Manatee County and Cayo Costa 

Island in Lee County are extirpated (no 

longer in existence). A large population 

on Longboat Key has been reduced from 

226 individuals in 1981 to 5 in 2007 due 

to development. 

Although Consolea corallicola and 

Harrisia aboriginum populations occur 

largely within public conservation 

lands, threats remain from a wide array 

of natural and anthropogenic sources. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Habitat loss, storm surge, poaching, 

disease, predation, and climate change 

are the imminent threats to these cacti 

(78 FR 63796). 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features: 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even 

in the event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the obligation of 

the Federal action agency and the 

landowner is not to restore or recover 

the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features within an 

area, we focus on the principal 

biological or physical constituent 

elements (primary constituent elements 

such as roost sites, nesting grounds, 

seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 

soil type) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Primary 

constituent elements are those specific 

elements of the physical or biological 

features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we may 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. For example, an area currently 

occupied by the species but that was not 

occupied at the time of listing may be 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and may be included in the 

critical habitat designation. We 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species only when a designation 

limited to its range would be inadequate 

to ensure the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include, but are not limited to, the 

recovery plan for the species, articles in 

peer-reviewed journals, conservation 

plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, 

biological assessments, other 

unpublished materials, or experts’ 

opinions or personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species, and (3) section 9 

of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any 

individual of the species, including 

taking caused by actions that affect 

habitat. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3319 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Prudency Determination for Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state 

that the designation of critical habitat is 

not prudent when one or both of the 

following situations exist: 

(1) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or 

(2) Such designation of critical habitat 

would not be beneficial to the species. 

In the proposed rule to list Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum (77 

FR 61836), we found critical habitat to 

be not prudent because of the potential 

for an increase in poaching. Rare cacti 

are valuable to collectors and there 

remains an imminent threat of 

collection (poaching) for C. corallicola 

and H. aboriginum. There is evidence 

that the designation of critical habitat 

could result in an increased threat from 

taking, specifically collection, for both 

cacti, through publication of maps and 

a narrative description of specific 

critical habitat units in the rule. 

However, based on public comment in 

response to the proposed listing rule, we 

have determined that information on 

locations of extant C. corallicola and H. 

aboriginum populations is already 

widely available in the public domain 

such as scientific journals, online 

databases, and documents the Service 

has previously published in the Federal 

Register. Therefore, we have determined 

that identification and mapping of 

critical habitat is not expected to initiate 

any threat of collection or significantly 

increase existing collection pressure. 

In the absence of finding that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

increase threats to a species, if there are 

any benefits to a critical habitat 

designation, then a prudent finding is 

warranted. Here, the potential benefits 

of designation include: 

(1) Triggering consultation under 

section 7 of the Act in new areas for 

actions in which there may be a Federal 

nexus where it would not otherwise 

occur because, for example, the area is 

or has become unoccupied or the 

occupancy is in question; 

(2) Focusing conservation activities 

on the most essential features and areas; 

(3) Providing educational benefits to 

State or county governments or private 

entities; and 

(4) Preventing people from causing 

inadvertent harm to the species. 

Therefore, we have reevaluated our 

prudency determination for both cacti 

and have determined that the 

designation of critical habitat will not 

likely increase the degree of threat to 

either species and may provide some 

measure of benefit. Accordingly, we 

determine that designation of critical 

habitat is prudent for both species. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation of 

critical habitat is prudent for both 

species, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

Consolea corallicola and Harrisia 

aboriginum is determinable. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 

that critical habitat is not determinable 

when one or both of the following 

situations exist: 

(i) Information sufficient to perform 

required analyses of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking; or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

permit identification of an area as 

critical habitat. 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where these species are 

located. This and other information 

represent the best scientific data 

available. Based on our review of this 

information, we conclude that critical 

habitat is determinable for Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. 

Physical or Biological Features 

In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) 

and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining 

which areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing may be designated as critical 

habitat, we consider the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species and 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. These 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical geographic and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum 

from studies of the species’ habitat, 

ecology, and life history as described 

below. Additional information on these 

cacti can be found in the proposed and 

final listing rules published on October 

11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), and October 24, 

2013 (78 FR 63796), respectively, in the 

Federal Register. We have determined 

that the following physical or biological 

features are essential to the conservation 

of Consolea corallicola. 

Consolea corallicola 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Plant Community and Competitive 

Ability. Consolea corallicola occurs in 

communities classified as coastal berm, 

buttonwood forests, and rockland 

hammocks restricted to the Florida 

Keys. These communities and their 

associated native plant species are 

described in the Status Assessment for 

Consolea corallicola in the proposed 

listing rule published on October 11, 

2012 (77 FR 61836), and in the final 

listing rule published on October 24, 

2013 (78 FR 63796), in the Federal 

Register. These habitats and their 

associated plant communities provide 

vegetation structure that allows for 

adequate growing space, sunlight, and a 

competitive regime that is required for 

C. corallicola to persist and spread. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify upland habitats 

consisting of coastal berm, rockland 

hammock, and buttonwood forest to be 

a physical or biological feature for C. 

corallicola. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Climate (temperature and 

precipitation). Consolea corallicola 

requires adequate rainfall and does not 

tolerate prolonged freezing 

temperatures. The climate of south 

Florida where C. corallicola occurs is 

characterized by distinct wet and dry 

seasons, a monthly mean temperature 

above 18 °C (64.4 °F) in every month of 

the year, and annual rainfall averaging 

75 to 150 cm (30 to 60 inches (in)) 

(Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). Freezes can 

occur in the winter months, but are very 

infrequent at this latitude in Florida. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we determined this type of 

climate to be a physical or biological 

feature for C. corallicola. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Soils. Substrates supporting Consolea 

corallicola include loose sediment 

formed by a mixture of coarse sand, 

shell fragments, pieces of coralline 

algae, and other coastal debris, exposed 

bare limestone rock or with a thin layer 

of leaf litter or highly organic soil 

(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 37; Florida 

Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2010a,b, 

and c, p. 1; FNAI 2010d,e, p. 2). These 

substrates provide anchoring spots, 

nutrients, moisture regime, and suitable 

soil chemistry for C corallicola; and 

facilitate a community of associated 

plant species that create a competitive 

regime that allows C. corallicola to 

persist and spread. Therefore, based on 

the information above, we identify 

substrates derived from calcareous sand 

or limestone that provide anchoring and 

nutritional requirements to be a 

physical or biological feature for C. 

corallicola. 

Hydrology. The species requires 

coastal berms and buttonwood forests 

that occur at an elevation higher than 

the daily tidal range, but are subject to 

flooding by seawater during extreme 

tides and storm surge (FNAI 2010b, p. 

2; FNAI 2010c, p. 2). This flooding 

helps to limit the variety of plants that 

may grow in these habitats and compete 

with Consolea corallicola. Rockland 

hammocks occur on high ground that 

does not regularly flood, but this habitat 

is often dependent upon a high water 

table to keep humidity levels high, and 

may be inundated during storm surges 

(FNAI 2010e, p. 2). Therefore, based on 

the information above, we identify 

rockland hammock habitat with 

groundwater levels needed to maintain 

humidity and buttonwood and coastal 

berm habitat inundated by storm surge 

or tidal events at a frequency and 

duration needed to limit plant species 

competition while not creating overly 

saline conditions to be a physical or 

biological feature for C. corallicola. 

Cover or Shelter 

Consolea corallicola occurs in open 

canopy and semi-open to closed canopy 

habitats. The spatial and temporal 

distribution of open canopy areas varies 

by habitat type and time since the last 

disturbance, such as a hurricane, caused 

canopy openings. In rockland 

hammocks, suitable sites will often be 

found near the hammock edge or where 

there are openings in the forest canopy. 

More open communities (e.g., coastal 

berm and buttonwood forests) provide 

more abundant and temporally 

consistent suitable habitat than 

communities capable of establishing a 

dense canopy (e.g., hardwood 

hammocks). Therefore, based on the 

information above, we identify habitats 

that have a vegetation composition and 

structure that allows for adequate 

sunlight and space for individual 

growth and population expansion to be 

a physical or biological feature for C. 

corallicola. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

The habitats identified above as 

physical or biological features also 

provide a plant community with 

associated plant species that foster a 

competitive regime suitable to Consolea 

corallicola and contain adequate open 

space for the recruitment of new plants. 

Associated plant species in these 

habitats attract and provide cover for 

generalist pollinators (e.g., bees, 

butterflies, and beetles) that pollinate C. 

corallicola. 

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or 

Representative of the Historical, 

Geographic, and Ecological 

Distributions of the Species 

Consolea corallicola continues to 

occur in habitats that are protected from 

human-generated disturbances and are 

representative of the species’ historical, 

geographical, and ecological 

distribution although its range has been 

reduced. The species is still found in 

coastal berm, buttonwood forest, and 

rockland hammocks. As described 

above, these habitats provide a 

community of associated plant and 

animal species that are compatible with 

C. corallicola, vegetation structure that 

provides adequate sunlight levels and 

open space for plant growth and 

regeneration, and substrates with 

adequate moisture availability and 

suitable soil chemistry. Representative 

communities are located on Federal, 

State, local, and private conservation 

lands that implement conservation 

measures benefitting the species. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify habitat of sufficient 

size and connectivity that can support 

species growth, distribution, and 

population expansion to be physical or 

biological features for C. corallicola. 

Disturbance Regime. Coastal berm, 

buttonwood forest, and rockland 

hammock habitats that could or 

currently support Consolea corallicola 

depend on natural disturbance regimes 

from hurricanes or tidal inundation to 

open the canopy in order to provide 

light levels sufficient to support the 

species. The historical frequency and 

magnitude of hurricanes and tidal 

inundation has allowed for the 

persistence of C. corallicola by 

occasionally creating areas of open 

canopy. In the absence of disturbance, 

some of these habitats may have closed 

canopies, resulting in areas lacking 

enough available sunlight to support C. 

corallicola. However, too frequent or 

severe disturbance that transitions the 

habitat toward more saline conditions 

could result in the decline of the species 

in the area. Therefore, based on the 

information above, we identify habitats 

that have disturbance regimes, 

including hurricanes, and infrequent 

inundation events that maintain habitat 

suitability to be physical or biological 

features for C. corallicola. 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Consolea corallicola 

According to 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are 

required to identify the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Consolea corallicola in 

areas occupied at the time of listing, 

focusing on the features’ primary 

constituent elements. We consider 

primary constituent elements to be 

those specific elements of the physical 

or biological features that provide for a 

species’ life-history processes and are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the physical or biological features and 

habitat characteristics required to 

sustain the species’ life-history 

processes, we determine that the 

primary constituent elements specific to 

Consolea corallicola are: 

(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting 

of coastal berm, rockland hammocks, 

and buttonwood forest. 

(A) Coastal berm habitat that contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy, 

subcanopy, and understory; and 

(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, 

and storm-deposited sediment. 

(B) Rockland hammock habitat that 

contains: 

(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an 

open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, 

and understory; and 

(2) Substrate with a thin layer of 

highly organic soil covering limestone 

or organic matter that accumulates on 

top of the limestone. 

(C) Buttonwood forest habitat that 

contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy and 

understory; and 

(2) Substrate with calcareous marl 

muds, calcareous sands, or limestone 

rock. 

(ii) A plant community of 

predominately native vegetation with no 

invasive, nonnative animal or plant 

species or such species in quantities low 

enough to have minimal effect on 

survival of Consolea corallicola. 

(iii) A disturbance regime, due to the 

effects of strong winds or saltwater 

inundation from storm surge or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3321 

infrequent tidal inundation, that creates 

canopy openings in coastal berm, 

rockland hammocks, and buttonwood 

forest. 

(iv) Habitats that are connected and of 

sufficient size to sustain viable 

populations in coastal berm, rockland 

hammocks, and buttonwood forest. 

(v) Habitats that provide populations 

of the generalist pollinators that visit the 

flowers of Consolea corallicola. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection for Consolea corallicola 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographic area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

Special management considerations 

or protection are necessary throughout 

the critical habitat areas proposed here 

to avoid further degradation or 

destruction of the habitat that provides 

those features essential to the species’ 

conservation. The primary threats to the 

physical or biological features that 

Consolea corallicola depends on 

include: 

(1) Habitat destruction and 

modification by development and sea 

level rise; 

(2) Competition with nonnative, 

invasive plant and animal species; 

(3) Wildfire; and 

(4) Hurricanes and storm surge. 

Some of these threats can be 

addressed by special management 

considerations or protection while 

others (e.g., sea level rise, hurricanes, 

storm surge) are beyond the control of 

landowners and managers. However, 

even when landowners or land 

managers may not be able to control all 

the threats, they may be able to address 

the results of the threats. 

Proposed Actions To Ameliorate 

Threats 

The following measures or 

management activities can ameliorate 

threats to Consolea corallicola: 

(1) Protecting habitats from 

residential, commercial, or recreational 

facility development; 

(2) Avoiding ditching or filling that 

may alter hydrological conditions; 

(3) Nonnative plant and animal 

species control programs to reduce 

competition, predation, and prevent 

habitat degradation; and 

(4) Hardwood reduction to maintain 

the open vegetation structure of the 

species habitats. 

The reduction of these threats will 

require the implementation of special 

management actions within each of the 

critical habitat areas identified in this 

proposed rule. All proposed critical 

habitat will need management to 

address the ongoing threats listed above 

and those presented in the Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species sections in 

the proposed listing rule published on 

October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), and in 

the final listing rule published on 

October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63796). 

Ongoing Actions To Ameliorate Threats 

The Service, National Park Service 

(NPS), State of Florida, Miami-Dade and 

Monroe Counties, and several local 

governments own and manage 

conservation lands within the range of 

Consolea corallicola. The Nature 

Conservancy purchased Torchwood 

Hammock Preserve on Little Torch Key 

in 1988, to protect what was at the time 

the only known remaining population of 

C. corallicola. The comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) for the Lower 

Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges 

(National Key Deer Refuge, Key West 

National Wildlife Refuge, and Great 

White Heron National Wildlife Refuge) 

and Crocodile Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge promote the enhancement of 

wildlife populations by maintaining and 

enhancing a diversity and abundance of 

habitats for native plants and animals, 

especially imperiled species that are 

found only in the Florida Keys. This 

CCP provides specifically for 

maintaining and expanding populations 

of C. corallicola. 

NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.1 

prohibit visitors from harming or 

removing plants, listed or otherwise, 

from Everglades National Park (ENP) or 

Biscayne National Park (BNP). Consolea 

corallicola is listed on the Regulated 

Plant Index as endangered under 

chapter 5B–40, Florida Administrative 

Code. Florida Statutes 581.185 sections 

(3)(a) and (b) prohibit any person from 

willfully destroying or harvesting any 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened on the Regulated Plant 

Index, or growing such a plant on the 

private land of another, or on any public 

land, without first obtaining the written 

permission of the landowner and a 

permit from the Florida Department of 

Plant Industry. 

The Service, NPS, State of Florida, 

Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, and 

several local governments conduct 

nonnative species control efforts on 

sites that support, or have suitable 

habitat for C. corallicola. The 

introduced Cactoblastis moth 

(Cactoblastis cactorum) infests C. 

corallicola plants and may cause 

mortality. We consider the moth to be 

a major threat to the species. Monitoring 

for Cactoblastis moth infestations, and 

hand removal efforts of the moth larvae 

and eggs are conducted at BNP and 

Torchwood Hammock Preserve in an 

effort to protect C. corallicola. No 

satisfactory method of large-scale 

control for the Cactoblastis moth is 

known at this time. The U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Agricultural Research Service’s Center 

for Medical, Agricultural, and 

Veterinary Entomology in Tallahassee, 

Florida, is developing containment 

methods to control the spread of the 

Cactoblastis moth (USDA 2006, p. 9). 

Reintroductions of Consolea 

corallicola have been implemented at 

several locations on State and Federal 

lands in the Florida Keys over the past 

15 years. Attempts at reintroduction 

implemented in the 1990s were largely 

unsuccessful due to poor site selection, 

Cactoblastis moth predation, crown rot, 

and burial of small plants by leaf litter. 

It is too early to judge the results of 

more recent reintroductions that were 

implemented in 2013 and 2014. 

Reintroduction of C. corallicola serves 

multiple objectives towards the plant’s 

conservation, including increasing the 

number of populations to address the 

threat of few, small populations; 

establishing populations across a wider 

geographic area to reduce the chance 

that all populations will be affected by 

natural disturbances, such as hurricanes 

and storm surge events; and establishing 

populations at higher elevation sites 

that will be less vulnerable to storm 

surge events and sea level rise. Assisted 

migration to higher elevations at 

existing sites may be needed in the 

future to conserve populations if the 

area supporting the existing population 

shows indications of increased soil 

salinity and population decline due to 

sea level rise. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat for Consolea corallicola 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

occupied areas at the time of listing that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. If, after 

identifying currently occupied areas, a 

determination is made that those areas 

are inadequate to ensure conservation of 

the species, in accordance with the Act 

and our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12(e) we then consider whether 

designating additional areas—outside 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

those currently occupied—are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

We have proposed units throughout 

the historical range of Consolea 

corallicola. The species currently 

occupies all of the islands of the Florida 

Keys where it was recorded historically. 

We determined that there is no 

unoccupied habitat that is essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

As discussed above we are proposing 

to designate critical habitat in areas 

within the geographical area presently 

occupied by the species, i.e., occupied 

at the time of listing. 

The wild populations of Consolea 

corallicola are much reduced (50 

percent) from the species’ historical 

distribution, and one of the two 

remaining wild populations is small, 

consisting of only 12 mature plants. The 

habitats required by C. corallicola are 

severely fragmented by development in 

the Florida Keys. We anticipate that 

recovery will require continued 

protection of the remaining extant 

populations and habitat, augmenting 

existing small populations, and 

establishing populations in additional 

areas to more closely approximate its 

historical distribution in order to ensure 

there are adequate numbers of plants in 

stable populations and that these 

populations occur over a wide 

geographic area. This will help to 

ensure that catastrophic events, such as 

storms, cannot simultaneously affect all 

known populations. 

Small plant populations with limited, 

fragmented distributions, such as 

Consolea corallicola, are vulnerable to 

relatively minor environmental 

disturbances (Frankham 2005, pp. 135– 

136) that could result in the loss of 

genetic diversity from genetic drift, the 

random loss of genes, and inbreeding 

(Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217–237; 

Leimu et al. 2006, pp. 942–952). Plant 

populations with lowered genetic 

diversity are more prone to local 

extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991, pp. 

4, 28). Smaller plant populations 

generally have lower genetic diversity, 

and lower genetic diversity may in turn 

lead to even smaller populations by 

decreasing the species’ ability to adapt, 

thereby increasing the probability of 

population extinction (Newman and 

Pilson 1997, p. 360; Palstra and 

Ruzzante 2008, pp. 3428–3447). Because 

of the dangers associated with small 

populations or limited distributions, the 

recovery of many rare plant species 

includes the creation of new sites or 

reintroductions to ameliorate these 

effects. 

Habitat fragmentation can have 

negative effects on populations, 

especially rare plants, and can affect 

survival and recovery (Aguilar et al. 

2006, pp. 968–980; Aguilar et al. 2008, 

pp. 5177–5188; Potts et al. 2010, pp. 

345–352). In general, habitat 

fragmentation causes habitat loss, 

habitat degradation, habitat isolation, 

changes in species composition, 

changes in species interactions, 

increased edge effects, and reduced 

habitat connectivity (Fahrig 2003, pp. 

487–515; Fischer and Lindenmayer 

2007, pp. 265–280). Habitat fragments 

are often functionally smaller than they 

appear because edge effects (such as 

increased nonnative, invasive species or 

wind speeds) impact the available 

habitat within the fragment (Lienert and 

Fischer 2003, p. 597). 

In selecting areas to propose for 

critical habitat designation, we utilized 

the Shaffer and Stein (2000) 

methodology for conserving imperiled 

species known as the ‘three Rs’: 

Representation, resiliency, and 

redundancy. Representation, or 

preserving some of everything, means 

conserving not just a species but its 

associated plant communities. 

Resiliency and redundancy ensure there 

is enough of a species so it can survive 

into the future. Resiliency means 

ensuring that the habitat is adequate for 

a species and its representative 

components. Redundancy ensures an 

adequate number of sites and 

individuals. This methodology has been 

widely accepted as a reasonable 

conservation strategy (Tear et al. 2005, 

p. 841). 

We have addressed representation 

through the primary constituent 

elements (as discussed above) and by 

identifying areas of habitat for the 

expansion of Consolea corallicola 

populations. There are only 

approximately 800 to 1,000 known 

individuals and only 6 populations. All 

but 2 populations consist of fewer than 

100 individuals (low redundancy). All 

populations occur on small islands 

where the amount of suitable remaining 

habitat is limited (low resiliency), and 

much of the remaining habitat may be 

lost to sea level rise over the next 

century. 

Sources of Data To Identify Critical 

Habitat Boundaries 

To determine the location and 

boundaries of critical habitat, the 

Service used the following sources of 

information and considerations: 

(1) Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

(FNAI) population records and ArcGIS 

geographic information system software 

to spatially depict the location and 

extent of documented populations of 

Consolea corallicola (FNAI 2011a, pp. 

1–4); 

(2) Reports prepared by botanists with 

the Institute for Regional Conservation 

(IRC), NPS, and Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) (Some 

of these were funded by the Service; 

others were requested or volunteered by 

biologists with the NPS or FDEP.); 

(3) Historical records found in reports 

and associated voucher specimens 

housed at herbaria, all of which are 

referenced in the above-mentioned 

reports from the IRC and FNAI; 

(4) Digitally produced habitat maps 

provided by Monroe County; and 

(5) Aerial images of Miami-Dade and 

Monroe Counties. The presence of 

primary constituent elements was 

determined through the use of GIS 

spatial data depicting the current habitat 

status. These habitat data for the Florida 

Keys were developed by Monroe County 

from 2006 aerial images, and ground 

conditions for many areas were checked 

in 2009. Habitat data for BNP were 

provided by the NPS. The areas that 

contain the primary constituent 

elements follow predictable landscape 

patterns and have a recognizable 

signature in the aerial imagery. 

We have identified areas to include in 

this proposed designation by applying 

the following considerations. The 

amount and distribution of critical 

habitat being proposed for designation 

would allow existing and future 

established populations of Consolea 

corallicola to: 

(1) Maintain their existing 

distribution; 

(2) Expand their distribution into 

previously occupied areas (needed to 

offset habitat loss and fragmentation); 

(3) Use habitat depending on habitat 

availability (response to changing nature 

of coastal habitat including sea level 

rise) and support genetic diversity; 

(4) Increase the size of each 

population to a level where the threats 

of genetic, demographic, and normal 

environmental uncertainties are 

diminished; and 

(5) Maintain their ability to withstand 

local or unit-level environmental 

fluctuations or catastrophes. 

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing 

The proposed occupied critical 

habitat designation for Consolea 

corallicola focuses on areas occupied at 

the time the species was listed within 

the historical range that have retained 

the necessary primary constituent 

elements that will allow for the 

maintenance and expansion of existing 

populations. The proposed occupied 

critical habitat units were delineated 

around documented extant populations. 

These units include the mapped extent 

of the population that contains one or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3323 

more of the physical or biological 

features. We considered the following 

when identifying occupied areas of 

critical habitat: 

(1) The delineation included space to 

allow for the successional nature of the 

occupied habitats (i.e., gain and loss of 

areas with sufficient light availability 

due to disturbance of the tree canopy 

driven by natural events such as 

inundation and hurricanes), and habitat 

transition or loss due to sea level rise. 

(2) Some areas will require special 

management to be able to support a 

higher density of the plant within the 

occupied space. These areas generally 

are habitats where some of the primary 

constituent elements have been lost 

through natural or human causes. These 

areas would help to offset the 

anticipated loss and degradation of 

habitat occurring or expected from the 

effects of climate change (such as sea 

level rise) or due to development. 

When determining 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 for 

Consolea corallicola. The scale of the 

maps we prepared under the parameters 

for publication within the Code of 

Federal Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands. Any 

such lands inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this 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. 

Units were proposed for designation 

based on sufficient elements of physical 

or biological features being present to 

support Consolea corallicola life-history 

processes. Some units contained all of 

the identified elements of physical or 

biological features and supported 

multiple life-history processes. Some 

segments contained only some elements 

of the physical or biological features 

necessary to support C. corallicola’s 

particular use of that habitat. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the map or maps, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document in the rule portion. We 

include more detailed information on 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the preamble of this 

document. We will make the 

coordinates, plot points, or both on 

which each map is based available to 

the public on http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2014–0057, on our 

Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/

verobeach/, and at the field office 

responsible for the designation (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

for Consolea corallicola 

We are proposing four units as critical 

habitat for Consolea corallicola. The 

critical habitat areas we describe below 

constitute our current best assessment of 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for C. corallicola. The four areas 

we propose as critical habitat are: 

(1) FSC1 Swan Key in Biscayne 

National Park, Miami-Dade County, 

Florida; 

(2) FSC2 Key Largo, Monroe County, 

Florida; 

(3) FSC3 Big Pine Key, Monroe 

County, Florida; and 

(4) FSC4 Little Torch Key in Monroe 

County, Florida. 

Land ownership within the proposed 

critical habitat consists of Federal (28 

percent), State (58 percent), County (1 

percent), and private and other (14 

percent). Table 1 shows these units by 

land ownership, area, and occupancy. 

TABLE 1—CONSOLEA CORALLICOLA PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS

[All areas rounded to the nearest whole acre (ac) and hectare (ha)] 

Unit Total 

Ac (Ha) 

Federal 

Ac (Ha) 

State 

Ac (Ha) 

County 

Ac (Ha) 

Private/ 

other 

Ac (Ha) 

Occupied 

FSC1—Swan Key–Biscayne National Park ...... 37 (15) 37 (15) 0 0 0 Yes. 

FSC2—Key Largo .............................................. 3,434 (1,389) 702 (284) 2,331 (943) 17 (7) 384 (155) Yes. 

FSC3––Big Pine Key ......................................... 772 (313) 508 (205) 172 (70) 11 (5) 81 (33) Yes. 

FSC4—Little Torch Key ..................................... 168 (68) 0 47 (19) 10 (4) 111 (45) Yes. 

Total ............................................................ 4,411 (1,785) 1,247 (504) 2,550 (1,032) 38 (16) 576 (233) 

Percent of Total .......................................... 100 28 58 1 13 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

Two (FSC1 and FSC2) of the four 

critical habitat units proposed for 

Consolea corallicola are also currently 

designated under the Act as critical 

habitat for the American crocodile 

(Crocodylus acutus), and two (FSC2 and 

FSC3) are designated as critical habitat 

units for Chromolaena frustrata (Cape 

Sable thoroughwort). 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Consolea corallicola, below. 

Unit FSC1: Swan Key-Biscayne National 

Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Unit FSC1 consists of approximately 

37 ac (15 ha) in Miami-Dade County. 

This unit is composed entirely of lands 

in Federal ownership, 100 percent of 

which are located on Swan Key within 

Biscayne National Park. The unit 

includes all upland rockland hammock 

habitat on Swan Key, most of which is 

located on the eastern side of Swan Key, 

surrounded by the island’s mangrove 

fringe. A second, smaller area is located 

on the island’s elongate western half 

and is also surrounded by mangroves. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains all the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes, 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and the coastal hardwood 

hammock and buttonwood forest 

primary constituent elements. The 

physical or biological features in this 

unit may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant and animal 

species and sea level rise. However, in 

most cases these threats are being 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

addressed or coordinated with BNP to 

implement needed actions. BNP 

conducts nonnative species control on 

Swan Key and monitors Consolea 

corallicola for population trends and 

Cactoblastis moth damage. The NPS is 

currently revising the BNP General 

Management Plan (Plan), which 

identifies C. corallicola but does not 

discuss specific conservation measures. 

However, the Plan states that Swan Key 

will continue to be a ‘‘sensitive resource 

area’’ and managed to protect critical 

ecosystems, habitats, and natural 

processes. Access will be tightly 

controlled and limited to permitted 

research activities. In addition, the 

Service believes assisted migration to 

the highest elevations on Swan Key on 

BNP may be needed in the future to 

conserve the population if the area 

supporting the existing population 

shows indications of increased soil 

salinity and population decline due to 

sea level rise. 

Unit FSC2: Key Largo, Monroe County, 

Florida 

Unit FSC2 consists of approximately 

3,434 ac (1,389 ha) in Monroe County. 

This unit is composed of Federal lands 

within Crocodile Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) (702 ac (284 ha)); State 

lands within Dagny Johnson Botanical 

State Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef 

State Park, and the Florida Keys 

Wildlife and Environmental Area (2,331 

ac (943 ha)); lands owned by Monroe 

County (17 ac (7 ha)); and parcels in 

private or other ownership (384 ac (155 

ha)). This unit extends from near the 

northern tip of Key Largo, along the 

length of Key Largo, beginning at the 

south shore of Ocean Reef Harbor near 

South Marina Drive and the intersection 

of County Road (CR) 905 and Clubhouse 

Road on the west side of CR 905, and 

between CR 905 and Old State Road 

905, then extending to the shoreline 

south of South Harbor Drive. The unit 

then continues on both sides of CR 905 

through the Crocodile Lake NWR, Dagny 

Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical 

State Park, and John Pennekamp Coral 

Reef State Park. The unit then 

terminates near the junction of U.S. 1 

and CR 905 and Garden Cove Drive. The 

unit resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 

from South Andros Road to Key Largo 

Elementary; then from the intersection 

of Taylor Drive and Pamela Street to 

Avenue A; then from Sound Drive to the 

intersection of Old Road and Valencia 

Road; then resumes on the east side of 

U.S. 1 from Hibiscus Lane and Ocean 

Drive. The unit continues south near the 

Port Largo Airport from Poisonwood 

Road to Bo Peep Boulevard. The unit 

resumes on the west side of U.S. 1 from 

the intersection of South Drive and 

Meridian Avenue to Casa Court Drive. 

The unit then continues on the west 

side of U.S. 1 from the point on the 

coast directly west of Peace Avenue 

south to Caribbean Avenue. The unit 

also includes a portion of El Radabob 

Key in Largo Sound located directly east 

of Avenue A, extending south to a point 

directly east of Mahogany Drive. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains all the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes, 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and the rockland hammock and 

buttonwood forest primary constituent 

elements. The physical or biological 

features in this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats of 

nonnative plant species and sea level 

rise. The CCP for Crocodile Lake NWR 

promotes the enhancement of wildlife 

populations by maintaining and 

enhancing a diversity and abundance of 

habitats for native plants and animals, 

especially imperiled species that are 

found only in the Florida Keys, but does 

not identify Consolea corallicola 

because it does not presently occur on 

the Refuge. The Management Plan for 

Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammocks 

Botanical State Park calls for the 

protection and restoration of habitats 

and to continue conservation efforts 

already under way for C. corallicola. 

The Service and FDEP conduct 

nonnative species control on their 

respective lands on Key Largo. FDEP 

monitors the reintroduced C. corallicola 

at Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammocks 

Botanical State Park for population 

trends and Cactoblastis moth damage. In 

addition, assisted migration of the cacti 

to the highest elevations on these lands 

is needed because the population 

already shows the effects of increased 

soil salinity and is partially inundated 

by high tides. 

Unit FSC3: Big Pine Key, Monroe 

County, Florida 

Unit FSC3 consists of approximately 

772 ac (313 ha) in Monroe County. This 

unit is composed of Federal land within 

the National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) 

(508 ac (205 ha)); State land managed as 

part of the NKDR (172 ac (70 ha)); lands 

owned by Monroe County (11 ac (5 ha)); 

and parcels in private or other 

ownership (81 ac (33 ha)). This unit 

extends from near the northern tip of 

Big Pine Key along the eastern shore to 

the vicinity of Hellenga Drive and 

Watson Road; from Gulf Boulevard 

south to West Shore Drive; Big Pine 

Avenue and Elma Avenues on the east, 

Coral and Yacht Club Road, and U.S. 1 

on the north, and Industrial Avenue on 

the east from the southeastern tip of Big 

Pine Key to Avenue A. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains all the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes, 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and the coastal berm, rockland 

hammock, and buttonwood forest 

primary constituent elements. The 

physical or biological features in this 

unit may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species and 

sea level rise. The CCP for the Lower 

Florida Keys NWRs (NKDR, Key West 

NWR, and Great White Heron NWR) 

promotes the enhancement of wildlife 

populations by maintaining and 

enhancing a diversity and abundance of 

habitats for native plants and animals, 

and provides specifically for 

maintaining and expanding populations 

of candidate plant species including C. 

corallicola. The Service conducts 

nonnative species control in areas that 

could support C. corallicola. 

Unit FSC4: Little Torch Key, Monroe 

County, Florida 

Unit FSC4 consists of approximately 

168 ac (68 ha) in Monroe County. This 

unit is composed of State lands (47 ac 

(19 ha)); lands owned by Monroe 

County (10 ac (4 ha)); and parcels in 

private and other ownership (111 ac (45 

ha)). This unit extends along State 

Highway 4A, from Coral Shores Road, 

south to County Road, resuming at 

Linda Street and extending south to the 

Overseas Highway. South of the 

Overseas Highway, the unit includes 

areas west of Kings Cove Road, and an 

area comprising the southern tip of 

Little Torch Key that includes portions 

of The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) John 

J. Pescatello Torchwood Hammock 

Preserve. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains all the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes, 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and the coastal hardwood 

hammock and buttonwood forest 

primary constituent elements. The 

physical or biological features in this 

unit may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species and 

sea level rise. TNC’s 1994 Management 

Plan calls for monitoring, Cactoblastis 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3325 

control, vegetation management, and 

basic research on Consolea corallicola 

and threats to the species. TNC monitors 

C. corallicola at the Torchwood 

Hammock Preserve and conducts 

nonnative plant and animal species 

control. The Preserve is fenced, and 

potential visitors must request access to 

enter the site. Assisted migration to the 

highest elevations in the Preserve may 

be needed in the future to conserve the 

population if the area supporting the 

existing population shows indications 

of increased soil salinity and population 

decline due to sea level rise. 

Physical or Biological Features for 

Harrisia aboriginum 

We have determined that the 

following physical or biological features 

are essential to the conservation of 

Harrisia aboriginum. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Plant Community and Competitive 

Ability. Harrisia aboriginum occurs in 

communities classified as coastal 

strand, coastal grasslands, coastal 

berms, maritime hammocks, and shell 

mounds (Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 4, 14). 

Detailed descriptions of these 

communities and their associated native 

plant species are provided in the Status 

Assessment for Harrisia aboriginum 

section of the proposed listing rule 

published on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 

61836), and the final listing rule 

published on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 

63796), in the Federal Register. These 

habitats and their associated plant 

communities provide vegetation 

structure that provides adequate 

growing space, sunlight, and a 

competitive regime that is required for 

H. aboriginum to persist and spread. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify upland habitats 

consisting of coastal strand, coastal 

grasslands, coastal berms, maritime 

hammocks, and shell mounds to be a 

physical or biological feature for H. 

aboriginum. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Climate (temperature and 

precipitation). Harrisia aboriginum 

requires adequate rainfall and does not 

tolerate freezing temperatures. The 

climate of south Florida where H. 

aboriginum occurs is characterized by 

distinct wet and dry seasons, a monthly 

mean temperature above 18 °C (64.4 °F) 

in every month of the year, and annual 

rainfall averaging 75 to 150 cm (30 to 60 

in) (Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). Freezes 

can occur in the winter months, but are 

very infrequent at this latitude in 

Florida. Therefore, based on the 

information above, we determined this 

type of climate to be a physical or 

biological feature for H. aboriginum. 

Soils. Substrates supporting Harrisia 

aboriginum include sand and calcareous 

shell material (Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 

4, 14). These substrates provide 

anchoring spots, nutrients, moisture 

regime, and suitable soil chemistry for 

H. aboriginum, and facilitate a 

community of associated plant species 

that create a competitive regime that 

allows H. aboriginum to persist and 

spread. Therefore, based on the 

information above, we identify 

substrates derived from calcareous sand 

or shell material to be a physical or 

biological feature for H. aboriginum. 

Hydrology. Harrisia aboriginum 

requires upland habitats that occur 

above the daily tidal range, but are 

potentially subject to flooding by 

seawater during extreme tides and storm 

surge. H. aboriginum will not tolerate 

hydric or saline soils, and these soil 

conditions may also cause these habitats 

to transition to a community of species 

that will outcompete H. aboriginum for 

space. Maritime hammocks occur on 

high ground that does not regularly 

flood, but can be inundated during 

storm surges (FNAI 2010h, p. 3). Some 

sites that support H. aboriginum show 

indications that soil salinization are 

driving changes in the plant community 

toward salt-tolerant species, and will 

eventually lead to conditions unsuitable 

for H. aboriginum. Therefore, based on 

the information above, we identify 

upland habitats at elevations not 

affected by soil salinization due to sea 

level rise to be physical or biological 

features for H. aboriginum. 

Cover or Shelter 

Harrisia aboriginum occurs in open 

canopy and semi-open to closed canopy 

habitats. The amount and frequency of 

open canopy areas varies by habitat type 

and time since the last disturbance, 

such as a hurricane, caused canopy 

openings. In maritime hammocks, 

suitable areas will often be found near 

the hammock edge or where there are 

openings in the forest canopy. More 

open communities (e.g., coastal berm, 

coastal strand, and coastal grasslands) 

provide more abundant and temporally 

consistent suitable habitat than 

communities capable of establishing a 

dense canopy (e.g., maritime hammocks, 

shell mounds). Therefore, based on the 

information above, we identify habitats 

that have a vegetation composition and 

structure that allows for adequate 

sunlight and space for individual 

growth and population expansion to be 

a physical or biological feature for H. 

aboriginum. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

The habitats identified above as 

physical or biological features also 

provide a plant community with 

associated plant species that foster a 

competitive regime that is suitable for 

Harrisia aboriginum and contain 

adequate open space for the recruitment 

of new plants. Associated plant species 

in these habitats attract and provide 

cover for generalist pollinators (e.g., 

bees, butterflies, and beetles) that 

pollinate H. aboriginum. 

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or 

Representative of the Historical, 

Geographic, and Ecological 

Distributions of the Species 

Harrisia aboriginum continues to 

occur in habitats that are protected from 

human-generated disturbances and are 

representative of the species’ historical, 

geographical, and ecological 

distribution although its range has been 

reduced. The species is still found in its 

representative plant communities of 

coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal 

berm, maritime hammock, and shell 

mound habitat. As described above, 

these habitats provide a community of 

associated plant and animal species that 

are compatible with H. aboriginum, 

vegetation structure that provides 

adequate sunlight levels and open space 

for plant growth and regeneration, and 

substrates with adequate moisture 

availability and suitable soil chemistry. 

In addition, representative communities 

are located on Federal, State, local, and 

private conservation lands that 

implement conservation measures 

benefitting the species. Therefore, based 

on the information above, we identify 

habitat of sufficient size and 

connectivity that can support species 

growth, distribution, and population 

expansion to be a physical or biological 

feature for H. aboriginum. 

Disturbance Regime. Coastal strand, 

coastal berm, coastal grassland, 

maritime hammock, and shell mound 

habitats that support Harrisia 

aboriginum depend on natural 

disturbance regimes from hurricanes or 

tidal inundation to reduce the canopy in 

order to provide light levels sufficient to 

support the species. The historical 

frequency and magnitude of hurricanes 

and tidal inundation has allowed for the 

persistence of H. aboriginum by 

occasionally creating areas of open 

canopy. In the absence of disturbance, 

some of these habitats may have closed 

canopies, resulting in areas lacking 

enough available sunlight to support H. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

aboriginum. However, too frequent or 

severe disturbance that transitions the 

habitat toward more saline conditions 

could result in the decline of the species 

in the area. In addition, fires are rare to 

nonexistent in coastal strand, coastal 

grassland, coastal berm, maritime 

hammocks, and shell mound 

communities (FNAI 2010a, p. 2; FNAI 

2010f, p. 2; FNAI 2010g, p. 2; FNAI 

2010h, p. 3; FNAI 2010i, p. 2). 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify habitats that have 

disturbance regimes, including 

hurricanes, and infrequent inundation 

events that maintain the habitat 

suitability to be physical or biological 

features for H. aboriginum. 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Harrisia aboriginum 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the physical or biological features and 

habitat characteristics required to 

sustain the species’ life-history 

processes, we determine that the 

primary constituent elements specific to 

Harrisia aboriginum are: 

(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting 

of coastal strand, coastal grassland, 

coastal berm, maritime hammocks, and 

shell mounds. 

(A) Coastal strand habitat that 

contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy and 

understory; and 

(2) Substrate of sand and shell 

fragments of stabilized coastal dunes. 

(B) Coastal grassland habitat that 

contains: 

(1) No canopy and an open 

understory; and 

(2) Substrate of sand and shell 

fragments. 

(C) Coastal berm habitat that contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy, 

subcanopy, and understory; and 

(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, 

storm-deposited sediment. 

(D) Maritime hammock habitat that 

contains: 

(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an 

open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, 

and understory; and 

(2) Substrate of calcareous sand and 

shell fragments. 

(E) Shell mound habitat that contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy and 

understory; and 

(2) Substrate of soil derived from 

calcareous shells deposited by Native 

Americans during prehistoric times. 

(ii) A plant community of 

predominately native vegetation with no 

invasive, nonnative animal or plant 

species or such species in quantities low 

enough to have minimal effect on 

survival of Harrisia aboriginum. 

(iii) Canopy openings in coastal 

strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm, 

maritime hammock, and shell mound 

habitats that are created by the effects of 

strong winds or saltwater inundation 

from storm surge or infrequent tidal 

inundation. 

(iv) Habitats that are connected and of 

sufficient size to sustain viable 

populations in coastal strand, coastal 

grassland, coastal berm, maritime 

hammock, and shell mound habitats. 

(v) Habitats that provide populations 

of the generalist pollinators that visit the 

flowers of Harrisia aboriginum. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection for Harrisia aboriginum 

Management considerations or 

protection are necessary throughout the 

critical habitat areas proposed here to 

avoid further degradation or destruction 

of the habitat that provides those 

features essential to the species’ 

conservation. The primary threats to the 

physical or biological features that 

Harrisia aboriginum depends on 

include: 

(1) Habitat destruction and 

modification by development and sea 

level rise; 

(2) Competition with nonnative, 

invasive plant species; 

(3) Herbivorous nonnative animal 

species; 

(4) Wildfire; and 

(5) Hurricanes and storm surge. 

Some of these threats can be 

addressed by special management 

considerations or protection while 

others (e.g., sea level rise, hurricanes, 

storm surge) are beyond the control of 

landowners and managers. However, 

even when landowners or land 

managers may not be able to control all 

the threats, they may be able to address 

the results of the threats. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include the 

monitoring and minimization of impacts 

from recreational activities, nonnative 

species control, and protection from 

development. Precautions are needed to 

avoid the inadvertent trampling of 

Harrisia aboriginum in the course of 

management activities and public use. 

Development of recreational facilities or 

programs should avoid impacting these 

habitats directly or indirectly. Ditching 

should be avoided because it alters the 

hydrology and species composition of 

these habitats. Sites that have shown 

increasing encroachment of woody 

species over time may require efforts to 

maintain the open nature of the habitat, 

which favors these species. Nonnative 

species control programs are needed to 

reduce competition, predation, and 

prevent habitat degradation. The 

reduction of these threats will require 

the implementation of special 

management actions within each of the 

critical habitat areas identified in this 

proposed rule. All proposed critical 

habitat requires active management to 

address the ongoing threats above and 

those presented in the Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species sections in 

the proposed listing rule published on 

October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), and in 

the final listing rule published on 

October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63796). 

The Service, State of Florida, and 

Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee 

Counties own and manage conservation 

lands within the historical range of 

Harrisia aboriginum. The CCP for J.N. 

‘Ding’ Darling National Wildlife Refuge 

(JDDNWR) promotes the enhancement 

of wildlife populations by maintaining 

and enhancing a diversity and 

abundance of habitats for native plants 

and animals, especially imperiled 

species. This CCP provides specifically 

for maintaining populations of H. 

aboriginum. The State Management 

Plans for Charlotte Harbor Preserve, 

Cayo Costa, Stump Pass Beach, DelnorWiggins Pass, and Gasparilla Island 

State Parks and Bocilla Preserve 

promote the protection of habitats and 

native species. The Service, State of 

Florida, and Manatee, Sarasota, 

Charlotte, and Lee Counties conduct 

nonnative species control efforts on 

sites that support, or have suitable 

habitat for, H. aboriginum. The Service 

monitors the population of H. 

aboriginum at JDDNWR. FDEP monitors 

the H. aboriginum population at 

Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. 

Nonnative species control is currently 

lacking at Manasota Beach Park and 

Kitchen Key in areas that support H. 

aboriginum. Poaching, vandalism, and 

wildfire have been observed at 

Manasota Beach Park. Most populations 

are at elevations close to sea level and 

may require assisted migration as sea 

level rise continues to drive the 

transition toward salt-tolerant plant 

species in these areas. Reintroduction is 

needed to restore the species’ historical 

distribution on Cayo Costa and Madira 

Bickell Mound State Historical Park. 

Augmentation of small populations at 

Longboat Key, Terra Ceia, Lemon Bay 

Preserve, Kitchen Key, Gasparilla 

Island, and Cayo Pelau would reduce 

the risk of population loss to hurricanes, 

storm surge, or wildfire. 

Harrisia aboriginum is listed on the 

Regulated Plant Index as endangered 

under chapter 5B–40, Florida 

Administrative Code. Florida Statutes 

581.185 sections (3)(a) and (b) prohibit 

any person from willfully destroying or 

harvesting any species listed as 

endangered or threatened on the 

Regulated Plant Index, or growing such 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3327 

a plant on the private land of another, 

or on any public land, without first 

obtaining the written permission of the 

landowner and a permit from the 

Florida Department of Plant Industry. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat for Harrisia aboriginum 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat in areas within the geographical 

area occupied by Harrisia aboriginum at 

the time of listing in 2013. We also are 

proposing to designate specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing that 

were historically occupied, but are 

presently unoccupied, because such 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species as described for Consolea 

corallicola above. 

We have determined that all habitat 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing should be proposed for critical 

habitat designation. However, realizing 

that occupied habitat is not adequate for 

the conservation of Harrisia aboriginum, 

we also used habitat and historical 

occurrence data to identify unoccupied 

habitat essential for the conservation of 

the species. To determine the location 

and boundaries of both occupied and 

unoccupied critical habitat, the Service 

used the following sources of data and 

information for H. aboriginum that 

include the following: 

(1) FNAI population records and 

ArcGIS software to spatially depict the 

location and extent of documented 

populations of Harrisia aboriginum 

(FNAI 2011b, pp. 1–28); 

(2) Reports prepared by botanists with 

the IRC and the Service (Some of these 

were funded by the Service; others were 

requested or volunteered by biologists 

with the Service.); 

(3) Historical records found in reports 

and associated voucher specimens 

housed at herbaria, all of which are also 

referenced in the above-mentioned 

reports from the IRC and FNAI; 

(4) Digitally produced habitat maps 

provided by FNAI; and 

(5) Aerial images of Manatee, 

Charlotte, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. 

The presence of primary constituent 

elements was determined through the 

interpretation of aerial imagery. The 

areas that contain primary constituent 

elements follow predictable landscape 

patterns and have a recognizable 

signature in the aerial imagery. 

Only approximately 300 to 500 

individuals and 12 populations of 

Harrisia aboriginum are known to exist. 

All but 2 of these populations consist of 

fewer than 100 individuals, with 7 

populations having 10 or fewer 

individuals (low redundancy). Most 

populations occur on coastal barrier 

islands where the amount of suitable 

remaining habitat is limited (low 

resiliency), and much of the remaining 

habitat will be lost to sea level rise over 

the next century. We have addressed 

representation through our primary 

constituent elements (as discussed 

above) and by providing habitat for H. 

aboriginum. For adequate redundancy 

and resiliency, it is essential for the 

conservation of H. aboriginum for 

additional populations to be established 

and existing populations to be 

augmented. Therefore, we have 

proposed two unoccupied areas for 

designation as critical habitat units 

where H. aboriginum was historically 

recorded, but has since been extirpated. 

The current distribution of Harrisia 

aboriginum is reduced from its 

historical distribution, with no 

populations remaining in Manatee 

County, at the northern extent of the 

species’ range. We anticipate that 

recovery will require continued 

protection of the remaining extant 

population and habitat, as well as 

establishing populations in additional 

areas that more closely approximate its 

historical distribution in order to ensure 

there are adequate numbers of plants in 

stable populations and that these 

populations occur over a wide 

geographic area. This will help to 

ensure that catastrophic events, such as 

storms, cannot simultaneously affect all 

known populations. 

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing 

The occupied critical habitat units 

were delineated around documented 

extant populations. These units include 

the mapped extent of the population 

that contain one or more of the physical 

or biological features. We considered 

the following when identifying 

occupied areas of critical habitat: 

(1) The delineation included space to 

allow for the successional nature of the 

occupied habitats (i.e., gain and loss of 

areas with sufficient light availability 

due to disturbance of the tree canopy 

driven by natural events such as 

inundation and hurricanes), and habitat 

transition or loss due to sea level rise. 

(2) Some areas will require special 

management to be able to support a 

higher density of the plant within the 

occupied space. These areas generally 

are habitats where some of the primary 

constituent elements have been lost 

through natural or human causes. These 

areas would help to offset the 

anticipated loss and degradation of 

habitat occurring or expected from the 

effects of climate change (such as sea 

level rise) or due to development. 

Areas Outside the Geographic Area 

Occupied at the Time of Listing 

After completing the above analysis, 

we determined that occupied areas were 

not sufficient for the conservation of the 

species for the following reasons: (1) 

Restoring the species to its historical 

range and reducing its vulnerability to 

stochastic events such as hurricanes and 

storm surge requires reintroduction to 

areas where it occurred in the past but 

has since been extirpated; (2) providing 

increased connectivity for populations 

and areas for small populations to 

expand requires currently unoccupied 

habitat; and (3) reintroduction or 

assisted migration to reduce the species 

vulnerability to sea level rise and storm 

surge requires higher elevation sites that 

are currently unoccupied by Harrisia 

aboriginum. Therefore, we looked for 

unoccupied areas that may be essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

The unoccupied areas are essential for 

the conservation of the species because 

they: 

(1) Represent the historical range of 

Harrisia aboriginum. H. aboriginum has 

been extirpated from two locations 

where it was previously recorded. Of 

those areas found in reports, we are 

proposing critical habitat only for those 

that are well-documented and essential 

for the conservation of the species (i.e., 

Terra Ceia, Cayo Costa) (Bradley and 

Gann 1999, p. 77; Bradley et al. 2004, 

p. 4). These areas also still retain some 

or all of the elements of the physical or 

biological features. 

(2) Provide areas of sufficient size to 

support ecosystem processes for 

populations of Harrisia aboriginum. 

These areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species because they 

will provide areas for population 

expansion and growth. Large contiguous 

parcels of habitat are more likely to be 

resilient to ecological processes of 

disturbance and succession, and 

support viable populations of H. 

aboriginum. The unoccupied areas 

selected were at least 30 ac (12 ha) or 

greater in size. 

The amount and distribution of 

designated critical habitat will allow 

Harrisia aboriginum to: 

(1) Maintain its existing distribution; 

(2) Expand its distribution into 

historically occupied areas (needed to 

offset habitat loss and fragmentation); 

(3) Use habitat depending on habitat 

availability (response to changing nature 

of coastal habitat including sea level 

rise) and support genetic diversity; 

(4) Increase the size of each 

population to a level where the threats 

of genetic, demographic, and normal 

environmental uncertainties are 

diminished; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Maintain its ability to withstand 

local or unit-level environmental 

fluctuations or catastrophes. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries within this final rule, we 

made every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as lands covered 

by buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack 

physical or biological features for 

Harrisia aboriginum. The scale of the 

maps we prepared under the parameters 

for publication within the Code of 

Federal Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands. Any 

such lands inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this 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 

will not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the map or maps, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document in the rule portion. We 

include more detailed information on 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the preamble of this 

document. We will make the 

coordinates, plot points, or both on 

which each map is based available to 

the public on http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2014–0057, on our 

Internet site, http://www.fws.gov/ 

verobeach/, and at the field office 

responsible for the designation (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

for Harrisia aboriginum 

We are proposing 11 units as critical 

habitat for Harrisia aboriginum. The 

critical habitat areas we describe below 

constitute our current best assessment of 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for Harrisia aboriginum. The 11 

areas we propose as critical habitat are: 

(1) Unit APA1 Terra Ceia, Manatee 

County, Florida; 

(2) Unit APA2 Longboat Key, Sarasota 

County, Florida; 

(3) Unit APA3 Osprey, Sarasota 

County, Florida; 

(4) Unit APA4 Manasota Key, Sarasota 

and Charlotte Counties, Florida; 

(5) Unit APA5 Charlotte Harbor, 

Charlotte County, Florida; 

(6) Unit APA6 Gasparilla Island 

North, Charlotte and Lee Counties, 

Florida; 

(7) Unit APA7 Gasparilla Island 

South, Lee County, Florida; 

(8) Unit APA8 Cayo Pelau, Charlotte 

and Lee Counties, Florida; 

(9) Unit APA9 Cayo Costa, Lee 

County, Florida; 

(10) Unit APA10 Bocilla Island, Lee 

County, Florida; and 

(11) Unit APA11 Sanibel Island and 

Buck Key, Lee County, Florida. 

Land ownership within the proposed 

critical habitat consists of Federal (11 

percent), State (48 percent), County (15 

percent), and private and other (26 

percent). Table 2 summarizes these 

units. 

TABLE 2—HARRISIA ABORIGINUM PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS

[All areas rounded to the nearest whole number, except where less than 1 acre (ac) or hectare (ha)] 

Unit Total 

Ac (Ha) 

Federal 

Ac (Ha) 

State 

Ac (Ha) 

County 

Ac (Ha) 

Private/other 

Ac (Ha) Occupied 

APA1—Terra Ceia ....................... 222 (90) 0 66 (27) 70 (28) 87 (35) No. 

APA2—Longboat Key .................. 54 (22) 0 0 0 54 (22) Yes. 

APA3—Osprey ............................. 116 (47) 0 0 50 (20) 66 (27) Yes. 

APA4—Manasota Key ................. 415 (168) 0 58 (23) 111 (45) 245 (99) Yes. 

APA5—Charlotte Harbor ............. 51 (21) 0 51 (21) 0 0 Yes. 

APA6—Gasparilla North .............. 98 (40) 0 0.06 (0.02) 22 (9) 77 (31) Yes. 

APA7—Gasparilla South ............. 92 (37) 3 (1) 69 (28) 12 (5) 8 (3) Yes. 

APA8—Cayo Pelau ..................... 25 (10) 0 0 25 (10) 0 Yes. 

APA9—Cayo Costa ..................... 1,702 (689) 0 1,379 (558) 94 (38) 230 (93) No. 

APA10—Bocilla ............................ 33 (13) 0 0 32 (13) 0.7 (0.3) Yes. 

APA11—Sanibel Island and Buck 

Key.

635 (257) 373 (151) 47 (19) 90 (36) 126 (51) Yes. 

Total ...................................... 3,444 (1,394) 376 (152) 1,669 (676) 505 (204) 893 (361) 

Percent of Total ........................... 100 11 48 15 26 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for Harrisia 

aboriginum, below. 

Unit APA1: Terra Ceia, Manatee 

County, Florida 

Unit APA1 consists of approximately 

222 ac (90 ha) in Manatee County, 

Florida. This unit is composed of State 

lands within Madira Bickel Mound 

State Historical Park, Terra Ceia 

Preserve State Park, Cockroach Bay 

State Buffer Preserve, and the Tampa 

Bay Estuarine System (66 ac (27 ha)); 

Manatee County lands at Emerson Point 

Preserve and parcels owned by the 

Manatee County Port Authority (70 ac 

(28 ha)); and parcels in private or other 

ownership (87 ac (35 ha)). This unit 

includes lands west of Highway 41 

extending from just south of South Dock 

Street south to Snead Island. The unit 

also includes areas of Harbor Key, 

Mariposa Key, Horseshoe Key, Joe 

Island, Skeet Key, Paradise Island, Ed’s 

Key, and Rattlesnake Key. 

This unit was not occupied at the 

time the species was listed but is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species because it serves to protect 

habitat needed to recover the species, 

reestablish wild populations within the 

historical range of the species, and 

maintain populations throughout the 

historic distribution of the species in 

Manatee County, and will provide 

population redundancy in the case of 

stochastic events that otherwise hold 

the potential to eliminate the species 

from the one or more locations where it 

is presently found. 

The Management Plan for Madira 

Bickel Mound State Historical Park, 

Terra Ceia Preserve State Park, 

Cockroach Bay State Buffer Preserve, 

and the Tampa Bay Estuarine System 

calls for the protection and restoration 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3329 

of habitats, but does not identify actions 

specific to Harrisia aboriginum. The 

FDEP conducts nonnative species 

control on their lands within the unit. 

Reintroduction of H. aboriginum within 

Madira Bickel Mound State Historical 

Park, Terra Ceia Preserve State Park, and 

the Tampa Bay Estuarine System is 

needed to restore the species to its 

historical distribution in Manatee 

County and reduce the risks associated 

with hurricanes, storm surge, and sea 

level rise. 

Unit APA2: Longboat Key, Sarasota 

County, Florida 

Unit APA2 consists of approximately 

54 ac (22 ha) in Sarasota County, 

Florida. This unit is composed entirely 

of parcels in private or other ownership. 

This unit includes lands west of Gulf of 

Mexico Drive, extending from 0.40 

miles (mi) (0.6 kilometers (km)) south of 

the intersection of Bay Isles Parkway 

and Gulf of Mexico Drive, to the 

southern tip of Longboat Key. It also 

includes lands on the north side of Gulf 

of Mexico Drive, east of Longboat Club 

Key Drive, on the northwest tip of 

Longboat Key. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains all the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes, 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and the primary constituent 

elements of coastal strand, coastal berm, 

and maritime hammock. The physical or 

biological features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species and 

sea level rise. Augmentation of the 

Harrisia aboriginum population within 

the unit is needed to restore the species 

to its historical abundance and reduce 

the risks associated with small 

population size, hurricanes, storm 

surge, and sea level rise. 

Unit APA3: Osprey, Sarasota County, 

Florida 

Unit APA3 consists of approximately 

116 ac (47 ha) in Sarasota County, 

Florida. This unit is composed of 

Sarasota County lands within Palmer 

Point County Park (50 ac (20 ha)) and 

parcels in private or other ownership 

(66 ac (27 ha)). This unit extends along 

the barrier island (Casey Key) from the 

south terminus of Blind Pass Road, 

south for approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) 

along North Casey Key Road. On the 

mainland, the unit includes lands 

bordered on the north by Vamo Way, to 

the east by Highway 41, and to the south 

by Palmetto Avenue. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains the 

biological or physical features including 

suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, 

associated native plant species, and 

disturbance regimes essential to the 

conservation of the species and contains 

coastal strand, coastal berm, maritime 

hammock, and shell mound primary 

constituent elements. The physical or 

biological features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species, and 

sea level rise. Augmentation of the 

Harrisia aboriginum population within 

the unit is needed to restore the species 

to its historical abundance and reduce 

the risks associated with small 

population size, hurricanes, storm 

surge, and sea level rise. 

Unit APA4: Manasota Key, Sarasota and 

Charlotte Counties, Florida 

Unit APA4 consists of approximately 

415 ac (168 ha) in Sarasota and 

Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit is 

composed of State lands within Stump 

Pass Beach State Park (58 ac (23 ha)); 

County lands within Blind Pass Park, 

Brohard Beach and Paw Park, Manasota 

Beach Park, Casperson Beach Park, and 

Service Club Park (111 ac (45 ha)); and 

parcels in private or other ownership 

(245 ac (99 ha)). This unit extends from 

Beach Road in the City of Venice, south 

along Manasota Key to the barrier 

islands southern tip, including a portion 

of Peterson Island. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and contains coastal strand, 

coastal berm, and maritime hammock 

primary constituent elements. The 

physical or biological features in this 

unit may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species and 

sea level rise. The Management Plan for 

Stump Pass Beach State Park calls for 

the protection and restoration of 

habitats, but does not identify actions 

specific to Harrisia aboriginum. The 

FDEP conducts nonnative species 

control on their lands within the unit. 

Augmentation of the H. aboriginum 

population within the unit is needed to 

restore the species to its historical 

abundance and reduce the risks 

associated with small population size, 

hurricanes, storm surge, and sea level 

rise. 

Unit APA5: Charlotte Harbor, Charlotte 

County, Florida 

Unit APA5 consists of approximately 

51 ac (21 ha) in Charlotte County, 

Florida. This unit is composed entirely 

of State lands within the Charlotte 

Harbor Preserve State Park. This unit 

includes the Big Mound, Boggess Ridge, 

and a shell mound located on the east 

side of Charlotte Harbor, south of the 

City of Charlotte Park. This unit was 

occupied at the time the species was 

listed and contains all the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and contains 

coastal berm and shell mound primary 

constituent elements. 

The physical or biological features in 

this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats of 

nonnative plant species and sea level 

rise. The Management Plan for Charlotte 

Harbor Preserve State Park calls for the 

protection and restoration of habitats, 

and identifies actions specific to 

Harrisia aboriginum. The FDEP 

conducts nonnative species control and 

monitors the H. aboriginum population 

in Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. 

Augmentation of the H. aboriginum 

population within the unit is needed to 

restore the species to its historical 

abundance and reduce the risks 

associated with small population size, 

hurricanes, storm surge, and sea level 

rise. 

Unit APA6: Gasparilla North, Charlotte 

and Lee Counties, Florida 

Unit APA6 consists of approximately 

98 ac (40 ha) in Charlotte and Lee 

Counties, Florida. This unit is 

composed of State land (0.006 ac (0.02 

ha)), county land (22 ac (9 ha)), and 

parcels in private or other ownership 

(77 ac (31 ha)). This unit includes most 

of Kitchen Key (Live Oak Key) and the 

area east of Gasparilla Road, from the 

intersection of Grouper Hole Road and 

Grouper Hole Court, south to 0.15 mi 

(0.24 km) north of Snail Island Court, 

from approximately 0.10 mi (0.21 km) 

south of 35th Street to 23rd Street, 

including the small island separated 

from Gasparilla Island by a canal; and 

from 22nd Street to 20th Street. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains the 

physical or biological features including 

suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, 

associated native plant species, and 

disturbance regimes essential to the 

conservation of the species and contains 

coastal berm and maritime hammock 

primary constituent elements. The 

physical or biological features in this 

unit may require special management 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species and 

sea level rise. Augmentation of the 

Harrisia aboriginum population within 

the unit is needed to restore the species 

to its historical abundance and reduce 

the risks associated with small 

population size, hurricanes, storm 

surge, and sea level rise. 

Unit APA7: Gasparilla South, Lee 

County, Florida 

Unit APA7 consists of approximately 

92 ac (37 ha) in Lee County, Florida. 

This unit is composed of Federal land 

owned by the Service and Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) (3 ac (1 ha)), 

State lands within Gasparilla Island 

State Park (69 ac (28 ha)), Lee County 

lands (12 ac (5 ha)), and parcels in 

private or other ownership (8 ac (3 ha)). 

This unit includes lands located from 

south of 1st Street to the southern tip of 

Gasparilla Island. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and contains coastal strand, 

coastal berm, and maritime hammock 

primary constituent elements. The 

physical or biological features in this 

unit may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species and 

sea level rise. The Management Plan for 

Gasparilla Island State Park calls for the 

protection and restoration of habitats, 

but does not identify actions specific to 

Harrisia aboriginum. The FDEP 

conducts nonnative species control on 

its lands within the unit. Augmentation 

of the H. aboriginum population within 

the unit is needed to restore the species 

to its historical abundance and reduce 

the risks associated with small 

population size, hurricanes, storm 

surge, and sea level rise. 

Unit APA8: Cayo Pelau, Charlotte and 

Lee Counties, Florida 

Unit APA8 consists of approximately 

25 ac (10 ha) in Charlotte and Lee 

Counties, Florida. This unit is 

composed of Lee County lands within 

Cayo Pelau Preserve, and parcels in 

private or other ownership (0.6 ac (0.2 

ha)). This unit includes lands located 

from 0.13 mi (0.21 km) south of the 

northern tip of Cayo Pelau, extending 

south to the southeastern tip of Cayo 

Pelau. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains the 

physical or biological features including 

suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, 

associated native plant species, and 

disturbance regimes essential to the 

conservation of the species and contains 

coastal berm and shell mound primary 

constituent elements. The physical or 

biological features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species and 

sea level rise. Augmentation of the 

Harrisia aboriginum population within 

the unit is needed to restore the species 

to its historical abundance and reduce 

the risks associated with small 

population size, hurricanes, storm 

surge, and sea level rise. 

Unit APA9: Cayo Costa, Lee County, 

Florida 

Unit APA9 consists of approximately 

1,702 ac (689 ha) in Lee County, Florida. 

This unit is composed of State lands 

within Cayo Costa State Park (1,379 ac 

(558 ha)), lands owned by Lee County 

(94 ac (38 ha)), and parcels in private or 

other ownership (230 ac (93 ha)). This 

unit includes lands located from the 

northern tip to the southern tip of Cayo 

Costa. 

This unit was not occupied at the 

time the species was listed but is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species because it serves to protect 

habitat needed to recover the species, 

reestablish wild populations within the 

historical range of the species, maintain 

populations throughout the historic 

distribution of the species in Manatee 

County, and provide population 

redundancy in the case of stochastic 

events that otherwise hold the potential 

to eliminate the species from the one or 

more locations where it is presently 

found. The Management Plan for Cayo 

Costa State Park calls for the protection 

and restoration of habitats and identifies 

actions specific to Harrisia aboriginum. 

The FDEP conducts nonnative species 

control and monitored the population at 

Cayo Costa State Park until the last 

plant died in 2007. Reintroduction of H. 

aboriginum within Cayo Costa State 

Park is needed to restore the species to 

its historical distribution and reduce the 

risks associated with hurricanes, storm 

surge, and sea level rise. 

Unit APA10: Bocilla, Lee County, 

Florida 

Unit APA10 consists of approximately 

33 ac (13 ha) in Lee County, Florida. 

This unit is composed of Lee County 

lands within the Bocilla Preserve (32 ac 

(13 ha)) and parcels in private or other 

ownership (0.7 ac (0.3 ha)). This unit 

includes lands located on the 

undeveloped portion of Bokeelia Island 

from 0.02 mi (0.03 km) west of the 

terminus of Ebbtide Way, extending 

south and west to the northwest and 

southeast corners of Bokeelia Island. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and contains the coastal berm 

primary constituent element. The 

physical or biological features in this 

unit may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats of nonnative plant species and 

sea level rise. The Management Plan for 

Bocilla Preserve calls for the protection 

and restoration of habitats and identifies 

actions specific to Harrisia aboriginum. 

Unit APA11: Sanibel Island and Buck 

Key, Lee County, Florida 

Unit APA11 consists of approximately 

635 ac (257 ha) in Lee County, Florida. 

This unit is composed of Federal lands 

owned by the Bureau of Land 

Management, and Service lands within 

the JDDNWR (373 ac (151 ha)), State 

lands (47 ac (13 ha)), lands owned by 

Lee County (90 ac (36 ha)), and parcels 

in private or other ownership (126 ac 

(51 ha)). This unit includes lands on 

Buck Key, Runyan Key, and Sanibel 

Island. On Sanibel Island, the unit 

includes a portion of Bowman’s Beach, 

from just south of Silver Key to the 

western terminus of Water’s Edge Lane; 

uplands within JDDNWR; and a shell 

mound located near the northern 

terminus of Tarpon Bay Road. 

This unit was occupied at the time the 

species was listed and contains the 

physical or biological features, 

including suitable climate, hydrology, 

substrate, associated native plant 

species, and disturbance regimes 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and contains the maritime 

hammock primary constituent elements. 

The physical or biological features in 

this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats of 

nonnative plant species and sea level 

rise. The CCP for JDDNWR promotes the 

protection and restoration of habitats, 

and identifies actions specific to 

Harrisia aboriginum. The Service 

conducts nonnative species control and 

monitors the population at JDDNWR. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3331 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action that is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 

regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or 

adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) 

(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 

1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 

434 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would continue to serve 

its intended conservation role for the 

species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded or 

authorized, do not require section 7 

consultation. 

As a result of section 7 consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the listed species 

and/or avoid the likelihood of 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies sometimes may need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the physical or 

biological features to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support life-history needs of 

the species and provide for the 

conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that may affect critical 

habitat, when carried out, funded, or 

authorized by a Federal agency, should 

result in consultation for the Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. 

These activities include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Actions that would significantly 

alter the hydrology or substrate, such as 

ditching or filling. Such activities may 

include, but are not limited to, road 

construction or maintenance, and 

residential, commercial, or recreational 

development. 

(2) Actions that would significantly 

alter vegetation structure or 

composition, such as clearing vegetation 

for construction of roads, residential 

and commercial development, and 

recreational facilities, and trails. 

(3) Actions that would introduce 

nonnative species that would 

significantly alter vegetation structure or 

composition. Such activities may 

include, but are not limited to, 

residential and commercial 

development and road construction. 

Exemptions 

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

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: 

‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as 

critical habitat any lands or other 

geographic areas owned or controlled by 

the Department of Defense, or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed INRMP within 

the proposed critical habitat for 

Consolea corallicola or Harrisia 

aboriginum. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the statute on its face, as well as the 

legislative history, are clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; or 

implementation of a management plan. 

In the case of Consolea corallicola and 

Harrisia aboriginum, the benefits of 

designating critical habitat include 

public awareness of the presence of 

Consolea corallicola and Harrisia 

aboriginum and the importance of 

habitat protection, and, where a Federal 

nexus exists, increased habitat 

protection for Consolea corallicola and 

Harrisia aboriginum due to protection 

from adverse modification or 

destruction of critical habitat. In 

practice, situations with a Federal nexus 

exist primarily on Federal lands or for 

projects undertaken by Federal agencies. 

We have not proposed to exclude any 

areas from critical habitat. However, the 

final decision on whether to exclude 

any areas will be based on the best 

scientific data available at the time of 

the final designation, including 

information obtained during the 

comment period and information about 

the economic impact of designation. 

Accordingly, we have prepared a draft 

economic analysis (DEA) concerning the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

which is available for review and 

comment (see ADDRESSES). 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. 

The probable economic impact of a 

proposed critical habitat designation is 

analyzed by comparing scenarios both 

‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without 

critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical 

habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline 

for the analysis, which includes the 

existing regulatory and socio-economic 

burden imposed on landowners, 

managers, or other resource users 

potentially affected by the designation 

of critical habitat (e.g., under the 

Federal listing as well as other Federal, 

State, and local regulations). The 

baseline, therefore, represents the costs 

of all efforts attributable to the listing of 

the species under the Act (i.e., 

conservation of the species and its 

habitat incurred regardless of whether 

critical habitat is designated). The ‘‘with 

critical habitat’’ scenario describes the 

incremental impacts associated 

specifically with the designation of 

critical habitat for the species. The 

incremental conservation efforts and 

associated impacts would not be 

expected without the designation of 

critical habitat for the species. In other 

words, the incremental costs are those 

attributable solely to the designation of 

critical habitat, above and beyond the 

baseline costs. These are the costs we 

use when evaluating the benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of particular 

areas from the final designation of 

critical habitat should we choose to 

conduct an optional section 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis. 

For this 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 Consolea corallicola and 

Harrisia aboriginum (IEc 2014, entire). 

In particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes probable economic impacts 

where land and water use may be 

subject to conservation plans, land 

management plans, best management 

practices, or regulations that protect the 

habitat area as a result of the Federal 

listing status of the species. 

The screening analysis filters out 

particular areas of critical habitat that 

are already subject to such protections 

and are, therefore, unlikely to incur 

incremental economic impacts. 

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 screening analysis also 

assesses whether units are unoccupied 

by the species and may require 

additional management or conservation 

efforts as a result of the critical habitat 

designation for the species which may 

incur incremental economic impacts. 

This screening analysis, combined with 

the information contained in our IEM, is 

what we consider our draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical 

habitat designation for Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum and 

is summarized in the narrative below. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct Federal agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives in quantitative (to the extent 

feasible) and qualitative terms. 

Consistent with the E.O. regulatory 

analysis requirements, our effects 

analysis under the Act may take into 

consideration impacts to both directly 

and indirectly impacted entities, where 

practicable and reasonable. We assess to 

the extent practicable, the probable 

impacts, if sufficient data are available, 

to both directly and indirectly impacted 

entities. 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 Consolea corallicola and 

Harrisia aboriginum, first we identified, 

in the IEM dated July 30, 2014, probable 

incremental economic impacts 

associated with the following categories 

of activities: 

(1) Federal lands management 

(National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

Management); 

(2) Roadway and bridge construction; 

(3) Dredging; 

(4) Commercial or residential 

development; 

(5) Recreation (including construction 

of recreation infrasturcture). 

We considered each industry or 

category individually. Additionally, we 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3333 

habitat only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. In areas where 

Consolea corallicola or Harrisia 

aboriginum is present, Federal agencies 

already are required to consult with the 

Service under section 7 of the Act on 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out that may affect the species. If we 

finalize this proposed critical habitat 

designation, consultations to avoid the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process. 

Therefore, disproportionate impacts to 

any geographic area or sector are not 

likely as a result of this critical habitat 

designation. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

will result from the species being listed 

and those attributable to the critical 

habitat designation (i.e., difference 

between the jeopardy and adverse 

modification standards) for Consolea 

corallicola’s and Harrisia aboriginum’s 

critical habitat. Because the designation 

of critical habitat for Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum is 

being proposed so soon after the listing, 

it has been our experience that it is 

more difficult to discern which 

conservation efforts are attributable to 

the species being listed and those which 

will result solely from the designation of 

critical habitat. However, the following 

specific circumstances in this case help 

to inform our evaluation: (1) The 

essential physical or biological features 

identified for critical habitat are the 

same features essential for the life 

requisites of the species and (2) any 

actions that would result in sufficient 

harm or harassment to constitute 

jeopardy to Consolea corallicola or 

Harrisia aboriginum would also likely 

adversely affect the essential physical or 

biological features of critical habitat. 

The IEM outlines our rationale 

concerning this limited distinction 

between baseline conservation efforts 

and incremental impacts of the 

designation of critical habitat for these 

species. This evaluation of the 

incremental effects has been used as the 

basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

Consolea corallicola 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for Consolea corallicola 

totals approximately 4,411 ac (1,785 ha) 

across four units in Miami-Dade and 

Monroe Counties, Florida, all of which 

was occupied by the species at the time 

of listing. The proposed critical habitat 

includes lands under Federal (28 

percent), State (58 percent), county (1 

percent), and private or other (13 

percent) ownership. In these areas any 

actions that may affect the species or its 

habitat would also affect designated 

critical habitat, and it is unlikely that 

any additional conservation efforts 

would be recommended to address the 

adverse modification standard over and 

above those recommended as necessary 

to avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of C. corallicola. Therefore, 

only administrative costs are expected 

in the proposed critical habitat 

designation. While this additional 

analysis will require time and resources 

by both the Federal action agency and 

the Service, in most circumstances, 

these costs would predominantly be 

administrative in nature and would not 

be significant. 

Based on the available information, 

we anticipate no more than three 

consultations per year within the 

proposed critical habitat units. 

Communications with affected entities 

indicate that critical habitat designation 

is likely only to result in no more than 

just a few consultations, with minor 

conservation efforts that would likely 

result in relatively low probable 

economic impacts. Unit costs of such 

administrative efforts range from 

approximately $410 to $5,000 per 

consultation (2014 dollars, total cost for 

all parties participating in a single 

consultation) (IEc 2014, p. 10). Applying 

these unit cost estimates, this analysis 

conservatively estimates that the 

administrative cost of considering 

adverse modification in section 7 

consultation will result in incremental 

costs of up to $7,100 (2014 dollars) in 

a given year for Consolea corallicola 

(IEc 2014, pp. 10–11). 

The entities most likely to incur 

incremental costs are parties to section 

7 consultations, including Federal 

action agencies and, in some cases, third 

parties, most frequently State agencies 

or municipalities. Activities we expect 

will be subject to consultations that may 

involve private entities as third parties 

are residential and commercial 

development that may occur on private 

lands. However, based on coordination 

efforts with State and local agencies, the 

cost to private entities within these 

sectors is expected to be relatively 

minor (administrative costs of $5,000 or 

less per consultation effort) and, 

therefore, would not be significant. 

The probable incremental economic 

impacts of Consolea corallicola critical 

habitat designation are expected to be 

limited to additional administrative 

effort as well as minor costs of 

conservation efforts resulting from a 

small number of future section 7 

consultations. This is due to two factors: 

(1) The units proposed as critical habitat 

are all considered to be occupied by the 

species and incremental economic 

impacts of critical habitat designation, 

other than administrative costs, are 

unlikely; and (2) few actions are 

anticipated that will result in section 7 

consultation or associated project 

modifications. 

Harrisia aboriginum 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for Harrisia aboriginum 

totals approximately 3,444 ac (1,394 ha) 

across 11 units in Manatee, Sarasota, 

Charlotte, and Lee County. Nine of these 

units (approximately 44 percent of the 

area) were occupied by the species at 

the time of listing; the remaining two 

units (approximately 56 percent of the 

area) were unoccupied. The proposed 

critical habitat includes lands under 

Federal (11 percent), State (48 percent), 

county (15 percent), and private or other 

(26 percent) ownership. 

Based on the available information, 

we anticipate no more than four 

consultations per year within the 

occupied proposed critical habitat units. 

In the occupied areas, any actions that 

may affect the species or its habitat 

would also affect designated critical 

habitat and it is unlikely that any 

additional conservation efforts would be 

recommended to address the adverse 

modification standard over and above 

those recommended as necessary to 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of Harrisia aboriginum. 

Therefore, only administrative costs are 

expected in approximately 44 percent of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. While this additional 

analysis will require time and resources 

by both the Federal action agency and 

the Service, in most circumstances, 

these costs would predominantly be 

administrative in nature and would not 

be significant. Unit costs of such 

administrative efforts range from 

approximately $410 to $5,000 per 

consultation (2014 dollars, total cost for 

all parties participating in a single 

consultation) (IEc 2014, p. 10). Applying 

these unit cost estimates to the occupied 

units, this analysis conservatively 

estimates that the administrative cost of 

considering adverse modification in 

section 7 consultation will result in 

incremental costs of up to $7,000 (2014 

dollars) in a given year for H. 

aboriginum (IEc 2014, p. 11). 

In the unoccupied areas, any 

conservation efforts or associated 

probable impacts would be considered 

incremental effects attributed to the 

critical habitat designation. Within the 

unoccupied critical habitat, few actions 

are expected to occur that will result in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

section 7 consultation or associated 

project modifications because no 

Federal lands are included in these 

units. Based on the results from past 

consultation history for these areas and 

communications with potentially 

affected entities, we anticipate that an 

additional six projects will result in 

section 7 consultation (two formal and 

four informal) within the proposed 

unoccupied units per year, with minor 

conservation efforts that would likely 

result in relatively low probable 

economic impacts. Unit costs of such 

administrative efforts range from 

approximately $1,200 to $15,000 per 

consultation (2014 dollars, total cost for 

all parties participating in a single 

consultation) (IEc 2014, p. 10). Applying 

these unit cost estimates to the 

unoccupied units, this analysis 

conservatively estimates that the 

administrative cost of considering 

adverse modification in section 7 

consultation will result in incremental 

costs of up to $60,000 (2014 dollars) in 

a given year for H. aboriginum (IEc 

2014, pp. 10–11). Therefore, the 

estimate of incremental costs for all 

units (occupied and unoccupied) is 

$67,000 (2014 dollars) in a given year 

for H. aboriginum (IEc 2014, pp. 10–11). 

The entities most likely to incur 

incremental costs are parties to section 

7 consultations, including Federal 

action agencies and, in some cases, third 

parties, most frequently State agencies 

or municipalities. Activities we expect 

will be subject to consultations that may 

involve private entities as third parties 

are residential and commercial 

development that may occur on private 

lands. However, based on coordination 

efforts with State and local agencies, the 

cost to private entities within these 

sectors is expected to be relatively 

minor (administrative costs of less than 

$5,000 (occupied) or $15,000 

(unoccupied) per consultation effort), 

and any costs from required 

conservation measures, therefore, would 

not be significant. 

The probable incremental economic 

impacts of Harrisia aboriginum critical 

habitat designation are expected to be 

limited to additional administrative 

effort as well as minor costs of 

conservation efforts resulting from a 

small number of future section 7 

consultations. This is due to two factors: 

(1) Incremental economic impacts of 

critical habitat designation, other than 

administrative costs, are unlikely; and 

(2) in proposed areas that are not 

occupied by H. aboriginum (56 percent), 

few actions are anticipated that will 

result in section 7 consultation or 

associated project modifications. 

The DEA also discusses the potential 

for incremental costs to occur outside of 

the section 7 consultation process, 

including costs associated with the 

potential triggering of additional 

requirements or project modifications 

under State laws or regulations, and 

perceptional effects on markets. For 

both species, it is unlikely that the 

designation of critical habitat will 

trigger additional State or local 

restrictions (IEc 2014, pp. 11–12). Public 

perception of critical habitat may result 

in landowners or buyers believing that 

the rule will restrict land or water use 

activities in some way and, therefore, 

valuing the resource less than they 

would have absent critical habitat. This 

is a perceptional, or stigma, effect of 

critical habitat on markets. Costs 

resulting from public perception of the 

impact of critical habitat, if they occur, 

are more likely to occur on private 

lands. However, based on the DEA, 

‘‘possible costs resulting from public 

perception of the effect of critical 

habitat designation, when combined 

with section 7 costs, are unlikely to 

exceed the threshold for an 

economically significant rulemaking 

under [Executive Order] 12866’’ (IEc 

2014, p. 13). Under Executive Order 

12866, agencies must assess the 

potential costs and benefits of regulatory 

actions and quantify those costs and 

benefits if that action may have an effect 

on the economy of $100 million or more 

annually. 

As we stated earlier, we are soliciting 

data and comments from the public on 

the DEA, as well as all aspects of the 

proposed rule. We may revise the 

proposed rule or supporting documents 

to incorporate or address information 

we receive during the public comment 

period. In particular, we may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

the area outweigh the benefits of 

including the area, provided the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of these species. 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands where 

a national security impact might exist. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that the lands within the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Consolea corallicola or Harrisia 

aboriginum are not owned or managed 

by the Department of Defense or 

Department of Homeland Security, and, 

therefore, we anticipate no impact on 

national security. Consequently, the 

Secretary is not intending to exercise 

her discretion to exclude any areas from 

the final designation based on impacts 

on national security. 

Exclusions Based on 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. We 

consider a number of factors, including 

whether the landowners have developed 

any HCPs or other management plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with tribal entities. We also 

consider any social impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

We have determined that the Monroe 

County HCP for Big Pine and No Name 

Keys is the only HCP or other 

management plan that will be affected 

by either proposed designations. The 

Monroe County HCP for Big Pine and 

No Name Keys, which covers a portion 

of unit FSC3, does not include Consolea 

corallicola as a ‘Covered Species’ and C. 

corallicola is not mentioned specifically 

anywhere in the HCP document. 

Further, the proposed designation does 

not include any tribal lands or trust 

resources. Therefore, we anticipate no 

impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or 

other HCPs from this proposed critical 

habitat designation. Accordingly, the 

Secretary does not intend to exercise her 

discretion to exclude any areas from the 

final designation based on other 

relevant impacts. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

we will seek the expert opinions of at 

least three appropriate and independent 

specialists regarding this proposed rule. 

The purpose of peer review is to ensure 

that our critical habitat designation is 

based on scientifically sound data, and 

analyses. We have invited these peer 

reviewers to comment during this 

public comment period. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during our preparation of a final 

determination. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests must be 

received within 45 days after the date of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3335 

publication of this proposed rule in the 

Federal Register. Such requests must be 

sent to the address shown in ADDRESSES. 

We will schedule public hearings on 

this proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 

rules. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (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 such businesses as 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as the types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

The Service’s current understanding 

of the requirements under the RFA, as 

amended, and following recent court 

decisions, is that Federal agencies are 

required to evaluate the potential 

incremental impacts of rulemaking only 

on those entities directly regulated by 

the rulemaking itself and, therefore, not 

required to evaluate the potential 

impacts to indirectly regulated entities. 

The regulatory mechanism through 

which critical habitat protections are 

realized is section 7 of the Act, which 

requires Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the Service, to ensure 

that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried by the Agency is not likely to 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under these circumstances 

only Federal action agencies are directly 

subject to the specific regulatory 

requirement (avoiding destruction and 

adverse modification) imposed by 

critical habitat designation. Under these 

circumstances, it is our position that 

only Federal action agencies will be 

directly regulated by this designation. 

Federal agencies are not small entities 

and to this end, there is no requirement 

under the RFA to evaluate the potential 

impacts to entities not directly 

regulated. Therefore, because no small 

entities are directly regulated by this 

rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if 

promulgated, 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 

promulgated, 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 

when undertaking certain actions. We 

do not foresee any energy development 

projects that may affect the proposed 

critical habitat units for Consolea 

corallicola or Harrisia aboriginum. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. The government 

lands being proposed for critical habitat 

designation are owned by the Town of 

Longboat Key, the State of Florida, and 

the BLM, NPS, and the Service. None of 

these government entities fit the 

definition of ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ Therefore, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), this 

rule is not anticipated to have 

significant takings implications. As 

discussed above, the designation of 

critical habitat affects only Federal 

actions. Critical habitat designation does 

not affect landowner actions that do not 

require Federal funding or permits, nor 

does it preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. Due to current 

public knowledge of the species 

protections and the prohibition against 

take of the species both within and 

outside of the proposed areas, we do not 

anticipate that property values will be 

affected by the critical habitat 

designation. However, we have not yet 

finalized the economic analysis for this 

proposed rule. Once the economic 

analysis is final, we will review and 

revise this preliminary assessment as 

warranted, and prepare a Takings 

Implication Assessment. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule 

does not have significant Federalism 

effects. A Federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with Department of 

the Interior and Department of 

Commerce policy, we request 

information from, and coordinated 

development of, this proposed critical 

habitat designation with appropriate 

State resource agencies in Florida. From 

a Federalism perspective, the 

designation of critical habitat directly 

affects only the responsibilities of 

Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the rule does not have substantial 

direct effects either on the States, or on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(because these local governments no 

longer have to wait for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

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, the rule identifies the elements 

of physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. The designated areas of critical 

habitat are presented on maps, and the 

rule provides several options for the 

interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3337 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

As discussed above (see Exclusions 

Based on Other Relevant Impacts), we 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands that were occupied by Consolea 

corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum at 

the time of listing that contain the 

features essential for conservation of the 

species, and no tribal lands unoccupied 

by C. corallicola and H. aboriginum that 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the South 

Florida Ecological Services Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this package 

are the staff members of the South 

Florida Ecological Services Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.12(h), revise the entries for 

‘‘Consolea corallicola Cactus, Florida 

semaphore’’ and ‘‘Harrisia aboriginum 

Prickly-apple, aboriginal’’ under 

‘‘Flowering Plants’’ in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Consolea corallicola Cactus, Florida 

semaphore.

U.S.A. (FL) ............. Cactaceae .............. E 826 17.96(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.96(a) by adding entries 

for ‘‘Consolea corallicola (Florida 

semaphore cactus)’’ and ‘‘Harrisia 

aboriginum (aboriginal prickly-apple)’’ 

in alphabetical order under the family 

Cactaceae, to read as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Cactaceae: Consolea corallicola 

(Florida semaphore cactus) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, 

Florida, on the maps below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Consolea corallicola are: 

(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting 

of coastal berm, rockland hammocks, 

and buttonwood forest. 

(A) Coastal berm habitat that contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy, 

subcanopy, and understory; and 

(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, 

and storm-deposited sediment. 

(B) Rockland hammock habitat that 

contains: 

(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an 

open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, 

and understory; and 

(2) Substrate with a thin layer of 

highly organic soil covering limestone 

or organic matter that accumulates on 

top of the limestone. 

(C) Buttonwood forest habitat that 

contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy and 

understory; and 

(2) Substrate with calcareous marl 

muds, calcareous sands, or limestone 

rock. 

(ii) A plant community of 

predominately native vegetation with no 

invasive, nonnative animal or plant 

species or such species in quantities low 

enough to have minimal effect on 

survival of Consolea corallicola. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) A disturbance regime, due to the 

effects of strong winds or saltwater 

inundation from storm surge or 

infrequent tidal inundation, that creates 

canopy openings in coastal berm, 

rockland hammocks, and buttonwood 

forest. 

(iv) Habitats that are connected and of 

sufficient size to sustain viable 

populations in coastal berm, rockland 

hammocks, and buttonwood forest. 

(v) Habitats that provide populations 

of the generalist pollinators that visit the 

flowers of Consolea corallicola. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located that exists within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of this 

rule. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were 

developed using ESRI ArcGIS mapping 

software along with various spatial data 

layers. ArcGIS was also used to 

calculate area. The projection used in 

mapping and calculating distances and 

locations within the units was North 

American Albers Equal Area Conic, 

NAD 83. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates, plot points, or both on 

which each map is based are available 

to the public at the Service’s Internet 

site at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, 

at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2014–0057, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3339 

Note: Index map of all critical habitat 

units for Consolea corallicola follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

(6) Unit FSC1: Swan Key, Biscayne 

National Park, Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit FSC1 

consists of 37 ac (15 ha) in Miami-Dade 

County. This unit is composed entirely 

of lands in Federal ownership, 100 

percent of which are located on Swan 

Key within Biscayne National Park. The 

unit includes all upland rockland 

hammock habitat on Swan Key, most of 

which is located on the eastern side of 

Swan Key, surrounded by the island’s 

mangrove fringe. A second, smaller area 

is located on the island’s elongated 

western half and is also surrounded by 

mangroves. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.000</GPH>

Index Map All Critical Habitat Units for 

Miami-Dadil 

lvlonroe 

Florida Bay 

Straits Florida 

Atlantic Ocean 

20 40 Miles 

25 50 

Coastline 6

' 

. 

. 

. 

. 

J' 

N 
3340 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Map of Unit FSC1 follows: 

(7) Unit FSC2: Key Largo, Monroe 

County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit FSC2 

consists of 3,434 ac (1,389 ha) in 

Monroe County. This unit is composed 

of Federal lands within Crocodile Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (702 ac 

(284 ha)); State lands within Dagny 

Johnson Botanical State Park, John 

Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and 

the Florida Keys Wildlife and 

Environmental Area (2331 ac (943 ha)); 

lands owned by Monroe County (17 ac 

(7 ha)); and parcels in private or other 

ownership (384 ac (155 ha)). This unit 

extends from near the northern tip of 

Key Largo, along the length of Key 

Largo, beginning at the south shore of 

Ocean Reef Harbor near South Marina 

Drive and the intersection of County 

Road (CR) 905 and Clubhouse Road on 

the west side of CR 905, and between 

CR 905 and Old State Road 905, then 

extending to the shoreline south of 

South Harbor Drive. The unit then 

continues on both sides of CR 905 

through the Crocodile Lake NWR, Dagny 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.001</GPH>

Straits of Florida 

Coastline 

Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3341 

Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical 

State Park, and John Pennekamp Coral 

Reef State Park. The unit then 

terminates near the junction of U.S. 1 

and CR 905 and Garden Cove Drive. The 

unit resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 

from South Andros Road to Key Largo 

Elementary; then from the intersection 

of Taylor Drive and Pamela Street to 

Avenue A, then from Sound Drive to the 

intersection of Old Road and Valencia 

Road, then resumes on the east side of 

U.S. 1 from Hibiscus Lane and Ocean 

Drive. The unit continues south near the 

Port Largo Airport from Poisonwood 

Road to Bo Peep Boulevard. The unit 

resumes on the west side of U.S. 1 from 

the intersection of South Drive and 

Meridian Avenue to Casa Court Drive. 

The unit then continues on the west 

side of U.S. 1 from the point on the 

coast directly west of Peace Avenue 

south to Caribbean Avenue. The unit 

also includes a portion of the barrier 

island (El Radabob Key) in Largo Sound 

located directly east of Avenue A, 

extending south to a point directly east 

of Mahogany Drive. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3342 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Index map of Unit FSC2 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.002</GPH>

Index l'vfap of Unit FSC2 of Critical Habitat 

MapA 

MapS 

MapC 

l'vlap D 

0 5 10 Miles 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3343 

(iii) Map A of Unit FSC2 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.003</GPH>

of Unit FSC2 ofCrilkal Habitat 

Road 

NORTIII\£Y LARGO 

* 

0 

Atlantic Ocean 

0.75 1.5 Miles 

0.75 L5 Kil<lmeters 

L\ I . 

. 

N Coastline 
3344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) Map B of Unit FSC2 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.004</GPH>

Sound 

Crocodile Lake NWR 

Johnson 

:::.....:----- Botanical State Park 

Atlantic Ocean 

LS Miles 

6

" ' ' 

I 

' 

l 

N 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3345 

(v) Map C of Unit FSC2 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.005</GPH>

Atlantic Ocean 

0 0. 75 1.5 Miles 

I I 

0 0.75 1.5 Kilometers 

6 ' ' 

' 

' 

J ' 

Road 

N 
3346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(vi) Map D of Unit FSC2 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.006</GPH>

Atlantic Ocean 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3347 

(vii) Map E of Unit FSC2 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.007</GPH>

Map E ofl)nit f'SC2 of Critical Habitat 

Atlantic Ocean 

0 0.2 0.4 Miles 

6 

. 

. 

. i 

N 
3348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(viii) Map F of Unit FSC2 follows: 

(8) Unit FSC3: Big Pine Key, Monroe 

County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit FSC3 

consists of 772 ac (313 ha) in Monroe 

County. This unit is composed of 

Federal land within the National Key 

Deer Refuge (NKDR) (508 ac (205 ha)), 

State land managed as part of the NKDR 

(172 ac (70 ha)), lands owned by 

Monroe County (11 ac (5 ha)), and 

parcels in private or other ownership 

(81 ac (33 ha)). This unit extends from 

near the northern tip of Big Pine Key 

along the eastern shore to the vicinity of 

Hellenga Drive and Watson Road; from 

Gulf Boulevard south to West Shore 

Drive; Big Pine Avenue and Elma 

Avenues on the east, Coral and Yacht 

Club Road, and U.S. 1 on the north, and 

Industrial Avenue on the east from the 

southeastern tip of Big Pine Key to 

Avenue A. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.008</GPH>

Map F of Unit FSC2 nfCriticalllubitat ft)r 

Florida 

Atlantic 

6

. 

' 

. 

. 

N 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3349 

(ii) Index map of Unit FSC3 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.009</GPH>

Index ~bp oflJnit FSC3 of Critical Habitat 

Map 

MapD 

Road 

Coastline 

Critical Habitat 

:NiapE 

3 Miles 

.6' 

... 

1' 

i 

i 

,/ 

/ 

I 

N 
3350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Map A of Unit FSC3 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.010</GPH>

A oft' nit FSC3 of Critical Habitat 

() 0.5 I Kilometers 

Coastline 6 ' 

' 

I 

N 

Critical 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3351 

(iv) Map B of Unit FSC3 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.011</GPH>

B of Unil fSC3 of Critical Habil;tt .fbr 

Florida Bay 

.6 .. t 

/ 

/ 

I 

/ 

N 
3352 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(v) Map C of Unit FSC3 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.012</GPH>

Florida 

Bay 

Florida 

Bay 

0.5 Miles 

[\ . 

' 

' I 

N 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3353 

(vi) Map D of Unit FSC3 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.013</GPH>

Map D of Unit FSC3 of Critical Habitat fbr 

Coupon Bight 

Coastline 
3354 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(vii) Map E of Unit FSC3 follows: 

(9) Unit FSC4: Little Torch Key, 

Monroe County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit FSC4 

consists of 168 ac (68 ha) in Monroe 

County. This unit is composed of State 

lands (47 ac (19 ha)), lands owned by 

Monroe County (10 ac (4 ha)), and 

parcels in private and other ownership 

(111 ac (45 ha)). This unit extends along 

State Highway 4A, from Coral Shores 

Road, south to County Road, resuming 

at Linda Street and extending south to 

the Overseas Highway. South of the 

Overseas Highway, the unit includes 

areas west of Kings Cove Road, and an 

area comprising the southern tip of 

Little Torch Key that includes portions 

of the John J. Pescatello Torchwood 

Hammock Preserve. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.014</GPH>

Map E of Unit FSC3 of Critical Habitat 

Straits of Florida 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3355 

(ii) Index map of Unit FSC4 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.015</GPH>

MapA 

MapB 

Coastline 

Critical Habitat 
3356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Map A of Unit FSC4 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.016</GPH>

Com! Slmn:s Rd 

6 .

. 

, 

. 

Coastline l 

Habitat N 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3357 

(iv) Map B of Unit FSC4 follows: 

* * * * * 

Family Cactaceae: Harrisia aboriginum 

(Aboriginal Prickly-Apple) 

(1) Critical habitat units for Harrisia 

aboriginum are depicted for Manatee, 

Charlotte, Sarasota, and Lee Counties, 

Florida, on the maps below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Harrisia aboriginum are: 

(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting 

of coastal strand, coastal grassland, 

coastal berm, maritime hammocks, and 

shell mounds. 

(A) Coastal strand habitat that 

contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy and 

understory, and 

(2) Substrate of sand and shell 

fragments of stabilized coastal dunes. 

(B) Coastal grassland habitat that 

contains: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.017</GPH>

Coastline 

Ciitical I labitat 

6 ' ' 

' ' 

' 

N 
3358 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(1) No canopy and an open 

understory, and 

(2) Substrate of sand and shell 

fragments. 

(C) Coastal berm habitat that contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy, 

subcanopy, and understory, and 

(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, 

storm-deposited sediment. 

(D) Maritime hammock habitat that 

contains: 

(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an 

open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, 

and understory; and 

(2) Substrate of calcareous sand and 

shell fragments. 

(E) Shell mound habitat that contains: 

(1) Open to semi-open canopy and 

understory, and 

(2) Substrate of soil derived from 

calcareous shells deposited by Native 

Americans during prehistoric times. 

(ii) A plant community of 

predominately native vegetation with no 

invasive, nonnative animal or plant 

species or such species in quantities low 

enough to have minimal effect on 

survival of Harrisia aboriginum. 

(iii) Canopy openings in coastal 

strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm, 

maritime hammock, and shell mound 

habitats that are created by the effects of 

strong winds or saltwater inundation 

from storm surge or infrequent tidal 

inundation. 

(iv) Habitats that are connected and of 

sufficient size to sustain viable 

populations in coastal strand, coastal 

grassland, coastal berm, maritime 

hammock, and shell mound habitats. 

(v) Habitats that provide populations 

of the generalist pollinators that visit the 

flowers of Harrisia aboriginum. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located that exists within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of this 

rule. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Unit 

maps were developed using ESRI 

ArcGIS mapping software along with 

various spatial data layers. ArcGIS was 

also used to calculate area. The 

projection used in mapping and 

calculating distances and locations 

within the units was North American 

Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The 

maps in this entry, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, establish 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which each map is 

based are available to the public at the 

Service’s Internet site at http://

www.fws.gov/verobeach/, at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2014–0057, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3359 

(5) Index map of all critical habitat 

units for Harrisia aboriginum follows: 

(6) Unit APA1: Terra Ceia, Manatee 

County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA1 

consists of approximately 222 ac (90 ha) 

in Manatee County, Florida. This unit is 

composed of State lands within Madira 

Bickel Mound State Historical Park, 

Terra Ceia Preserve State Park, 

Cockroach Bay State Buffer Preserve, 

and the Tampa Bay Estuarine System, 

(66 ac (27 ha)); Manatee County lands at 

Emerson Point Preserve and parcels 

owned by the Manatee County Port 

Authority (70 ac (28 ha)); and parcels in 

private or other ownership (87 ac (35 

ha)). This unit includes lands west of 

Highway 41 extending from just south 

of South Dock Street south to Snead 

Island. The unit also includes areas of 

Harbor Key, Mariposa Key, Horseshoe 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.018</GPH>

Index ~1ap of All Critical Habitat Units for Harrisia aboriginum 

UnitAPA2 

0 20 40 Miles 

0 20 40 Kilometers 

Coastline 
3360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Key, Joe Island, Skeet Key, Paradise 

Island, Ed’s Key, and Rattlesnake Key. 

(ii) Index map of Unit APA1 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.019</GPH>

MapB 

0 

0 2 

Coastline 

( 

2 Miles 

4 Kilometers 

L\ ' ' 

' 

' 

' 

N 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3361 

(iii) Map A of Unit APA1 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.020</GPH>

Map 

Harbor 

( 

0 0.5 l Miles 

0 05 l Kilometers 

Coastline 6

' 

' 

' ' 

i 

N 
3362 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) Map B of Unit APA1 follows: 

(7) Unit APA2: Longboat Key, 

Sarasota County, Florida. 

(i) General description: Unit APA2 

consists of approximately 54 ac (22 ha) 

in Sarasota County, Florida. This unit is 

composed entirely of parcels in private 

or other ownership. This unit includes 

lands west of Gulf of Mexico Drive, 

extending from 0.40 mi (0.6 km) south 

of the intersection of Bay Isles Parkway 

and Gulf of Mexico Drive, to the 

southern tip of Longboat Key. It also 

includes lands on the north side of Gulf 

of Mexico Drive, east of Longboat Club 

Key Drive, on the northwest tip of 

Longboat Key. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.021</GPH>

Rattlesnake 

Snead Island 

0 

Coastline 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3363 

(ii) Map of Unit APA2 follows: 

(8) Unit APA3: Osprey, Sarasota 

County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA3 

consists of approximately 116 ac (47 ha) 

in Sarasota County, Florida. This unit is 

composed of Sarasota County lands 

within Palmer Point County Park (50 ac 

(20 ha)) and parcels in private or other 

ownership (66 ac (27 ha)). This unit 

extends along the barrier island (Casey 

Key) from the south terminus of Blind 

Pass Road, south for approximately 1.2 

mi (1.9 km) along North Casey Key 

Road. On the mainland, the unit 

includes lands bordered on the north by 

Vamo Way, to the east by Highway 41, 

and to the south by Palmetto Avenue. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.022</GPH>

Critical Habitat 

0 0.5 

--Road 

Coastline 

1 Kilometers 

6

. 

. ' 

. 

' ' N 
3364 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Map of Unit APA3 follows: 

(9) Unit APA4: Manasota Key, 

Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, 

Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA4 

consists of approximately 415 ac (168 

ha) in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, 

Florida. This unit is composed of State 

lands within Stump Pass Beach State 

Park (58 ac (23 ha)); County lands 

within Blind Pass Park, Brohard Beach 

and Paw Park, Manasota Beach Park, 

Casperson Beach Park, and Service Club 

Park (111 ac (45 ha)); and parcels in 

private or other ownership (245 ac (99 

ha)). This unit extends from Beach Road 

in the City of Venice, south along 

Manasota Key to the barrier islands 

southern tip, including a portion of 

Peterson Island. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.023</GPH>

Coastline 6

. 

' 

. 

. 

/ 

N 

Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3365 

(ii) Index map of Unit APA4 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.024</GPH>

Index Map 

MapB 

Sarasota 

!vlap C 

0 3 6 Miles 

Coas!.line 6

. 

. ' 

. 

{ 

N 

Critical Habitat 
3366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Map A of Unit APA4 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.025</GPH>

Map 

2 Miles 

Coastline 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3367 

(iv) Map B of Unit APA4 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.026</GPH>

Map B ofUnit APA4 of Critical 

l'vfrmasota Beach Road 

Coastline .6 .. 

/ 

l 

,/ 

,l 

N 
3368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(v) Map C of Unit APA4 follows: 

(10) Unit APA5: Charlotte Harbor, 

Charlotte County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA5 

consists of 51 ac (21 ha) in Charlotte 

County, Florida. This unit is composed 

entirely of State lands within the 

Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. 

This unit includes the Big Mound, 

Boggess Ridge, and a shell mound 

located on the east side of Charlotte 

Harbor, south of the City of Charlotte 

Park. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.027</GPH>

MapC APA4 of Critical Habitat 

North Bca(~h Road 

Gulf Of 

Coastline 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3369 

(ii) Map of Unit APA5 follows: 

(11) Unit APA6: Gasparilla North, 

Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA6 

consists of approximately 98 ac (40 ha) 

in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. 

This unit is composed of State land 

(0.006 ac (0.02 ha)), county land (22 ac 

(9 ha)), and parcels in private or other 

ownership (77 ac (31 ha)). This unit 

includes most of Kitchen Key (Live Oak 

Key) and the area east of Gasparilla 

Road, from the intersection of Grouper 

Hole Road and Grouper Hole Court, 

south to 0.15 mi (0.24 km) north of Snail 

Island Court, from approximately 0.10 

mi (0.21 km) south of 35th Street to 23rd 

Street, including the small island 

separated from Gasparilla Island by a 

canal; and from 22nd Street to 20th 

Street. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.028</GPH>

Map Critical Habitat 

Coastline 6

' ' 

. 

. 

J 

N 
3370 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Map of Unit APA6 follows: 

(12) Unit APA7: Gasparilla South, Lee 

County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA7 

consists of approximately 92 ac (37 ha) 

in Lee County, Florida. This unit is 

composed of Federal land owned by the 

Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (3 ac (1 ha)), State lands 

within Gasparilla Island State Park (69 

ac (28 ha)), Lee County lands (12 ac (5 

ha), and parcels in private or other 

ownership (8 ac (3 ha)). This unit 

includes lands located from south of 1st 

Street to the southern tip of Gasparilla 

Island. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.029</GPH>

Critical Habitat 

Sarasota 

Lee 

0 0.5 I Miles 

:· 6 

N 

Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3371 

(ii) Map of Unit APA7 follows: 

(13) Unit APA8: Cayo Pelau, Lee 

County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA8 

consists of approximately 25 ac (10 ha) 

in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. 

This unit is composed of Lee County 

lands within Cayo Pelau Preserve, and 

parcels in private or other ownership 

(0.6 ac (0.2 ha)). This unit includes 

lands located from 0.13 mi (0.21 km) 

south of the northern tip of Cayo Pelau, 

extending south to the southeastern tip 

of Cayo Pelau. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.030</GPH>

Map 

Gasp arm a 

Island 

Barbarossa Street 

() OA 0.8 Kilometers 

Coastline 

Critical Habitat 
3372 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Map of Unit APA8 follows: 

(14) Unit APA9: Cayo Costa, Lee 

County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA9 

consists of approximately 1,702 ac (689 

ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is 

composed of State lands within Cayo 

Costa State Park (1,379 ac (558 ha)), 

lands owned by Lee County (94 ac (38 

ha)), and parcels in private or other 

ownership (230 ac (93 ha)). This unit 

includes lands located from the 

northern tip to the southern tip of Cayo 

Costa. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.031</GPH>

Map 

Coastline 

Critical Habitat 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3373 

(ii) Map of Unit APA9 follows: 

(15) Unit APA10: Bocilla, Lee County, 

Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA10 

consists of approximately 33 ac (13 ha) 

in Lee County, Florida. This unit is 

composed of Lee County lands within 

the Bocilla Preserve (32 ac (13 ha)) and 

parcels in private or other ownership 

(0.7 ac (0.3 ha)). This unit includes 

lands located on the undeveloped 

portion of Bokeelia Island from 0.02 mi 

(0.03 km) west of the terminus of 

Ebbtide Way, extending south and west 

to the northwestern and southeastern 

corners of Bokeelia Island. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.032</GPH>

Map of Critical Habitat for 

0 LS 3 Miles 

0 1.5 3 

Critical Habitat 6

' ' ' 

I ' 

N 
3374 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Map of Unit APA10 follows: 

(16) Unit APA11: Sanibel Island and 

Buck Key, Lee County, Florida. 

(i) General Description: Unit APA11 

consists of approximately 635 ac (257 

ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is 

composed of Federal lands owned by 

the Bureau of Land Management, and 

Service lands within the J.N. ‘Ding’ 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

(373 ac (151 ha)), State lands (47 ac (19 

ha)), lands owned by Lee County (90 ac 

(36 ha)), and parcels in private or other 

ownership (126 ac (51 ha)). This unit 

includes lands on Buck Key, Runyan 

Key, and Sanibel Island. On Sanibel 

Island, the unit includes a portion of 

Bowman’s Beach, from just south of 

Silver Key to the western terminus of 

Water’s Edge Lane; uplands within J.N. 

‘Ding’ Darling NWR; and a shell mound 

located near the northern terminus of 

Tarpon Bay Road. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.033</GPH>

Map of APA I 0 of Critical Habitat for 

Bokeelia Island 

\ '~' 

Coastline 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3375 

(ii) Index map of Unit APA11 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.034</GPH>

Index Map APA 11 of Critical 

MapB 

0 2 Kilometers 
3376 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Map A of Unit APA11 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.035</GPH>

Runyan Key 

6 ... } 

/ 

} 

f 

l 

N 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3377 

(iv) Map B of Unit APA11 follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.036</GPH>

0 0.5 l Kilometers 
3378 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(v) Map C of Unit APA11 follows: 

* * * * * Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Michael Bean, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00344 Filed 1–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JA15.037</GPH>

I 6

' ' ' 

' 

' 

N