Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013) 2013 Federal Register, 78 FR 49831-49878; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49831-49878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19793]

[[Page 49831]]

Vol. 78

Thursday,

No. 158

August 15, 2013

Part III

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
Butterflies; Endangered Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's
Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies; Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 49832]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AZ59

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram's
Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyta
floridalis) and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak (Strymon acis bartrami)
butterflies under the Endangered Species Act. In total, approximately
3,351 hectares (8,283 acres) in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties,
Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the Florida leafwing butterfly, and approximately 3,748
hectares (9,261 acres) in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, fall
within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation for
the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 15, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by September 30, 2013.

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 Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. 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-2013-0031; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
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 the Public Comments section below for more information).
The coordinates or 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/,
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031, and
at the South Florida Ecological Services Field 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 Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office
set out above, and may also be included in the at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, once we determine
that a species is endangered or threatened, then we must also designate
critical habitat for the species. Designations and revisions of
critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. Elsewhere in
today's Federal Register, we propose to list the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies as endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(Act).
This rule consists of: A proposed rule for designation of critical
habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterflies. The Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterflies have been proposed for listing under the Act. This rule
proposes designation of critical habitat necessary for the conservation
of the species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, when a species is proposed
for listing, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we must
designate critical habitat for the species. Both species have been
proposed for listing as endangered, and therefore, we also propose to
designate:
Approximately 3,351 hectares (ha) (8,283 acres (ac)) are
proposed as critical habitat for the Florida leafwing butterfly and
approximately 3,748 ha (9,261 ac) are proposed for the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak butterfly. The critical habitat proposed for the Florida
leafwing occurs entirely within that proposed for the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak. The proposed critical habitat for both butterflies is
located in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida.
The proposed designation for both butterflies includes
both occupied and unoccupied critical habitat. The Service determined
that the proposed unoccupied units are essential for the conservation
of the butterflies, in order to provide for the necessary expansion of
current Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreaks population(s)
and for reestablishment of populations into areas where these
subspecies previously occurred.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act states that the
Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the
basis of the best available scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he
determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he
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 are preparing 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 will announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis as soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek
additional public review and comment.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
analysis of the best available science and application of that science
and to provide any additional scientific information to improve this
proposed rule. 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

[[Page 49833]]

accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments
or information from the public, from other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the butterflies 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 is
not be prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak habitat including the hostplant, pineland
croton (Croton linearis);
(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) Where these features are currently found;
(d) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why; and
(g) Whether we have determined the most appropriate size and
configuration of our proposed critical habitat units.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by the species or proposed to be designated as critical
habitat, and possible impacts of these activities on these species and
proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on both butterflies and proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(7) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
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.
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

All previous Federal actions are described in the proposal to list
the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies as
endangered species under the Act published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.

Critical Habitat

Background

It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak in this section of the proposed
rule. For more information on Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak taxonomy, life history, habitat, and population
descriptions, please refer to the proposed listing rule published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
The Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies are
endemic to south Florida and the lower Florida Keys. Both butterflies
occur within pine rockland habitat that retain their shared larval
hostplant, pineland croton (Croton linearis). Historically, these
subspecies were locally common within pine rocklands of Miami-Dade and
Monroe Counties, while occurring only sporadically in Collier, Martin,
Palm Beach, and Broward Counties. The estimated range-wide population
densities for these butterflies vary considerably from year to year,
but generally occur in the low hundreds.
At present, the Florida leafwing is extant only within the Long
Pine Key (LPK) region of Everglades National Park (ENP). Until 2006
when it was extirpated, an additional population occurred on Big Pine
Key (BPK), part of National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR). The Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak also occurs within the LPK region on ENP, as well as
locally within conservation lands adjacent to the ENP and in the
Florida Keys on BPK.
Although Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
populations occur almost entirely within public conservation lands,
threats remain from a wide array of natural and human-related sources.
Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, specifically from natural
fire suppression (combined with limited prescribed burns or mechanical
clearing), are the most imminent threats to these butterflies and their
hostplant. The Florida leafwing has been extirpated (no longer in
existence) from nearly 96 percent of its historical range; the only
known extant population occurs within ENP in Miami-Dade County. The
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak has been extirpated from nearly 93 percent
of its historical range; only five isolated metapopulations remain on
Big Pine Key in Monroe County, Long Pine Key in ENP, and relict pine
rocklands adjacent to the ENP in Miami-Dade County.
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

[[Page 49834]]

essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) essential to the
conservation of the species, and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical and
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 the specific elements of
physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to 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 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, would 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 would continue to contribute to recovery of these
butterflies if we list the Florida leafwing and the Bartram's scrub
hairstreak butterflies. Similarly, critical habitat designations made
on the basis of the best available information at the time of
designation will not control the direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination for the Florida Leafwing and the Bartram's
Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies

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

[[Page 49835]]

(2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to
the species.
A threat of take attributed to collection under Factor B currently
exists for both these butterflies. There is evidence that the
designation of critical habitat could result in an increased threat
from taking, specifically collection, for both butterflies, through
publication of maps and a narrative description of specific critical
habitat units in the Federal Register. However, such information on
locations of extant Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
populations is already widely available to the public through many
outlets. Therefore, identification and mapping of critical habitat is
not expected to initiate any such threat or significantly increase
existing collection pressure.
In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat
would increase threats to a species, if any benefits would result from
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, it 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, because we have determined that the designation of
critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the
species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies.

Critical Habitat Determinability

Having determined that designation of critical habitat is prudent,
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat
for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies 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 butterflies and habitat characteristics where the
butterflies are located. This and other information represent the best
scientific data available and led us to conclude that the designation
of critical habitat is determinable for the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterflies.

Physical or Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features (PBFs) 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, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derived the specific PBFs for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak butterflies from studies of both of the butterflies'
habitat, ecology, and life histories as described below--(see Habitat
and Life History section of our proposed listing rule published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register).

Florida Leafwing Butterfly

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The Florida leafwing occurs within pine rockland habitat, and
occasionally associated rockland hammock interspersed in these
pinelands, throughout their entire lifecycle. Description of these
communities and associated native plant species are provided in the
Status Assessment for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-
hairstreak Butterflies section in the proposed listing rule elsewhere
in today's Federal Register. The lifecycle of the Florida leafwing
occurs entirely within the pine rockland habitat, and in some instances
associated rockland hammocks (Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 246; 2010a,
p. 96; Minno, pers. comm. 2009). At present, the Florida leafwing is
extant within ENP and, until 2006, had occurred on Big Pine Key in the
Florida Keys and historically in pineland fragments on mainland Miami-
Dade County (Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p.
91; 2010c, p. 139), the smallest viable population being Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve (120 hectares (ha) (296 acres (ac)). The Florida
leafwing was only sporadic in occurrence north of Miami-Dade County
(Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and Hennessey 2003, p. 243). Studies
indicate butterflies are capable of dispersing throughout the
landscape, sometimes as far as 5 kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi)),
utilizing high-quality habitat patches (Davis et al. 2007, p. 1351;
Bergman et al. 2004, p. 625). The Florida leafwing, with its strong
flight abilities, can disperse to make use of appropriate habitat in
ENP (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 95). At present, ongoing surveys
suggest the leafwing actively disperses throughout the Long Pine Key
region of ENP (Salvato and Salvato 2010, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139).
However, once locally common at Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the
Richmond Pine Rocklands (which occur approximately 8 and 27 km (5 and
17 mi)) to the northeast of ENP, respectively), leafwings are not known
to have bred at either location in over 25 years (Salvato and Hennessey
2003, p. 243; Salvato pers. comm. 2012). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify pine rockland habitats and associated
rockland hammock that are at least 120 ha (296 ac) in size to be a PBF
for this butterfly.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The Florida leafwing is dependent on pine rocklands that retain the
butterfly's sole hostplant, pineland croton (Hennessey and Habeck 1991,
pp. 13-17; Smith et al. 1994, p. 67; Worth et al. 1996, pp. 64-65). The
immature stages of this butterfly feed on the croton for development
(Worth et al. 1996, pp. 64-65; Minno et al. 2005, p. 115). Adult
Florida leafwings will feed on tree sap, take minerals from mud, and
occasionally visit flowers within the pine rockland (Lenczewski 1980,
p. 17; Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 326; Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p.
96). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine
rockland and associated rockland hammocks, specifically those
containing pineland croton and other herbaceous vegetation typical of
these plant communities, which fulfill the larval development and adult
dietary requirements of the

[[Page 49836]]

Florida leafwing, to be a PBF for the Florida leafwing.
Cover or Shelter
Immature stages of the Florida leafwing occur entirely on the
hostplant, pineland croton. Adult Florida leafwing disperse and roost
within the pine rockland canopy, and also in rockland hammock
vegetation interspersed within these pinelands. Because of their use of
the croton and their choice of roosting sites, the former Florida
leafwing population on Big Pine Key may have been deleteriously
impacted by exposure to seasonal pesticide applications designed to
control mosquitoes. The potential for mosquito control chemicals to
drift into nontarget areas on the island and to persist for varying
periods of time has been well documented (Hennessey and Habeck 1989,
pp. 1-22; 1991, pp. 1-68; Hennessey et al. 1992, pp. 715-721; Pierce
2009, pp. 1-17). If exposed, studies have indicated that both immature
and adult butterflies could be affected (Zhong et al. 2010, pp. 1961-
1972; Bargar 2012, pp. 1-7). Truck-applied pesticides were found to
drift considerable distances from target areas with residues that
persisted for weeks on the hostplant (Pierce 2009, pp. 1-17), possibly
threatening larvae. Salvato (2001, p. 13) suggested that adult Florida
leafwing were particularly vulnerable to aerial applications based on
their tendency to roost within the pineland canopy, an area with
maximal exposure to such treatments. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify pine rocklands, and associated rockland
hammock communities with pineland croton for larval development and
ample roosting sites for adults and limited or restricted pesticide
application, to be a PBF for this subspecies.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The Florida leafwing, with its strong flight abilities, can
disperse to make use of appropriate habitat in ENP (Salvato and Salvato
2010a, p. 95). Reproduction and larval development occur entirely
within the pine rocklands. The Florida leafwing is multivoltine (i.e.,
produces multiple generations per year), with an entire life cycle of
about 2 to 3 months (Hennessey and Habeck 1991, p. 17) and maintains
continuous broods throughout the year (Baggett 1982, pp. 78-79; Salvato
1999, p. 121). Natural history studies by Salvato and Salvato (2012, p.
1) indicate that the extant Florida leafwing population within Long
Pine Key experiences up to 80 percent mortality amongst immature larval
stages from parasites. All parasitic mortality noted for the Florida
leafwing by Salvato and Salvato (2012, pp. 1-3) has been from native
species; however, mortality from both native and nonnative predators
has been observed. Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify pine rockland and associated rockland hammocks, specifically
those containing pineland croton and other herbaceous vegetation
typical of these plant communities, with limited nonnative predation,
which fulfill the larval development and adult reproductive
requirements of the Florida leafwing, to be a PBF for this subspecies.
Pine rockland native vegetation includes, but is not limited to,
canopy vegetation dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa);
subcanopy vegetation that may include but is not limited to saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), silver palm
(Coccothrinax argentata), brittle thatch palm (Thrinax morrisii), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), myrsine (Rapanea punctata), poisonwood
(Metopium toxiferum), locustberry (Byrsonima lucida), varnishleaf
(Dodonaea viscosa), tetrazygia (Tetrazygia bicolor), rough velvetseed
(Guettarda scabra), marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides), mangrove berry
(Psidium longipes), willow bustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium), and
winged sumac (Rhus copallinum). Short-statured shrubs that may include
but are not limited to a subcanopy with running oak (Quercus
elliottii), white indigoberry (Randia aculeata), Christmas berry
(Crossopetalum ilicifolium), redgal (Morinda royoc), and snowberry
(Chiococca alba); and understory vegetation that may include but is not
limited to bluestem (Andropogon spp., Schizachyrium gracile, S.
rhizomatum, and S. sanguineum), arrowleaf threeawn (Aristida
purpurascens), lopsided indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum), hairawn
muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris), Florida white-top sedge (Rhynchospora
floridensis), pineland noseburn (Tragia saxicola), devil's potato
(Echites umbellata), pineland croton, several species of sandmats
(Chamaesyce spp.), partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), coontie
(Zamia pumila), and maidenhair pineland fern (Anemia adiantifolia).
Rockland hammock native vegetation includes, but is not limited to, a
canopy vegetated by gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), false tamarind
(Lysiloma latisiliquum), paradisetree (Simarouba glauca), black
ironwood (Krugiodendron ferreum), lancewood (Ocotea coriacea), Jamaican
dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), West Indies mahogany (Swietenia
mahagoni), willow bustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium), inkwood (Exothea
paniculata), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), pigeon plum (Coccoloba
diversifolia), poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum), buttonwood (Conocarpus
erectus), blolly (Guapira discolor), and devil's claw (Pisonia spp.);
subcanopy vegetation that may include but is not limited to Spanish
stopper (Eugenia foetida), Thrinax (Amyris elemifera), marlberry
(Ardisia escallonioides), wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), Sabal,
gumbo limbo (Guaiacum sanctum), hog plum (Ximenia americana), and
Colubrina; and understory vegetated that may include but is not limited
to Zamia pumila, barbed-wire cactus (Acanthocereus tetragonus), and
basket grass (Oplismenus hirtellus).
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Subspecies
The Florida leafwing continues to occur in habitats that are
protected from human-generated disturbances and are only partially
representative of the butterflies' historical, geographical, and
ecological distribution because its range within these habitats has
been reduced. The subspecies is still found in its representative plant
communities of pine rocklands and associated rockland hammocks.
Representative plant communities are located on Federal, State, local,
and private conservation lands that implement conservation measures
benefitting the butterflies.
Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of disturbance, most
importantly from natural or prescribed fires (Loope and Dunevitz 1981,
p. 5; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4; Saha et
al. 2011, pp. 169-184; Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2010, p.
1). These fires are a vital component in maintaining native vegetation,
such as croton, within this ecosystem. Without fire, successional
climax from tropical pineland to rockland hammock is too rapid, and
displacement of native species by invasive nonnative plants often
occurs.
The Florida leafwing, as with other subtropical butterflies, have
adapted over time to the influence of tropical storms and other forms
of adverse weather conditions (Minno and Emmel 1994, p. 671; Salvato
and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes and other significant weather
events create openings in the pine rockland habitat (FNAI 2010, p. 3)
However, given the substantial reduction in the historical range of the
butterfly in the past 50 years, the threat

[[Page 49837]]

and impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on their remaining
populations is much greater than when their distribution was more
widespread (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010c, p. 139).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify disturbance
regimes natural or prescribed to mimic natural disturbances, such as
fire, to be a PBF for this subspecies.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Florida Leafwing Butterfly

According to 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are required to identify the PBFs
essential to the conservation of the Florida leafwing in areas occupied
at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent
elements (PCEs). We consider PCEs to be specific elements of the PBFs
that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species.
The Florida leafwing is dependent upon functioning pine rockland
habitat to provide its fundamental life requirements, such as pineland
croton for larval development, food sources and roosting areas required
by adult butterflies. Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and
habitat characteristics required to sustain the butterfly's life-
history processes, we determine that the PCEs for the Florida leafwing
are:
(1) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations,
associated rockland hammocks.
(a) Pine rockland habitat contains:
(i) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
(ii) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
(iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(b) Rockland hammock habitat associated with the pine rocklands
contains:
(i) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory; and
(ii) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone rock; and
(iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(2) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough to
have minimal effect on survival of the Florida leafwing.
(3) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton, in
sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and, food
resources, and for adult butterfly roosting habitat, and reproduction.
(4) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g. fire, hurricanes or other
weather events, at 3- to 5-year intervals) that maintains the pine
rockland habitat and associated plant community.
(5) Pine rockland habitat and associated plant community that are
sufficient in size to sustain viable Florida leafwing populations.
(6) Pine rockland habitat with levels of pesticide low enough to
have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its ability to
occupy the habitat.

Special Management Considerations or Protection for the Florida
Leafwing Butterfly

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic areas 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
protections. The features essential to the conservation of this species
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following threats:
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Development--The Florida
leafwing has experienced substantial destruction, modification, and
curtailment of its habitat and range. The pine rockland community of
south Florida, on which both the butterfly and its hostplant depend, is
critically imperiled globally (FNAI 2012, p. 27). Destruction of the
pinelands for economic development has reduced this habitat community
by 90 percent on mainland south Florida (O'Brien 1998, p. 208). All
known mainland populations of the Florida leafwing occur on publicly
owned land that is managed for conservation, ameliorating some of the
threat. However, any unknown extant populations of the butterfly or
suitable habitat that may occur on private land or non-conservation
public land are vulnerable to habitat loss. In Miami-Dade County,
occupied Florida leafwing habitat occurs in the Long Pine Key region of
ENP and is actively managed by the National Park Service (NPS) for the
Florida leafwing and the pine rockland ecosystem, in general.
Sea Level Rise--Various model scenarios developed at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have projected possible
trajectories of future transformation of the south Florida landscape by
2060 based upon four main drivers: Climate change, shifts in planning
approaches and regulations, human population change, and variations in
financial resources for conservation (Vargas-Moreno and Flaxman 2010,
pp. 1-6). The Service used various MIT scenarios in combination with
extant and historical Florida leafwing occurrences, and remaining
hostplant-bearing pine rocklands to predict climate change impacts to
the butterfly and its habitat.
In the best case scenario, which assumes low sea level rise, high
financial resources, proactive planning, and only trending human
population growth, analyses suggest that the extant Florida leafwing
population within ENP is susceptible to future losses, with losses
attributed to increases in sea level and human population. In the worst
case scenario, which assumes high sea level rise, low financial
resources, a ``business as usual'' approach to planning, and a doubling
of human population, the habitat at Long Pine Key may be lost resulting
in the complete extirpation of the Florida leafwing. Actual impacts may
be greater or less than anticipated based upon high variability of
factors involved (e.g., sea level rise, human population growth) and
assumptions made. Being proactive to address sea level rise may be
beyond the feasibility of land owners or managers. However, while land
owners or land managers may not be able to be proactive in preventing
these events, they may be able to respond with management or
protection. Management actions or activities that could ameliorate sea
level rise include providing protection of suitable habitats unaffected
or less affected by sea level rise.
Lack of Natural or Prescribed Fires--The threat of habitat
destruction or modification is further exacerbated by lack of
prescribed fire and suppression of natural fires (Salvato and Salvato
2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139). Historically, lightning-induced fires
were a vital component in maintaining native vegetation within the pine
rockland ecosystem, including pineland croton (Loope and Dunevitz 1981,
p. 5; Slocum et al. 2003, p. 93; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Salvato and
Salvato 2010b, p. 154). Resprouting after burns is the primary
mechanism allowing for the persistence of perennial shrubs, including
pineland croton, in pine habitat (Olson and Platt 1995, p. 101).
Without fire, perennial native vegetation can be displaced by invasive
nonnative plants.
In recent years, ENP has used partial and systematic prescribed
burns to treat the Long Pine Key pine rocklands in

[[Page 49838]]

their entirety over a 3-year window (National Park Service 2005, p.
27). These methods attempt to burn adjacent pine rockland habitats
alternately. In addition, refugia (i.e., unburned areas of croton
hostplant) have been included as part of burns conducted within
occupied butterfly habitat, wherever possible (R. Anderson, pers. comm.
2011). Providing refugia directly within (as well as adjacent to) the
treatment area during prescribed burn activities may substantially
increase the potential for the Florida leafwing to recolonize recently
burned areas and to remain within or near the fire-treated pineland.
Outside of ENP, Miami-Dade County has implemented various conservation
measures, such as burning in a mosaic pattern and on a small scale,
during prescribed burns to protect the butterfly (Maguire, pers. comm.
2010).
Fire management of pine rocklands in NKDR is hampered by the
pattern of land ownership and development; residential and commercial
properties are embedded within or in close proximity to pineland
habitat (Snyder et al. 2005, p. 2; C. Anderson, pers. comm. 2012a).
Ongoing management activities designed to ameliorate this threat
include the use of small-scale prescribed burns or mechanical clearing
to maintain the native vegetative structure in the pine rockland
required by the subspecies.
Hurricanes and Storm Surge--The Florida leafwing, as with other
subtropical butterflies, have adapted over time to the influence of
tropical storms and other forms of adverse weather conditions (Minno
and Emmel 1994, p. 671; Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes
and other significant weather events create openings in the pine
rockland habitat (FNAI 2010, p. 3). However, given the substantial
reduction in the historical range of the butterfly in the past 50
years, the threat and impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on their
remaining populations is much greater than when their distribution was
more widespread (Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010c, p. 139).
While land owners or land managers may not be able to be proactive in
preventing these events, they may be able to respond with management or
protection resulting from these threats. Management actions or
activities that could enhance pine rockland recovery following tropical
storms include hand removal of damaged vegetation, as well as by other
mechanical means or prescribed fire.
Mosquito Control Pesticide Applications--Efforts to control salt
marsh mosquitoes, Aedes taeniorhynchus, among others, have increased as
human activity and population have increased in south Florida. To
control mosquito populations, second-generation organophosphate (naled)
and pyrethroid (permethrin) adulticides are applied by mosquito control
districts throughout south Florida. The use of such pesticides (applied
using both aerial and ground-based methods) for mosquito control
presents a potential risk to nontarget species, such as the Florida
leafwing. Mosquito control pesticides use within Miami-Dade County pine
rockland areas is limited (approximately 2 to 4 times per year, and
only within a portion of proposed critical habitat) (Vasquez, pers.
comm. 2013) and no spraying is conducted in Long Pine Key within ENP.
Pesticide spraying practices by the Mosquito Control District at
NKDR have changed to reduce pesticide use over the years. Since 2003
expanded larvicide treatments to surrounding islands have significantly
reduced adulticide use on BPK, No Name Key, and the Torch Keys. In
addition, the number of aerially applied naled treatments allowed on
NKDR has been limited since 2008 (Florida Key Mosquito Control District
2012, pp. 10-11). No spray zones that include the core habitat used by
pine rockland butterflies and several linear miles of pine rockland
habitat within the Refuge-neighborhood interface were excluded from
truck spray applications (C. Anderson, pers. comm. 2012a; Service 2012,
p. 32). These exclusions and buffer zones encompass over 95 percent of
extant croton distribution on Big Pine Key, and include the majority of
known extant and historical Florida leafwing population centers on the
island (Salvato, pers. comm. 2012). However, some areas of pine
rocklands within NKDR are still sprayed with naled (aerially applied
adulticide), and buffer zones remain at risk from drift; additionally,
private residential areas and roadsides across Big Pine Key are treated
with permethrin (ground-based applied adulticide) (Salvato 2001, p.
10). Therefore, the hairstreak and, if extant, the leafwing and their
habitat on Big Pine Key may be directly or indirectly (via drift)
exposed to adulticides used for mosquito control at some unknown level.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Florida Leafwing
Butterfly

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If,
after identifying currently occupied areas, a determination is made
that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species,
in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied--are essential for the conservation of
the species. 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. We also are proposing
to designate specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing but that were historically occupied,
because such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Small butterfly populations with limited, fragmented distributions,
such as the Florida leafwing, are highly vulnerable to localized
extirpations (Schulz and Hammond 2003, pp. 1377, 1379; Frankham 2005,
pp. 135-136). Historical populations of endangered south Florida
butterflies such as the Miami blue (Saarinen 2009, p. 79) and Schaus
swallowtail (Daniels and Minno 2012, p. 2), once linked, now are
subject to the loss of genetic diversity from genetic drift, the random
loss of genes, and inbreeding. In general, isolation, whether caused by
geographic distance, ecological factors, or reproductive strategy, will
likely prevent the influx of new genetic material and can result in a
highly inbred population with low viability and, or fecundity (Chesser
1983, p. 68). Fleishman et al. (2002, pp. 706-716) indicated that
factors such as habitat quality may influence metapopulation dynamics
of butterflies, driving extinction and colonization processes,
especially in systems that experience substantial natural and
anthropogenic environmental variability. In addition, natural
fluctuations in rainfall, hostplant vigor, or butterfly predators may
weaken a population to such an extent that recovery to a viable level
would be impossible. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization
from other sites and result in extinction. Because of the dangers
associated with small populations or limited distributions, the
recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new
sites or reintroductions within the historical range to ameliorate
these effects.
When designating critical habitat, we consider future recovery
efforts and

[[Page 49839]]

conservation of the species. We have determined that all currently
known occupied habitat should be proposed for critical habitat
designation. However, realizing that the current occupied habitat is
not adequate for the conservation of the Florida leafwing, we used
habitat and historical occurrence data to identify unoccupied habitat
essential for the conservation of the subspecies.
Only one extant Florida leafwing population remains (Salvato and
Salvato 2010c, p. 139). Population estimates for the Florida leafwing
are estimated to be only several hundred or fewer at any given time.
Although this population occurs on conservation lands, management and
law enforcement are limited. We believe it is necessary for
conservation that additional populations of the Florida leafwing be
established within its historical range. Therefore, we have proposed
three unoccupied areas for designation as critical habitat, one on Big
Pine Key within the Florida Keys, and two others on the mainland within
Miami-Dade County, where the Florida leafwing was historically
recorded, but has since been extirpated.
The Miami-Dade County proposed critical habitat areas are large
pine rockland fragments (Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) or contiguous
fragments (Richmond Pine Rocklands), which we believe provide the
minimal habitat size (at least 120 ha (296 ac)) required for the
subspecies to persist. The Florida leafwing was known to occur at Navy
Wells Pineland Preserve within the past 25 years (Smith et al. 1994, p.
67). Although causes for the Florida leafwing's subsequent
disappearance from Navy Wells are unknown, we believe that, with proper
management and restoration efforts (consistent prescribed fire and
habitat enhancement), the butterfly, given its strong flight abilities
will be able to recolonize both this and the Richmond Pine Rockland
area. The one critical habitat unit on Big Pine Key in the Florida Keys
we are proposing is a former stronghold for the subspecies (Smith et
al. 1994, p. 67; Salvato and Salvato 2010c, p. 39), where appropriate
hostplant-bearing habitat was historically recorded, but has since
become degraded and unsuitable for butterfly use. Here also, we believe
that, following habitat restoration activities (vegetation and fire
management), the Florida leafwing may be able to be reestablished on
this site, thereby returning a vital metapopulation of the subspecies
to the Florida Keys.
The current distribution of the Florida leafwing is much reduced
(90 percent) from its historical distribution. 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
butterflies 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.
To determine the location and boundaries of critical habitat, the
Service used the following sources of information and considerations:
(1) Historical and current records of Florida leafwing occurrence
and distribution found in publications, reports, and associated voucher
specimens housed at museums and private collections;
(2) Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC) and Fairchild
Tropical Gardens (FTG) geographic information system (GIS) data showing
the location and extent of documented occurrences of the pine rockland
habitat with pineland croton;
(3) Reports prepared by ecologists, biologists, and botanists with
the IRC, ENP, FTG, and Service assessing the current and historic
distribution of pine rockland habitat and pineland croton. Some of
these were funded by the Service; others were requested or volunteered
by biologists with the Service, NPS, or IRC; and
(4) Historical records of pineland croton found in publications,
reports and associated voucher specimens housed at herbaria, all of
which are also referenced in the above mentioned reports from the IRC
and cited publications.

Area Occupied at the Time of Listing

The one occupied critical habitat unit was delineated around the
only remaining extant Florida leafwing population. This unit includes
the mapped extent of the population that contains one or more of the
elements of the PBFs.
The delineation included space to allow for the successional nature
of the occupied pine rockland habitat, the habitat being one of the
elements of the PBFs. While suitable, at any one time, only a portion
of this habitat is optimal for the Florida leafwing and the size and
location of optimal areas is successional over time, being largely
driven by the frequency and scale of natural or prescribed fires or
other disturbances such as storms. Correspondingly the abundance and
distribution of pineland croton within the pine rockland habitat varies
greatly from time to time depending on habitat changes because of these
events. Although prescribed burns are administered on the conservation
land that retains the Florida leafwing population, fire return
intervals and scope are inconsistent. As a result, areas within the
pine rockland habitat supporting the subspecies may not always provide
optimal habitat for the butterfly in the future as natural or
prescribed burns, fire suppression or other disturbances removes or
fragments hostplant distribution. Conversely, changes in hostplant
distribution over time following fires or other disturbances, may allow
the butterfly to return, expand, and colonize areas with shifting
hostplant populations.
The delineation also included space to plan for the persistence of
the current Florida leafwing population in the face of imminent effects
on habitats as a result of sea level rise. Although currently occupied
and containing the elements of PBFs, this area may be altered as a
result of vegetation shifts or salt water intrusion, to an extent to
which cannot be predicted at this time.

Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing

The Florida leafwing has been extirpated from several locations
where it was previously recorded. We are proposing three critical
habitat units for those that are well-documented as historically
occupied and are essential to the conservation of the subspecies. As it
is not always possible to identify the exact location where a specimen
was collected, we used the best available descriptions to determine
likely locales, but ultimately were guided by the location of remaining
pine rockland habitats.
In identifying these areas we considered additional refining
criteria:
(1) Areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem processes for
populations of the Florida leafwing. The historical distribution of the
Florida leafwing appeared limited to large pine rocklands parcels 120
ha (296 ac) or greater. For many years the leafwing persisted at Navy
Wells, which has an area of 120 ha (296 ac), long after being
extirpated from everywhere else in Miami-Dade County that was smaller
in area. The only other leafwing populations that occurred outside of
the Everglades in the past 25 years were those in the Richmond Pine
Rocklands and Big Pine Key, which have approximately 900 and 1,400
acres of pine rocklands, respectively. So we believe appropriately-
sized units should be at a minimum the size of the Navy Wells

[[Page 49840]]

(i.e., 120 ha (296 ac). Large contiguous parcels of habitat are more
likely to be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance and
succession, and support viable populations of the Florida leafwing. The
unoccupied areas selected were at least 120 ha (296 ac) or greater in
size.
(2) Areas to maintain connectivity of habitat to allow for
population expansion. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization
of the Florida leafwing and result in extinction. Because of the
dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the
recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new
sites or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects.
(3) Areas once restored will allow the Florida leafwing to disperse
and recolonize and in some instances, may be able to support expansion
and a larger number of the subspecies either through reintroduction or
expansion from areas already occupied by the butterfly. These areas
generally are habitats within or adjacent to pine rocklands that have
been affected by natural or anthropogenic impacts but retain areas that
are still suitable for the butterfly or that could be restored. 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.
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the
subspecies at the time of listing, we delineated the critical habitat
unit boundaries by evaluating habitat suitability of pine rockland
habitat within the geographic area occupied at the time of listing
(current), and retained those areas that contain some or all of the
PCEs to support life-history functions essential for conservation of
the subspecies.
In summary, for areas outside the geographic area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, but that are within the historical
range of the species, we determined that they are essential to the
survival and recovery of the species. These areas are essential for the
conservation of the species because they:
(1) Provide sufficient size to support ecosystem processes for
populations of the Florida leafwing;
(2) Maintain connectivity of habitat to allow for population
expansion; and
(3) Once restored will allow the Florida leafwing to expand
throughout its historical range.
We conclude that the areas proposed for critical habitat provide
for the conservation of the Florida leafwing because they include
habitat for all of the one remaining extant population. Further, the
current amount of habitat that is occupied is not sufficient for the
recovery of the subspecies; therefore, we included unoccupied habitat
in this proposed critical habitat designation which is essential for
the long-term conservation of the species.
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. 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 PBFs 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 or 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-2013-0031, on our Internet
sites www.fws.gov/verobeach/, and at the field office responsible for
the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Florida Leafwing
Butterfly

One of the four critical habitat units (FLB1) proposed for the
Florida leafwing is currently designated as critical habitat under the
Act for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis)
(50 CFR 17.95(b)). No other critical habitat units proposed for this
subspecies have been designated as critical habitat for other species
under the Act.
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat
for the Florida leafwing. The four areas we propose as critical habitat
are: (1) FLB1 Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida, (2)
(FLB2) Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida, (3)
(FLB3) Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and (4)
(FLB4) Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Land ownership within the
proposed critical habitat consists of Federal (81 percent), State (4
percent), and private and other (15 percent). Table 1 shows these units
by land ownership, area, and occupancy.

Table 1--Florida Leafwing Butterfly Proposed Critical Habitat Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit No. Unit name Ownership Percent Hectares Acres Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB1................................. Everglades National Federal................ 100 2,313 5,716 yes.
Park.
Total.................. 100 2,313 5,716
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB2................................. Navy Wells Pineland State.................. 29 35 85 no.
Preserve.
Private-Other.......... 71 85 211
Total.................. 100 120 296
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB3................................. Richmond Pine Rocklands Federal................ 14 50 122 no.
Private-Other.......... 86 309 767
Total.................. 100 359 889
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLB4................................. Big Pine Key........... Federal................ 65 365 901 no.
State.................. 16 90 223
Private-Other.......... 19 104 258
----------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 49841]]

Total.................. 100 559 1,382
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Units Federal................ 81 2,728 6,739
State.................. 4 125 308
Private-Other.......... 15 498 1,236
All.................... 100 3,351 8,283
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Florida leafwing,
below.

Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Unit FLB1 consists of 2,313 ha (5,716 ac) in Miami-Dade County.
This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100
percent of which are located within the Long Pine Key region of ENP.
This unit is currently occupied and contains all the PBFs, including
suitable habitat (pine rockland habitat of sufficient size), hostplant
presence, natural or artificial disturbance regimes, low levels of
nonnative vegetation and larval parasitism, and restriction of
pesticides required by the subspecies, and contains the PCE of pine
rockland. The PBFs in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats of fire suppression,
habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most
cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated with the ENP to
implement needed actions.
For instance, ENP is currently in the process of updating its fire
management plan (FMP) and environmental assessment which will assess
the impacts of fire on various environmental factors, including listed,
proposed, and candidate species (Land, pers. comm. 2011; Sadle, pers.
comm. 2013a). ENP is actively coordinating with the Service, as well as
other members of the Imperiled Butterfly Working Group (IBWG) to review
and adjust the prescribed burn practices outlined in the FMP to help
maintain or increase Florida leafwing population sizes, protect pine
rocklands, expand or restore remnant patches of hostplants, and ensure
that short-term negative effects from fire (i.e., loss of hostplants,
loss of eggs and larvae) can be avoided or minimized.

Unit FLB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Unit FLB2 consists of 120 ha (296 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit is comprised entirely of conservation lands located within the
Navy Wells Pineland Preserve which is jointly owned by Miami-Dade
County (85 ha (211 ac)) and the State (35 ha (85 ac)). State lands are
interspersed within Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department
lands which are managed for conservation. This unit is bounded on the
north by SW 348 Street and on the south by SW 360 Street; on the east
by State Road 9336 and on the west by the vicinity of SW 2002 Avenue.
This unit was occupied historically by the Florida leafwing. This
unit is not currently occupied but is essential to the conservation of
the subspecies because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover
the subspecies, reestablish wild populations within the historical
range of the subspecies, and maintain populations throughout the
historic distribution of the subspecies in Miami-Dade County, and
provides habitat for recovery in the case of stochastic events if the
butterfly is extirpated from the one location where it is presently
found.

Unit FLB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands Miami-Dade County, Florida

Unit FLB3 consists of 359 ha (889 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit is comprises of lands in Federal (U.S. Coast Guard (Homeland
Security) (29 ha (72 ac)), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department of
Defense (DoD) (8 ha (20 ac)), National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) (4 ha (9 ac)), Federal Bureau of Prisons
(Department of Justice (DoJ) (9 ha (21 ac)), and private or other (309
ha (767 ac)) ownership. This unit is bordered on the north by Coral
Reef Road and on the south by SW 168 Street; on the east by SW 117
Avenue and on the west by US1; then resumes bordered on the north by
Coral Reef Road and on the south by SW 184 Street; on the east by US1
and on the west by SW 137 Avenue.
The unit was occupied historically by the Florida leafwing and
includes some of the largest remaining contiguous fragments of pine
rockland habitats outside of ENP. This unit is not currently occupied
but is essential to the conservation of the butterfly because it serves
to protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the subspecies, and maintain
populations throughout the historic distribution of the subspecies in
Miami-Dade County, and it provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events if the butterfly is extirpated from the one location
where it is presently found.

Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida

Unit FLB4 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in Monroe County. This unit
includes Federal lands within National Key Deer Refuge (365 ha (901
ac)), State lands (90 ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other
ownership (104 ha (258 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR
lands and managed as part of the Refuge. The unit begins on northern
Big Pine Key on the southern side of Gulf Boulevard, continues south on
both sides of Key Deer Boulevard (County Road 940 (CR 940)) to the
vicinity of Osprey Lane on the western side of CR 940 and Tea Lane to
the east of CR 940, then resumes on both sides of CR 940 from Osprey
Lane south of the vicinity of Driftwood Lane, then resumes south of
Osceola Street, between Fern Avenue to the west and Baba Lane to the
east, then resumes north of Watson Boulevard in the vicinity of Avenue
C, then continues south on both sides of Avenue C to South Street, then
resumes on both sides of CR 940 south to US 1 between Ships Way to the
west and Sands Street to the east, then resumes south of US 1 from
Newfound Boulevard to the west and Deer Run Trail to the east, then
resumes south of US 1 from Palomino Horse Trail to the west and
Industrial Road to the east.
This unit was historically occupied by the Florida leafwing. This
unit is not currently occupied but is essential to the conservation of
the Florida leafwing because it serves to protect habitat needed to
recover the subspecies,

[[Page 49842]]

reestablish wild populations within the historical range of the
subspecies, and maintain populations throughout the historic
distribution of the subspecies in the Lower Florida Keys, and it
provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events if the
butterfly is extirpated from the one location where it is presently
found. In the Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), management objective number 11
provides specifically for maintaining and restoring butterfly
populations of special conservation concern, including the Florida
leafwing butterfly.

Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak

Physical or Biological Features
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak's entire lifecycle occurs within pine
rockland habitat and occasionally associated rockland hammock
interspersed in these pinelands. A description of these communities and
associated native plant species are provided in the Status Assessment
for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak section in the
proposed listing rule elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
At present, the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is extant on Big Pine
Key, within ENP, and several pineland fragments on mainland Miami-Dade
County (Smith et al. 1994, p. 118; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 154),
the smallest being Navy Wells Pineland Preserve outparcel number 39 (7
ha (18 ac)), which represents the minimum known extant sustained
population size. The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak was historically less
common and sporadic in occurrence north of Miami-Dade County (Smith et
al. 1994, pp. 118; Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 223). Studies
indicate butterflies are capable of dispersing throughout the
landscape, sometimes as far as 5 km (3 mi); utilizing high-quality
habitat patches (Davis et al. 2007, p. 1351; Bergman et al. 2004, p.
625). Stepping stones may be particularly useful to the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak, which exhibits low vagility (movement), rarely
venturing from the pine rockland habitat or away from large areas of
contiguous patches of hostplant. Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify pine rockland habitats and associated rockland
hammock that are at least 7 ha (18 ac) in size and are located no more
than 5 km (3 miles) apart to allow for habitat connectivity to be a PBF
for this butterfly.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is dependent on pine rocklands that
retain the butterfly's sole hostplant, pineland croton. The immature
stages of this butterfly feed on the croton for development (Minno and
Emmel 1993, p. 129; Worth et al. 1996, p. 62). Adult Bartram's scrub-
hairstreaks actively visit flowers for nectar (Minno and Emmel 1993, p.
129; Worth et al. 1996, p. 65; Calhoun et al. 2002, p. 14; Salvato and
Hennessey 2004, p. 226; Salvato and Salvato 2008, p. 324) within open
pine areas and edges and openings within associated rockland hammocks.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine rockland
and associated rockland hammocks, specifically those containing
pineland croton and other herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant
communities, which fulfill the larval development and adult dietary
requirements, to be PBFs for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
Cover or Shelter
Immature stages of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak occur entirely on
the hostplant, pineland croton. Adult Bartram's scrub-hairstreaks
prefer more open pine areas, at the edges and openings of associated
rockland hammocks. The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak population on Big
Pine Key may be deleteriously impacted by exposure to seasonal
pesticide applications designed to control mosquitoes because of where
the butterflies congregate in the vegetation. Salvato (2001, p. 13)
suggested that the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak was particularly
vulnerable to truck-based applications based on the fact that the
subspecies commonly aggregates on low-lying shrubs occurring along
frequently treated roadsides. Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify the absence of pesticide in the pine rocklands, and
associated rockland hammock communities or in low enough quantities
that is not detrimental to the butterfly to be a PBF for this
subspecies.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak reproduction and larval development
occur entirely within the pine rocklands. The butterfly has been
observed during every month throughout its range; however the exact
number of broods appears to be sporadic from year to year, with varying
peaks in seasonal abundance (Baggett 1982, p. 81; Hennessey and Habeck
1991, pp. 17-19; Emmel et al. 1995, pp. 14-15; Minno and Minno 2009,
pp. 70-76; Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 156; C. Anderson, pers. comm.
2012a; J. Sadle, pers. comm. 2013b). The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
retains breeding populations within pine rocklands on Big Pine Key,
Long Pine Key in ENP, and within a number of pine rockland fragments
adjacent to ENP (Salvato and Salvato 2010b, p. 154). Therefore, based
on the information above, we identify pine rockland and associated
rockland hammocks, specifically those containing pineland croton and
other herbaceous vegetation typical of these plant communities, which
fulfill the larval development and adult reproductive requirements of
the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, to be a PBF for this subspecies.
Pine rockland native vegetation includes, but is not limited to,
canopy vegetation dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa)
and subcanopy vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), silver palm
(Coccothrinax argentata), brittle thatch palm (Thrinax morrisii), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), myrsine (Rapanea punctata), poisonwood
(Metopium toxiferum), locustberry (Byrsonima lucida), varnishleaf
(Dodonaea viscosa), tetrazygia (Tetrazygia bicolor), rough velvetseed
(Guettarda scabra), marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides), mangrove berry
(Psidium longipes), willow bustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium), and
winged sumac (Rhus copallinum). Short-statured shrubs may include, but
are not limited to, a subcanopy with running oak (Quercus elliottii),
white indigoberry (Randia aculeata), Christmas berry (Crossopetalum
ilicifolium), redgal (Morinda royoc), and snowberry (Chiococca alba);
and understory vegetation that may include, but is not limited to,
bluestem (Andropogon spp., Schizachyrium gracile, S. rhizomatum, and S.
sanguineum), arrowleaf threeawn (Aristida purpurascens), lopsided
indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum), hairawn muhly (Muhlenbergia
capillaris), Florida white-top sedge (Rhynchospora floridensis),
pineland noseburn (Tragia saxicola), devil's potato (Echites
umbellata), pineland croton, several species of sandmats (Chamaesyce
spp.), partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), coontie (Zamia
pumila), and maidenhair pineland fern (Anemia adiantifolia). Rockland
hammock native vegetation includes, but is not limited to, a canopy

[[Page 49843]]

vegetated by gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), false tamarind (Lysiloma
latisiliquum), paradisetree (Simarouba glauca), black ironwood
(Krugiodendron ferreum), lancewood (Ocotea coriacea), Jamaican dogwood
(Piscidia piscipula), West Indies mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni), willow
bustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium), inkwood (Exothea paniculata),
strangler fig (Ficus aurea), pigeon plum(Coccoloba diversifolia),
poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum), buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus),
blolly (Guapira discolor), and devil's claw (Pisonia spp.); subcanopy
vegetation that may include, but is not limited to, Spanish stopper
(Eugenia foetida), Thrinax, torchwood (Amyris elemifera), marlberry
(Ardisia escallonioides), wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), Sabal,
gumbo limbo (Guaiacum sanctum), hog plum (Ximenia americana), and
Colubrina; and understory vegetation that may include, but is not
limited to, Zamia pumila, barbed-wire cactus (Acanthocereus
tetragonus), and basket grass (Oplismenus hirtellus).
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Subspecies
The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak continues to occur in habitats that
are protected from human-generated disturbances and are representative
of the butterflies' historical, geographical, and ecological
distribution, although its range has been reduced. The subspecies is
still found in its representative plant communities of pine rocklands.
Representative communities are located on Federal, State, local, and
private conservation lands that implement conservation measures
benefitting the butterfly.
Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of disturbance, most
importantly from natural or prescribed fires (Loope and Dunevitz 1981,
p. 5; Carlson et al. 1993, p. 914; Slocum et al. 2003, p. 93; Snyder et
al. 2005, p. 1; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4; Saha et al. 2011, pp. 169-
184; FNAI 2010, p. 1). These fires are a vital component in maintaining
native vegetation, such as croton, within this ecosystem. Without fire,
successional climax from tropical pineland to rockland hammock is too
rapid, and displacement of native species by invasive nonnative plants
often occurs. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
disturbance regimes, natural or prescribed to mimic natural
disturbances such as fire, to be a PBF for this subspecies.
The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, as with other subtropical
butterflies, have adapted over time to the influence of tropical storms
and other forms of adverse weather conditions (Minno and Emmel 1994, p.
671; Salvato and Salvato 2007, p. 154). Hurricanes and other
significant weather events create openings in the pine rockland habitat
(FNAI 2010, p. 3). However, given the substantial reduction in the
historical range of the butterfly in the past 50 years, the threat and
impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on their remaining populations
is much greater than when their distribution was more widespread
(Salvato and Salvato 2010a, p. 96; 2010c, p. 139). Therefore, based on
the information above, we identify disturbance regimes natural or
prescribed to mimic natural disturbances such as fire, to be a PBF for
this subspecies.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak
Butterfly

The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is dependent upon functioning pine
rockland habitat to provide its fundamental life requirements, such as
pineland croton for larval development, and food sources required by
adult butterflies. Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and
habitat characteristics required to sustain the butterfly's life-
history processes, we determine that the PCEs for the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak are:
(1) Pine rockland habitat, and in some instances, associated
rockland hammocks.
(a) Pine rockland habitat contains:
(i) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory;
(ii) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock; and
(iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(b) Rockland hammock habitat associated with the pine rocklands
contains:
(i) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory;
(ii) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone rock; and;
(iii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(2) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough to
have minimal effect on survival of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly.
(3) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton, in
sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food
resources, and for adult butterfly nectar source and reproduction;
(4) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, hurricanes, or
other weather events) that maintains the pine rockland habitat and
associated plant community.
(5) Pine rockland habitat and associated plant community that allow
for connectivity and are sufficient in size to sustain viable
populations of Bartram's scrub hairstreak butterfly.
(6) Pine rockland habitat with levels of pesticide low enough to
have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its ability to
occupy the habitat.

Special Management Considerations or Protection for Bartram's Scrub-
Hairstreak Butterfly

The special management considerations or protections for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, and the primary threats to the PBFs on
which the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak depends, are the same as those
described for the Florida leafwing above, except where noted below.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Development--The majority
of known mainland populations of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak occur
on publicly owned lands that are managed for conservation. In Miami-
Dade County, occupied Bartram's scrub-hairstreak habitat occurs in the
Long Pine Key region of ENP and is actively managed by the NPS for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and the pine rockland ecosystem, in general.
Outside of the ENP, extant occupied habitat for the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak occurs on lands owned by Miami-Dade County, University of
Miami, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which are managed for the conservation
of the pine rockland ecosystem ameliorating some of the threat.
Sea Level Rise--Based on modeling using best case scenario, which
assumes low sea level rise, high financial resources, proactive
planning, and only trending population growth, analyses suggest that
the Big Pine Key population of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak may be
lost or greatly reduced. Based upon the above assumptions, extant
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations on Big Pine Key and Long Pine
Key appear to be most susceptible to future losses attributed to
increases in sea level and human population. In the worst case
scenario, which assumes high sea level rise, low financial resources,
the habitat at Big Pine Key and Long Pine Key may be lost. Under the
worst case scenario, pine rockland habitat would remain

[[Page 49844]]

within Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the Richmond Pine Rocklands,
both of which currently retain Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations.
Proactively addressing sea level rise may be beyond the feasibility of
land owners or managers. However, while land owners or land managers
may not be able to be proactive in preventing these events, they may be
able to respond with management or protection. Management actions or
activities that could ameliorate sea level rise include providing
protection of suitable habitats unaffected or less affected by sea
level rise.
Lack of Natural or Prescribed Fires--The threat of habitat
destruction or modification is further exacerbated by lack of
prescribed fire and suppression of natural fires (Salvato and Salvato
2010a, p. 91; 2010c, p. 139). Historically, lightning-induced fires
were a vital component in maintaining native vegetation within the pine
rockland ecosystem, including pineland croton (Loope and Dunevitz 1981,
p. 5; Slocum et al. 2003, p. 93; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Salvato and
Salvato 2010b, p. 154). Resprouting after burns is the primary
mechanism allowing for the persistence of perennial shrubs, including
pineland croton, in pine habitat (Olson and Platt 1995, p. 101).
Without fire, perennial native vegetation can be displaced by invasive
nonnative plants.
In recent years, ENP has used partial and systematic prescribed
burns to treat the Long Pine Key pine rocklands in their entirety over
a 3-year window (NPS 2005, p. 27). These methods attempt to burn
adjacent pine rockland habitats alternately. In addition, refugia
(i.e., unburned areas of croton hostplant) have been included as part
of burns conducted within occupied butterfly habitat, wherever possible
(R. Anderson, pers. comm. 2011). Providing butterfly refugia habitat
directly within (as well as adjacent to) the treatment area during
prescribed burn activities may substantially increase the potential for
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak to recolonize recently burned areas and to
remain within or near the fire-treated pineland. Outside of ENP, Miami-
Dade County has implemented various conservation measures, such as
burning in a mosaic pattern and on a small scale, during prescribed
burns to protect the butterfly (Maguire, pers. comm. 2010).
Fire management of pine rocklands in NKDR is hampered by the
pattern of land ownership and development; residential and commercial
properties are embedded within or in close proximity to pineland
habitat (Snyder et al. 2005, p. 2; C. Anderson, pers. comm. 2012).
Ongoing management activities designed to ameliorate this threat
include the use of small-scale prescribed burns or mechanical clearing
to maintain the native vegetative structure in the pine rockland
required by the subspecies.
Mosquito Control Pesticide Applications--Efforts to control salt
marsh mosquitoes, Aedes taeniorhynchus, among others, have increased as
human activity and population have increased in south Florida. To
control mosquito populations, second-generation organophosphate (naled)
and pyrethroid (permethrin) adulticides are applied by mosquito control
districts throughout south Florida. The use of such pesticides (applied
using both aerial and ground-based methods) for mosquito control
presents a potential risk to nontarget species, such as the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak. Mosquito control pesticides use within Miami-Dade
County pine rockland areas is limited (approximately 2 to 4 times per
year, and only within a portion of proposed critical habitat) (Vasquez,
pers. comm. 2013) and no spraying is conducted in Long Pine Key within
ENP.
Pesticide spraying practices by the Mosquito Control District at
NKDR have changed to reduce pesticide use over the years. Since 2003
expanded larvicide treatments to surrounding islands have significantly
reduced adulticide use on BPK, No Name Key, and the Torch Keys. In
addition, the number of aerially applied naled treatments allowed on
NKDR has been limited since 2008 (FKMCD 2012, pp. 10-11). No spray
zones that include the core habitat used by pine rockland butterflies
and several linear miles of pine rockland habitat within the Refuge-
neighborhood interface were excluded from truck spray applications (C.
Anderson, pers. comm. 2012a; Service 2012, p. 32). These exclusions and
buffer zones encompass over 95 percent of extant croton distribution on
Big Pine Key, and include the majority of known extant and historical
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak population centers on the island (Salvato,
pers. comm. 2012). However, some areas of pine rocklands within NKDR
are still sprayed with naled (aerially applied adulticide), and buffer
zones remain at risk from drift; additionally, private residential
areas and roadsides across Big Pine Key are treated with permethrin
(ground-based applied adulticide) (Salvato 2001, p. 10). Therefore, the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak habitat on Big Pine Key is directly or
indirectly (via drift) exposed to adulticides used for mosquito control
at some level. Expansion of no-spray zones may aid in butterfly
dispersal within the pine rocklands of Big Pine Key.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for the Bartram's Scrub-
Hairstreak Butterfly

The criteria used to identify critical habitat for the Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak are the same as those discussed above for the Florida
leafwing, except where noted below.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area currently occupied i.e., occupied by the species at
the time of listing. 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.
Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization of Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak from other sites and result in extinction. Because of the
dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the
recovery of many rare butterfly species includes the creation of new
sites or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects. In addition,
establishing corridors or employing small patches (stepping stones) of
similar habitats have been shown to facilitate dispersal, reduce
extinction rates and increase gene flow of imperiled butterflies
(Schultz 1998, p. 291; Haddad 2000, pp. 739; 744; Haddad et al. 2003,
p. 614; Wells et al. 2009, p. 709). Leidner and Haddad (2010, pp. 2318-
2319) suggest that small natural areas within the urban landscape may
serve an important role in promoting butterfly dispersal and gene flow
in fragmented landscapes. Davis et al. (2007, p. 1351) and Bergman et
al. (2004, p. 625) indicate butterflies are capable of dispersing
throughout the landscape, sometimes as far as 5 km (3 miles), utilizing
high-quality habitat patches. Stepping stones may be particularly
useful to the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, which like most lycaenids,
exhibits low vagility, rarely venturing from the pine rockland habitat
or away from large areas of contiguous patches of hostplant.
Accordingly, realizing that the current occupied habitat is not
adequate for the conservation of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, we used
habitat and historical occurrence data to identify unoccupied habitat
essential for the conservation of the subspecies.
Only five extant Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations remain
within the subspecies' historical range. Total population estimates for
the Bartram's

[[Page 49845]]

scrub-hairstreak are estimated to be only several hundred or fewer at
any given time. Although these populations occur on conservation lands;
management and law enforcement are limited. We believe it is necessary
for conservation and recovery that additional populations of the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak be established within its historical range.
Therefore, we are proposing two critical habitat units in the Florida
Keys where appropriate hostplant-bearing habitat was historically
recorded, which has since been degraded and became unsuitable for
butterfly use. We believe that, given proper management and restoration
efforts, the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak may be able to be established
on these units, thereby providing an essential fortification of the
subspecies' metapopulation in the Florida Keys.
To determine the location and boundaries of critical habitat for
the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak, the Service used the following
information sources and considerations.
(1) Historical and current records of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
occurrence and distribution found in publications, reports and
associated voucher specimens housed at museums and private collections;
(2) IRC and FTG GIS data showing the location and extent of
documented occurrences of the pine rockland habitat with pineland
croton;
(3) Reports prepared by ecologists, biologists, and botanists with
the IRC, ENP, FTG, and Service assessing the current and historic
distribution of pine rockland habitat and pineland croton; and
(4) Historical records of pineland croton found in publications,
reports and associated voucher specimens housed at herbaria, all of
which are also referenced in the above-mentioned reports from the IRC
and cited publications.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

We have identified areas to include in this proposed designation by
applying the following considerations to the existing Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak habitats that contain PBFs.
The occupied critical habitat units were delineated around extant
populations. These units include the mapped extent of the population
and supporting habitat that contained the elements of the PBFs that
allow for population growth and expansion. In ENP, the distribution of
the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is across a larger area than at any
other single location. Outside of ENP, units are limited to three units
composed of pine rockland fragments within the current distribution of
the subspecies that contain the elements of the PBFs. These units
retain extant, localized Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations. The
units include only pine rocklands fragments that are at least 7 ha (18
ac) in size (which represents the minimum known extant population size)
and are currently occupied. On Big Pine Key, the distribution of the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is across all extant pine rocklands on the
island that contain the elements of the PBFs.
The delineation included space to plan for the persistence of the
current Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations in the face of imminent
effects on habitats as a result of sea level rise. Under the worst case
scenario for sea level rise (as discussed above in Special Management
Considerations or Protection), pine rockland habitat would remain at
both Navy Wells, Camp Owaissa Bauer, and the Richmond Pine Rocklands,
each of which retain Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations. However,
even in these areas, pine rocklands may be altered as a result of
vegetation shifts or salt water intrusion, at an extent to which cannot
be predicted at this time.
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the
subspecies at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries by evaluating habitat suitability of pine rockland habitat
within the geographic area occupied at the time of listing (current),
and retain those areas that contain some or all of the PCEs to support
life-history functions essential for conservation of the subspecies.

Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing

The Bartram's scrub-hairstreak has become extirpated from several
locations where it was previously recorded. We are proposing critical
habitat for those areas that are well-documented historic butterfly
locations (i.e., Big Pine Key, Long Pine Key, areas in Miami-Dade
County) (Smith et al. 1994, p. 118; Salvato and Hennessey 2004, p. 223)
and that maintain one or more of the PCEs or can be restored. Two units
are within the historical range of the butterfly, where the butterfly
is currently considered extirpated because there is a lack of specific
butterfly location documentation. These units contain pine rockland
habitat and are essential for the conservation of the subspecies,
because:
(1) Large contiguous parcels of habitat are more likely to be
resilient to ecological processes of disturbance and succession, and
support viable populations of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. However,
in Miami-Dade County, the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak is extant on
parcels as small as 7 ha (18 ac), which lay adjacent to larger pine
rocklands. Bartram's scrub-hairstreak populations may be able to
utilize these smaller fragments while dispersing between units.
Therefore, all pine rocklands fragments, at least 7 ha (18 ac) in size,
that are currently unoccupied and within 5 km (3 miles) of an extant
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak population within Miami-Dade County, were
identified as critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
(2) Areas are needed to maintain connectivity of habitat and aid
butterfly dispersal within and between occupied units (i.e. stepping
stones for dispersal). These areas maintain connectivity within and
between populations and allow for population expansion within the
butterfly's historical range.
(3) Areas are needed to allow the dynamic ecological nature of the
pine rockland habitat to continue. The abundance and distribution of
pineland croton within the pine rockland habitat varies greatly
throughout the range of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. At any one
time, only a portion of this habitat is optimally suitable for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and the size and location of suitable areas
is dynamic over time, being largely driven by the frequency and scale
of natural or prescribed fires. Historically lighting-induced fires
maintained native vegetation within the pine rockland ecosystem,
including pineland croton. Although prescribed burns are administered
on the majority of conservation lands which retain Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak populations, fire return intervals and scope are
inconsistent. In addition, little or no fire management occurs on
private lands. Thus, areas of pine rockland that now support the
subspecies, may not provide as optimal habitat in the future as fire
suppression and resultant succession removes or fragments hostplant
distribution. Conversely, hostplants may return or increase in areas
following prescribed fires, allowing the butterflies to expand or
colonize within them in the future.
In summary, we determined that the areas proposed outside the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing, but
that are within the historical range of the species, are essential to
the survival and recovery of the species. Essential areas are those
that maintain pine rockland habitat and are within the historical range
of the butterfly, where the butterfly has been

[[Page 49846]]

extirpated but where there are well-known specific or general
historical locations of the butterfly.
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. 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 PBFs in the adjacent critical habitat.
In summary, we are proposing areas for designation of critical
habitat that we have determined are occupied at the time of listing and
contain sufficient elements of physical or biological features to
support life-history processes essential for the conservation of the
species, and lands outside of the geographical area occupied at the
time of listing that we have determined are essential for the
conservation of the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly.
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 or 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-2013-0031, on our Internet
sites www.fws.gov/verobeach/, and at the field office responsible for
the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Bartram's Scrub-
Hairstreak Butterfly

Two of the seven units proposed for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak are
currently designated as critical habitat under the Act for other
species. Unit BSHB1--Everglades National Park, is currently designated
as critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus
maritimus mirabilis; 50 CFR 17.95(b)), and Unit BSHB2--Little Pine Key
is designated critical habitat for the silver rice rat (Oryzomys
palustris natator; 50 CFR 17.95(a)). No other critical habitat units
proposed for this butterfly have been designated as critical habitat
for other species under the Act.
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat
for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. The seven areas we propose as
critical habitat are: (1) BSHB1 Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, (2) BSHB2 Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, (3) BSHB3 Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, (4) BSHB4 Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida,
(5) BSHB5 Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida, (6) BSHB6 No Name Key,
Monroe County, Florida, and (7) BSHB7 Little Pine Key, Monroe County,
Florida. Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists
of Federal (75 percent), State (5 percent), and private and other (20
percent). Table 2 summarizes these units. Proposed critical habitat for
the Florida leafwing occurs entirely within Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
units BSHB1, BSHB2, BSHB4, and BSHB5.

Table 2--Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Proposed Critical Habitat Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit No. Unit name Ownership Percent Hectares Acres Occupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSHB1........................ Everglades Federal......... 100 2,313 5,716 yes.
National Park.
Total........... 100 2,313 5,716
BSHB2........................ Navy Wells State........... 30 62 153 yes.
Pineland
Preserve.
Private-Other... 70 141 349
Total........... 100 203 502
BSHB3........................ Camp Owaissa State........... 20 29 71 yes.
Bauer.
Private-Other... 80 117 288
Total........... 100 146 359
BSHB4........................ Richmond Pine Federal......... 11 50 122 yes.
Rocklands.
State........... 7 32 79
Private-Other... 82 356 881
Total 100 438 1082
BSHB5........................ Big Pine Key.... Federal......... 65 365 901 yes.
State........... 16 90 223
Private-Other... 19 104 258
Total........... 100 559 1,382
BSHB6........................ No Name Key..... Federal......... 75 30 75 no.
State........... 18 9 22
Private-Other... 7 11 26
Total........... 100 50 123
BSHB7........................ Little Pine Key. Federal......... 100 39 97 no.
Total........... 100 39 97
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal......... 75 2,797 6,911
----------------------------------------------------------
All Units State........... 5 222 548
----------------------------------------------------------
Private-Other... 20 729 1,802
----------------------------------------------------------
All............. 100 3,748 9,261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

[[Page 49847]]

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak, below.

Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park Miami-Dade County, Florida

Unit BSHB1 consists of 2,313 ha (5,716 ac) in Miami-Dade County.
This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100
percent of which are located within the Lone Pine Key region of ENP.
This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and
contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat (pine rockland
habitat of sufficient size), hostplant presence, natural or artificial
disturbance regimes, low levels of nonnative vegetation and larval
parasitism, hostplant, and restriction of pesticides and contains the
PCE of pine rockland. The PBFs in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats of fire
suppression, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise.
However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated
with the NPS to implement needed actions.
ENP is currently in the process of updating its FMP and
Environmental Assessment, which will assess the impacts of fire on
various environmental factors, including listed, proposed, and
candidate species (Land, pers. comm. 2011; Sadle, pers. comm. 2013a).
ENP is actively coordinating with the Service, as well as other members
of the IBWG to review and adjust the prescribed burn practices outlined
in the FMP to help maintain or increase Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
population sizes, protect pine rocklands, expand or restore remnant
patches of hostplants and ensure that short-term negative effects from
fire (i.e., loss of hostplants, loss of eggs and larvae) can be avoided
or minimized.

Unit BSHB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Unit BSHB2 consists of 203 ha (502 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit comprises lands in State (62 ha (153 ac)) and private or other
(141 ha (349 ac)) ownership. The 120-ha (296-ac) Navy Wells Pineland
Preserve is jointly owned by Miami-Dade County (85 ha (211 ac)) and the
State (35 ha (85 ac)). State lands are interspersed within Miami-Dade
County Parks and Recreation Department lands, which are managed for
conservation.
This unit begins in Homestead, Florida, on SW 304 Street, between
SW 198 Avenue to SW 204 Avenue, then resumes between SW 340 Street and
SW 344 Street, between SW 213 Avenue and SW 214 Avenue, then resumes
between SW 344 Street and SW 360 Street on SW 209 Avenue, then resumes
along SW 268 Street, between SW 202 Avenue and SW 205 Avenue, then
resumes along SW 360 Street, between SW 202 Avenue and SW 188 Avenue,
then resumes between SW 7 Street and SW 158 Street, in the vicinity of
SW 180 Avenue, then resumes along Palm Drive and SW 3 Terrace, between
SW 6 Avenue and SW 8 Avenue.
This unit is occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and
contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult
food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and restriction of
pesticides and contains pine rockland and rockland hammock PCEs. The
PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of fire suppression, habitat
fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed actions.

Unit BSHB3: Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Unit BSHB3 consists of 146 ha (359 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit is comprised of lands in State (29 ha (71 ac)), private or other
(117 ha (288 ac)) ownership of which one large fragment (40 ha (99 ac)
is owned by Miami-Dade County-Camp Owaissa Bauer). State lands are
interspersed within Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department
lands, which are managed for conservation.
This unit begins in Homestead, Florida, on SW 147 Ave, between SW
216 Street and SW 200 Street, then resumes on both sides of SW 157
Avenue, between SW 216 Street and SW 228 Street, then resumes along SW
232 Street, between SW 142 Avenue and SW 144 Avenue, then continues
south of SW 232 Street along both sides of SW 142 Ave to SW 248 Street,
then resumes along SW 248 Street, south to SW 256 Street, between SW
244 Avenue and the vicinity of SW 157 Avenue, then resumes along SW 240
Street, north to the vicinity of SW 238 Street, between SW 152 Avenue
and SW 147 Avenue, then resumes between of SW 264 Street and SW 272
Street, along both sides of SW 155 Avenue, then resumes along both
sides of SW 264 Street in the vicinity of SW 262 Avenue.
This unit is occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak and
contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult
food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and restriction of
pesticides required by the subspecies and contains pine rockland and
rockland hammock PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats of fire
suppression, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise.
However, in most cases these threats are being addressed or coordinated
with our partners and landowners to implement needed actions.

Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Unit BSHB4 consists of 438 ha (1,082 ac) in Miami-Dade County. This
unit comprises lands in both Federal (U. S. Coast Guard (Homeland
Security) (29 ha (72 ac)), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (DoD) (8 ha (20
ac)), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (4 ha (9 ac)),
Federal Bureau of Prisons (Department of Justice (DoJ) (9 ha (21 ac)),
State (32 ha (79 ac)), and private or other (356 ha (881 ac))
ownership. The unit includes some of the largest remaining contiguous
fragments of pine rockland habitats outside of ENP known to be occupied
by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
This unit begins in Miami, Florida, at SW 120 Street, north to SW
112 Street, between SW 142 Avenue and the vicinity of SW 137 Avenue,
then resumes along SW 124 Street south to SW 128 Street between SW127
Avenue and the vicinity of SW 137 Avenue, then resumes in the vicinity
of SW 136 Street and SW 122 Avenue, then resumes on Coral Reef Road
(State Road 992) south to SW 168 Street, between US 1 and SW 117
Avenue, then resumes from Coral Reef Road south to SW 184 Street,
between US 1 and SW 137 Avenue.
This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
and contains all the PBFs, including suitable habitat, hostplant, adult
food sources, breeding sites, disturbance regimes, and restriction of
pesticides and contains pine rockland and rockland hammock PCEs. The
PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of fire suppression, habitat
fragmentation, poaching, and sea level rise. However, in most cases
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed actions. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers lands do not have an integrated natural resources management
plan (INRMP) or other natural resource management plan.

[[Page 49848]]

Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida

Unit BSHB5 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in Monroe County. This
unit includes Federal lands within National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) (365
ha (901 ac)), State (90 ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other
(104 ha (258 ac)) ownership. State lands are interspersed within NKDR
lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
The unit begins on northern Big Pine Key on the southern side of
Gulf Boulevard, continues south on both sides of Key Deer Boulevard
(County Road 940 (CR 940)) to the vicinity of Osprey Lane on the
western side of CR 940 and Tea Lane to the east of CR 940, then resumes
on both sides of CR 940 from Osprey Lane to rest south of the vicinity
of Driftwood Lane, then resumes south of Osceola Street, between Fern
Avenue to the west and Baba Lane to the east, then resumes north of
Watson Boulevard in the vicinity of Avenue C, then continues south on
both sides of Avenue C to South Street, then resumes on both sides of
CR 940 south to US 1 between Ships Way to the west and Sands Street to
the east, then resumes south of US 1 from Newfound Boulevard to the
west and Deer Run Trail to the east, then resumes south of US 1 from
Palomino Horse Trail to the west and Industrial Road to the east.
This unit is currently occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
This unit contains three of the PBFs, including suitable habitat,
hostplant, adult food sources, and breeding sites required by the
subspecies, and contains pine rockland and rockland hammock PCEs. The
PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of disturbance regimes (fire), and
pesticide applications, as well as habitat fragmentation, poaching, and
sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement
needed actions.

Unit BSHB6: No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida

Unit BSHB6 consists of 50 ha (123 ac) in Monroe County. This unit
includes Federal lands within National Key Deer Refuge (30 ha (75 ac)),
State (9 ha (22 ac)), and property in private or other ownership (11 ha
(26 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR lands and managed as
part of the Refuge. The unit extends from Watson Road entirely on
National Key Deer Refuge lands just south of the vicinity of Spanish
Channel Drive eastward to the vicinity of Paradise Drive, then resumes
north of Watson Road from No Name Drive east to Paradise Lane.
This unit is not currently occupied by the Bartram's scrub-
hairstreak but is essential to the conservation of the subspecies
because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies,
reestablish wild populations within the historical range of the
subspecies, and maintain populations throughout the historical
distribution of the subspecies in the Florida Keys, and provides area
for recovery in the case of stochastic events that otherwise hold the
potential to eliminate the subspecies from the one or more locations
where it is presently found. The Lower Key Refuges, CCP management
objective number 11 provides specifically for maintaining and restoring
butterfly populations of special conservation concern, including the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.

Unit BSHB7: Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida

Unit BSHB7 consists of 39 ha (97 ac) in Monroe County. This unit
comprises entirely lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which are
located within National Key Deer Refuge. This unit is not currently
occupied by the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak but is essential to the
conservation of the subspecies because it serves to protect habitat
needed to recover the subspecies, reestablish wild populations within
the historical range of the subspecies, and maintain populations
throughout the historical distribution of the subspecies in the Florida
Keys, and it provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic
events that otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the subspecies
from one or more locations where it is presently found. The Lower Key
Refuges, CCP management objective number 11 provides specifically for
maintaining and restoring butterfly populations of special conservation
concern, including the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

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

[[Page 49849]]

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 the Florida leafwing and
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. As discussed above, the role of critical
habitat is to support life-history needs of these butterflies and
provide for the conservation of these subspecies.
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 Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak.
These activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the pine rockland and
associated rockland hammock ecosystem. Such activities may include, but
are not limited to, residential, commercial, or recreational
development including associated infrastructure.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition, such as natural fire suppression or excessive prescribed
burning, clearing vegetation for construction of residential,
commercial, or recreational development, and associated infrastructure.
(3) Actions that would introduce nonnative plant species that would
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and
commercial development, and associated infrastructure.
(4) Actions that would introduce nonnative arthropod species that
would significantly influence the natural histories of the Florida
leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. Such activities may include
release of parasitic or predator species (flies or wasps) for use in
agriculture-based biological control programs.
(5) Actions that would introduce chemical pesticides into the pine
rockland and associated rockland hammock ecosystem in a manner that
impacts the butterflies. Such activities may include use of adulticides
for control of mosquitos or agricultural-related pests.

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 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 Department of Defense lands within the
critical habitat designation area; however, none of the lands are
covered by an INRMP. Accordingly, no lands that otherwise meet the
definition of critical habitat are exempt under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i).

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he 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.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors. The draft economic analysis will be made available for public
comment.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider
economic impacts based on information in our economic analysis, public
comments, and other new information, and areas

[[Page 49850]]

may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.

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 some lands within the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak are owned or managed by the Department of Defense and
the Department of Homeland Security. However, 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-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this proposed rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Florida leafwing
and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. An HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys in
Monroe County, Florida, which was implemented in 2006, did not address
the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak. However, in order
to fulfill the HCP's mitigation requirements Monroe County has been
actively acquiring parcels of high-quality pine rockland and placing
them into conservation. These conservation actions have benefited the
Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak by protecting habitat.
However, we anticipate no impact on the HCP from this proposed critical
habitat designation. Furthermore, the proposed designation does not
include any tribal lands or additional trust resources so we anticipate
no impact on tribal lands or partnerships from this proposed critical
habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary does not intend to
exercise his 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 proposed listing and critical habitat designation are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited
these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget 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. Executive Order 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 forestry and logging
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking only on those

[[Page 49851]]

entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and not the
potential impacts to indirectly affected 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, 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. Therefore,
because Federal agencies are not small entities, the Service may
certify that the proposed critical habitat rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation does
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to
ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects of this
proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat will only directly regulate Federal
agencies which are not by definition small business entities. And as
such, we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical
habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily
required by the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal
we will consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties
that may be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies
related to this action.

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 expect the designation of this proposed
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and
no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted.

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 proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We lack the available economic information to determine if a
Small Government Agency Plan is required. Therefore, we defer this
finding until completion of the draft economic analysis is prepared
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

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 completed the economic
analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic analysis is
available, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as
warranted, and prepare a Takings Implication Assessment.

[[Page 49852]]

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 requested
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 and 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 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 (NEPA: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no tribal lands that are currently
occupied by the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak that
contain the features essential for conservation of these subspecies,
and no tribal lands unoccupied by the Florida leafwing and Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak that are essential for the conservation of these
subspecies. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical
habitat for the Florida leafwing and Bartram's scrub-hairstreak on
tribal lands.

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 the ADDRESSES section. 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 Field 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:

[[Page 49853]]

PART 17-- ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by adding an entry for
``Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (Strymon acis bartrami)'' after
the entry for ``Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus)'' and an entry for ``Florida Leafwing Butterfly
(Anaea troglodyta floridalis)'' after the entry for ``Fender's Blue
Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi)'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Bartram's Scrub-hairstreak Butterfly (Strymon acis bartrami)
(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 the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak are:
(i) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some instances,
associated rockland hammocks.
(A) Pine rockland habitat contains:
(1) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory
(2) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(B) Rockland hammock habitat associated with the pine rocklands
contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory.
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(ii) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough
to have minimal effect on survival of Bartram's scrub-hairstreak
butterfly.
(iii) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton,
in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food
resources, and for adult butterfly nectar source and reproduction;
(iv) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g. fire, hurricanes or other
weather events) that maintains the pine rockland habitat and associated
plant community.
(v) Pine rockland habitat and associated plant community that allow
for connectivity and are sufficient in size to sustain viable
populations of Bartram's scrub hairstreak butterfly.
(vi) Pine rockland habitat with levels of pesticide low enough to
have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its ability to
occupy the habitat.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
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 the size of habitat areas. 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 (http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/),
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031 and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map of all critical habitat units for Bartram's
scrub-hairstreak follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 49854]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.006

(6) Note: Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB1 consists of 2,313 ha (5,716 ac)
in Miami-Dade County and is composed entirely of lands in Federal
ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the Long Pine Key
region of Everglades National Park.
(ii) Index map of Unit BSHB1 follows:

[[Page 49855]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.007

(A) Map A of Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade
County, Florida follows:

[[Page 49856]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.008

(B) Map B of Unit BSHB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade
County, Florida follows:

[[Page 49857]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.009

[[Page 49858]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.010

(7) Unit BSHB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB2 consists of 203 ha (502 ac) in
Miami-Dade County and is composed of lands in State (62 ha (153 ac)),
and private or other ownership (141 ha (349 ac)) including the County
and State-owned Navy Wells Pineland Preserve.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB2 follows:

[[Page 49859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.011

(8) Unit BSHB3: Camp Owaissa Bauer, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit BSHB3 consists of 146 ha (9359 ac))
in Miami-Dade County and is comprised of lands in State (29 ha (71
ac)), private or other ownership (117 ha (288 ac)) including 40 ha (99
ac) Miami-Dade County-owned Camp Owaissa Bauer.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB3 follows:

[[Page 49860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.012

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(9) Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit BSHB4 consists of 438 ha (1,082 ac)
in Miami-Dade County and is composed of lands in Federal (U.S. Coast
Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (50 ha (122 ac)), State
(32 ha (79 ac)) and private or other (356 ha (881 ac)) ownership.
(ii) Index map of Unit BSHB4 follows:

[[Page 49861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.013

(A) Map A of Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade
County, Florida follows:

[[Page 49862]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.014

(B) Map B of Unit BSHB4: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade
County, Florida follows:

[[Page 49863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.015

[[Page 49864]]

(10) Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General description: Unit BSHB5 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac)
in Monroe County and is composed of lands in National Key Deer Refuge
(365 ha (901 ac)), State ownership (90 ha (223 ac)), and private or
other ownership (104 ha (258 ac)). State lands are interspersed within
NKDR lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
(ii) Index Map of Unit BSHB5: follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.016

[[Page 49865]]

(A) Map A of Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.017

[[Page 49866]]

(B) Map B of Unit BSHB5: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.018

[[Page 49867]]

(11) Unit BSHB6: No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit BSHB6 consists of 50 ha (123 ac) in
Monroe County and is composed of lands in National Key Deer Refuge (30
ha (75 ac)), State ownership (9 ha (22 ac)), and private or other
ownership (11 ha (26 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR
lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB6: No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.019

[[Page 49868]]

(12) Unit BSHB 7: Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit BSHB7 consists of 39 ha (97 ac) in
Monroe County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal
ownership, 100 percent of which are located within National Key Deer
Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit BSHB7: Little Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.020

* * * * *
Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis)
(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 the
Florida leafwing butterfly consist of six components:
(i) Areas of pine rockland habitat, and in some locations,
associated rockland hammocks.
(A) Pine rockland habitat contains:
(1) Open canopy, semi-open subcanopy, and understory.
(2) Substrate of oolitic limestone rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(B) Rockland hammock habitat associated with the pine rocklands
contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory.
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone rock.
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation.
(ii) Competitive nonnative plant species in quantities low enough
to have minimal effect on survival of the Florida leafwing.
(iii) The presence of the butterfly's hostplant, pineland croton,
in sufficient abundance for larval recruitment, development, and food
resources and for adult butterfly roosting habitat and reproduction.
(iv) A dynamic natural disturbance regime or one that artificially
duplicates natural ecological processes (e.g. fire, hurricanes or other
weather events, at 3- to 5-year intervals) that maintains the pine
rockland habitat and associated plant community.
(v) Pine rockland habitat and associated plant community sufficient

[[Page 49869]]

in size to sustain viable Florida leafwing populations.
(vi) Pine rockland habitat with levels of pesticide low enough to
have minimal effect on the survival of the butterfly or its ability to
occupy the habitat.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
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 the size of habitat areas. 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 (http://www.fws.gov/verobeach),
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0031), and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map of all critical habitat units for Florida
leafwing follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.021

[[Page 49870]]

(6) Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit FLB1 consists of 2,313 ha (5,716 ac)
composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which
are located within the Long Pine Key region of Everglades National
Park.
(ii) Index map of Unit FLB1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.022

[[Page 49871]]

(A) Map A of Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.023

[[Page 49872]]

(B) Map B of Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.024

[[Page 49873]]

(C) Map C of Unit FLB1: Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.025

(7) Unit FLB2: Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) General description: Unit FLB2 consists of 120 ha (296 ac) in
Miami-Dade County composed entirely of lands in Miami-Dade County
ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the Navy Wells
Pineland Preserve.
(ii) Index map of Unit FLB2 follows:

[[Page 49874]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.026

(8) Unit FLB3: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit FLB3 consists of 359 ha (889 ac) in
Miami-Dade County composed of lands in Federal (U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (50 ha (122 ac)) and private or
other (309 ha (767 ac)) ownership.
(ii) Index map of Unit FLB3 follows:

[[Page 49875]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.027

(9) Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) General Description: Unit FLB4 consists of 559 ha (1,382 ac) in
Monroe County composed of National Key Deer Refuge (365 ha (901 ac)),
State lands (90 ha (223 ac)), and property in private or other
ownership (104 ha (258 ac)). State lands are interspersed within NKDR
lands and managed as part of the Refuge.
(ii) Index map of Unit FLB4 follows:

[[Page 49876]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.028

(A) Note: Map A of Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida,
follows:

[[Page 49877]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.029

(B) Note: Map B of Unit FLB4: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida,
follows:

[[Page 49878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU13.030

* * * * *

Dated: August 6, 2013.
Michael Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-19793 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C