[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65124-65160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17271]
[[Page 65123]]
Vol. 89
Thursday,
No. 153
August 8, 2024
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Cedar Key Mole Skink and Designation of Critical Habitat;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65124]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH41
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Cedar Key Mole Skink and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Cedar Key mole skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis), a lizard
subspecies from the Cedar Keys, Florida, as an endangered species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of
the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing this subspecies is warranted. We also propose to designate
critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink under the Act. In total,
approximately 2,713 acres (1,098 hectares) in Levy County, Cedar Keys,
Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat
designation. In addition, we announce the availability of an economic
analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cedar
Key mole skink. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend
the Act's protections to this subspecies and its designated critical
habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 7, 2024. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by September 23, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library and at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2024-0053. For the proposed critical habitat designation, the
coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated
are included in the decision file for this critical habitat designation
and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2024-0053 and on the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Division Manager,
Classification and Recovery, Florida Ecological Services Field Office,
7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517;
[email protected]; telephone 352-749-2462. Individuals in the United
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Please see Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. We have determined that the Cedar Key mole skink
meets the Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are
proposing to list it as endangered and proposing a designation of its
critical habitat. Both listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species and making a critical habitat designation can be completed only
by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking
process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose to list the Cedar Key mole
skink as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose the
designation of critical habitat for the subspecies.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the Cedar Key mole skink
is endangered due to threats associated with climate change,
specifically sea level rise, increased high tide flooding, and
increased intensity of storm events (Factor E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species.
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.
[[Page 65125]]
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The subspecies' biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the subspecies,
including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this subspecies;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the subspecies,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
subspecies, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or humanmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this subspecies; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this subspecies.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this subspecies.
(4) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Cedar Key mole skink habitat;
(b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the
subspecies, the Cedar Keys in Levy County, Florida, that should be
included in the critical habitat designation because they (i) are
occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or biological
feature that is essential to the conservation of the subspecies and
that may require special management considerations or protection, or
(ii) are unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in the critical habitat areas we are proposing, including
managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) Whether areas not occupied at the time of listing qualify as
habitat for the species and are essential for the conservation of the
species.
(5) Land use designations and current or planned activities and
their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(7) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of
the likely economic impacts and any additional information regarding
probable economic impacts that we should consider.
(8) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think we should exclude any
additional areas, please provide information supporting a benefit of
exclusion.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2)
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after the publication of
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and, if
relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that
the subspecies is threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude
that the subspecies does not warrant listing as either an endangered
species or a threatened species. For critical habitat, our final
designation may not include all areas proposed, may include some
additional areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, or may
exclude some areas if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion and exclusion will not result in the extinction
of the subspecies. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our
rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made
changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public
[[Page 65126]]
hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list the Cedar Key mole skink as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. On July 1, 2015, we published in
the Federal Register (80 FR 37568) a 90-day finding that the petition
provided substantial information indicating that listing the Cedar Key
mole skink may be warranted. On December 19, 2018, we published in the
Federal Register (83 FR 65127) a 12-month finding that the Cedar Key
mole skink did not warrant listing under the Act. On January 26, 2022,
the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the Service,
alleging the Service did not use the best available scientific data
regarding sea level rise and its impacts to Cedar Key mole skink
habitat in its 12-month finding. In May 2022, the Service agreed to
submit a new finding to the Federal Register by July 31, 2024. This
finding and proposed rule reflect the updated assessment of the status
of the Cedar Key mole skink based on the best available science,
including an updated species status assessment for the subspecies
(Service 2023, entire).
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Cedar Key mole skink. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the subspecies, including the
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the subspecies.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent
scientific review of the information contained in the Cedar Key mole
skink SSA report. We sent the SSA report to six independent peer
reviewers and received one response. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services. In preparing this
proposed rule, we incorporated the results of this review, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from one
peer reviewer on the draft SSA report. We reviewed the comments for
substantive issues and new information regarding the contents of the
SSA report. The peer reviewer generally concurred with our methods and
conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and
suggestions, including clarifications in terminology and other
editorial suggestions.
The peer reviewer suggested that our statement that ``rafting is
rare, but does occur'' was inappropriate. The peer reviewer noted that
there is no evidence that rafting occurs in the Cedar Key mole skink
(or any mole skink subspecies) and that, in fact, genetic evidence
suggests the opposite (that there is no movement of mole skinks among
islands). We updated the SSA report to indicate that rafting is
unlikely.
The peer reviewer also commented that our analysis of ``potential
habitat'' on the two developed islands, Way Key and Airstrip Island,
was an overrepresentation of the amount of habitat truly available to
the Cedar Key mole skink. In our initial analysis, we included high
intensity and low intensity urban data layers for these islands as part
of our calculation of potential habitat available because skinks have
been found in backyards, in parking lots, along roadsides, and in other
disturbed or developed areas. However, these data layers also included
roads, buildings, and other developed areas, which are not considered
habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink. As a result, our use of these
data layers increased what we had identified as potential habitat on
Airport Island from 1.00 acre (0.40 hectares) to 52.43 acres (21.0
hectares), and on Way Key from 2.65 acres (1.07 hectares) to 266.14
acres (107.70 hectares). We agree with the peer reviewer that the use
of the urban areas in our analysis overestimated the amount of habitat
truly available to the Cedar Key mole skink. Thus, we restricted our
analysis of these two islands to only include the preferred habitat
data layers that included beaches, dunes, and coastal hammock. We
included the additional analysis focused on high-intensity and low-
intensity urban areas on Way Key and Airport Island as part of appendix
A in the SSA report.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Cedar Key mole skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) is presented in
the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 2-16). The Cedar Key mole skink is
one of five distinct subspecies of mole skinks in Florida, all in the
genus Plestiodon (previously Eumeces) (Brandley et al. 2005, pp. 387-
388), and is endemic to the Cedar Keys, Florida. This subspecies
represents a unique genetic lineage that is distinct from the other
four mole skink subspecies (Brandley et al. 2005, pp. 387-388;
Parkinson et al. 2016, entire). The Cedar Key mole skink is the largest
of the five subspecies, approaching 15 centimeters (5.9 inches), with
the tail accounting for two-thirds of the length.
The Cedar Key mole skink is semi-fossorial (adapted to digging,
burrowing, and living underground) and cryptic in nature. The Cedar Key
mole skink is a cold-blooded reptile and therefore highly dependent air
and soil temperature to thermoregulate (maintain body core temperature)
(Mount 1963, p. 362). Ground cover moderates soil temperatures and
provides shade to assist in the skinks' thermoregulation in hot
climate. The optimum temperature range for the mole skink species
(Plestiodon egregius) is 26 to 34 degrees Celsius (C) (78.8 to 93.2
degrees Fahrenheit (F)) with a mean of 29.5 C (85.1 F) (Mount 1963, p.
363). Mole skinks are considered thermoconformers, lacking the capacity
to adjust or regulate to changes in temperature outside of this stable
and relatively narrow thermal range in which it occurs (Gallagher et al
2015, p. 62).
The specific diet of Cedar Key mole skink is unknown, but in
general, skinks in the genus Plestiodon are known to eat ants, spiders,
crickets, beetles, termites, small bugs, mites, and butterfly larva
(Hamilton and Pollack 1958, p, 26). Native snakes are considered
natural predators of mole skinks (Hamilton and Pollack 1958, p. 28,
Mount 1963, p. 356) and domestic and feral cats on some islands in the
Cedar Keys are known to prey on skink populations (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission (FWC) 2013, p.5). The Cedar Key mole skink relies
on dry, unconsolidated soils for movement, cover, and nesting, and it
needs detritus, leaves, wrack, and other ground cover for shelter,
temperature regulation, and food (insects and arthropods found in
ground cover).
The Cedar Keys are a coastal complex of islands, tidal creeks,
bays, and salt marsh, located along 10 miles (16 kilometers) of
Florida's central Gulf of Mexico coast in Levy County. The Cedar Key
mole skink has been found in small numbers on 10 islands of the Cedar
[[Page 65127]]
Keys archipelago (see figure 1, below). Eight of these islands are
currently considered occupied (skink detections documented between 2000
to 2022), and two of these islands are considered to have uncertain
status (skink detections documented prior to 1999, but not resurveyed)
(Mount 1963, entire; Mount 1965 entire; FWC 2023, entire). In total,
215 Cedar Key mole skinks have been detected, with 62 individuals
documented since 2000. Within this limited range, the Cedar Key mole
skink is found most frequently in sand beach and coastal dune habitats.
The estimated home range of a Cedar Key mole skink is approximately a
328-ft (100-meter) radius (Service 2023, p. 12).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.017
[[Page 65128]]
The Cedar Keys archipelago is a relatively small coastal ecosystem
of 30 or more, mostly undeveloped islands of varying size and
elevations. Of the eight current islands with known Cedar Key mole
skink occurrence, only one island, Airstrip Island, is developed. Deer
Island, also occupied by the Cedar Key mole skink, is privately owned
with one dwelling and could be further developed with a small number of
(off-the-grid) dwellings. Way Key, the largest island within the Cedar
Keys, where the City of Cedar Key is located, is mostly developed, but
the Cedar Key mole skink population status there is uncertain. The
remaining islands with known populations of the Cedar Key mole skink
are undeveloped and largely protected as part of the Cedar Keys
National Wildlife Refuge. There are other islands of the Cedar Keys
archipelago that contain suitable habitat and soils for the Cedar Key
mole skink, but they have unknown occupancy due to lack of survey
efforts. Many of these islands are also protected as conservation
lands, and some are privately owned (all or in part) but remain
undeveloped.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, we issued a final rule that revised the regulations
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same
day, we published a final rule revising our protections for endangered
species and threatened species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919). These final
rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the current
regulations.
The Act defines a ``species'' as including any subspecies of fish
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards within the Act and its
implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the Cedar Key mole skink's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the subspecies to withstand environmental
and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years);
[[Page 65129]]
redundancy is the ability of the subspecies to withstand catastrophic
events (for example, droughts, large pollution events); and
representation is the ability of the subspecies to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, the
subspecies' viability will increase with increases in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation. Using these principles, we identified
the subspecies' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction
at the individual, population, and subspecies levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the subspecies' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the subspecies' individual and
population life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of
the historical and current condition of the subspecies' demographics
and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the
subspecies arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA
involved making predictions about the subspecies' responses to positive
and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all
of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of the subspecies to sustain populations in
the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory
decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2024-0053 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
subspecies and its resources, and the threats that influence the
subspecies' current and future condition, in order to assess the
subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
Subspecies Needs
The SSA report contains a detailed discussion of the Cedar Key mole
skink's individual and population requirements (Service 2023, pp. 2-
16); we provide a summary here. Based upon the best available
scientific and commercial information, and acknowledging existing
ecological uncertainties, the resource and demographic needs for
breeding, feeding, sheltering, and dispersal of the Cedar Key mole
skink are characterized as:
Beaches, dunes, and coastal hammock habitats that provide
ground cover in the form of leaf litter and wrack material, that the
Cedar Key mole skink needs for nesting, arthropod and insect food
sources, and cover; and
Dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable (crumbly in
texture) soils for digging of nest cavities and movement, as all
portions of the Cedar Key mole skink's life cycle occur within or on
the surface of the soil.
The Cedar Key mole skink's abundance, distribution, and life-
history behaviors (e.g., nesting, breeding) are limited to, and defined
by, the availability of these resources in the areas of beach, dune,
and coastal hammock habitats.
Threats
The main threats affecting the Cedar Key mole skink are related to
shifts in climate as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding (increase of tides above
the mean high tide), and increasing intensity of storm events (such as
hurricanes) are the predominant threats to the Cedar Key mole skink and
its habitat. We also evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms and
ongoing conservation measures. In the SSA report, we considered
additional threats: habitat loss and degradation that result from
development and habitat disturbance; overutilization due to
recreational, educational, and scientific use; disease; oil spills; and
nonnative species. We concluded that, as indicated by the best
available scientific and commercial information, these additional
threats are currently having little to no impact on the Cedar Key mole
skink, and thus their overall effect now and into the future is
expected to be minimal. For full descriptions of all threats and how
they impact the Cedar Key mole skink, please see the SSA report
(Service 2023, pp. 16-31).
Climate Change
The predominant threats currently affecting the Cedar Key mole
skink and its habitat are the rapid and intense shifts in climate
occurring as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The
entire Cedar Key archipelago is being affected by sea level rise, more
frequent high tide flooding, and increased intensity of tropical storms
and hurricanes. In the SSA report and this proposed rule, we discuss
the effects of climate change on the Cedar Key mole skink in terms of
increasing sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding, and increased
intensity of storm events.
Sea level rise--Within Florida, sea level rise is increasing at a
faster rate than globally, making this subspecies especially vulnerable
to impacts from sea level rise across its entire range (Carter et al.
2014, pp. 401-403; Park and Sweet 2015, entire; Sweet et al. 2017, p.
25). Accelerated sea level rise in Florida is attributed to shifts in
the Florida Current due to added ocean mass brought on by the melting
Antarctic and Greenland ice packs and thermal expansion from warming
oceans (Park and Sweet 2015, entire; Rahmstorf et al. 2015, entire;
Deconto and Pollard 2016, p. 596; Sweet et al. 2017, p. 14). Tidal
gauges around Florida have shown approximately 25 centimeters (10
inches) of sea level rise since 1920. However, from 2006 to 2016 alone,
there was a 12-centimeter (5-inch) sea level rise in southeast Florida
(Sweet et al. 2017, p. 41; SeaLevelRise.org 2023, p. 1).
The majority of the Cedar Keys are low-lying sandy islands (see
table 1, below), making them highly susceptible to erosion and
flooding, and at risk of inundation and saltwater intrusion (Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 2012, p. 12; U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 2017, unpaginated). As sea level rises, Cedar
Key mole skink habitat becomes inundated and unusable due to saturation
of the soils or direct loss of habitat. The Cedar Key mole skink
utilizes coastal beach habitat and coastal maritime hammock habitat
during all of its life stages, making it especially vulnerable to
current and projected sea level rise across its entire range. The
effects of rising sea levels (loss of beach habitat, coastal flooding,
and saltwater intrusion) are currently being experienced along
Florida's Gulf Coast, including the Cedar Keys, and these effects are
projected to continue (see table 1, below; Carter et al. 2014, pp. 398-
400, 403; Wadlow 2016, entire; SeaLevelRise.org 2023, p. 1).
High tide flooding--One of the most noticeable impacts from sea
level rise is the increased frequency of high tide flooding (Sweet et
al. 2020, p. v). High tide flooding begins when coastal water levels
exceed the mean higher high-water level (increase of tides above the
mean high tide) (Sweet et al. 2014, entire). Frequent flooding above
the high tide line causes flooded areas to become unusable to the Cedar
Key mole skink (individuals cannot easily move through wet sand;
individuals or nests will be washed away). High tide flooding can
result in beach erosion and
[[Page 65130]]
salinization of soils, even if high tide flooding is infrequent (Saha
et al. 2011a, pp. 181-182; Saha et al. 2011b, pp. 82-84; Sweet et al.
2020, pp. 1-4). Over time, habitat that is frequently impacted by high
tide flooding is degraded as it becomes more intertidal, even prior to
sea level rise inundation. Thus, high tide flooding is likely to result
in removal of habitat, displacement of individuals landward to less
suitable habitat, and potential loss of individual Cedar Key mole
skinks due to drowning. Cedar Key mole skink populations are especially
vulnerable when these impacts occur repeatedly without time to recover.
Currently, the national high tide flooding frequency is estimated at 5
days per year and is projected to increase to 7 to 15 days by 2030, and
to 25 to 75 days by 2050, in much of coastal Florida and the Cedar Keys
(Sweet et al. 2021, pp. 9-10).
Storm events--Habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink can be degraded
or removed by extreme storm events such as hurricanes, storm surges,
and floods. Storm events are a natural part of the Cedar Keys ecosystem
and can provide indirect benefits to Cedar Key mole skink habitat.
Storms can deposit wrack and other debris that provide habitat for the
subspecies' prey and shelter for Cedar Key mole skinks. However,
hurricane activity has increased since the Atlantic Multi-Decadal
Oscillation (the natural variability of the sea surface temperature in
the Atlantic Ocean) went into its warm phase around 1992 (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2019, p. 1), and the
increased intensity of storms over the last several decades has likely
had negative impacts on the Cedar Key mole skink's resiliency,
representation, and redundancy.
Information on direct impacts of hurricanes to the Cedar Key mole
skink are lacking. However, there is information on impacts to habitat
from recent hurricanes and other strong storms that have occurred in
the region. Hurricane Hermine (Category 1) passed by the Cedar Keys in
September 2016, causing widespread overwash and erosion to beach and
coastal hammock habitats. Vegetation became buried, and the ground
cover was greatly reduced from the resulting storm surge (Enge et al.
2017, entire). As a result of Hurricane Hermine, the beachfront of
North Key lost most of the vegetative cover required for the Cedar Key
mole skink (Enge et al. 2017, entire). In August 2023, Hurricane Idalia
(Category 3) made landfall in the Cedar Keys and caused a storm surge
of up to 7 feet (2.1 meters), causing complete overwash of many
islands. For example, Seahorse Key lost 20 to 30 feet (6 to 9 meters)
of beach and the remaining sand was left compacted (Thomas 2023, pers.
comm.). Overtime, the vegetative cover will likely return to beach and
coastal hammock habitats, but when these storm impacts occur
repeatedly, there is less time for Cedar Key mole skink populations to
recover from any single event (e.g., temporary inundation of soils,
loss of shelter and food resource, drowning), thus reducing overall
resiliency when impacts by extreme and repetitive storm events occur
(Service 2017, p. 7).
The severity and duration of hurricane impacts to the Cedar Key
mole skink and its habitat vary based on the intensity and scale of
storm events. Localized impacts can vary greatly depending upon not
only the strength of the storm but the direction of its approach and
how quickly it moves through the area. Storm surges and their intensity
can also vary depending on location. The increased intensity of storm
events over the last several decades has likely led to a reduction in
Cedar Key mole skink populations, thereby reducing overall population
resiliency and the subspecies' redundancy.
In summary, impacts from climate change have the potential to
reduce survival of the Cedar Key mole skink at the individual,
population, and subspecies level. Sea level rise can degrade existing
habitat that supports the Cedar Key mole skink, reducing the habitat
features that the subspecies needs and thus reducing population
resiliency. Increased high tide flooding and increased intensity of
storm events have the potential to further degrade Cedar Key mole skink
habitat. Increased high tide flooding and storm events also have the
potential to kill skinks directly or to reduce individual survival,
which could then lead to a reduction in population resiliency and the
subspecies' redundancy. An increase in the intensity of storms or a
direct hit from a strong hurricane could significantly reduce
subspecies abundance (reducing population resiliency) and potentially
extirpate populations (limiting redundancy). There are no regulatory
mechanisms or conservation measures that address the impacts of sea
level rise, high tide flooding, or increased intensity of storm events.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Several local, State, and Federal government plans provide
conservation actions that directly or indirectly benefit the Cedar Key
mole skink and its habitat. Levy County has several plans for coastal
management, emergency management, and land use management, including
their Comprehensive Plan (Frank et al. 2014, entire; Levy County 2017,
entire). Levy County has policies to limit incompatible future growth
and development in coastal areas subject to flooding (Frank et al.
2014, p. 69), which are areas where the Cedar Key mole skink's habitat
occurs. The Comprehensive Plan also contains coastal setback
guidelines, standards for construction near or on the shoreline, and
policies for protecting environmentally sensitive land (Frank et al.
2014, p. 69; Levy County 2017, p. 13). The Levy County Code of
Ordinances (Levy County 2023, pp. 6-12) requires the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands and coordination with Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission and the Service regarding potential impacts to
endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
The City of Cedar Key has a variety of land uses: residential,
conservation, recreation, marsh, mixed use, commercial, and public
(City of Cedar Key 2018, p. 145). City Code 4-3.2 states that ``the
City shall protect native vegetation, including but not limited to
trees, mangroves, and marsh grasses, and cooperate with Levy County in
identifying, conserving, protecting or preserving unique vegetative
communities in contiguous areas to assure that development does not
degrade the environment, impair aesthetics, damage coastal resources or
deny reasonable property rights and uses'' (City of Cedar Key 2018, p.
169). City Code 4-8.1 states, ``a minimum coastal construction setback
line of 50 feet (15 meters) from the mean high-water line will be
maintained on any land adjoining all surface waters. In addition to the
50 feet (15 meters) setback line, an additional setback may be required
to protect water-dependent vegetation located landward of the coastal
construction setback line'' (City of Cedar Key 2018, p. 172). These
setbacks from beach habitat allow Cedar Keys mole skink habitat along
the shoreline to remain intact. The city also has plans to manage and
protect all ecological and wildlife communities (City of Cedar Key
2018, pp. 271-273).
The Florida Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank (Mitigation Bank) consists
of approximately 1,587 acres (642 hectares) of habitat in Levy County
owned and managed by the Mitigation Banking Group, Incorporated. The
Mitigation Bank is characterized by coastal habitats, including
maritime hammocks, coastal scrub, and both
[[Page 65131]]
freshwater and saltwater wetlands. The entire property is covered by a
conservation easement. Habitat for several federally listed species
(Florida salt marsh vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus, listed as Microtus
pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli), Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma
coerulescens), and wood stork (Mycteria americana)) is protected by the
Mitigation Bank. Restoration and management activities include
mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, and road removal to improve
natural hydroperiods. Three of the proposed critical habitat units (see
II. Critical Habitat, below) for the Cedar Key mole skink are located
on Mitigation Bank property, and the protection and management of these
areas will provide benefits to the Cedar Key mole skink.
Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy (Conservancy) is a nonprofit
land trust dedicated to acquiring land for preservation, conservation,
and/or public recreation. The Conservancy has protected at least 11
properties throughout the Cedar Keys and ensures sustainable land
management protocols are in place for each. Two of the proposed
critical habitat units (see II. Critical Habitat, below) for the Cedar
Key mole skink are within the Conservancy's properties, and the
protection and management of these areas will provide benefits to the
Cedar Key mole skink.
The Cedar Key mole skink also occurs within three State Parks,
including Cedar Key Museum State Park, Cedar Key Scrub Wildlife
Management Area, and Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve. Active management
of these parks provides indirect benefits to the Cedar Key mole skink
by protecting and providing habitat through beach restoration and
nourishment and nonnative plant and animal control. Part of the active
management of these parks includes the Florida Parks Service conducting
nonnative plant and animal control that benefits Cedar Key mole skinks.
The Cedar Key mole skink occurs within two National Wildlife
Refuges: the Lower Suwanee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges.
Specific management or conservation objectives for the Cedar Key mole
skink are not identified in the management plans for these National
Wildlife Refuges lands; however, ongoing management activities,
including habitat restoration and nonnative species control, provide
benefits to the Cedar Key mole skink and its habitat.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the subspecies. To assess the current and future condition
of the subspecies, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors
that may be influencing the subspecies, including threats and
conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework not only considers the
presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence
risk to the entire subspecies, our assessment integrates the cumulative
effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects
analysis.
Current Condition
Resiliency
Due to the semi-fossorial and cryptic nature of the Cedar Key mole
skink, abundance data are lacking, and no population trend data exist
for this subspecies. There are also no data available regarding the
population structure or demographics of the Cedar Key mole skink. There
have been 215 detections of Cedar Key mole skinks on 10 islands, with
62 individuals documented on 8 islands since 2000. Two of these island
populations are considered to have uncertain status given the last
detections were in 1988 and 1993. In total, 191 acres (77 hectares) of
preferred habitats (this includes sand, beach, and coastal dune
habitats) are currently estimated on all ten islands where Cedar Key
mole skinks have been detected.
Table 1, below, provides a summary of the projected magnitude of
change in resiliency for populations of the Cedar Key mole skink for
the 3-foot (ft) (0.9-meter) sea level rise scenario in 2040. In the
``Population status'' column of table 1, ``current'' means occupied in
2000-2022, and ``uncertain'' means occupied prior to 1999. In the
``Year 2040 (3-ft sea level rise)'' column, we use symbols as follows:
[darr] means a slight decrease in population resiliency
(more than 10 percent but less than or equal to 50 percent);
[darr][darr] means a moderate decrease in population
resiliency (more than 50 percent but less than or equal to 75 percent);
[darr][darr][darr] means a large decrease in population
resiliency (more than 75 percent but less than or equal to 90 percent);
and
X means extirpated, based on more than 90 percent of the
potential habitat being impacted regardless of population resiliency.
Table 1--Projected Magnitude of Change in Resiliency for Populations of the Cedar Key Mole Skink for the 3-Ft
Sea Level Rise Scenario in the Near Future
[Year 2040]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Island
Island group habitat elevation Population Number of Year 2040 (3-ft
(acres) * (feet) status skinks sea level rise)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airstrip Island.............. 1 15 current......... 15 [darr]
Atsena Otie Key.............. 26 20 current......... 2 X
Cedar Point.................. 8 10 current......... 2 [darr][darr]
Deer Island.................. 9 10 current......... 2 X
Dog Island................... 2 10 uncertain....... 0 X
North Key.................... 49 15 current......... 22 X
Scale Key.................... 24 5 current......... 1 [darr]
Seahorse Key................. 55 50 current......... 17 [darr][darr][da
rr]
Snake Key.................... 14 5 current......... 1 X
Way Key...................... 3 35 uncertain....... 0 [darr]
---------------- ----------------
Total.................... 191 .............. ................ 62 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
[[Page 65132]]
To date, sea level rise has resulted in the direct loss of habitat,
as beaches have become inundated for long periods of time. Repeated
high tide flooding has resulted in additional loss of habitat as
frequently flooded areas become unusable to the Cedar Key mole skink
(individuals cannot easily move through wet sand; individuals or nests
are washed away). Within the near term (by 2040 or sooner), five of the
eight current populations are projected to lose 75 to 90 percent or
more of preferred habitat due to continued increases in sea level rise
and high tide flooding (table 1). In addition, recent hurricanes
(Hurricane Hermine in 2016 and Hurricane Idalia in 2023) have resulted
in direct loss of habitat as well as higher storm surge and coastal
flooding that has further reduced availability and quality of Cedar Key
mole skink habitat. Future projections indicate an increase in the
severity of these storms.
Given the current impacts of sea level rise, high tide flooding,
and hurricanes, and given the limited available habitat, the relatively
low number of individuals documented, and the potential for repeated
catastrophic storm events, the overall resiliency of the Cedar Key mole
skink is considered low.
Redundancy
Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic
events. In the Cedar Keys, tropical storms and hurricanes are regular
and common events. However, catastrophic events may include
particularly strong or intense hurricanes or storms and the resulting
winds, waves, and storm surges associated with these events. Increased
intensity of such storms associated with climate change could further
reduce the ability of Cedar Key mole skink populations to recover and
could cause catastrophic impacts to the subspecies.
Land mass in the Cedar Keys in general is limited, thus providing
less redundancy or ``backup'' for the available habitat such that
natural expansion of the subspecies is not possible. Given its small
geographic range (eight islands within a length of 10 miles (16
kilometers)), the entire subspecies is vulnerable to potential
catastrophic events such as a storm or hurricane that would likely
impact all islands.
Representation
The Cedar Key mole skink has limited representation. There is no
evidence of morphological or behavioral differences (or ``types'')
among populations. The Cedar Key mole skink occurs across a narrow
geographic and ecological range; there is no variation in habitat types
across distance or elevations. Furthermore, dispersal of individuals
across islands is considered very rare, and genetic evidence shows
little to no sign of interbreeding between the identified island
populations (Parkinson et al. 2016, entire).
As part of the SSA, we also developed sea level rise and high tide
flooding future condition scenarios projected out until the year 2100.
Our scenarios included intermediate, intermediate-high, and high
scenarios, which are aligned with emissions-based, conditional
probabilistic and global model projections of global mean sea level
rise (Service 2023, p. 42). Because we determined that the current
condition of the Cedar Key mole skink is consistent with an endangered
species (see Determination of Cedar Key Mole Skink's Status, below), we
are not presenting the detailed results of the future scenarios in this
proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 41-50)
for the full analysis of future scenarios.
Determination of Cedar Key Mole Skink's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
We presented summary evaluations of the primary threats analyzed in
the SSA report including climate change, specifically sea level rise,
increased high tide flooding, and increased intensity of storm events
(Factor E). We also evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D)
and ongoing conservation measures. In the SSA report, we also
considered additional threats: habitat loss and degradation that
results from development (Factor A); overutilization due to
recreational, educational, and scientific use (Factor B); disease
(Factor C); oil spills (Factor E); and nonnative species (Factor E). We
concluded that, as indicated by the best available scientific and
commercial information, these additional threats currently have little
to no impact on the Cedar Key mole skink and its habitat such that the
overall effect now and into the future is expected to be minimal.
However, we consider each of these threats in the determination for the
subspecies, because although they may have low impacts on their own,
combined with impacts of other threats, they could further reduce the
already low number of Cedar Key mole skinks.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we have determined that the Cedar Key mole skink has limited
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to maintain viability over
time. Only 62 skinks have been documented on eight islands in the last
20 years. Given the historical and current impacts from sea level rise,
high tide flooding, and hurricanes, habitat for the Cedar Key mole
skink is limited. In total, approximately 191 acres (77 hectares) of
preferred habitat are currently estimated on islands where the Cedar
Key mole skink has been detected. Because the subspecies is limited to
a relatively small area (eight islands within a length of 10 miles (16
kilometers)), the subspecies is considered to have little redundancy. A
single catastrophic event, such as a severe storm or hurricane, could
result in the extinction of the subspecies. Additionally, given the
subspecies' narrow range and limited-to-no island dispersal
capabilities, we consider the subspecies to have low representation.
The current and future projected increase in sea level rise, high tide
flooding, and storm events exacerbates the current condition for the
Cedar Key mole skink. We do not find that the Cedar Key mole skink
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species because it already
has shown declines in available habitat, has limited abundance, and its
population's exhibit low resiliency. Because of the Cedar Key mole
skink's low redundancy and limited representation, the subspecies is
vulnerable to catastrophic storm events. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the Cedar Key mole skink is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
[[Page 65133]]
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We have determined that the Cedar Key mole skink is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range.
Because the Cedar Key mole skink warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Cedar Key mole skink meets the Act's
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the
Cedar Key mole skink as an endangered species in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Florida Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their ranges may occur primarily or solely on
non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this subspecies is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Cedar Key mole skink. Information on
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be
found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
Although the Cedar Key mole skink is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this subspecies. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification,
[[Page 65134]]
action agencies may voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that
may affect species proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to
be designated. In the event that the subject species is listed or the
relevant critical habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be
adopted as a biological opinion and serve as compliance with section
7(a)(2) of the Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Cedar Key mole skink that
may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section
7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the Service as well as actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under
section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such
as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the
local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with
any specific questions on section 7 consultation and conference
requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be
committed any of the following acts with regard to endangered wildlife:
(1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which
includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) within the
United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on
the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship,
by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken
illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or
(5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain
exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22,
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
[[Page 65135]]
space, food, cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Cedar Key mole skink from studies of the
subspecies' habitat, ecology, and life history as described above.
Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2023,
entire; available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2024-0053). We have determined that the following physical or
biological feature is essential to the conservation of the Cedar Key
mole skink: Natural habitats (including, but not limited to, beaches,
dunes, and coastal hammocks) along the coast or within the interior of
the Cedar Keys that contain:
(a) Suitable soils (dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable soils)
for movement and nesting; and
(b) Sufficient, appropriate ground cover (including, but not
limited to, tidal wrack deposited above the mean high-water line, leaf
litter, and vegetative debris) for protection from predators and
temperature extremes, sources of food (e.g., insects and arthropods),
and areas for reproduction.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at the
time of listing contain features which are essential to the
conservation of the subspecies and which may require special management
[[Page 65136]]
considerations or protection. The feature essential to the conservation
of the Cedar Key mole skink may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce threats posed by climate change
(sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding, and increasing intensity
of storm events); recreational activities (beach cleaning to remove
wrack and other vegetative material); and human-caused disasters and
response activities. For an in-depth discussion of threats, see Summary
of Biological Status and Threats, above, and the SSA report (Service
2023, pp. 16-31).
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include
(but are not limited to): maintaining and protecting suitable habitat
within occupied areas; identifying areas where beach erosion is
occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove swamp or other coastal
wetlands due to sea level rise and implementing nourishment or
restoration/protection activities; conducting restoration and debris
cleanup after storms, while concurrently minimizing disturbance to
Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establishing protocols and
agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats (storms can create berms
and dunes and can redeposit sand and wrack, which are all beneficial to
the Cedar Key mole skink) to persist; coordinating with landowners and
local managers to implement best management practices during regular
beach cleaning activities; conducting public outreach and education at
all occupied areas; and preparing disaster response plans and
conducting trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and their
habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing. We
also are proposing to designate specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the subspecies because we have determined that those
areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies. By the year
2040, five out of eight islands currently occupied by the Cedar Key
mole skink are projected to lose 75 to 90 percent or more of their
preferred habitat under the lowest projected sea level rise scenario of
3.0 feet (0.9 meters) (see table 1, above). We identified suitable
habitat on islands within the Cedar Keys that meet the definition of
critical habitat and are considered essential to provide for subspecies
redundancy into the future. These islands are considered areas with
high resiliency to sea level rise (i.e., islands with higher elevation
that are projected to have habitat remaining at 5.0 feet (1.5 meters)
of sea level rise)). These unoccupied islands contain the physical and
biological feature essential to the subspecies and are, therefore,
considered habitat for the subspecies. All units (both occupied and
unoccupied) are within the range of the subspecies and contain the
physical and biological feature essential to the conservation of the
subspecies.
We developed the following criteria for determining the specific
areas that contain the physical and biological feature essential to the
conservation of the subspecies:
(1) Genetic differentiation and geographic extent--To maintain
viability in populations of Cedar Key mole skink that represent and
conserve any genetic variation that may exist and habitat on each of
the eight islands that has current populations (see Current Condition,
above), critical habitat units should encompass all current populations
ensuring that the entire range of the Cedar Key mole skink is
represented.
(2) Climate change resilience--To provide sufficient amounts of
suitable habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink predicted to be less
affected by sea level rise (Service 2023, pp. 41-50), critical habitat
should include islands that are less vulnerable to sea level rise
within the Cedar Keys.
(3) Structural connectivity--To maintain, enhance, and establish
connectivity within Cedar Key mole skink populations (see Summary of
Biological Status and Threats, above), critical habitat units should
incorporate corridors for connectivity, dispersal, and refuge areas
during high tide flooding and storm events.
Sources of data used for the delineation of critical habitat units
included:
(1) Confirmed presence data compiled in our Geographic Information
System database from 1951 through 2022, and provided by multiple
databases maintained by museums, universities, and State agencies in
Florida; State agency reports; and numerous survey reports for projects
throughout the subspecies' range.
(2) Habitat and land use cover types from the Cooperative Land
Cover map (version 3.5) developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FWC and
FNAI 2021, entire) determined to be suitable for the subspecies based
on peer-reviewed articles on this subspecies or similar subspecies, and
gray literature by researchers involved in wildlife biology and
conservation activities.
(3) Levy County soil data layers from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey
(USDA 2022, entire) determined to be suitable for the subspecies based
on their official soil series descriptions.
(4) Shoreline data representing the mean high-water line from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Coastal
Management (https://shoreline.noaa.gov/data/index.html).
(5) Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United
States from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Ocean Service Center for Operational Oceanographic Products
and Services (Sweet et al. 2022, entire).
(6) Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI's)
Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage Geographical Information System
(ArcPro) online basemap aerial imagery (2018 to 2020) to cross-check
Cooperative Land Cover data and ensure the presence of the physical or
biological feature.
For areas within the geographical area occupied by the Cedar Key
mole skink at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) We determined occupied areas for this subspecies by reviewing
the best available scientific and commercial data on occurrence
records. As discussed above under I. Proposed Listing Determination,
Background, Cedar Key mole skinks are cryptic and adapted to living
underground. Because of their cryptic nature, we determined that, if
suitable habitat containing the physical and biological feature is
still present in an area where a Cedar Key mole skink was detected
between 2000 and 2022, there is a high likelihood that the subspecies
is still present. Therefore, based on the best available information,
we defined occupied areas as islands with at least one current
occurrence record ranging from 2000 to 2022.
[[Page 65137]]
(2) We selected all suitable habitat that contains the physical or
biological feature as determined using the data sources listed above on
currently occupied islands. When the exact location of an occurrence
record could not be determined for an island (a verified record, but
only general location information, such as the name of the island, was
provided), or the location was accurate but in unsuitable habitat
(developed areas), all suitable habitat on the island was selected.
(3) We selected additional suitable habitat within a 328-ft (100-
meter) radius (the estimated home range of Cedar Key mole skink;
Service 2023, p. 12) on undeveloped islands to include corridors for
greater dispersal due to population expansions, localized resource
limitations, and sea level rise, storm surge, or tidal flooding refugia
areas for the subspecies (e.g., for undeveloped islands, the full
island was included).
(4) On developed islands, we constrained the boundary of a critical
habitat unit to areas of contiguous suitable habitat. Offshore
boundaries of the critical habitat unit were delineated using a
simplified buffered shoreline to include the full extent of each island
complex, or to the farthest offshore feature (i.e., habitat boundary,
mean high-water line, or shoreline visible in aerial imagery).
For areas outside the geographical area currently occupied by the
subspecies at the time of listing, we looked at islands considered
recently occupied by, or that have an uncertain status (documented
before 1999) for, the Cedar Key mole skink. We analyzed these uncertain
status islands and all other islands within the Cedar Keys for those
that contain suitable habitat and evaluated each site for its potential
conservation contribution based on quality of habitat, vulnerability to
climate change (specifically sea level rise and high tide flooding),
and existing protections and management of the habitat and sites. Based
on these criteria, we identified nine islands that contain appropriate
habitat for the subspecies and are essential for the conservation of
the subspecies but would be considered unoccupied at the time of
listing. For areas outside the geographical area occupied by the Cedar
Key mole skink at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat
unit boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) To ensure unoccupied areas would provide skink habitat into the
future, we analyzed impacts to potential habitat on each island in the
Cedar Keys and included only those that are projected to still have
habitat remaining after 5.0 feet (1.5 meters) of sea level rise and
high tide flooding by the year 2080 (Service 2023, p. 47).
(2) We selected all suitable habitat that contains the physical or
biological feature as determined using Criteria (2)-(4) outlined above
for occupied units.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary for the Cedar Key mole skink.
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
Seventeen units are proposed for designation based on the physical
or biological feature being present to support the Cedar Key mole
skink's life-history processes. All units contain the identified
physical or biological feature and support multiple life-history
processes.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the maps,
as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end
of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2024-0053 and on our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate approximately 2,713 acres (1,098
hectares) in 17 units as critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink
(see table 2, below). The critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink. The 17
areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Live Oak Key, (2) Cedar
Point, (3) Scale Key, (4) Dog Island, (5) Atsena Otie Key, (6) Snake
Key, (7) Seahorse Key, (8) North Key, (9) Airstrip Island, (10) Way Key
South, (11) Way Key North, (12) Richards Island, (13) Seabreeze Island,
(14) Shell Mound, (15) Raleigh and Horse Islands, (16) Deer Island, and
(17) Clark Islands. Most of the units contain highly dynamic barrier
beaches and intertidal seashore. This area has the potential to vary
year-to-year. In other words, the precise location of the physical and
biological feature in some locations may shift over time somewhat
because of the intrinsically dynamic nature of shorelines and due to
sea level rise and high tide flooding. Table 2 shows the proposed
critical habitat units and the approximate area of each unit.
Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Cedar Key Mole Skink
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership * in acres [hectares]
Unit Occupancy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total area * in
Federal State Local Private Other ** acres [hectares]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Live Oak Key................. No................. 46 [19] 0 0 49 [20] 14 [6] 109 [44]
2. Cedar Point.................. Yes................ 26 [11] 0 0 15 [6] 0 41 [17]
3. Scale Key.................... Yes................ 95 [38] 0 0 21 [8] 0 116 [47]
4. Dog Island................... No................. 0 8 [3] 0 0 0 8 [3]
5. Atsena Otie Key.............. Yes................ 0 116 [47] 0 0 67 [27] 183 [74]
6. Snake Key.................... Yes................ 39 [16] 0 0 0 17 [7] 57 [23]
7. Seahorse Key................. Yes................ 118 [48] 0 0 0 47 [19] 165 [67]
8. North Key.................... Yes................ 129 [52] 0 0 0 107 [43] 236 [95]
[[Page 65138]]
9. Airstrip Island.............. Yes................ 0 0 19 [8] 10 [4] 0 29 [12]
10. Way Key South............... No................. 0 44 [18] 0 0 0 44 [18]
11. Way Key North............... No................. 0 9 [4] 15 [6] 0 0 24 [10]
12. Richards Island............. No................. 86 [35] 0 0 0 19 [8] 105 [42]
13. Seabreeze Island............ No................. 111 [45] 0 0 0 25 [10] 136 [55]
14. Shell Mound................. No................. 167 [68] 194 [79] 0 688 [278] 0 1,050 [425]
15. Raleigh and Horse Islands... No................. 171 [69] 0 0 5 [2] 0 176 [71]
16. Deer Island................. Yes................ 8 [3] 0 0 69 [28] 36 [15] 113 [46]
17. Clark Islands............... No................. 0 0 0 121 [49] 0 121 [49]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... ................... 996 [403] 371 [150] 34 [14] 978 [396] 332 [134] 2,713 [1,098]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
** Includes suitable habitat of unknown or undefined ownership.
We present brief descriptions of all proposed units, and reasons
why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole
skink, below.
Unit 1: Live Oak Key
Unit 1 encompasses approximately 109 acres (44 hectares) of
unoccupied habitat in Levy County and includes the entire island of
Live Oak Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to
the conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include
approximately 46 acres (19 hectares) in Federal ownership, 49 acres (20
hectares) in private ownership, and 14 acres (6 hectares) in other
ownership (undefined ownership). The entirety of Unit 1 is included in,
and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot
(Calidris canutus rufa). Live Oak Key is approximately 2.5 miles (4
kilometers) northeast of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The
northern portion of the island is managed as the Florida Gulf Coast
Mitigation Bank by a private entity and the southern portion is
federally owned and managed by the Service as the part of the Cedar
Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one
of its currently occupied locations.
Unit 2: Cedar Point
Unit 2 encompasses approximately 41 acres (17 hectares) of occupied
habitat in Levy County and includes the entire island of Cedar Point.
This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable habitat that
contains the physical or biological feature essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include
approximately 26 acres (11 hectares) in Federal ownership and 15 acres
(6 hectares) in private ownership. The entirety of Unit 2 is included
in, and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red
knot. Cedar Point is approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) northeast
of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages most of the
island as the part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. The
eastern portion is managed by a private entity as part of the Florida
Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank.
The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist;
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 3: Scale Key
Unit 3 encompasses approximately 116 acres (47 hectares) of
occupied habitat in Levy County and includes the entire island of Scale
Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable habitat
that contains the physical or biological feature essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include
approximately 95 acres (38 hectares) in Federal ownership and 21 acres
(8 hectares) in private ownership. The entirety of Unit 3 is included
in, and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red
knot. Scale Key is approximately 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) northeast of
Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages most of the
island as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
Approximately 14 acres (6 hectares) of the eastern portion are owned by
Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy, and 5 acres (2 hectares) of the
northern portion are managed by a private entity as part of the Florida
Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank.
The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish
protocols and agreements to allow
[[Page 65139]]
storm-enhanced habitats to persist; conduct public outreach and
education; and prepare disaster response plans and conduct trainings
that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat to address
threats from climate change (e.g., sea level rise, high tide flooding,
and storm events) and human-caused disasters and response activities
(e.g., oil spills).
Unit 4: Dog Island
Unit 4 encompasses approximately 8 acres (3 hectares) of unoccupied
habitat in Levy County and includes the entire Dog Island. This unit is
composed of protected lands with suitable habitat that contains the
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Although Dog Island is currently considered unoccupied,
Cedar Key mole skinks were documented here in the past (Enge 2023,
pers. comm.; FWC 2023, entire), and it is possible that they are still
present.
Dog Island is approximately 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) to the east of
Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. Lands within this unit are
entirely within State ownership. The entirety of Unit 4 is included in,
and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red
knot.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one
of its currently occupied locations.
Unit 5: Atsena Otie Key
Unit 5 encompasses approximately 183 acres (74 hectares) of
occupied habitat in Levy County and includes the entire island of
Atsena Otie Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to
the conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include
approximately 116 acres (47 hectares) in State ownership and 67 acres
(27 hectares) in other ownership. Atsena Otie Key is approximately 1
mile (1.6 kilometers) south of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The
island is owned by the State of Florida and managed as part of the
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge through a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) by the Service. The entirety of Unit 5 is included
in, and thus overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red
knot.
The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist;
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 6: Snake Key
Unit 6 encompasses approximately 57 acres (23 hectares) of occupied
habitat within Levy County and includes the entire island of Snake Key.
This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable habitat that
contains the physical or biological feature essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include
approximately 39 acres (16 hectares) in Federal ownership and 17 acres
(7 hectares) in other ownership. Snake Key is approximately 2.5 miles
(4 kilometers) south of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The island
is managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife
Refuge. The entirety of Unit 6 is included in, and thus overlaps with,
proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist;
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 7: Seahorse Key
Unit 7 encompasses approximately 165 acres (67 hectares) of
occupied habitat within Levy County and includes the entire island of
Seahorse Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to
the conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include
approximately 118 acres (48 hectares) in Federal ownership and 47 acres
(19 hectares) in other ownership. Seahorse Key is approximately 3 miles
(5 kilometers) south and west of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
The island is managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National
Wildlife Refuge. The entirety of Unit 7 is included in, and thus
overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist;
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 8: North Key
Unit 8 encompasses approximately 236 acres (95 hectares) of
occupied habitat within Levy County and includes the entire island of
North Key. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to
the conservation of the subspecies. Lands within this unit include
approximately 129 acres (52 hectares) in Federal ownership and 107
acres (43 hectares) in other ownership. North Key is approximately 3
miles (4.8 kilometers) to the west of Cedar Key within the Gulf of
Mexico. The island is
[[Page 65140]]
managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife
Refuge. The entirety of Unit 8 is included in, and thus overlaps with,
proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist;
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 9: Airstrip Island
Unit 9 encompasses approximately 29 acres (12 hectares) of occupied
habitat within Levy County on the island of Way Key. Lands within this
unit include approximately 19 acres (8 hectares) in local government
ownership and 10 acres (4 hectares) in private ownership. This unit is
composed of the following five separate sections with suitable habitat
that contains the physical or biological feature essential to the
conservation of the subspecies: Airstrip Island Beach, Cedar Key
Airport, Airport Island, Piney Point, and Robert Cull Nature Preserve.
Airstrip Island Beach is 5 acres (2 hectares) of private shoreline
along Daughtry Bayou, encompassing sandy beach from mean higher high-
water inland to dense vegetation, hardened structures, or roads,
extending from the southern side of the Airport Road bridge to the
south for approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers). Cedar Key Airport
includes 16 acres (6 hectares) of unvegetated and vegetated sandy soils
on the George T. Lewis Airport (also known as the Cedar Key Airport)
that are owned by Levy County. Airport Island is a 2-acre (0.8-
hectare), unnamed island southwest of the airport, which is also owned
by Levy County. Piney Point is a 3-acre (1-hectare), privately owned,
undeveloped, vacant lot on the western side of Piney Point south of the
airport. The fifth section is 2 acres (0.8 hectares) of protected land
known as the Robert Cull Nature Preserve at the terminus of Piney Point
that are owned and managed by Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy.
Approximately 9 acres (4 hectares) of Unit 9 overlap with proposed
critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist;
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 10: Way Key South
Unit 10 encompasses approximately 44 acres (18 hectares) of
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Way Key. This unit is a series
of undeveloped disconnected islands south of Way Key that contain the
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. The largest island, located between the airport and the
developed portion of Way Key, is projected to be more resilient to sea
level rise (due to its relatively higher elevation) and is composed of
coastal scrub habitat with a sandy shoreline fringe. Also included in
this unit are several primarily sand islands that occur seaward of the
main island. This unit is entirely in State ownership. Approximately 41
acres (17 hectares) of Unit 10 overlap with proposed critical habitat
for the rufa red knot.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one
of its currently occupied locations.
Unit 11: Way Key North
Unit 11 encompasses approximately 24 acres (10 hectares) of
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Way Key. This unit is composed
of protected lands with suitable habitat that contains the physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Lands within this unit include approximately 9 acres (4 hectares) in
State ownership managed as the Cedar Key Museum State Park by the
Florida Park Service, and 15 acres (6 hectares) in local government
ownership managed as Cemetery Point Park by the City of Cedar Key.
Although the unit is currently considered unoccupied, Cedar key mole
skinks were documented here in the past (FWC 2023, entire), and it is
possible that they are still present. Additionally, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one
of its currently occupied locations.
Unit 12: Richards Island
Unit 12 encompasses approximately 105 acres (42 hectares) of
unoccupied habitat within Levy County and includes the entirety of
Richards Island. This unit is composed of protected lands with suitable
habitat that contains the physical or biological feature essential to
the conservation of the subspecies. Richards Island is undeveloped and
projected to be more resilient to sea level rise due to higher
elevation. Lands within this unit include approximately 86 acres (35
hectares) in Federal ownership and 19 acres (8 hectares) in other
ownership. Richards Island is approximately 3.3 miles (5.3 kilometers)
northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The island is managed
by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
Approximately 43 acres (17 hectares) of Unit 12 overlap with proposed
critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the
[[Page 65141]]
subspecies. This unit is essential for the conservation of the
subspecies because it will provide habitat for potential
reintroductions in the case of sea level rise and high tide flooding
(Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or stochastic events (such as hurricanes)
should other areas of suitable habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key
mole skink be extirpated from one of its currently occupied locations.
Unit 13: Seabreeze Island
Unit 13 encompasses approximately 136 acres (55 hectares) of
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Seabreeze Island. This unit is
composed of protected lands with suitable habitat that contains the
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Seabreeze Island is undeveloped and projected to be more
resilient to sea level rise. Lands within this unit include
approximately 111 acres (45 hectares) in Federal ownership and 25 acres
(10 hectares) in other ownership. Seabreeze Island is approximately 4
miles (6 kilometers) northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
The island is managed by the Service as part of the Lower Suwannee
National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 8 acres (3 hectares) of Unit 13
overlap with proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one
of its currently occupied locations.
Unit 14: Shell Mound
Unit 14 encompasses approximately 1,050 ac (425 hectares) of
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Shell Mound. The unit contains
higher elevation lands, is projected to be more resilient to sea level
rise, and has suitable habitat containing the physical or biological
feature essential to the conservation of the subspecies. This unit
extends from Dennis Creek north to Ericson Creek. Lands within this
unit include approximately 167 acres (68 hectares) in Federal
ownership, 194 acres (79 hectares) in State ownership, and 688 acres
(278 hectares) in private ownership. The unit includes portions of the
Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve managed by the Florida Park Service and
the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge managed by the Service.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one
of its currently occupied locations.
Unit 15: Raleigh and Horse Islands
Unit 15 encompasses approximately 176 acres (71 hectares) of
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on Raleigh and Horse Islands. The
unit includes undeveloped islands projected to be more resilient to sea
level rise and contains suitable habitat with the physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Lands within this unit include approximately 171 acres (69 hectares) in
Federal ownership and 5 acres (2 hectares) in private ownership. The
group of islands is approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers) northwest of
Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages most of the
islands as part of the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one
of its currently occupied locations.
Unit 16: Deer Island
Unit 16 encompasses approximately 113 acres (46 hectares) of
occupied habitat within Levy County and includes the entirety of Deer
Island. The unit is composed of suitable habitat that contains the
physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Lands within the unit include approximately 8 acres (3
hectares) in Federal ownership, 69 acres (28 hectares) in private
ownership, and 36 acres (15 hectares) in other ownership. Deer Island
is approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) northwest of Cedar Key within
the Gulf of Mexico. The entirety of Unit 16 is included in, and thus
overlaps with, proposed critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
The physical and biological feature in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to: identify areas
where beach erosion is occurring or habitat is succeeding to mangrove
swamp or other coastal wetlands due to sea level rise and implement
renourishment or restoration/protection activities; conduct restoration
and debris cleanup after storms while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to Cedar Key mole skinks and their habitat; establish
protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist;
conduct public outreach and education; and prepare disaster response
plans and conduct trainings that consider Cedar Key mole skinks and
their habitat to address threats from climate change (e.g., sea level
rise, high tide flooding, and storm events) and human-caused disasters
and response activities (e.g., oil spills).
Unit 17: Clark Islands
Unit 17 encompasses approximately 121 acres (49 hectares) of
unoccupied habitat within Levy County on the Clark Islands complex. The
unit includes undeveloped islands projected to be more resilient to sea
level rise. The entirety of the unit is privately owned. The Clark
Islands are approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) north-northwest of
Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit
constitutes habitat for the subspecies because it contains the physical
or biological feature necessary for the life history of the subspecies.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because
it will provide habitat for potential reintroductions in the case of
sea level rise and high tide flooding (Service 2023, pp. 41-50) or
stochastic events (such as hurricanes) should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or the Cedar Key mole skink be extirpated from one
of its currently occupied locations.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
[[Page 65142]]
any endangered species or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of
such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to
be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat.
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as
a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act is
documented through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during formal consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of consultation is
required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been
retained or is authorized by law and: (1) If the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written
concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the identified action. As provided
in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new
species listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to
certain agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the
Bureau of Land Management in certain circumstances).
Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that our Federal Register
notices ``shall, to the maximum extent practicable also include a brief
description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or
private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may
adversely modify [critical] habitat, or may be affected by such
designation.'' Activities that may be affected by designation of
critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink include those that may
affect the physical or biological features of the Cedar Key mole
skink's critical habitat (see Physical or Biological Features Essential
to the Conservation of the Species, above).
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a),
if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation. No DoD lands with a completed INRMP are within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226,
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016).
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. In our final rules, we explain any decision to exclude
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to make clear the rational
basis for our decision. We describe below the process that we use for
taking into consideration each
[[Page 65143]]
category of impacts and any initial analyses of the relevant impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2)
exclusion analysis.
Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 supplements and reaffirms E.O. 12866
and E.O. 13563 and directs Federal agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the
extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O.
regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act
may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly
affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If sufficient data
are available, we assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts
to both directly and indirectly affected entities. Section 3(f) of E.O.
12866 identifies four criteria when a regulation is considered a
``significant regulatory action'' and requires additional analysis,
review, and approval if met. The criterion relevant here is whether the
designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect of $200
million or more in any given year (section 3(f)(1) as amended by E.O.
14094). Therefore, our consideration of economic impacts uses a
screening analysis to assess whether a designation of critical habitat
for the Cedar Key mole skink is likely to exceed the economically
significant threshold.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink (IEc 2023, entire). We
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of
the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographical areas
of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and
are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e.,
absent critical habitat designation) and includes any probable
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening
analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific
areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts
as a result of the designation. The presence of the listed species in
occupied areas of critical habitat means that any destruction or
adverse modification of those areas is also likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Therefore, designating occupied
areas as critical habitat typically causes little if any incremental
impacts above and beyond the impacts of listing the species. As a
result, we generally focus the screening analysis on areas of
unoccupied critical habitat (unoccupied units or unoccupied areas
within occupied units). Overall, the screening analysis assesses
whether the designation of critical habitat is likely to result in any
additional management or conservation efforts that may incur
incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the
information contained in our IEM constitute what we consider to be our
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the
Cedar Key mole skink and is summarized in the narrative below.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink, first we
identified, in the IEM dated August 22, 2023, probable incremental
economic impacts associated with the following categories of
activities: (1) residential and commercial development; (2)
construction activities such as road and bridge construction and
maintenance; (3) habitat management activities (such as beach
nourishment, shoreline armoring, nonnative species control (including
mechanical or herbicide applications), and prescribed fire); and (4)
recreational activities and associated developments (such as
campgrounds, trails, and visitor facilities), management activities
(such as beach raking or other cleaning methods to remove wrack and
debris), and airport management activities. We considered each industry
or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation
generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. If we list the subspecies, in areas where the Cedar
key mole skink is present, Federal agencies would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the subspecies. If we
list the subspecies and also finalize this proposed critical habitat
designation, Federal agencies would be required to consider the effects
of their actions on the designated habitat, and if
[[Page 65144]]
the Federal action may affect critical habitat, our consultations would
include an evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that would result from the subspecies being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Cedar
Key mole skink's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical
habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink is being proposed concurrently
with the listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult
to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the
subspecies being listed and those which will result solely from the
designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific
circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The
essential physical or biological feature identified for critical
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the
subspecies, and (2) any actions that would likely adversely affect the
essential physical or biological feature of occupied critical habitat
are also likely to adversely affect the subspecies itself. The IEM
outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for this subspecies. This evaluation of
the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the
probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of
critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Cedar Key mole
skink totals approximately 2,713 acres (1,098 hectares) in 17 units in
Levy County, Florida (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation,
above). Land ownership across the units includes Federal lands (37
percent), State lands (14 percent), local lands (1 percent), private
lands (36 percent), and lands with unknown/undefined ownership (12
percent). Eight of the 17 units are currently occupied by the Cedar Key
mole skink; the remaining 9 units are not known to be currently
occupied. Approximately 42 percent of the proposed critical habitat for
the Cedar Key mole skink overlaps with currently proposed critical
habitat for the rufa red knot. Further, 100 percent of the proposed
critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink intersects with existing
ranges for six federally listed species (IEc 2023, p. 8).
When an action is proposed in an area of designated critical
habitat, and the proposed activity has a Federal nexus, the need for
section 7 consultation is triggered. Any incremental costs associated
with consideration of potential effects to the critical habitat are a
result of this consultation process. For all occupied areas, the
economic costs of critical habitat designations would most likely be
limited to additional administrative efforts to consider adverse
modification in section 7 consultations, as the listing of the
subspecies is being proposed concurrently with critical habitat
designation, and all occupied units would still need to undergo section
7 consultation due to listing regardless of critical habitat
designation. While this additional analysis would require time and
resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is
believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly
be administrative in nature and would not be significant. For the
unoccupied units, section 7 consultations would not occur if not for
the presence of critical habitat, so additional costs would occur. In
unoccupied habitat, the incremental cost associated with a new
consultation considering only adverse modification during technical
assistances, informal, formal, and programmatic consultations are
estimated to be $1,300, $8,000, $17,000, and $31,000, respectively (IEc
2023, p. 18). These estimates assume that consultation would not occur
in the absence of critical habitat designation. In total, the estimated
annual, incremental administrative costs for a Cedar Key mole skink
critical habitat designation are estimated at $9,000 annually (IEc
2023, p. 19). Overall, a critical habitat designation for the Cedar Key
mole skink is unlikely to generate costs or benefits exceeding $200
million in a single year. Because of the relatively small size of the
critical habitat designation, the landownership (Federal, State,
county, or private) of the proposed critical habitat units, the amount
of land that is already being managed for conservation, and the
significant overlap with the rufa red knot's proposed critical habitat,
the numbers of section 7 consultations expected annually are modest
(approximately 1 formal, 12 informal, and 5 technical assistance
efforts annually across the designation) (IEc 2023, p. 15).
Potential private property value effects are possible due to public
perception of impacts to private lands. The designation of critical
habitat may cause some developers or landowners to perceive that
private lands will be subject to use restrictions or litigation from
third parties, resulting in costs. However, due to the speculative
nature of this perception, costs are not able to be quantified.
Regardless, only 36 percent of the proposed critical habitat
designation is privately owned land, leading to nominal incremental
costs arising from changes in public perception of lands included in
the designation.
Incremental costs may occur outside of the section 7 consultation
process if the designation of critical habitat triggers additional
requirements or project modifications under State or local laws,
regulations, or management strategies. These types of costs typically
occur if the designation increases awareness of the presence of the
subspecies or the need for protection of its habitat. Given that the
Cedar Key mole skink is covered by existing State protection plans,
project proponents may already be aware of the presence of the
subspecies. For example, the Cedar Key mole skink is included in the
State of Florida's State Wildlife Action Plan as a species of greatest
conservation need. The subspecies is further protected through habitat
management and conservation under Florida State Park management plans.
Therefore, designating critical habitat is unlikely to provide
information to State or local agencies that would result in new
regulations or actions (IEc 2023, p. 20).
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the economic
analysis discussed above (see Information Requested, above). During the
development of a final designation, we will consider the information
presented in the economic analysis and any additional information on
economic impacts we receive during the public comment period to
determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and the 2016
Policy. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine
that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of
including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this subspecies.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section
[[Page 65145]]
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, then national-security or homeland-security
concerns are not a factor in the process of determining what areas meet
the definition of ``critical habitat.'' However, we must still consider
impacts on national security, including homeland security, on those
lands or areas not covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section
4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider those impacts whenever we
designate critical habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), or another Federal agency has requested exclusion based
on an assertion of national-security or homeland-security concerns, or
we have otherwise identified national-security or homeland-security
impacts from designating particular areas as critical habitat, we
generally have reason to consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides
information, including a reasonably specific justification of an
incremental impact on national security that would result from the
designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities,
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting
the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific
justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide
a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to
the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation.
If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the
expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1)
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing
the benefits of exclusion.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cedar Key
mole skink are not owned or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, therefore,
we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that may
affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors,
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the
species in the area--such as safe harbor agreements (SHAs), candidate
conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or ``conservation
benefit agreements'' or ``conservation agreements'' (CBAs) (CBAs are a
new type of agreement replacing SHAs and CCAAs in use after April 2024
(89 FR 26070; April 12, 2024)) or HCPs--or whether there are non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or partnerships,
Tribal resources, or government-to-government relationships of the
United States with Tribal entities may be affected by the designation.
We also consider any State, local, social, or other impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that no HCPs or
other management plans for the Cedar Key mole skink currently exist,
and the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust
resources or any lands for which designation would have any economic or
national security impacts. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on Tribal
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat
designation, and, thus, as described above, we are not considering
excluding any particular areas on the basis of the presence of
conservation agreements or impacts to trust resources.
However, if through this proposed rule's public comment period (see
DATES and Information Requested, above) we receive information that we
determine indicates that there are potential economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts from designating particular areas
as critical habitat, then as part of developing the final designation
of critical habitat, we will evaluate that information and may conduct
a discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude
those areas under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we receive a request for
exclusion of a particular area and after evaluation of supporting
information we do not exclude, we will fully describe our decision in
the final rule for this action.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094)
Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866
and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate
agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest,
advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O.
13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing
Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the
extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking
process must allow for public participation and an open
[[Page 65146]]
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant
rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. The
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects ``to the extent
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a
``significant energy action'' as an action that (i) is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order; and (ii) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; April
11, 2023). Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action,
and there is no requirement to prepare a statement of energy effects
for this action.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat under section 7. While
[[Page 65147]]
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal
entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal
assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this proposed rule would significantly
or uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. Therefore, a small government agency plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole
skink, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical
habitat does not pose significant takings implications for lands within
or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule would not unduly
burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides
several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed
location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this
position.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November
30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479,
December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512
DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate
meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-government basis. In accordance
with Secretaries' Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work
directly with Tribes in developing programs for
[[Page 65148]]
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to
the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to
Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We have
determined that no Tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat for the Cedar Key mole skink, so no Tribal
lands would be affected by the proposed designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Signing Authority
Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on June 14, 2024, for publication. On July 31,
2024, Martha Williams authorized the undersigned to sign the document
electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Skink, Cedar Key mole'' in
alphabetical order under REPTILES to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Skink, Cedar Key mole........... Plestiodon Wherever found.... E [Federal Register
egregius citation when
insularis. published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.95(c).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (c) by adding an entry for ``Cedar
Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)'' following the entry
for ``Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS (Caretta
caretta)'', to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(c) Reptiles.
* * * * *
Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Levy County, Florida,
on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological feature
essential to the conservation of the Cedar Key mole skink consists of
natural habitats (including, but not limited to, beaches, dunes, and
coastal hammocks) along the coast or within the interior of the Cedar
Keys that contain:
(i) Suitable soils (dry, loose, sandy, permeable, or friable soils)
for movement and nesting; and
(ii) Sufficient, appropriate ground cover (including, but not
limited to, tidal wrack deposited above the mean high-water line, leaf
litter, and vegetative debris) for protection from predators and
temperature extremes, sources of food (e.g., insects and arthropods),
and areas for reproduction.
(3) Critical habitat does not include human-made structures (such
as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using Environmental
Systems Research Institute's (ESRI's) Aeronautical Reconnaissance
Coverage Geographical Information System (ArcPro) mapping software
along with various spatial data layers. ArcPro was also used to
calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection used in mapping and
calculating distances and locations within the units was Albers Conical
Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83) High Accuracy Reference Network (HARN). The maps in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is based are available to the public
at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0053, and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (5)
[[Page 65149]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.018
(6) Unit 1: Live Oak Key; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 1 encompasses approximately 109 acres (44 hectares) and
includes the entire island of Live Oak Key. Lands within this unit
include approximately 46 acres (19 hectares) in Federal ownership, 49
acres (20 hectares) in private ownership, and 14 acres (6 hectares) in
other ownership. Live Oak Key is approximately 2.5 miles (4 kilometers)
northeast of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The northern portion
of the island is managed as the Florida Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank by a
private entity and the southern portion is federally owned and managed
by the Service as the part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
(ii) Map of Units 1 and 2 follow:
Figure 2 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (6)(ii)
[[Page 65150]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.019
(7) Unit 2: Cedar Point; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 2 encompasses approximately 41 acres (17 hectares) and
includes the entire island of Cedar Point. Lands within this unit
include approximately 26 acres (11 hectares) in Federal ownership and
15 acres (6 hectares) in private ownership. Cedar Point is
approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) northeast of Cedar Key within
the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages most of the island as the part
of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. The eastern portion is
managed by a private entity as part of the Florida Gulf Coast
Mitigation Bank.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit 3: Scale Key; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 3 encompasses approximately 116 acres (47 hectares) and
includes the entire island of Scale Key. Lands within this unit include
approximately 95 acres (38 hectares) in Federal ownership and 21 acres
(8 hectares) in private ownership. Scale Key is approximately 1 mile
(1.6 kilometers) northeast of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The
Service manages most of the island as part of the Cedar Keys National
[[Page 65151]]
Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 14 acres (6 hectares) of the eastern
portion are owned by Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy, and 5 acres (2
hectares) of the northern portion are managed by a private entity as
part of the Florida Gulf Coast Mitigation Bank.
(ii) Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:
Figure 3 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (8)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.020
(9) Unit 4: Dog Island; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 4 encompasses approximately 8 acres (3 hectares) and
includes the entirety of Dog Island. Dog Island is approximately 1 mile
(1.6 kilometers) to the east of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
Lands within this unit are entirely within State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry.
(10) Unit 5: Atsena Otie Key; Levy County, Florida.
[[Page 65152]]
(i) Unit 5 encompasses approximately 183 acres (74 hectares) and
includes the entire island of Atsena Otie Key. Lands within this unit
include approximately 116 acres (47 hectares) in State ownership and 67
acres (27 hectares) in other ownership. Atsena Otie Key is
approximately 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) south of Cedar Key within the
Gulf of Mexico. The island is owned by the State of Florida and managed
as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge through a memorandum
of understanding by the Service.
(ii) Map of Units 5, 6, and 7 follows:
Figure 4 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (10)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.021
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
(11) Unit 6: Snake Key; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 6 encompasses approximately 57 acres (23 hectares) and
includes the
[[Page 65153]]
entire island of Snake Key. Lands within this unit include
approximately 39 acres (16 hectares) in Federal ownership and 17 acres
(7 hectares) in other ownership. Snake Key is approximately 2.5 miles
(4 kilometers) south of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The island
is managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys National Wildlife
Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
(12) Unit 7: Seahorse Key; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 7 encompasses approximately 165 acres (67 hectares) and
includes the entire island of Seahorse Key. Lands within this unit
include approximately 118 acres (48 hectares) in Federal ownership and
47 acres (19 hectares) in other ownership. Seahorse Key is
approximately 3 miles (5 kilometers) south and west of Cedar Key within
the Gulf of Mexico. The island is managed by the Service as part of the
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
(13) Unit 8: North Key; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 8 encompasses approximately 236 acres (95 hectares) and
includes the entire island of North Key. Lands within this unit include
approximately 129 acres (52 hectares) in Federal ownership and 107
acres (43 hectares) in other ownership. North Key is approximately 3
miles (4.8 kilometers) to the west of Cedar Key within the Gulf of
Mexico. The island is managed by the Service as part of the Cedar Keys
National Wildlife Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
Figure 5 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (13)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 65154]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.022
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
(14) Unit 9: Airstrip Island; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 9 encompasses approximately 29 acres (12 hectares) on the
island of Way Key. Lands within this unit include approximately 19
acres (8 hectares) in local government ownership and 10 acres (4
hectares) in private ownership. This unit is composed of five separate
sections.
(A) Airstrip Island Beach is 5 acres (2 hectares) of private
shoreline along Daughtry Bayou, encompassing sandy beach from mean
higher high-water inland to dense vegetation, hardened structures, or
roads, extending from the southern side of the Airport Road bridge to
the south for approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer).
(B) Cedar Key Airport includes 16 acres (6.5 hectares) of
unvegetated and vegetated sandy soils on the George T. Lewis Airport
(also known as the Cedar Key Airport) that are owned by Levy County.
(C) Airport Island is a 2-acre (0.8-hectare), unnamed island
southwest of the airport that is owned by Levy County.
[[Page 65155]]
(D) Piney Point is a 3-acre (1-hectare), privately owned,
undeveloped, vacant lot on the western side of Piney Point south of the
airport.
(E) The Robert Cull Nature Preserve is 2 acres (0.8 hectare) of
protected land at the terminus of Piney Point that are owned and
managed by Florida's Nature Coast Conservancy.
(ii) Map of Units 9 and 10 follows:
Figure 6 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (14)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.023
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
(15) Unit 10: Way Key South; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 10 encompasses approximately 44 acres (18 hectares) on Way
Key. This unit is a series of undeveloped, disconnected islands south
of Way Key. The unit includes a large portion of the island located
between the airport and the developed portion of Way Key and several
[[Page 65156]]
primarily sand islands that occur seaward of the main island. This unit
is entirely in State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 10 is provided at paragraph (14)(ii) of this
entry.
(16) Unit 11: Way Key North; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 11 encompasses approximately 24 acres (10 hectares) on Way
Key. Lands within this unit include approximately 9 acres (4 hectares)
in State ownership, managed as the Cedar Key Museum State Park by the
Florida Park Service, and 15 acres (6 hectares) in local government
ownership, managed as Cemetery Point Park by the City of Cedar Key.
(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
Figure 7 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (16)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.024
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
[[Page 65157]]
(17) Unit 12: Richards Island; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 12 encompasses approximately 105 acres (42 hectares) and
includes the entirety of Richards Island. Lands within this unit
include approximately 86 acres (35 hectares) in Federal ownership and
19 acres (8 hectares) in other ownership. Richards Island is
approximately 3.3 miles (5.3 kilometers) northwest of Cedar Key within
the Gulf of Mexico. The island is managed by the Service as part of the
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge.
(ii) Map of Units 12 and 13 follows:
Figure 8 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (17)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.025
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
(18) Unit 13: Seabreeze Island; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 13 encompasses approximately 136 acres (55 hectares)
[[Page 65158]]
on Seabreeze Island. Lands within this unit include approximately 111
acres (45 hectares) in Federal ownership and 25 acres (10 hectares) in
other ownership. Seabreeze Island is approximately 4 miles (6
kilometers) northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The
island is managed by the Service as part of the Lower Suwannee National
Wildlife Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit 13 is provided at paragraph (17)(ii) of this
entry.
(19) Unit 14: Shell Mound; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 14 encompasses approximately 1,050 acres (425 hectares) on
Shell Mound. This unit extends from Dennis Creek north to Ericson
Creek. Lands within this unit include approximately 167 acres (68
hectares) in Federal ownership, 194 acres (79 hectares) in State
ownership, and 688 acres (278 hectares) in private ownership. The unit
includes portions of the Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve managed by the
Florida Park Service and the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge
managed by the Service.
(ii) Map of Units 14, 15, 16, and 17 follows:
Figure 9 to Cedar Key Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis)
paragraph (19)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 65159]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU24.026
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
(20) Unit 15: Raleigh and Horse Islands; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 15 encompasses approximately 176 acres (71 hectares) on
Raleigh and Horse Islands. Approximately 171 acres (69 hectares) are in
Federal ownership and 5 acres (2 hectares) are in private ownership.
The group of islands are approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers)
northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico. The Service manages
most of the islands as part of the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife
Refuge.
(ii) Map of Unit 15 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this
entry.
(21) Unit 16: Deer Island; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 16 encompasses approximately 113 acres (46 hectares) and
includes the entirety of Deer Island. Lands within the unit include
approximately 8 acres (3 hectares) in Federal ownership, 69 acres (28
hectares) in private ownership, and 36 acres (15 hectares) in other
ownership. Deer Island is approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers)
northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
(ii) Map of Unit 16 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this
entry.
[[Page 65160]]
(22) Unit 17: Clark Islands; Levy County, Florida.
(i) Unit 17 encompasses approximately 121 acres (49 hectares) in
the Clark Islands complex. The entirety of the unit is privately owned.
The Clark Islands are approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) north-
northwest of Cedar Key within the Gulf of Mexico.
(ii) Map of Unit 17 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this
entry.
* * * * *
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-17271 Filed 8-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P