Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Bristle Fern
| Published date | 24 February 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 10371 |
| Record Number | 2020-03441 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 36 (Monday, February 24, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10371-10397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03441]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068; 4500090023]
RIN 1018-BE12
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Florida Bristle Fern
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the Florida bristle fern (Trichomanes
punctatum ssp. floridanum) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended. In total, approximately 1,624 hectares (4,014 acres)
in Miami-Dade and Sumter Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries
of the proposed critical habitat designation. If we finalize this rule
as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this subspecies'
critical habitat. We also announce the availability of a draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments on the proposed rule and draft economic
analysis received or postmarked on or before April 24, 2020. Comments
submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the
closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by April 9,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments on the proposed
rule or draft economic analysis by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Document availability: The draft economic analysis is available at
http://www.fws.gov/verobeach, at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068, and at the South Florida Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are
generated are included in the administrative record for this proposed
critical habitat designation and are available at https://www.fws.gov/verobeach, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0068, and at the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or
supporting information that we may develop for the critical habitat
designation will also be available at the Service website and Field
Office set out above, and may also be included in the preamble of this
proposed rule and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field
Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; telephone 772-562-3909.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. To the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, we must designate critical habitat for any species that
we determine to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a
rule.
What this document does. This document proposes to designate
critical habitat for the Florida bristle fern (Trichomanes punctatum
ssp. floridanum), which was listed as endangered under the Act on
November 5, 2015 (80 FR 60440).
The basis for our action. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat to
the extent prudent and determinable. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states
that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
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 protection; 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.
Economic analysis. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
we prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designation. In this document, we announce the
availability of the draft economic analysis for public review and
comment.
Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we will seek peer review
of this proposed rule. We are seeking comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our critical habitat proposal is based on
scientifically sound data and analyses. We have invited these peer
reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions in
this critical habitat proposal during the public comment period for
this proposed rule (see DATES, above).
Because we will consider all comments and information received
during the comment period, our final critical habitat designation may
differ from this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and
any comments on that new information), we may conclude that some
additional areas meet the definition of critical habitat, and some
areas proposed as critical habitat may not meet the definition of
critical habitat. In addition, we may find that the benefit of
excluding some areas outweigh the benefits of including those areas
[[Page 10372]]
pursuant to 4(b)(2) of the Act, and may exclude them from the final
designation unless we determine that exclusion would result in
extinction of the Florida bristle fern. Such final decisions would be a
logical outgrowth of this proposal, as long as we: (a) Base the
decisions on the best scientific and commercial data available after
considering all of the relevant factors; (2) do not rely on factors
Congress has not intended us to consider; and (3) articulate a rational
connection between the facts found and the conclusions made, including
why we changed our conclusion.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned government agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The subspecies is threatened by taking or other human activity
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the subspecies;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a subspecies' habitat or range is not a threat to the
subspecies, or threats to the subspecies' habitat stem solely from
causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting
from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Florida bristle fern habitat;
(b) What may constitute physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the subspecies, specifically those related to
canopy cover, hydrology, humidity and moisture levels, and minimum
habitat amounts;
(c) Reproduction and dispersal methods of the subspecies, such as
spore dispersal distance, the association between dispersal and
hydrological conditions, and the reliance on vegetative dispersal for
subspecies growth;
(d) What areas that were occupied at the time of listing and that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies should be included in the designation
and why;
(e) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in occupied critical habitat areas we are proposing, including
managing for the potential effects of climate change;
(f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the subspecies. We particularly seek comments
regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of
the subspecies; and,
(ii) Specific information that supports the determination that
unoccupied areas will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the subspecies and, contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the subspecies;
(g) The location and boundaries of hammock habitats and exposed
limestone substrate within and surrounding the Jumper Creek Tract of
the Withlacoochee State Forest in Sumter County, FL, that would support
life-history processes essential for the conservation of the
subspecies;
(h) The delineation of the substrate or substrate mapping through
the subspecies' south Florida range;
(i) The methods we used to identify unoccupied critical habitat for
each of the metapopulations; and,
(j) As to the following areas, their occupancy status and habitat
suitability; whether physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies are present; and whether they should be
included in the designation and why:
(i) Monkey Jungle (also known as Cox Hammock), Big and Little
George Hammocks, Charles Deering, Bill Sadowski Park, Whispering Pines
Hammock, Black Creek Forest, Hardin Hammock, Silver Palm Groves, Camp
Owaissa Bauer, Lucille Hammock, Loveland Hammock, and Holiday Hammock
in Miami-Dade County;
(ii) Rockland hammocks, other than Royal Palm Hammock, in Long Pine
Key in Everglades National Park in Miami-Dade County;
(iii) Rockland hammocks in Big Cypress National Preserve in Collier
and Monroe Counties;
(iv) Hammock habitats in the Jumper Creek Tract and Richloam Tract
of the Withlacoochee State Forest in Sumter County;
(v) Hammock habitats in the vicinity of Lake Panasoffkee in Sumter
County;
(vi) Hammock habitats on Flying Eagle Ranch and Pineola Grotto in
Citrus County; and,
(vii) Hammock habitats in the vicinity of the Green Swamp in Pasco
and Polk Counties.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Florida bristle fern and proposed critical
habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may
be impacted.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of those impacts.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the
draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(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.
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.
[[Page 10373]]
If you submit information via http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date
specified above 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 any are requested, and announce the dates,
times, and places 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.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the final listing rule for the Florida bristle
fern, which published on October 6, 2015 (80 FR 60440), for a detailed
description of previous Federal actions concerning this subspecies.
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 Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 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 and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, 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.
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. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to 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
[[Page 10374]]
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include 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) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
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 these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that the Secretary shall designate
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the
Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity,
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species;
(2) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stems solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(3) Areas within jurisdiction of the United States provide no more
than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring
primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(4) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(5) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
No imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism
under Factor B was identified in the final listing rule for this
subspecies, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not
expected to initiate any such threat. In our final listing rule, we
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range (Factor A) is a threat to
Florida bristle fern and that those threats in some way can be
addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. The subspecies
occurs wholly in the jurisdiction of the United States and we are able
to identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat.
Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met and because there are
no other circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this
designation of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the
Florida bristle fern.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
Florida bristle fern is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one
or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking; or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the subspecies and habitat characteristics where this
subspecies is located. We find that this information is sufficient for
us to conduct both the biological and economic analyses required for
the critical habitat determination. This and other information
represent the best scientific data available and lead us to conclude
that the designation of critical habitat is now determinable for the
Florida bristle fern.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
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. These include, but are 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, alkali soil
for
[[Page 10375]]
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 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, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics
and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the
necessary amount of a characteristic needed to support the life history
of the species. In considering whether features are essential to the
conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate
quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition,
and status of the species.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Florida bristle fern occurs exclusively in closed canopy, upland
hardwood forest hammock habitats, which support the climate (stable
humidity and temperature), hydrology, canopy cover, and limestone
substrates necessary for the subspecies to persist, grow, and
reproduce. Upland hardwood forests consist of a mosaic of natural
hammock and hardwood communities primarily characterized as mesic,
hydric, and rockland hammocks, or intermixed hammock strands, with
associated transitional wetland matrix/hydric and upland communities
(Florida Natural Areas Inventory [Inventory] 2010, pp. 16-28). The
hammock habitats occurs within and as part of larger matrices of hydric
or pine rockland communities (Inventory 2010, pp.16-28). Detailed
descriptions of these natural communities can be found in Natural
Communities of Florida (Inventory 2010, pp. 16-28) and in the final
listing rule for Florida bristle fern (80 FR 60440, October 6, 2015).
Natural communities include both wetland and upland communities having
intact vegetation (i.e., not cleared).
The current range of Florida bristle fern includes two
metapopulations, one in south Florida (Miami-Dade County) and one in
central Florida (Sumter County). The south Florida metapopulation is
currently composed of four known populations, and the central Florida
metapopulation is composed of two known populations. The south Florida
populations of Florida bristle fern occur in communities characterized
by primarily rockland hammock or closed tropical hardwood hammocks
occurring within a larger matrix of pine rockland on the Miami Rock
Ridge. In central Florida, the populations of the subspecies occur in
predominantly mesic hammocks situated in a mosaic of hydric hammock and
mixed wetland hardwoods. These internal or inter-mixed strands of
hammock within the forested communities are characterized by fairly
dense to extremely dense canopy cover, which prevents drastic changes
in temperature and humidity and the desiccation of the fern from direct
sunlight and drying winds.
The matrix of landscapes associated with the hammocks or the
intermixed strands of these communities support the suitable conditions
necessary for the growth and reproduction of Florida bristle fern.
Suitable habitat quality and size are necessary to ensure the
maintenance of the microclimate conditions (stable temperature, high
humidity, moisture, canopy shade, and shelter) essential to the
subspecies' survival and conservation. These combined factors establish
the fern's microclimate: (a) The level of protection/exposure the fern
experiences given its location in a solution hole (a limestone solution
feature; in the Miami Rock Ridge, they consist of steep-sided pits,
varying in size, formed by dissolution of subsurface limestone followed
by a collapse above (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 236)) or on an exposed
boulder, (b) the quality of the solution hole or exposed boulder
substrate, and (c) the amount of canopy cover. The surrounding
vegetation is a key component in producing and supporting this
microclimate. There are differences in vegetation and substrate
characteristics between the two geographically distant metapopulations
that can account for differences in the amount of habitat needed to
support the fern. For example, Florida bristle fern in south Florida
occurs in a tropical climate and attaches to the interior walls of
well-protected and insulated solution holes. By comparison, in central
Florida, Florida bristle fern occurs in a more temperate climate and is
found more exposed by attaching to a substrate that is above the
surface. The size and quality of the intact habitat surrounding the
exposed substrate can play a greater role in providing and supporting
the stable, shaded, and wind-protected microclimate conditions the fern
needs. Therefore, the microclimate conditions (stable temperature, high
humidity, canopy shade, and shelter) have the potential to be
maintained (and the plant is able to persist) within smaller areas in
south Florida than those needed to support the microclimate conditions
in central Florida. For both metapopulations, intact upland hardwood
forest and associated hammock habitat is an essential feature to the
conservation of this subspecies, and sufficient habitat is needed to
ensure the maintenance of the fern's microclimate and life processes
(growth, dispersal).
Therefore, we identify upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of
sufficient quality and size to sustain the necessary microclimate and
life processes for Florida bristle fern to be a physical or biological
feature essential to the conservation for this subspecies.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Substrate and Soils--Florida bristle fern is generally epipetric
(grows on rocks) or epiphytic (grows non-parasitically upon another
plant). In combination with the habitat characteristics discussed
above, the subspecies requires exposed limestone substrate to provide
suitable growing conditions for anchoring, nutrients, pH, and proper
drainage (van der Heiden 2016, p. 1). Florida bristle fern prefers
substrate having exposed oolitic (composed of minute rounded
concretions resembling fish eggs) limestone or limestone solution
features (solution holes) filled with a thin layer of highly organic
soil and standing water for part or all of the year. The limestone
substrate occurs primarily as solution holes in south Florida and
exposed limestone boulders in central Florida.
In south Florida, Florida bristle fern is currently found growing
in rocky
[[Page 10376]]
outcrops of rockland hammocks, in oolitic limestone solution holes, and
occasionally, on tree roots in limestone-surrounded areas (Nauman 1986,
p. 181; Possley 2013a, pers. comm.). These rockland habitats are
outcrops primarily composed of marine limestone representing the
distinct geological formation of the Miami Rock Ridge, a feature that
encompasses a broad area from Miami to Homestead, Florida, and narrows,
westward through the Long Pine Key area of Everglades National Park
(Snyder et al. 1990, pp. 233-234). The limestone solution holes are
considered specialized habitat within these hammock areas that host
Florida bristle fern (Snyder et al.1990, p. 247). The solution-hole
features that dominate the rock surface in the Miami Rock Ridge are
steep-sided pits formed by dissolution of subsurface limestone followed
by the eventual collapse of the surface above (Snyder et al. 1990, p.
236). The limestone solution holes often have complex internal
topography and vary in size and depth, from shallow holes a few
centimeters deep to those that are several meters in size and up to
several meters deep (Snyder et al. 1990, p. 238; Kobza et al. 2004, p.
154). The bottoms of most solution holes are filled with organic soils,
while deeper solution holes penetrate the water table and have (at
least historically) standing water for part of the year (Snyder et al.
1990, pp. 236-237; Rehage et al. 2014, pp. S160-S161). A direct
relationship has been found between the length of time a solution hole
contains water (hydroperiod length) and the habitat quality (vegetative
cover) of the solution hole (Rehage et al. 2014, p. S161).
Oolitic limestone occurs in south Florida (and other locations in
the world), but it does not occur in central Florida. In central
Florida, Florida bristle fern resides on limestone substrate in high-
humidity hammocks (van der Heiden 2016, p. 1; van der Heiden 2013a,
pers. comm.). In the mesic hammocks on the Jumper Creek Tract of the
Withlacoochee State Forest, the subspecies has been observed growing on
exposed limestone rocks as small as 0.1 meters (m) (0.3 feet (ft)) tall
as well as larger boulders with tall, horizontal faces, and occurs
alongside numerous other plant species, including rare State-listed
species (e.g., hemlock spleenwort (Asplenium cristatum) and widespread
polypody (Pecluma dispersa)) (van der Heiden 2013b, pers. comm.; van
der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 7-8). Rock outcrops may also provide
suitable substrate where the underlying Ocala limestone (a geologic
formation of exposed limestone near Ocala, Florida) is near the
surface.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify exposed
substrate derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala limestone, or exposed
limestone boulders, which provide anchoring and nutritional
requirements, to be a physical or biological feature essential to the
conservation of Florida bristle fern.
Climate and Hydrology--Florida bristle fern is considered strongly
hygrophilous (i.e., growing or adapted to damp or wet conditions) and
is generally perceived as restricted to constantly humid microhabitat
(Kr[ouml]mer and Kessler 2006, p. 57; Proctor 2012, pp. 1024-1025).
Features that allow for proper ecosystem functionality and a suitable
microhabitat required for the growth and reproduction of the subspecies
include a canopy cover of suitable density (i.e., average canopy
closure more than 75 percent) and humidity and moisture of sufficient
levels and stability (on average, above approximately 90 percent
relative humidity) (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 8; van der
Heiden 2016, p. 18; Possley and Hazelton 2015, entire; Possley 2015,
pers. comm.; Possley 2015, unpublished data).
The relationship between moist habitats and the Hymenophyllaceae
Family of ferns (filmy ferns), to which the Trichomanes species
belongs, has been long observed and documented (Shreve 1911, pp. 187,
189; Proctor 2003, entire; Proctor 2012, p. 1024). In a tropical rain
forest system, the diversity and number of filmy fern species is shown
to have a direct relation to the air moisture (relative humidity)
(Gehrig-Downie et al. 2012; pp. 40-42). While not in the same fern
Family as the Florida bristle fern, a study of the rare temperate
woodland fern, Braun's hollyfern (Polystichum braunii), found air
humidity to be a key factor in species health, with stronger plant
productivity occurring in higher humidity levels (Schwerbrock and
Leuschner 2016, p. 5). Although a minimum suitable humidity level, or
threshold, for Florida bristle fern has not been quantified for either
metapopulation of the subspecies, information from field studies
indicates conditions of high and stable relative humidity are essential
to the subspecies. Minor drops in ambient humidity may limit
reproduction of the subspecies and can negatively impact overall health
of the existing metapopulations, as well as inhibit the growth of new
plants, impacting long-term viability (Possley 2013b, pers. comm.; van
der Heiden 2013a, pers. comm.). This relationship was observed in
Sumter County, where small drops (approximately 1-2 percent) in
relative humidity associated with colder weather resulted in observed
declines in the health of some clusters of Florida bristle fern within
the local population (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 9).
The average relative humidity for hammocks in Sumter County
remained near 95 percent for the duration of a September-November 2013
study (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 8-9). Further, the minimum
and maximum monthly average relative humidity from September 2013 to
March 2015 for the two central Florida hammocks supporting Florida
bristle fern were 88 and 99 percent and 89 and 100 percent,
respectively (van der Heiden 2016, p. 18). The lowest monthly average
relative humidity in each of the hammocks was 65 and 69 percent. In
comparison, the minimum and maximum monthly average relative humidity
documented outside of the hammock (from June 2014 to March 2015) was 68
and 93 percent with a low monthly relative humidity of 51 percent. In
summary, similar and consistently high average humidity values occurred
between and within the two hammocks supporting the subspecies, and
consistently higher relative humidity values were recorded in the
hammocks compared to outside the hammocks.
Likewise, in south Florida, 8 years of data-log monitoring of
Deering's Cutler Slough (the location of a known extirpated population,
Deering-Snapper Creek, of Florida bristle fern) recorded an average of
90 percent relative humidity occurring within a solution hole compared
to the 84 percent average relative humidity documented in the slough
outside of the solution hole during the same time period (Possley and
Hazelton 2015, entire).
The hammock environments are high or slightly elevated grounds that
do not regularly flood, but are dependent on a high water table to keep
humidity levels high (Inventory 2010, pp. 19-28). The subspecies is
affected by humidity at two spatial scales: the larger hammock
community-scale and the smaller substrate (boulder/solution hole)
microclimate-scale (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 9-10).
Moisture (precipitation and low evaporation) and humidity levels are
likely factors limiting the occurrence of Florida bristle fern (Proctor
2003, p. 726; Gehrig-Downie et al. 2012, p. 40; Shreve 1911, p. 189).
The high humidity levels discussed above and stable temperatures,
moisture, and shading (cover) are all features considered
[[Page 10377]]
essential to the subspecies and produced by the combination of:
(1) Solution hole or boulder microclimate;
(2) Organic, moisture-retaining soils (high soil moisture
conditions);
(3) Hydrology of the surrounding or adjacent wetlands; and
(4) Protective shelter of the surrounding habitat minimizing
effects from drying winds and/solar radiation.
Solution holes provide the limestone substrate and produce the
necessary humid and moist microclimate needed by the subspecies in
south Florida. In central Florida, the fern occurs in the more
northerly portion of the hammocks and northern aspect of the limestone
boulders, obtaining greater shading and moist conditions compared to
the sunnier and drier south-facing portions of the hammocks and sides
of boulders (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 7, 31). Variances
within hammocks, such as slight structural differences or proximity to
water, also play an important part in where suitable microhabitat
occurs in the hammock habitats. Intact hydrology and the connectivity
of substrates to surface water and streams may play a role in spore and
vegetative fragment dispersal for the subspecies (more detail in
following section, ``Sites for Reproduction, Growth, Spore Production
and Dispersal''). Soils associated with the hammock ecosystems consist
of sands mixed with organic matter, which produce better drained soils
than soils of surrounding or adjacent wetland communities. Soils in
habitats of extant Florida bristle fern populations in south Florida
consist of an uneven layer of highly organic soil and moderately well-
drained, sandy, and very shallow soils (classified as Matecumbe muck).
Soils in habitats of the central Florida metapopulation are
predominantly sand and Okeelanta muck (80 FR 60440, October 6 2015).
For both metapopulations, a relatively high soil-moisture content and
high humidity are maintained by dense litter accumulation, ground
cover, and heavy shade produced by the dense canopy (Service 1999, pp.
3-99).
In addition, the protected hammock habitats are slightly higher in
elevation than the surrounding habitat, which combined with the
limestone substrate, leaf litter and sandy soils create a hydrology
that differs from lower elevation habitats. It is this combination of
hammock ecosystem characteristics (i.e., closed canopy, limestone
substrate, humid climate, higher elevation) occurring in hardwood
forested upland communities as described earlier that are essential to
the conservation for the subspecies.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify a constantly
humid microhabitat climate consisting of dense canopy cover, moisture,
stable high temperature, and stable monthly average relative humidity
of 90 percent or higher, with intact hydrology within hammocks and the
surrounding and adjacent wetland communities, to be a physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of Florida bristle
fern.
Cover and Shelter--Florida bristle fern occurs exclusively in
hardwood hammock habitats having dense canopy, which provides shade
necessary to support suitable microhabitat for the subspecies to
persist, grow, and reproduce. In south Florida (Miami-Dade County), the
extant populations of Florida bristle fern occur in communities
classified as rockland hammocks on the Miami Rock Ridge. In central
Florida (Sumter County), the extant populations of the subspecies occur
in mesic hammocks, often situated in a mosaic of natural communities
including hydric hammock and mixed wetland hardwoods.
The dense canopies of the hammock systems (including rockland and
mesic hammocks) contribute to maintaining suitable temperature and
humidity levels within this microclimate. The dense canopies found in
these habitats minimize temperature fluctuations by reducing soil
warming during the day and heat loss at night, thereby helping to
prevent frost damage to hammock interiors (Inventory 2010, p. 25). In
areas with greater temperature variations, as in central Florida, these
benefits afforded by the dense canopy of both the mesic hammock and
surrounding habitat combined are important to maintaining suitable
conditions for Florida bristle fern. The rounded canopy profile of
hammocks help maintain mesic (moist) conditions by deflecting winds,
thereby limiting desiccation (extreme dryness) during dry periods and
reducing interior storm damage (Inventory 2010, p. 25). Changes in the
canopy can impact humidity and evaporation rates, as well as the amount
of light available to the understory. Both known extant metapopulations
of Florida bristle fern live in dense canopy habitat, with shady
conditions, which may be obligatory due to the poikilohydric (i.e.,
possess no mechanism to prevent desiccation) nature of some fern
species including the Florida bristle fern (Kr[ouml]mer and Kessler
2006, p. 57).
While the proper amount of canopy is critical to the persistence of
Florida bristle fern, the lower limit of acceptable canopy density has
yet to be quantified for either metapopulation. Field observations in
south Florida have found clusters of Florida bristle fern desiccated
when the immediate canopy above plants was destroyed or substantially
reduced, allowing high amounts of light into the understory (Possley
2019, entire; Possley 2013c, entire); however, over the course of many
months, these clusters eventually recovered. In addition, this dense,
closed canopy may serve as a shield for Florida bristle fern to inhibit
the growth of other plant species on the same part of an inhabited rock
area (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 9). In central Florida, the
average canopy closure where Florida bristle fern occurs has been
estimated to be more than 75 percent (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014,
p. 9). Although there are several occurrences in these mesic hammocks
where sunlight can be observed through the canopy, generally the
habitat is shaded throughout the year, with the lowest canopy cover
recorded at 64 percent in December (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014,
pp. 8, 20). This information was obtained from a study of short
duration (September-December 2013), and it is likely that percent
canopy cover and consequently shading would be greater in summer months
when foliage is densest (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, p. 8).
Surrounding habitat that minimizes the effects from drying winds
and solar radiation and provides a stable and protective shelter is
necessary for this fern to survive. A suitable habitat size and quality
is necessary to provide a functioning canopy cover that maintains the
microclimate conditions (humidity, moisture, temperature, and shade)
essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify dense canopy
cover of surrounding native vegetation that consists of the upland
hardwood forest hammock habitats to be a physical or biological feature
essential to the conservation of Florida bristle fern.
Sites for Reproduction, Germination, and Spore Production and Dispersal
Growth and reproduction of Florida bristle fern can occur through
spore dispersal, rhizome (underground stem) growth, and clonal
vegetative fragments (80 FR 60440). The habitats identified above
provide plant communities, which require a self-maintaining closed
canopy and climate-controlled interior, an adequate space for the
rhizomal
[[Page 10378]]
growth, dispersal of seeds, sporophyte and gametophyte survival, and
recruitment of plant fragments.
While specific information on spore dispersal distances is largely
unknown for this subspecies, the microclimate is found to be essential
for spore germination and survival. Dispersal of spores, gametophytes,
and vegetative fragments may take place via water-based methods,
animals, and to a lesser extent, wind-driven opportunities. In the
Hymenophyllaceae family of ferns, spores lack the capacity to withstand
desiccation, are not known to be dispersed long distance through the
wind, and depend upon the moist microclimate for growth and survival
(Nural Hafiza 2014, p. 21).
In terms of protecting the subspecies' genetic components, a recent
study of Florida bristle fern chloroplast DNA found little genetic
differentiation between the two metapopulations, which can indicate
that both metapopulations are recently established from a single source
or that there is a favoring of a genetic sequence (Hughs 2015, pp. 1-
2). Lower genetic variation in a population produces a lower effective
population (the number of individuals that can undergo cross-
fertilization). In such small populations, such as with Florida bristle
fern, any loss of individuals may also be a loss of genetic information
and a reduction of subspecies fitness (Fernando et al. 2015, pp. 32-
34). Therefore, ensuring space for reproduction, germination, spore
production, and dispersal of the subspecies helps ensure the
conservation of genetic information and subspecies fitness.
Adequate space and the maintenance of the stable microclimate
habitat support clonal growth as well as the reproductive stages of
Florida bristle fern. The rare American hart's tongue fern is a species
like the Florida bristle fern that relies on the specific microclimate
conditions of high humidity, moisture, and shelter. In a study of the
American hart's tongue fern, the presence of these microclimate habitat
conditions determined the success of the fern's life-history processes
(growth, reproduction, and spore production) (Fernando et al. 2015, p.
33).
Interior condition of the hammock microclimate (e.g., humidity,
temperature) are influenced by the hammock's own canopy and hydrology
and the vegetative structure and hydrology of the surrounding habitat.
For example, in south Florida, the pre-settlement landscape of the
rockland hammocks on the Miami Rock Ridge occurred as ``small islands''
in a sea of pine rockland and seasonally flooded prairies, or
transverse glades (shallow channels through the Miami Rock Ridge that
had wet prairie vegetation and moved water out of the Everglades Basin
toward the coast). It has been estimated that originally more than 500
hammocks occurred in this area, ranging in size from 0.1 hectares (ha)
(0.2 acres (ac)) to over 40 ha (100 ac) (Craighead 1972, p. 153). The
vast majority of these hammocks have been destroyed, and those that
remain are significantly reduced in size. In addition, the habitats
surrounding the remaining rockland hammocks have been drastically
altered or destroyed, primarily through urban and agricultural
development, and in many cases, no longer function as effective or
efficient buffers to protect rockland hammocks from the impacts of
changes in temperature and humidity, or extreme weather or natural
stochastic events (e.g., frost, high winds, and hurricanes/tropical
storms). This fragmentation and distance between hammocks can hinder
water-based dispersal and the recruitment of new plants and
gametophytes. Fragmentation may reduce the stable, protected
microclimate conditions and the survivability of spores within that
microclimate. Thus, the hammock microhabitat supporting the subspecies
must be of a suitable minimum size with sufficiently dense canopy,
substrate, and understory vegetation within a hammock's interior, and
there must also be intact surrounding habitat of sufficient amount,
distribution, and space to support appropriate growing conditions for
Florida bristle fern across its range.
The central Florida metapopulation of Florida bristle fern occurs
in two mesic hammocks, which exist as part of a wetland matrix of
hydric hammock, mixed wetland hardwoods, cypress/tupelo floodplain
swamp, and freshwater marsh. The surrounding existing suitable habitat
and substrate are essential to providing space for growth, reproduction
and dispersal of the existing populations.
Therefore, we identify the habitats described as physical or
biological features above that also provide suitable microhabitat
conditions, hydrology, and connectivity that can support the subspecies
growth, distribution, and population expansion (including rhizomal
growth, spore dispersal, and sporophyte and gametophyte growth and
survival) to be a physical or biological feature essential to the
conservation of Florida bristle fern.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance
Florida bristle fern can be outcompeted by other native, as well as
nonnative, invasive species. Nonnative and native invasive plants,
including a few of the most common invasive plants such as Love vine
(Cassytha filiformis), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and
Burma reed (Neyraudia reynaudiana), compete with the subspecies for
space, light, water, and nutrients; limit growth and abundance; and can
make habitat conditions unsuitable. Nonnative plant species have
affected hammock habitats where Florida bristle fern occurs, and as
identified in the final listing rule (80 FR 60440, October 6, 2015),
are considered one of the threats to the subspecies (Snyder et al.
1990, p. 273; Gann et al. 2002, pp. 552-554; Inventory 2010, pp. 22,
26). Nonnative plants can outcompete and displace the subspecies in
solution holes, and can blanket existing occurrences, blocking out all
light and smothering the fern (Possley 2013d, pers. comm.). In addition
to the negative impacts of nonnative and native invasive plants, feral
hogs can impact substrate and vegetation (directly) and habitat
suitability (indirectly). Rooting from hogs can destroy existing
habitat by displacing smaller rocks where the subspecies grows and
potentially damage or eliminate a cluster of the fern (Werner 2013,
pers. comm.). In Withlacoochee State Forest, damaged areas from feral
hogs are also more susceptible to invasion from nonnative plant species
(Werner 2013, pers. comm.).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify a plant
community of predominantly native vegetation that is minimally
disturbed or free from human-related disturbance with either no
competitive nonnative, invasive plant species, or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on Florida bristle fern to
be a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of
Florida bristle fern.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We have determined that the following physical or biological
features are essential to the conservation of Florida bristle fern:
(1) Upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of sufficient quality
and size to sustain the necessary microclimate and life processes for
Florida bristle fern.
(2) Exposed substrate derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala
limestone, or exposed limestone boulders, which
[[Page 10379]]
provide anchoring and nutritional requirements.
(3) Constantly humid microhabitat consisting of dense canopy cover,
moisture, stable high temperature, and stable monthly average humidity
of 90 percent or higher, with intact hydrology within hammocks and the
surrounding and adjacent wetland communities.
(4) Dense canopy cover of surrounding native vegetation that
consists of the upland hardwood forest hammock habitats and provides
shade, shelter, and moisture.
(5) Suitable microhabitat conditions, hydrology, and connectivity
that can support the Florida bristle fern growth, distribution, and
population expansion (including rhizomal growth, spore dispersal, and
sporophyte and gametophyte growth and survival).
(6) Plant community of predominantly native vegetation that is
minimally disturbed, free from human-related disturbance with either no
competitive nonnative, invasive plant species, or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on Florida bristle fern.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of Florida
bristle fern may require special management considerations or
protections to reduce threats related to habitat modification and
destruction primarily due to development, agricultural conversion,
hydrologic alteration, nonnative invasive species, and sea level rise.
For more information on threats to Florida bristle fern, please refer
to the final listing rule (80 FR 60440, October 6, 2015).
The four known populations of the south Florida metapopulation
occur on County-managed conservation lands at Castellow Hammock, Hattie
Bauer Hammock, Fuchs Hammock, and Meissner Hammock. However, these
areas are still vulnerable to the effects of activities in the
surrounding areas, including agricultural clearing and hydrologic
alterations. In addition, these areas are vulnerable to threats from
nonnative invasive species, especially if current control efforts are
discontinued or decreased. The small amount of rockland hammock or
mixed rockland/mesic hammock is vulnerable to impacts related to urban
and agricultural development, including hydrologic alterations, and
threats by nonnative invasive species (especially as such areas are
often not actively managed for nonnative species). We expect these
hammock communities in south Florida to be further degraded due to sea
level rise and the increase in the number of flood events, which would
fully or partially inundate some rockland hammocks along the coast and
in the southern portion of Miami-Dade County and in Everglades National
Park. Sea level rise is also expected to increase the salinity of the
water table and soils, resulting in vegetation shifts across the Miami
Rock Ridge.
The two known populations of the central Florida metapopulation
both occur on State-owned land in the Jumper Creek Tract of the
Withlacoochee State Forest. Land clearing and hydrological alterations
on private lands adjacent to the Jumper Creek Tract continue to be
threats to the subspecies' populations and habitat. In addition, while
the Withlacoochee State Forest is generally considered public
conservation land, it is managed by the Florida Forest Service and is
subject to logging in certain areas. Logging is less likely to occur on
the Jumper Creek Tract due to the existing matrix of hammocks and
pinelands (versus a predominantly pineland community). This area is
also subject to impacts from nonnative invasive species, although
forest management on the Jumper Creek Tract currently includes
nonnative plant control. Moisture and humidity levels of the fern
habitat are also dependent upon the hydrology of the surrounding or
adjacent wetlands. Alterations in the natural hydrologic regime within
the hammock and these adjacent habitats affect these physical or
biological features. Draining, ditching, and excessive pumping of
groundwater can lower the water table in hammocks, causing reduced
moisture and humidity levels. In such cases, mesic hammocks, for
example, may undergo shifts in species composition toward xeric hammock
composition. These impacts to hammock systems may ultimately reduce or
eliminate suitable habitat for the subspecies. A lowered water table or
dewatering of hammocks can also render the habitat vulnerable to
catastrophic fire.
Special management considerations and protections that will address
these threats include increased coordination and conservation of the
subspecies and its habitat (including preventing impacts to hammock
hydrology, canopy cover, and substrate) on Federal lands and with
State, County, and private landowners of non-Federal lands. Habitat
restoration and management efforts (including nonnative plant
treatments) of high-priority sites will be emphasized. At this time,
the subspecies does not occur on Federal lands for either
metapopulation, but reintroduction is being explored for Royal Palm
Hammock in Everglades National Park in south Florida.
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.
The current distribution of Florida bristle fern is reduced from
its historical distribution to a level where it is danger of
extinction. We anticipate that recovery will require continued
protection of existing populations and habitat, as well as establishing
sites that more closely approximate its historical distribution, in
order to ensure there are adequate numbers of Florida bristle fern in
stable populations and that these populations occur over a wide
geographic area within both metapopulations. This strategy will help to
ensure that catastrophic events, such as fire, cannot simultaneously
affect all known populations. Rangewide recovery considerations, such
as maintaining existing genetic diversity and striving for
representation of all major portions of the subspecies' historical
range, were considered in formulating this proposed critical habitat
designation.
The amount and distribution of the proposed critical habitat are
designed to provide:
(1) The processes that maintain the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of the subspecies;
(2) Sufficient quality and size of habitat to support the
persistence of the physical or biological features for the subspecies
(hammock microclimate, humidity, temperature, substrate, canopy cover,
native plant community);
(3) Habitat to expand the distribution of Florida bristle fern into
historically occupied areas;
(4) Space to increase the size of each population to a level where
the threats of genetic, demographic, and normal
[[Page 10380]]
environmental uncertainties are diminished; and
(5) Additional space to improve the ability of the subspecies to
withstand local or regional-level environmental fluctuations or
catastrophes.
For Florida bristle fern, we are proposing to designate critical
habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the
subspecies at the time of listing. For those areas, we determined that
they were of suitable habitat within the known historical range, with
current occurrence records, and could support the physical or
biological features identified earlier, such as through restoration. We
are also proposing to designate specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing because we have
determined that a designation limited to occupied areas would be
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the subspecies. For those
unoccupied areas, we have determined that it is reasonably certain that
the unoccupied areas will contribute to the conservation of the
subspecies and contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Sources of Data To Identify Critical Habitat Boundaries
To determine the general extent, location, and boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat, we used the following sources of
information:
(1) Historical and current records of Florida bristle fern
occurrence and distribution found in publications, reports, personal
communications, and associated voucher specimens housed at museums and
private collections;
(2) Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission), Inventory,
Institute for Regional Conservation (Institute), and Fairchild Tropical
Botanic Garden (Fairchild) geographic information system (GIS) data
showing the location and extent of documented occurrences of Florida
bristle fern;
(3) Reports and databases prepared by the Institute and Fairchild;
(4) ESRI ArcGIS online basemap aerial imagery (December 2010) and
historical aerial imagery (1938 for Miami-Dade County; 1941 for Sumter
County); and
(5) GIS data depicting land cover (Commission and Inventory
Cooperative Land Cover Map, version 3.1) within Miami-Dade and Sumter
Counties, and the location and habitat boundaries of rockland hammocks
in Miami-Dade County (Florida Geographic Data Library 2017; Commission
and Inventory 2018; Institute 2009; Miami-Dade County Information
Technology Department 2015; Sumter County, Florida 2019).
The presence of the physical or biological features was determined
using the above sources of information as well as site visits by
biologists and botanists (Possley 2019, entire), and through field
surveys, habitat mapping, and substrate mapping by the Institute
(Possley and Hazelton 2015, entire; van der Heiden 2016, entire; van
der Heiden and Johnson 2014, entire).
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
The proposed occupied critical habitat units were delineated around
the documented extant populations and the existing physical or
biological features that require special management and protection. We
have determined that all currently known occupied habitat for Florida
bristle fern was also occupied by the subspecies at the time of
listing, and that these areas contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies and which may
require special management considerations or protection. We are
proposing to designate these areas as occupied habitat.
Occupied Habitat--South Florida Metapopulation (Miami-Dade County)
Occupied habitat, which for the south Florida metapopulation occurs
in rockland hammock habitat, was identified based on available
occurrence data for Florida bristle fern. Rockland hammock boundaries
were delineated using the Institute's 2009 rockland hammock GIS layer.
Based on our assessment of rockland hammocks on the Miami Rock Ridge
(see Sites for Reproduction, Germination, or Spore Production and
Dispersal), we included in the assessment all of the remaining rockland
hammocks within the proposed critical habitat boundaries. Next, we
grouped rockland hammocks, where appropriate, to form units. Rockland
hammocks in close proximity to one another provide connectivity and
allow spore dispersal (water-based, animal, or wind-driven dispersal)
from occupied to adjacent habitat, which is important for establishing
new clusters of plants to increase population resiliency and subspecies
redundancy. In addition, based on the Act's implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12 (d)), when habitats are in close proximity to one
another, an inclusive area may be designated. Although the population
historically observed in Ross Hammock has been reported as extirpated,
we combined Ross Hammock with Castellow Hammock into a single occupied
unit (unit South Florida 9 [SF 9]) because: (1) The subspecies is
exceedingly hard to find even by species experts and, therefore, may be
present even though it has been reported as extirpated; (2) there is
the likelihood that spores could travel between occupied and adjacent
habitat, particularly during high-water events; and (3) habitat
directly adjacent to known occurrences (e.g., separated only by a road)
can also be occupied if habitat conditions are suitable. Three occupied
units (Castellow/Ross, Hattie Bauer, and Fuchs and Meissner hammocks)
totaling 52 ha (129 ac) are proposed as critical habitat for the south
Florida metapopulation.
Occupied Critical Habitat--Central Florida Metapopulation (Sumter
County)
For the central Florida populations, habitat was defined as the
intersection of mesic, hydric, and elevated hydric hammocks and a
boulder layer shapefile (van der Heiden 2016, p. 3).
On the Jumper Creek Tract, known extant populations of Florida
bristle fern occur in two small mesic hammocks located within and
supported by a matrix of hydric hammock and mixed wetland hardwood
communities. The mesic hammocks are approximately 0.18 ha (0.44 ac) and
0.11 ha (0.28 ac) in size and difficult to differentiate from the
surrounding forested vegetation. Our evaluation of occurrence data for
this metapopulation also included historical observations of the
Florida bristle fern south of the Jumper Creek Tract where the
subspecies was formerly known to occur near Battle Slough (near the
existing town of Wahoo) and located in close proximity to the extant
populations. In this area, habitat types include mixed wetland
hardwoods surrounded by freshwater marsh, cypress/tupelo, and mixed
hardwood-coniferous forest. Using the information mentioned above on
current and historical occurrences and habitat type and applying the
data for suitable substrate (boulders), we delineated a contiguous unit
of occupied habitat for Florida bristle fern.
As discussed earlier, suitable hammock micro-conditions in this
landscape (specifically the high humidity, stable temperatures,
moisture, and shade) required by Florida bristle fern are supported by
the surrounding vegetation, which minimizes drastic changes in
temperature or humidity at the microclimate scale. Generally, forest
edges receive more light, are prone to greater desiccation, and have a
reduced biodiversity compared to the forest interiors. Pronounced edge
effects from adjacent land clearing and fragmentation, such as with
agricultural
[[Page 10381]]
lands, reduce the quality of forested habitat and detrimentally affect
the interior microclimate.
Field observations of Florida bristle fern in central Florida found
more robust and healthy ferns in an interior hammock with approximately
300 m (985 ft) of surrounding habitat between it and cleared pasture
land. This was compared to ferns in a hammock that had only 100 m (328
ft) of surrounding habitat separating it from the edge of cleared
pasture. The ferns located nearer the edge (approximately 100 m) of the
adjacent cleared pasture had visible signs of stress, and these ferns
appeared desiccated and had fewer reproductive bristles than the ferns
in the hammock and with 300 m of surrounding vegetation (van der Heiden
2016, p. 3). These observations are consistent with findings that
documented edge effects on ferns up to 200 m into the forest (Hylander
et al. 2013, pp. 559-560). Edge effects included loss of individual
plants, loss of percent canopy cover, and increased temperature,
sunlight, and wind on the microclimate (Hylander et al. 2013, pp. 559-
560; Le[atilde]o da Silva and Schmitt 2015, pp. 227-228).
To most accurately represent suitable habitat for Florida bristle
fern within these central Florida communities and ensure the
persistence of the necessary microclimate, we consider natural
communities within 300 m (985 ft) as measured from the edge of and
surrounding the boulder substrate (equivalent to 9.3 ha (23 ac)) to be
habitat essential to the conservation of the subspecies (van der Heiden
2014, pers. comm.; van der Heiden 2016, p. 3) in protecting the habitat
from edge effects. The suitable habitat communities and the
distribution of exposed limestone substrate (boulder) in these
communities were delineated with the use of ground survey and satellite
imagery data (van der Heiden and Johnson 2014, pp. 6-7; van der Heiden
2016, p. 3). Site-level data of vegetative communities produced from
aerial photography (Commission and Inventory 2018) and feedback from
species experts and local biologists on habitat and substrate
occurrence in this area were also used.
Thus, using the best available data, one occupied unit totaling 742
ha (1,834 ac) is proposed as critical habitat for the central Florida
metapopulation. This proposed critical habitat designation consists of
a contiguous unit within and adjacent to Jumper Creek Tract of intact
vegetation (i.e., not cleared) in mesic or hydric hammocks and mixed
wetland hardwood communities having exposed limestone substrate
(boulders), which have, at minimum, a 300-m radius of surrounding
intact vegetation.
Areas Outside the Geographic Area Occupied at the Time of Listing
To consider for designation areas not occupied by the subspecies at
the time of listing, we must demonstrate that these areas are essential
for the conservation of Florida bristle fern. In south Florida,
proposed occupied critical habitat for the subspecies is within a
relatively small amount of highly fragmented habitat and occupied
patches are generally isolated from one another within the landscape.
In addition, the extent of the geographic area in south Florida (Miami-
Dade County) that is currently occupied by the plant is substantially
(nearly 80 percent) smaller than its historical range. In central
Florida, the two known existing populations are in very close proximity
and also in a much smaller area than the known historical range.
Because of this fragmentation and loss of range, both metapopulations
have lower resiliency under these current conditions compared to
historical occurrences, and therefore, the subspecies' adaptive
capacity (representation) and redundancy has been reduced.
Based on these factors in relation to the threats to Florida
bristle fern, we have determined we cannot recover the subspecies with
only the occupied habitat; thus, additional habitat is essential to
provide a sufficient amount of habitat (total area and number of
patches) and connectivity for the long-term conservation of the plant.
Therefore, because we have determined occupied areas alone are not
adequate for the conservation of the subspecies, we have identified and
are proposing for designation as critical habitat specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the subspecies at the time of
listing that are essential to the conservation of the subspecies. This
will ensure enough sites and individuals exist for each metapopulation
of Florida bristle fern. We used habitat and historical occurrence data
and the physical or biological features described earlier to identify
unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the Florida
bristle fern. As discussed in more detail below, the unoccupied areas
we selected are essential for the conservation of the subspecies
because they:
(1) Consist of a documented historical, but now extirpated,
occurrence of the subspecies;
(2) Provide areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem
processes;
(3) Provide suitable habitat (that contain some or all of the
physical or biological features) that allow for growth and expansion;
and
(4) Occur in the known historical range of the subspecies.
These unoccupied areas provide sufficient space for growth and
reproduction for the subspecies within the historical range and will
provide ecological diversity so that the subspecies has the ability to
evolve and adapt over time (representation) and ensure that the
subspecies has an adequate level of redundancy to guard against future
catastrophic events. These areas also represent the areas within the
historical range with the best potential for recovery of the subspecies
due to their current conditions, provide habitat and space to support
spore dispersal and new growth, and are likely suitable for
reintroductions.
Unoccupied Habitat--South Florida Metapopulation (Miami-Dade County)
The existing suitable habitat for the south Florida metapopulation
consists of a patchwork of small parcels. Therefore, we must ensure the
integrity of the solution hole and canopy cover, which is responsible
for maintaining the stable damp, humid, and shaded microclimate
identified as a physical or biological feature for the subspecies.
Using the Institute's 2009 rockland hammock GIS layer and
Commission and Inventory's Cooperative Land Cover site-level data for
rockland hammocks and site visit information from Service staff
biologists and botanists from Fairchild, Miami, we evaluated all
unoccupied sites within rockland hammock habitats, including mixed
rockland/mesic hammock and rockland hammock with connecting mixed
wetland hardwood habitat, in Miami-Dade County. Specifically, we
reviewed available historical aerial photography of 20 rockland
hammocks historically occupied, but now unoccupied, by the subspecies.
Ten additional potential sites were visited by Service staff. Also,
specific information provided by Miami-Dade County and Fairchild on
four additional areas was reviewed. A site was considered in the
evaluation for proposed unoccupied critical habitat if it is within the
historical range of the subspecies and:
(1) Holds a documented historical occurrence;
(2) Contains one or more of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies;
(3) Provides viable habitat for introductions or could be restored
to support Florida bristle fern;
[[Page 10382]]
(4) Occurs at the edge of the range and provided areas that would
allow for growth and expansion; or
(5) Occurs near an occupied site (for potential recruitment).
Each site would, in conjunction with occupied areas of proposed
critical habitat, support the conservation of the subspecies. Based on
our review, we identified three unoccupied rockland hammock units on
the Miami Rock Ridge outside of Everglades National Park (see table 1).
These three proposed units represent the units with documented, but now
extirpated, historical occurrences with intact rockland hammock within
the historical range of the subspecies outside of the Everglades
National Park. Within the Everglades National Park, we identified a
fourth unit, the Royal Palm Hammock, for inclusion in the proposed
critical habitat. This hammock was also historically occupied by the
subspecies but was not occupied at the time of listing. The resulting
four unoccupied proposed units consist of 83 ha (205 ac) and are
considered essential for the conservation of Florida bristle fern
because they protect habitat needed to recover the subspecies and
reestablish wild populations within the known historical range of the
subspecies in Miami-Dade County. The unoccupied units each contain one
or more of the physical or biological features and are likely to
provide for the conservation of the subspecies. Three of the unoccupied
units are on lands managed by Miami-Dade County and the fourth
unoccupied unit is on land managed by Everglades National Park.
Unoccupied Habitat--Central Florida Metapopulation (Sumter County)
For the central Florida metapopulation, criteria for determining
unoccupied critical habitat included units that:
(1) Holds a documented historical occurrence;
(2) Contains one or more of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies;
(3) Provides space for growth and recovery (to add resiliency to a
small population);
(4) Provides viable habitat for introductions; and
(5) Provides connectivity across the range of the subspecies.
Unoccupied habitat was delineated based on documented historical
occurrences, existing suitable habitat (as defined by the physical or
biological features), and evaluation of the habitat and substrate
delineation mapping (van der Heiden 2016, pp. 5-7) with data obtained
through field surveys and satellite mapping. The one unoccupied unit
proposed for critical habitat designation consists of approximately 747
ha (1,846 ac) (table 1). It consists of documented historically
occupied (now extirpated) habitat with suitable wetland and upland
communities having intact vegetation (not cleared) and hammocks and
exposed limestone boulders with at least a 300-m radius (984 ft) or
greater of surrounding native vegetation (van der Heiden 2014, pers.
comm.; van der Heiden 2016, p. 3). Its size was based on the conditions
necessary to maintain the physical or biological features. It is
considered essential for the conservation of Florida bristle fern
because it protects habitat needed to recover the subspecies and
reestablish wild populations within the known historical range of the
subspecies in Sumter County. The unoccupied unit contains one or more
of the physical or biological features and is likely to provide for the
conservation of the subspecies.
General Information on the Maps of the Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the discussion of individual units below. We will make
the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based
available to the public at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2019-0068, at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach, and at the South
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above).
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 Florida bristle fern. 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 under the Act 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.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate as critical habitat for Florida
bristle fern approximately 1,624 ha (4,014 ac) in nine units in Miami-
Dade and Sumter Counties, Florida. The proposed critical habitat
consists of units identified for the south and central Florida
metapopulations and are delineated in (1) south Florida by rockland/
tropical hammocks of Miami-Dade County (135 ha (334 ac)); and (2)
central Florida by Withlacoochee State Forest, Jumper Creek Tract, and
adjacent lands in Sumter County (1,489 ha (3680 ac)). Four of the units
are currently occupied by the subspecies and contains those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies but
may require special management considerations. Five of the units are
currently unoccupied by the subspecies but are essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Table 1 shows the name, occupancy,
area, and land ownership of each unit within the proposed critical
habitat designation for Florida bristle fern. Land ownership within the
entire proposed critical habitat consists of Federal (4 percent), State
(92 percent), County (3 percent), and private (1 percent).
[[Page 10383]]
Table 1--Name, Occupancy (O = Occupied, U = Unoccupied), Area, and Land Ownership of Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bristle Fern
(Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum)
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. All areas are rounded to the nearest whole hectare (ha) and acre (ac).
Ownership information is based on Miami-Dade County data (2017) and Sumter County data (2019).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal ha Private/other
Unit Occupancy (ac) State ha (ac) County ha (ac) ha (ac) Total ha (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockland/Tropical Hammocks of South Florida, Miami-Dade County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matheson Hammock * (SF 1)................ U 0 0 16 (39) 0 16 (39)
Snapper Creek * (SF 2)................... U 0 3 (8) 0 0 3 (8)
Castellow and Ross * Hammocks (SF 3)..... O 0 13 (32) 25 (61) 0 38 (93)
Silver Palm Hammock * (SF 4)............. U 0 4 (10) 0 0 4 (10)
Hattie Bauer Hammock (SF 5).............. O 0 0 3 (8) 0 3 (8)
Fuchs and Meissner Hammocks (SF 6)....... O 0 2 (5) 9 (23) 0 11 (28)
Royal Palm Hammock * (SF 7).............. U 60 (148) 0 0 0 60 (148)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Florida Total.................. ............................ 60 (148) 22 (55) 53 (131) 0 135 (334)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withlacoochee State Forest, Jumper Creek Tract, and adjacent lands of Central Florida, Sumter County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF 1..................................... O 0 726 (1,795) 0 16 (39) 742 (1,834)
CF 2 *................................... U 0 747 (1,846) 0 0 747 (1,846)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Florida Total................ ............................ 0 1,473 (3,641) 0 16 (39) 1,489 (3,680)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total South and Central Florida.. ............................ 60 (148) 1,495 (3,696) 53 (131) 16 (39) 1,624 (4,014)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Historically occupied.
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all proposed units, and reasons
why they meet the definition of critical habitat for Florida bristle
fern, below.
Rockland/Tropical Hammocks of South Florida, Miami-Dade County, Florida
The proposed critical habitat for the south Florida metapopulation
is composed of seven units (SF 1-SF 7) consisting of approximately 135
ha (334 ac) located between South Miami and eastern Everglades National
Park in central and southern Miami-Dade County, Florida.
SF 1--Matheson Hammock
Because we have determined occupied areas are not adequate for the
conservation of the subspecies, we have evaluated whether any
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies
and identified this area as essential for the conservation of the
Florida bristle fern. SF 1 consists of approximately 16 ha (39 ac) of
habitat in Matheson Hammock in Matheson Hammock Park in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. This unit is composed of County-owned land that is
primarily managed cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County
Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program and the Natural Areas
Management division. Matheson Hammock is within the historical range of
Florida bristle fern but is not within the geographical range currently
occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit contains
some or all of the physical or biological features necessary for the
conservation of the subspecies. Unit SF1 possesses those
characteristics as described by physical or biological feature 1
(upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of sufficient quality and size
to sustain the necessary microclimate and life processes for Florida
bristle fern) and physical or biological feature 2 (exposed substrate
derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala limestone, or exposed limestone
boulders, which provide anchoring and nutritional requirements).
Physical or biological features 3-6 are degraded in this unit, and with
appropriate management and restoration actions such as prescribed burns
and removal of invasive plant species, these physical or biological
features can be restored.
This unit would serve to protect habitat needed to recover the
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would
increase redundancy in the South Florida metapopulation. It would also
provide habitat for recolonization in the case of stochastic events
(such as hurricanes), should other areas of suitable habitat be
destroyed or Florida bristle fern be extirpated from one of its
currently occupied locations. This unit is essential for the
conservation of the subspecies because it will provide habitat for
range expansion in known historical habitat that is necessary to
increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its resiliency,
redundancy, and representation.
We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the
conservation of the subspecies, because the need for conservation
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation
partners, and methods for restoring and reintroducing the subspecies
are being developed. As stated previously, this unit is entirely
composed of County-owned land and primarily managed cooperatively by
the Miami-Dade County Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program
and the Natural Areas Management division. The EEL program's focus is
on the ``protection and conservation of endangered lands,'' and these
EEL areas are managed for restoration and conservation through actions
such as prescribed burns and invasive plant removal. In addition, State
and County partners have shown interest in reintroduction efforts for
the Florida bristle fern in this area.
SF 2--Snapper Creek
Because we have determined occupied areas are not adequate for the
conservation of the subspecies, we have evaluated whether any
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies
and identified this area as essential for the conservation of the
subspecies. SF 2 consists of approximately 3 ha (8 ac) of habitat in
Deering-Snapper Creek Hammock
[[Page 10384]]
adjacent to R. Hardy Matheson Preserve in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
This unit consists of State-owned land that is primarily managed
cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County EEL program and the Natural
Areas Management Division. Snapper Creek is within the historical range
of Florida bristle fern but was not occupied by the subspecies at the
time of listing.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit contains
some or all of the physical or biological features necessary for the
conservation of the subspecies. Unit SF2 possesses those
characteristics as described by physical or biological feature 1
(upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of sufficient quality and size
to sustain the necessary microclimate and life processes for Florida
bristle fern) and physical or biological feature 2 (exposed substrate
derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala limestone, or exposed limestone
boulders, which provide anchoring and nutritional requirements).
Physical or biological features 3-6 are degraded in this unit, and with
appropriate management and restoration actions such as prescribed burns
and removal of invasive plant species, these physical or biological
features can be restored.
This unit would serve to protect habitat needed to recover the
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would
an increase the subspecies redundancy in the South Florida
metapopulation. It would also provide habitat for recolonization in the
case of stochastic events (such as hurricanes), should other areas of
suitable habitat be destroyed or Florida bristle fern be extirpated
from one of its currently occupied locations. This unit is essential
for the conservation of the subspecies because it will provide habitat
for range expansion in known historical habitat that is necessary to
increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its resiliency,
redundancy, and representation.
We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the
conservation of the subspecies, because the need for conservation
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation
partners, and methods for restoring and reintroducing the subspecies
are being developed. As stated previously, this unit is entirely
composed of State-owned land and is primarily managed cooperatively by
the Miami-Dade County EEL program and the Natural Areas Management
Division. The EEL program's focus is on the ``protection and
conservation of endangered lands,'' and these EEL areas are managed for
restoration and conservation through actions such as prescribed burns
and invasive plant removal. In addition, State and County partners have
shown interest in reintroduction efforts for the Florida bristle fern
in this area.
SF 3--Castellow and Ross Hammocks
SF 3 consists of approximately 38 ha (93 ac) of habitat in
Castellow and Ross Hammocks in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit
consists of 13 ha (32 ac) of State-owned and 25 ha (61 ac) of County-
owned lands that are primarily managed cooperatively by the Miami-Dade
County EEL program and Natural Areas Management Division. This unit is
occupied by the subspecies and contains some or all of the physical or
biological features essential to its conservation.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address threats of commercial, residential, or agricultural
development; hydrological alterations; competition with nonnative
species; human use and recreation; and sea level rise. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed actions. Such actions include removal of
invasive species, review of County development plans, and review of
projects considering land use changes.
SF 4--Silver Palm Hammock
Because we have determined occupied areas are not adequate for the
conservation of the subspecies, we have evaluated whether any
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies
and identified this area as essential for the conservation of the
subspecies. SF 4 consists of approximately 4 ha (10 ac) of habitat in
Silver Palm Hammock in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit consists
of State-owned land that is primarily managed cooperatively by the
Miami-Dade County EEL program and Natural Areas Management Division.
Silver Palm Hammock is within the historical range of Florida bristle
fern but was not occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit contains
some or all of the physical or biological features necessary for the
conservation of the subspecies. Unit SF4 possesses those
characteristics as describe by physical or biological feature 1 (upland
hardwood forest hammock habitats of sufficient quality and size to
sustain the necessary microclimate and life processes for Florida
bristle fern); physical or biological feature 2 (exposed substrate
derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala limestone, or exposed limestone
boulders, which provide anchoring and nutritional requirements);
physical or biological feature 3 (constantly humid microhabitat
consisting of dense canopy cover, moisture, stable high temperature,
and stable monthly average humidity of 90 percent or higher, with
intact hydrology within hammocks and the surrounding and adjacent
wetland communities); physical or biological feature 4 (dense canopy
cover of surrounding native vegetation that consists of the upland
hardwood forest hammock habitats and provides shade, shelter, and
moisture); and physical or biological feature 5 (suitable microhabitat
conditions, hydrology, and connectivity that can support the Florida
bristle fern growth, distribution, and population expansion (including
rhizomal growth, spore dispersal, and sporophyte and gametophyte growth
and survival)). Physical or biological feature 6 is degraded in this
unit, and with appropriate management and restoration actions such as
prescribed burns and removal of invasive plant species, this feature
can be restored.
This unit would serve to protect habitat needed to recover the
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would
increase the subspecies redundancy in the South Florida metapopulation.
It would also provide habitat for recolonization in the case of
stochastic events (such as hurricanes), should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or Florida bristle fern be extirpated from one of
its currently occupied locations. This unit is essential for the
conservation of the subspecies because it will provide habitat for
range expansion in known historical habitat that is necessary to
increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its resiliency,
redundancy, and representation.
We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation
partners, and methods for restoring and reintroducing the subspecies
are being developed. As stated previously, this unit is entirely
composed of State-owned land and is primarily managed cooperatively by
the Miami-Dade County EEL program and the Natural Areas Management
Division. The EEL program's focus is on the ``protection and
conservation of endangered lands,'' and these EEL areas are managed for
restoration and conservation through actions such as prescribed burns
and invasive plant removal. In addition,
[[Page 10385]]
State and County partners have shown interest in reintroduction efforts
for the Florida bristle fern in this area.
SF 5--Hattie Bauer Hammock
SF 5 consists of approximately 3 ha (8 ac) of habitat in Hattie
Bauer Hammock in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This unit consists of
County-owned land that is primarily managed cooperatively by the Miami-
Dade County EEL program and Natural Areas Management Division. This
unit is occupied by the subspecies and contains some or all of the
physical or biological features essential to its conservation.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address threats of commercial, residential, or agricultural
development; hydrological alterations; competition with nonnative
species; human use and recreation; and sea level rise. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed actions. Such actions include removal of
invasive species, review of County development plans, and review of
projects considering land use changes.
SF 6--Fuchs and Meissner Hammocks
SF 6 consists of approximately 11 ha (28 ac) of habitat in Fuchs
Hammock on Fuchs Hammock Preserve and Meissner Hammock in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. This unit consists of 2 ha (5 ac) of State-owned and 9
ha (23 ac) of County-owned lands that are primarily managed
cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County EEL program and Natural Areas
Management Division. This unit is occupied by the subspecies and
contains some or all of the physical or biological features essential
to its conservation.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address threats of commercial, residential, or agricultural
development; hydrological alterations; competition with nonnative
species; human use and recreation; and sea level rise. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed actions. Such actions include removal of
invasive species, review of County development plans, and review of
projects considering land use changes.
SF 7--Royal Palm Hammock
Because we have determined occupied areas are not adequate for the
conservation of the subspecies, we have evaluated whether any
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies
and identified this area as essential for the conservation of the
subspecies. SF 7 consists of approximately 60 ha (148 ac) of habitat in
Royal Palm Hammock in Everglades National Park, which is Federally
owned land, in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Royal Palm Hammock is within
the historical range of Florida bristle fern but was not occupied by
the subspecies at the time of listing.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit contains
all of the physical or biological features necessary for the
conservation of the subspecies. Unit SF7 possesses those
characteristics as described by physical or biological features 1
through 6.
This unit would serves to protect habitat needed to recover the
subspecies and reestablish wild populations within the historical range
in Miami-Dade County. Re-establishing a population in this unit would
increase the subspecies redundancy in the South Florida metapopulation.
It would also provide habitat for recolonization in the case of
stochastic events (such as hurricanes), should other areas of suitable
habitat be destroyed or Florida bristle fern be extirpated from one of
its currently occupied locations. This unit is essential for the
conservation of the subspecies because it will provide habitat for
range expansion in known historical habitat that is necessary to
increase viability of the subspecies by increasing its resiliency,
redundancy, and representation.
We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation
partners, and methods for restoring and reintroducing the subspecies
are being developed. This unit is entirely composed of Everglades
National Park, which is Federally owned land with section 7(a)(1)
responsibilities to carry out programs for the conservation of
federally listed threatened and endangered species. The Everglades
National Park General Management Plan (Plan), approved in 2015 prior to
the published final listing rule for Florida bristle fern, guides the
National Park Service's management of Everglades National Park,
including conservation of threatened and endangered species. The 2015
Plan identifies the Florida bristle fern as extirpated from Everglades
National Park (Royal Palm Hammock), and therefore, specific
conservation measures were not discussed for the subspecies. However,
Everglades National Park continues to conduct nonnative plant species
control in Royal Palm Hammock, which helps maintain the physical or
biological essential to the conservation of the Florida bristle fern.
Withlacoochee State Forest, Jumper Creek Tract, and Adjacent Lands of
Central Florida, Sumter County
The proposed critical habitat for the central Florida
metapopulation is composed of two units (CF 1 and CF 2) consisting of
approximately 1,489 ha (3,680 ac) located within and adjacent to the
Jumper Creek Tract of the Withlacoochee State Forest in Sumter County,
Florida.
CF 1
CF 1 consists of approximately 742 ha (1,834 ac) of habitat in
Sumter County, Florida. This unit consists of 726 ha (1,795 ac) of
State-owned land within the Jumper Creek Tract of the Withlacoochee
State Forest and 16 ha (39 ac) of privately owned land directly
adjacent to the two locations where Florida bristle fern is currently
observed. The State-owned land is managed by the Florida Forest
Service. This unit is occupied by the subspecies and contains all of
the physical or biological features essential to its conservation.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
address threats of residential and agricultural development, land
clearing, logging, cattle grazing, hydrological alteration, competition
with nonnative species, human use and recreation, and impacts related
to climate change. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed
actions.
CF 2
Because we have determined occupied areas are not adequate for the
conservation of the subspecies, we have evaluated whether any
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the subspecies
and identified this area as essential for the conservation of the
subspecies. CF 2 consists of approximately 747 ha (1,846 ac) of habitat
on State-owned land within the Jumper Creek Tract of the Withlacoochee
State Forest, Sumter County, Florida. This unit has a documented
historical population of Florida bristle fern but was not occupied by
the subspecies at the time of listing.
Although it is currently considered unoccupied, this unit contains
all of the physical or biological features necessary for the
conservation of the subspecies. Unit CF2 possesses those
characteristics as described by physical or biological features 1
through 6.
[[Page 10386]]
This unit would ensure maintenance of the microclimate and contains
suitable habitat in association with documented presence of substrate
and all of the physical or biological features that can support the
subspecies. This unit would provide for an increase in range and
connectivity of the subspecies through the natural processes of growth,
spore dispersal, and fragmentation, and is considered suitable habitat
for introductions to reestablish wild populations within the historical
range in Sumter County. Re-establishing at least one historical
population in this unit would increase the subspecies redundancy in the
Central Florida metapopulation. It also provides habitat for
recolonization in the case of stochastic events (such as hurricanes),
should other areas of suitable habitat be destroyed or Florida bristle
fern be extirpated from one of its currently occupied locations. This
unit is essential for the conservation of the subspecies because it
will provide habitat for range expansion in known historical habitat
that is necessary to increase viability of the subspecies by increasing
its resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
We are reasonably certain that this unit will contribute to the
conservation of the subspecies because the need for conservation
efforts is recognized and is being discussed by our conservation
partners, and methods for restoring and reintroducing the subspecies
are being developed. This unit is entirely composed of State-owned land
that is part of the Withlacoochee State Forest. The Ten-Year Resource
Management Plan for the Withlacoochee State Forest (Management Plan),
approved in 2015 prior to the published final listing rule for Florida
bristle fern, guides the Florida Forest Service's management, including
protection of threatened and endangered species found on the
Withlacoochee State Forest. The Management Plan does not specifically
mention Florida bristle fern; therefore, specific conservation measures
are not discussed for the subspecies. However, the Withlacoochee State
Forest conducts nonnative species control, which helps maintain the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Florida bristle fern. The Forest has shown interest in reintroduction
efforts for the Florida bristle fern in this area.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a revised definition of
destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976).
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.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
agency actions within the subspecies' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both include management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the
Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of
section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the
Federal Highway Administration. Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out
by a Federal agency, do not require section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through the issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal
action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous
consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need
to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations
also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently
listing a new species or designation critical habitat. See the
regulations for descriptions of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
[[Page 10387]]
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 us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2)
of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such designation.
Activities that the Services may, during consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter native vegetation
structure or composition within the upland hardwood forest hammock
habitat consisting of rockland or closed tropical hardwood hammock
(south Florida) or mesic, hydric, or intermixed hammock strands
ecosystems (central Florida) as defined as a physical or biological
feature in the proposed critical habitat. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to, land conversion or clearing related to
residential, commercial, agricultural, or recreational development,
including associated infrastructure; logging; introduction of nonnative
plant species; or improper fire management. These activities could
result in loss, modification, and fragmentation of rockland/mesic
hammock habitat, thereby eliminating or reducing the habitat necessary
for the growth and reproduction of the subspecies.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter microhabitat for Florida
bristle fern within the rockland or closed tropical hardwood hammock
(in south Florida) or mesic, hydric, or intermixed hammock strands (in
central Florida) ecosystems, including significant alterations to the
substrate within the rockland/mesic-hydric hammocks or to the canopy or
hydrology within the rockland/mesic-hydric hammocks or surrounding
upland hardwood forest vegetation as identified as a physical or
biological feature in the proposed critical habitat. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to, residential, commercial,
agricultural, or recreational development, including associated
infrastructure; land conversion or clearing; logging; introduction of
nonnative species including invasive plants or feral hogs; ground or
surface water withdrawals; and ditching. These activities could result
in changes to temperature, humidity, light, and existing water levels,
thereby eliminating or reducing the microhabitat necessary for the
growth and reproduction of the subspecies.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology of the
upland forested hammock ecosystems as defined as a physical or
biological feature in the proposed critical habitat, including
significant alterations to the hydrology of surrounding wetland habitat
and the underlying water table. Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, regional drainage efforts; ground or surface water
withdrawals; and ditching. These activities could result in changes to
existing water levels and humidity levels within the hammocks, thereby
eliminating or reducing the habitat necessary for the growth and
reproduction of the subspecies.
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, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed
critical habitat 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 critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination 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.
As discussed below, we are not proposing to exclude any areas from
critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any
areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time
of the final designation, including information obtained during the
comment period and information about the economic impact of
designation.
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). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are
[[Page 10388]]
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.
For this proposed 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 Florida bristle fern (IEc 2020, entire). The purpose of the
screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the
critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable
incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation)
and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the subspecies. The screening analysis
filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already
subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur
incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows
us to focus our analysis on the specific areas or sectors that may
incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the
designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units
unoccupied by the subspecies may require additional management or
conservation efforts as a result of the designation and which may incur
incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis, combined with
the information contained in our IEM, constitutes our draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for Florida
bristle fern and is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. 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
Florida bristle fern, first we identified, in the IEM dated October
2019, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the
following categories of activities: (1) Commercial or residential
development; (2) roadway and bridge construction; (3) utility-related
activities; (4) agriculture, including land clearing; (5) grazing; (6)
groundwater pumping; (7) surface water withdrawals and diversions; (8)
forest management; (9) fire management; (10) conservation and
restoration activities, including nonnative species control; and (11)
recreation. Additionally, we considered whether the 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. In areas where
Florida bristle fern is present, Federal agencies already are required
to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities
they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the subspecies. If we
finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to
avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would
be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that will result from the subspecies being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., the difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for Florida
bristle fern. The following considerations helped to inform our
evaluation: (1) The essential physical or biological features
identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the
life requisites of the subspecies, and (2) any actions that would
result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to
Florida bristle fern would also likely adversely affect the essential
physical or biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines
our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline
conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of
critical habitat for 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.
The proposed critical habitat designation for Florida bristle fern
totals approximately 1,624 ha (4,014 ac) in Miami-Dade and Sumter
Counties, Florida, and includes both occupied and unoccupied units.
Within the occupied units, any actions that may affect the subspecies
would also affect proposed critical habitat, and it is unlikely that
any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the
adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as
necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of Florida
bristle fern. Therefore, the economic impacts of implementing the rule
through section 7 of the Act will most likely be limited to additional
administrative effort to consider adverse modification.
Within the unoccupied units, incremental section 7 costs will
include both the administrative costs of consultation and the costs of
developing and implementing conservation measures needed to avoid
adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, this analysis
focuses on the likely impacts to activities occurring in unoccupied
units of the proposed critical habitat designation. This analysis
considers the potential need to consult on development, transportation,
and other activities authorized, undertaken, or funded by Federal
agencies within unoccupied habitat. The total incremental section 7
costs associated with the designation were estimated to be $210,000 in
2019 dollars (IEC 2020, p. 12). Accordingly, we conclude that these
costs would not reach the threshold of ``significant'' under E.O.
12866.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our
required determinations. See ADDRESSES, above, for information on where
to send comments. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting
documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the
public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the
area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the
exclusion will not result in the extinction of this subspecies.
[[Page 10389]]
Exclusions
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA
discussed above, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule. During
the development of a final designation, we will consider the
information presented in the DEA and any additional information on
economic impacts received through 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) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security
Impacts
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that no lands within
the proposed designation of critical habitat for Florida bristle fern
are owned or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of
Homeland Security, and therefore, we anticipate no impact on national
security. However, during the development of a final designation we
will consider any additional information received through the public
comment period on the impacts of the proposed designation on national
security or homeland security to determine whether any specific areas
should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under
authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether there are
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), safe harbor agreements, or candidate
conservation agreements with assurances, 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 the existence of tribal conservation plans and
partnerships, and consider the government-to-government relationship of
the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for Florida bristle fern,
and the proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. During the
development of a final designation, we will consider any additional
information received through the public comment period regarding other
relevant impacts to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Executive Order 13771
This proposed rule is not an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017)
regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under
E.O. 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic
[[Page 10390]]
impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business
operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself and, therefore, not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried 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 will be directly regulated if we adopt the proposed
critical habitat designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to
evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated.
Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because
no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the
Service certifies that, if made final as proposed, this 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 as proposed, this
proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the
designation of this proposed critical habitat would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is
not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will 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. The economic analysis concludes that incremental impacts may
primarily occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations
for development and transportation projects, and for other activities
primarily related to land and facility management, cultural resource,
research, and conservation activities in Everglades National Park;
however, these are not expected to significantly affect small
governments. Incremental impacts stemming from various species
conservation and development control activities are expected to be
borne by the Federal Government, State of Florida, and Miami-Dade
County, which are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do
not believe that the critical habitat designation would significantly
or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, 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 Florida bristle fern 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
[[Page 10391]]
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 and
concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat for
Florida bristle fern 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 in Florida. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The proposed designation may have some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary to the
conservation of the subspecies 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 Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the subspecies,
this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The proposed
areas of designated 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 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. As discussed above (see Exclusions),
we have determined that no tribal lands would be affected by this
designation.
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services
Field Office.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
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. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by revising the entry for ``Trichomanes
punctatum ssp. floridanum (Florida bristle fern)'' under ``Ferns and
Allies'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 10392]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Ferns and Allies
* * * * * * *
Trichomanes punctatum ssp. Florida bristle fern Wherever found..... E 80 FR 60439, 10/6/2015;
floridanum. 50 CFR 17.97(b)(1).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Add Sec. 17.97 to read as follows:
Sec. 17.97 Critical habitat; conifers, ferns and allies, lichens.
(a) [Reserved.]
(b) Ferns and allies. (1) Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum
(Florida bristle fern).
(i) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Sumter
Counties, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
(ii) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Florida bristle fern consist of the
following components:
(A) Upland hardwood forest hammock habitats of sufficient quality
and size to sustain the necessary microclimate and life processes for
Florida bristle fern.
(B) Exposed substrate derived from oolitic limestone, Ocala
limestone, or exposed limestone boulders, which provide anchoring and
nutritional requirements.
(C) Constantly humid microhabitat consisting of dense canopy cover,
moisture, stable high temperature, and stable monthly average humidity
of 90 percent or higher, with intact hydrology within hammocks and the
surrounding and adjacent wetland communities.
(D) Dense canopy cover of surrounding native vegetation that
consists of the upland hardwood forest hammock habitats and provides
shade, shelter, and moisture.
(E) Suitable microhabitat conditions, hydrology, and connectivity
that can support Florida bristle fern growth, distribution, and
population expansion (including rhizomal growth, spore dispersal, and
sporophyte and gametophyte growth and survival).
(F) Plant community of predominantly native vegetation that is
minimally disturbed, free from human-related disturbance with either no
competitive nonnative, invasive plant species, or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on Florida bristle fern.
(iii) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
(iv) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units
were created using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various
spatial data layers. ArcGIS was used to calculate the size of habitat
areas. The projection used in mapping and calculating distances and
locations within the units was North American Albers Equal Area Conic,
NAD 83 Geographic. 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 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach, http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-
0068 and at the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 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.
(v) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 10393]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24FE20.010
(vi) SF 1--Matheson Hammock, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and SF 2--
Snapper Creek Hammock, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(A) SF 1 consists of approximately 16 ha (39 ac) of unoccupied
critical habitat in Matheson Hammock in Matheson Hammock Park. This
unit comprises County-owned land that is primarily managed
cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County Environmentally Endangered Lands
program and Natural Areas Management division.
(B) SF 2 consists of approximately 3 ha (8 ac) of unoccupied
critical habitat in Deering-Snapper Creek Hammock adjacent to R. Hardy
Matheson Preserve. This unit comprises State-owned land that is
primarily managed cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County
Environmentally Endangered Lands program and Natural Areas Management
division.
(C) Map of SF 1 and SF 2 follows:
[[Page 10394]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24FE20.011
(vii) SF 3--Castellow and Ross Hammocks, Miami-Dade County,
Florida; SF 4--Silver Palm Hammock, Miami-Dade County, Florida; SF 5--
Hattie Bauer Hammock, Miami-Dade County, Florida; and SF 6--Fuchs and
Meisnner Hammocks, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(A) SF 3 consists of approximately 38 ha (93 ac) of occupied
critical habitat in Castellow and Ross Hammocks. This unit consists of
13 ha (32 ac) of State-owned and 25 ha (61 ac) of County-owned lands
that is primarily managed cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County
Environmentally Endangered Lands program and Natural Areas Management
division.
(B) SF 4 consists of approximately 4 ha (10 ac) of unoccupied
critical habitat in Silver Palm Hammock. This unit comprises State-
owned land that is primarily managed cooperatively by the Miami-Dade
County Environmentally Endangered Lands program and Natural Areas
Management division.
(C) SF 5 consists of approximately 3 ha (8 ac) of occupied critical
habitat in Hattie Bauer Hammock. This unit consists of County-owned
land that is primarily managed cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County
Environmentally Endangered Lands program and Natural Areas Management
division.
(D) SF 6 consists of approximately 11 ha (28 ac) of occupied
critical habitat in Fuchs Hammock on Fuchs Hammock Preserve and
Meissner Hammock. This unit consists of 2 ha (5 ac) of State-owned and
9 ha (23 ac) of County-owned lands that is primarily managed
cooperatively by the Miami-Dade County Environmentally Endangered Lands
program and Natural Areas Management division.
(E) Map of SF 3, SF 4, SF 5, and SF 6 follows:
[[Page 10395]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24FE20.012
(viii) SF 7--Royal Palm Hammock, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(A) SF 7 consists of approximately 60 ha (148 ac) of unoccupied
critical habitat in Royal Palm Hammock in Everglades National Park.
(B) Map of SF 7 follows:
[[Page 10396]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24FE20.013
(ix) CF 1, Sumter County, Florida; and CF 2, Sumter County,
Florida.
(A) CF 1 consists of approximately 742 ha (1,834 ac) of occupied
critical habitat of State-owned land (726 ha (1,795 ac)) within the
Jumper Creek Tract of the Withlacoochee State Forest and of privately
owned land (16 ha (39 ac)) directly adjacent to Withlacoochee State
Forest. The State-owned land is managed by the Florida Forest Service.
(B) CF 2 consists of approximately 747 ha (1,846 ac) of unoccupied
critical habitat on State-owned land within the Jumper Creek Tract of
the Withlacoochee State Forest.
(C) Map of CF 1 and CF 2 follows:
[[Page 10397]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24FE20.014
Dated: February 10, 2020.
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-03441 Filed 2-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
