2012 Federal Register, 77 FR 61835; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61835-61894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24466]

[[Page 61835]]

Vol. 77

Thursday,

No. 197

October 11, 2012

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Cape Sable Thoroughwort, Florida Semaphore Cactus, and
Aboriginal Prickly-Apple, and Designation of Critical Habitat for Cape
Sable Thoroughwort; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 61836]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY08

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list
Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable thoroughwort), Consolea corallicola
(Florida semaphore cactus), and Harrisia aboriginum (aboriginal
prickly-apple) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act, and we propose to designate critical habitat for Chromolaena
frustrata. We have determined that designation of critical habitat is
not prudent for Consolea corallicola and H. aboriginum. These are
proposed regulations, and if finalized, their effect will be to add all
three species to the List of Endangered or Threatened Plants and to
designate critical habitat for one species under the Endangered Species
Act.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 10, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by November 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2012-0076, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click
the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment
Now!'' If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please
use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most
compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your
comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft
Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our
preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
The coordinates, or plot points, or both, from which the critical
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record
for this rulemaking and are available at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/,
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076, and at
the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we have used for this rulemaking will also be available at the
Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and
may also be included in the preamble of this proposed rule or at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A proposed
rule to list Chromolaena frustrata Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia
aboriginum as an endangered species; and (2) a proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata.

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is an
endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum are highly restricted in their ranges and the
threats occur throughout their ranges; therefore, these species qualify
for listing. We are proposing to list these plants as endangered
species. Their protection under the Act can only be done by issuing a
rule.
Chromolaena frustrata has been extirpated (no longer in
existence) from half of the islands where it occurred in the Florida
Keys, and threats of competition from nonnative plants and habitat loss
still exist in the remaining populations.
Consolea corallicola has been extirpated from half of the
islands where it occurred in the Florida Keys, and threats of poaching,
predation by a nonnative moth, competition from nonnative plant
species, and habitat loss still exist in the remaining populations.
Harrisia aboriginum has been extirpated from the northern
extent of its range in Manatee County, and threats of poaching,
competition from nonnative plant species, and habitat loss still exist
in the remaining populations.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species based on any of
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
We have determined that threats to Chromolaena frustrata include
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or man-
made factors, including climate change (sea level rise), small
populations, and competition from nonnative plant species.
We have determined that threats to Consolea corallicola include
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
overuse (poaching) and predation; inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms; and other natural or man-made factors, including climate
change (sea level rise), small populations, low genetic diversity, and
competition from nonnative plant species.
We have determined that the threats to Harrisia aboriginum include
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
overuse (poaching); inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms; and
other natural or man-made factors, including climate change (sea level
rise), small populations, and competition from nonnative plant species.

[[Page 61837]]

This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for Chromolaena
frustrata.
In total, approximately 3,466 hectares (8,565 acres) are
being proposed for designation as critical habitat for C. frustrata.
The proposed critical habitat is located in Miami-Dade and Monroe
Counties, Florida.
The proposed designation includes both occupied and
unoccupied critical habitat, although those areas are not
differentiated in the proposed rule or on the maps. Where the unit is
not occupied by Chromolaena frustrata, we have concluded that the area
is essential for the conservation of the species because the
designation would allow for the expansion of Chromolaena frustrata`s
range and reintroduction of individuals into areas where the species
previously occurred.
This rule does not propose critical habitat for Consolea
corallicola or Harrisia aboriginum. We have determined that designation
of critical habitat would not be prudent for either species.
Designation would increase the likelihood and severity of
illegal collection of C. corallicola and H. aboriginum, and in doing so
make enforcement of take prohibitions more difficult.
These threats outweigh the benefits of designation for the
two species.

Peer Review

We are seeking comments from knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions, analysis of
the best available science, and application of that science and to
provide any additional scientific information to improve this proposed
rule.

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 governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species,
including the locations of any additional occurrences or populations of
these species.
(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species and ongoing conservation measures for these species and
their habitats.
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to all the species from
human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to
the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the
benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is
not prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Chromolaena frustrata habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by Chromolaena frustrata or proposed to be designated as
critical habitat, and possible impacts of these activities on the
species and proposed critical habitat.
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum, and proposed critical habitat for Chromolaena
frustrata.
(10) Probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(11) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments.
(12) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat 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.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. 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.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

[[Page 61838]]

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach,
Florida (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

Consolea corallicola was first recognized as a candidate species
(under the species' former name Opuntia spinosissima) on September 27,
1985 (50 FR 39526). It was removed from the candidate list from 1996 to
1998 because there was not sufficient information on the species'
biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed
rule. The 1999 Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534) included C.
corallicola (under the species' previous name Opuntia corallicola) as a
candidate for listing under the Act. We determined that listing was
warranted, but was precluded due to workloads and priorities, and we
assigned a listing priority number (LPN) of 5 to the species (64 FR
57534). Candidate species are assigned LPNs based on immediacy and
magnitude of threats, as well as taxonomic status. The lower the LPN,
the higher priority that species is for us to determine appropriate
action using our available resources. In 2001, C. corallicola (under
the species' previous name Opuntia corallicola) remained a candidate
species with the LPN of 5 (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001). In the 2002
CNOR published on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657), and under the name
Consolea (opuntia) corallicola, we changed the LPN of the species from
a 5 to a 2 because the threats to the species were found to be more
imminent than previously known. Consolea corallicola retained the LPN
of 2 in the 2004 CNOR published on May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24876). We
published a finding for the species in the 2005 CNOR on May 11, 2005
(70 FR 24869) in response to a petition received on May 11, 2004. The
species remained on the candidate list as published in the CNORs from
2006 to 2011 with the LPN of 2 (71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR
69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804,
November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October
26, 2011).
Chromolaena frustrata was first recognized as a candidate species
in the 1999 CNOR published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1999
(64 FR 57534). We determined that listing was warranted, but was
precluded due to workloads and priorities, and we assigned a LPN of 5
to the species (64 FR 57534). In 2001, C. frustrata remained on the
candidate species with the LPN of 5 (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001). In
the 2002 and 2004 CNORs (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May
4, 2004) C. frustrata retained the LPN of 5. We published a finding for
the species in the 2005 CNOR on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24869), in response
to a petition received on May 11, 2004. We also changed the LPN of C.
frustrata from a 5 to a 2 because the threats to the species were found
to be more imminent than previously known. The species remained on the
candidate list as published in the CNORs from 2006 to 2011 with the LNP
of 2 (71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007;
73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 578040, November 9, 2009; 75 FR
69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011).
The Service first recognized Harrisia aboriginum as a candidate
species in the CNOR published on September 12, 2006, and we assigned an
LPN of 5 (71 FR 53756). We determined that listing was warranted, but
was precluded due to workloads and priorities. Harrisia aboriginum
retained its candidate status in 2007 (72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007)
and an LPN of 5. In the CNOR published on December 10, 2008 (73 FR
75176), we changed the LPN of H. aboriginum from a 5 to a 2 because the
threats to the species were found to be more imminent than previously
known. The species remained on the candidate list as published in the
CNORs from 2009 to 2011 with the LNP of 2 (74 FR 57804, November 9,
2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011).
On May 10, 2011, the Service announced a work plan to restore
biological priorities and certainty to the Service's listing process.
As part of an agreement with one of the agency's most frequent
plaintiffs, the Service filed a work plan with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. The work plan will enable the agency to,
over a period of 6 years, systematically review and address the needs
of more than 250 species listed within the 2010 Candidate Notice of
Review, including Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum, to determine if these species should be added to
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
This work plan will enable the Service to again prioritize its workload
based on the needs of candidate species, while also providing state
wildlife agencies, stakeholders, and other partners clarity and
certainty about when listing determinations will be made. On July 12,
2011, the Service reached an agreement with a second frequent plaintiff
group and further strengthened the work plan, which will allow the
agency to focus its resources on the species most in need of protection
under the Act. These agreements were approved on September 9, 2011. The
timing of this proposed listing is, in part, therefore, an outcome of
the work plan.

Status Assessment for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum

Background

It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the listing of Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola,
and Harrisia aboriginum as endangered in this section of the proposed
rule.
Chromolaena frustrata
General Biology
Chromolaena frustrata (Family: Asteraceae) is a perennial herb.
Mature plants are 15 to 25 centimeters (cm) (5.9 to 9.8 inches ((in))
tall with erect stems. The leaves and stems are covered in short, fuzzy
hairs. The leaves have three distinct veins, are roughly oval or egg
shaped, and have toothed edges. The blue to lavender flowers are borne
in heads usually in clusters of two to six. Flowers are produced mostly
in the fall, though sometimes year round (Nesom 2006, pp. 544-545).
Taxonomy, Life History, and Distribution
Chromolaena frustrata was first reported by Chapman in 1886, from
the Florida Keys, who called it Eupatorium heteroclinium (Chapman 1889,
p. 626). Early authors assigned the species to the genus Osmia (Small
1913, p. 147; 1933, p. 1320). In 1970, R.M. King and H.E. Robinson
placed this species in the genus Chromolaena (King and Robinson 1970,
p. 201). Some authors continued to assign the species to the genus
Eupatorium (i.e., Long and Lakela 1971, p. 873 and Cronquist 1980, p.
185). The authors of Vascular Plants of Florida recognize Chromolaena
frustrata (Wunderlin and Hansen 2008, pp. 1-2). The Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) (2012, p. 1) indicates that the
taxonomic standing for C. frustrata (B.L. Robinson) King and H.E.
Robinson is accepted. Synonyms include Eupatorium frustratum B.L.
Robinson

[[Page 61839]]

and Osmia frustrata (B.L. Robinson) Small.
Climate
The climate of south Florida where Chromolaena frustrata occurs is
classified as tropical savanna and is characterized by distinct wet and
dry seasons, a monthly mean temperature above 18 [deg]C
(64.4[emsp14][deg]F) in every month of the year, and annual rainfall
averaging 75 to 150 cm (30 to 60 in) (Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211).
Freezes can occur in the winter months, but are very infrequent at this
latitude in Florida.
Habitat
Chromolaena frustrata grows in open canopy habitats, including
coastal berms and coastal rock barrens, and in semi-open to closed
canopy habitats, including buttonwood forests and rockland hammocks.
Coastal Berm
Coastal berms are landscape features found along low-energy
coastlines in south Florida and the Florida Keys. Coastal berm is a
short forest or shrub thicket found on long, narrow, storm-deposited
ridges of loose sediment formed by a mixture of coarse shell fragments,
pieces of coralline algae, and other coastal debris. These ridges
parallel the shore and may be found on the seaward edge or landward
edge of the mangroves or farther inland depending on the height of the
storm surge that formed them. They range in height from 30 to 305 cm (1
to 10 feet (ft)). Structure and composition of the vegetation is
variable depending on height and time since the last storm event. The
most stable berms may share some tree species with rockland hammocks,
but generally have a greater proportion of shrubs and herbs. Tree
species may include Bursera simaruba (gumbo limbo), Coccoloba uvifera
(seagrape), Coccothrinax argentata (silver palm), Guapira discolor
(blolly), Drypetes diversifolia (milkbark), Genipa clusiifolia (seven
year apple), and Metopium toxiferum (poisonwood). Characteristic tall
shrub and short tree species include Eugenia foetida (Spanish stopper),
Ximenia americana (hog plum), Randia aculeata (white indigoberry),
Pithecellobium keyense (Florida Keys blackbead), and Sideroxylon
celastrinum (saffron plum). Short shrubs and herbs include Hymenocallis
latifolia (perfumed spiderlily), Capparis flexuosa (bayleaf capertree),
Lantana involucrata (buttonsage), and Rivina humilis (rougeplant). More
seaward berms or those more recently affected by storm deposition may
support a suite of plants similar to beaches, including shoreline
Sesuvium portulacastrum (sea purslane), Distichlis spicata (saltgrass),
and Sporobolus virginicus (seashore dropseed), or scattered to dense
shrub thickets with Conocarpus erectus (buttonwood), stunted Avicennia
germinans (black mangrove), Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove),
Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove), Suriana maritima (bay cedar),
Manilkara jaimiqui (wild dilly), Jacquinia keyensis (joewood), and
Borrichia frutescens (bushy seaside oxeye) (Florida Natural Areas
Inventory (FNAI) 2010a, p. 1).
Coastal berms are deposited by storm waves along low-energy coasts.
Their distance inland depends on the height of the storm surge. Tall
berms may be the product of repeated storm deposition. Coastal berms
that are deposited far enough inland and remain long-undisturbed may in
time succeed to hammock. This is a structurally variable community that
may appear in various stages of succession following storm disturbance,
from scattered herbaceous beach colonizers to a dense stand of tall
shrubs (FNAI 2010a, p. 2).
Coastal Rock Barren
Also known as Keys tidal rock barren or Keys cactus barren, coastal
rock barren is confined to the Florida Keys on limestone bedrock along
shores facing both Florida Bay and the Straits of Florida. Coastal rock
barrens are flat rocklands with much exposed and eroded limestone,
little soil or leaf litter, and a sparse cover of stunted halophytic
herbs and shrubs in tidal rock barrens (FNAI 2010b, p. 1), or a wide
variety of herbs and succulents in cactus barrens (FNAI 2010c, p. 1).
The amount of exposed rock varies from practically 0 to over 50 percent
of the area.
In tidal rock barrens, patches of low, salt-tolerant herbaceous
species include Borrichia frutescens and B. arborescens (seaside
oxeye), Sarcocornia perennis (perennial glasswort), Batis maritima
(saltwort), Monanthochloe littoralis (shoregrass), Distichlis spicata,
Sporobolus virginicus, and Fimbristylis spadicea (marsh fimbry).
Conocarpus erectus is the dominant woody plant and varies from stunted,
sprawling, multi-stemmed shrubs to tree size. Other typical woody
species are Rhizophora mangle, Avicennia germinans, Laguncularia
racemosa, and Lycium carolinianum (christmasberry). At the transition
to upland vegetation C. erectus may be joined by a variety of shrubs
and stunted trees of inland woody species, including Sideroxylon
celastrinum, Gossypium hirsutum (wild cotton), Pithecellobium keyense,
Suriana maritima, Randia aculeata, Manilkara jaimiqui, Metopium
toxiferum, Jacquinia keyensis, Maytenus phyllanthoides (Florida
mayten), and Acanthocereus tetragonus (barbed-wire cactus) (FNAI 2010b,
p. 1).
In cactus barrens, the vegetation consists of a wide variety of
herbaceous and succulent species which characteristically includes
cacti, agaves, and several rare herbs. Among the latter are Evolvulus
convolvuloides (dwarf bindweed), Cienfuegosia yucatanensis (Yucatan
flymallow), Jacquemontia pentanthos (skyblue clustervine), and
Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis (Florida Keys indigo). These
frequently occur with grasses and sedges, such as Leptochloa dubia
(green sprangletop), Paspalidium chapmanii (coral panicum), and Cyperus
elegans (royal flatsedge). Spiny species, particularly the rare Opuntia
triacantha (three-spined pricklypear), are characteristic but their
abundance is variable. Other spiny species include Agave decipiens
(false sisal), Acanthocereus tetragonus, and Opuntia stricta (erect
pricklypear). Scattered clumps of stunted trees may be present,
including Bursera simaruba, Conocarpus erectus, Eugenia foetida, and
Pithecellobium unguis-cati (catclaw blackbead) (FNAI 2010c, p. 1).
Coastal rock barren occurs above the daily tidal range, but is
subject to flooding by seawater during extreme tides and storm events.
Salt spray from coastal winds, as well as shallow soils, may limit
height growth of woody plants. Aside from bare rock substrate,
discontinuous patches of thin marl soils may be present. Fires are rare
to non existent in this community (FNAI 2010b, p. 2). The natural
process giving rise to cactus barrens is not known, but because they
occur on sites where the thin layer of organic soil over limestone
bedrock is missing, they may have formed by soil erosion following
destruction of the plant cover by fire, storm, or artificial clearing
(FNAI 2010c, p. 2).
At its seaward edge, coastal rock barren borders mangrove swamp or
salt marshes that are regularly inundated. At its upland edge, coastal
rock barrens may grade into rockland hammock or pine rockland (FNAI
2010b, p. 2; 2010c, p. 2).
Buttonwood Forest
Forests dominated by buttonwood often exist in upper tidal areas,
especially where mangrove swamp transitions to rockland hammock. These
buttonwood forests have canopy dominated by Conocarpus erectus and
often have an understory dominated by Borrichia frutescens, Lycium

[[Page 61840]]

carolinianum, and Limonium carolinianum (sea lavender) (FNAI 2010d, p.
4).
Temperature, salinity, tidal fluctuation, substrate, and wave
energy influence the size and extent of buttonwood forests (FNAI 2010e,
p. 3). Buttonwood forests often grade into salt marsh, coastal berm,
rockland hammock, and coastal rock barren (FNAI 2010d, p. 5).
Rockland Hammock
Rockland hammock is a species-rich tropical hardwood forest on
upland sites in areas where limestone is very near the surface and
often exposed. The forest floor is largely covered by leaf litter with
varying amounts of exposed limestone and has few herbaceous species.
Rockland hammocks typically have larger, more mature trees in the
interior, while the margins can be almost impenetrable in places with
dense growth of smaller shrubs, trees, and vines. Typical canopy and
subcanopy species include Bursera simaruba, Lysiloma latisiliquum
(false tamarind), Coccoloba diversifolia (pigeon plum), Sideroxylon
foetidissimum (false mastic), Ficus aurea (strangler fig), Piscidia
piscipula (Jamaican dogwood), Ocotea coriacea (lancewood), Drypetes
diversifolia, Simarouba glauca (paradisetree), Sideroxylon salicifolium
(willow bustic), Krugiodendron ferreum (black ironwood), Exothea
paniculata (inkwood), Metopium toxiferum, and Swietenia mahagoni (West
Indies mahogany). Mature hammocks can be open beneath a tall,well-
defined canopy and subcanopy. More commonly, in less mature or
disturbed hammocks, dense woody vegetation of varying heights from
canopy to short shrubs is often present. Species that generally make up
the shrub layers within rockland hammock include several species of
Eugenia (stoppers), Thrinax morrisii and T. radiata (thatch palms),
Amyris elemifera (sea torchwood), Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry),
Psychotria nervosa (wild coffee), Chrysophyllum oliviforme (satinleaf),
Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm), Guaiacum sanctum (lignum-vitae), Ximenia
americana, Colubrina elliptica (soldierwood), Pithecellobium unguis-
cati and Pithecellobium keyense, Coccoloba uvifera, and Colubrina
arborescens (greenheart). Vines can be common and include Toxicodendron
radicans (eastern poison ivy), Smilax auriculata (earleaf greenbrier),
Smilax havanensis (Everglades greenbrier), Parthenocissus quinquefolia
(Virginia creeper), Hippocratea volubilis (medicine vine), and Morinda
royoc (redgal). The typically sparse short shrub layer may include
Zamia pumila (coontie) and Acanthocereus tetragonus. Herbaceous species
are occasionally present and generally sparse in coverage.
Characteristic species include Lasiacis divaricata (smallcane),
Oplismenus hirtellus (basketgrass), and many species of ferns (FNAI
2010e, p.1).
Rockland hammock occurs on a thin layer of highly organic soil
covering limestone on high ground that does not regularly flood, but it
is often dependent upon a high water table to keep humidity levels
high. Rockland hammocks are frequently located near wetlands; in the
Everglades they can occur on organic matter that accumulates on top of
the underlying limestone; in the Keys they occur inland from tidal
flats (FNAI 2010e, p.1).
Rockland hammock is susceptible to fire, frost, canopy disruption,
and ground water reduction. Rockland hammock can be the advanced
successional stage of pine rockland, especially in cases where rockland
hammock is adjacent to pine rockland. In such cases, when fire is
excluded from pine rockland for 15 to 25 years, it can succeed to
rockland hammock vegetation. Historically, rockland hammocks in south
Florida evolved with fire in the landscape, fire most often
extinguished near the edges when it encountered the hammock's moist
microclimate and litter layer. However, rockland hammocks are
susceptible to damage from fire during extreme drought or when the
water table is lowered. In these cases, fire can cause tree mortality
and consume the organic soil layer (FNAI 2010e, p.2).
Rockland hammocks are also sensitive to the strong winds and storm
surge associated with infrequent hurricanes. Canopy damage often
occurs, which causes a change in the microclimate of the hammock.
Decreased relative humidity and drier soils can leave rockland hammocks
more susceptible to fire. Rockland hammock can grade into glades marsh,
mangrove swamp, salt marsh, coastal rock barren, pine rockland,
maritime hammock, or marl prairie (FNAI 2010e, p. 2).
The sparsely vegetated edges or interior portions laid open by
canopy disruption are the areas of rockland hammock that have light
levels sufficient to support Chromolaena frustrata. However, the
dynamic nature of the habitat means that areas not currently open may
become open in the future as a result of canopy disruption from
hurricanes, while areas currently open may develop more dense canopy
over time, eventually rendering that portion of the hammock unsuitable
for C. frustrata.
The ecological communities and substrate upon which Chromolaena
frustrata is found differ between the mainland populations and those in
the Florida Keys. The mainland populations occur only in Everglades
National Park (ENP), where C. frustrata occurs in rockland hammocks and
buttonwood forest, often occupying the transitional areas (ecotone)
between these habitats and salt marsh dominated by Conocarpus erectus
and salt-tolerant species, on marl (an unconsolidated sedimentary rock
or soil consisting of clay and lime) substrate (Sadle 2008 and 2012,
pers. comm.). In the Florida Keys, C. frustrata occurs on coastal rock
barrens, coastal berms, and rockland hammocks on exposed bare limestone
rock or with a thin layer of leaf litter (Bradley and Gann 1999, p.
37). Chromolaena frustrata is often found in the shade of associated
canopy and subcanopy plant species; these canopies buffer C. frustrata
from full exposure to the sun (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 37).
Historical Range
Chromolaena frustrata was historically known from Monroe County,
both on the Florida mainland and the Keys, and in Miami-Dade County
along Florida Bay (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 36). In mainland Monroe
County, C. frustrata was known from the Flamingo area to the Madeira
Bay area in what is now ENP. In the Florida Keys, C. frustrata was
known from Key Largo to Boca Grande Key (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 36;
Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 2). The species was observed historically on
Big Pine Key, Boca Grande Key, Fiesta Key, Key Largo, Key West,
Knight's Key, Lignumvitae Key, Long Key, Upper Matecumbe Key, and Lower
Matecumbe Key (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 36; Bradley and Gann 2004, pp.
4-7).
The common name of Chromolaena frustrata, Cape Sable thoroughwort,
places it in a locality where it may have never occurred. Usage of this
place name may have been referring to the greater Cape Sable-Flamingo
area, and not specifically to Cape Sable itself. No additional
specimens or verifiable reports have documented it on Cable Sable
proper. Other reports of C. frustrata are also suspect. It was reported
from ``Turner's River Hammock'' in Collier County and the Ten Thousand
Islands area of ENP, but no voucher specimen has ever been located for
these collections (Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 7).

[[Page 61841]]

Current Range
In ENP, the species appears to have a distribution approaching what
was reported historically. Eleven populations supporting approximately
1,500 to 2,500 plants occur in buttonwood forests and rockland hammocks
from the Coastal Prairie Trail near the southern tip of Cape Sable to
Madeira Bay (Sadle 2007 and 2012, pers. comm.).
In the Florida Keys, Chromolaena frustrata has been extirpated from
half of the islands where it occurred (Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 4). It
no longer occurs on Key Largo, Big Pine Key, Fiesta Key, Knight's Key,
or Key West (Bradley and Gann 2004, pp. 4-6). The current range of C.
frustrata includes a small portion of ENP, and six islands in the
Florida Keys (Upper Matecumbe Key, Lower Matecumbe Key, Lignumvitae
Key, Long Key, Big Munson Island, and Boca Grande Key) (Bradley and
Gann 2004, pp. 3-4). Extant populations of C. frustrata are identified
in Table 1 and discussed below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Ownership Size Numbers of plants Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades National Park--Flamingo Federal--National Park 1634-2633 (Sadle 2012, Buttonwood forest,
District. Service. pers. comm.). rockland hammock.
Upper Matecumbe--Choate Tract........ State--Florida 18 (Bradley and Gann Coastal rock barren,
Department of 2004, pp. 3-6). rockland hammock.
Environmental
Protection.
Lower Matecumbe--Klopp Tract......... State--Florida 15 (Duquesnel 2012, Coastal rock barren,
Department of pers. comm.). rockland hammock.
Environmental
Protection.
Lignumvitae Key...................... State--Florida 81 (Bradley and Gann Rockland hammock.
Department of 2004, pp. 3-6).
Environmental
Protection.
Long Key State Park.................. State-Florida 200 (Bradley and Gann Coastal rockland
Department of 2004, pp. 3-6). barren.
Environmental
Protection.
Long Key--North Layton Hammock....... State--Florida 162 (Bradley and Gann Coastal rock barren,
Department of 2004, pp. 3-6). rockland hammock.
Environmental
Protection--and
Private.
Big Munson Island.................... Private................ 4,500 (Bradley and Gann Rockland hammock.
2004, pp. 3-6).
Key West National Wildlife Refuge-- Federal--Fish and 25 (Bradley and Gann Rockland hammock.
Boca Grande Key. Wildlife Service. 2004, pp. 3-6).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demographics
Little is known about the long-term demographics or population
trends of Chromolaena frustrata. Populations may experience declines
due to the effects of hurricanes and storm surges, but the species
appears to be able to rebound at affected sites within a few years. For
example, after Hurricane Wilma in 2005, some populations of C.
frustrata vanished and the habitat at these sites was significantly
altered due to hurricane storm surge (Duquesnel 2005, pers. comm.;
Bradley 2007, pers. comm.; Maschinski 2007, pers. comm.). However, it
appears that the species is returning at these locations (Bradley 2009,
pers. comm.). Furthermore, canopy disturbance may also benefit the
species, as it has been speculated that the large number of plants
observed at Big Munson Island in 2003 was due to thinning of the
hammock canopy caused by Hurricane Georges in 1998 (Bradley and Gann
2004, p. 4).
Reproductive Biology and Genetics
The reproductive biology and genetics of Chromolaena frustrata have
not been studied (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 37). We have no other
information available regarding the ecology of the species beyond the
habitat preferences and demographic trends discussed above.
Consolea corallicola
Consolea corallicola (Family: Cactaceae) is a tree-like cactus;
mature plants grow 2 meters (m) (6 feet (ft)) tall with an erect main
trunk, which is elliptical or oval in cross section and armed with
spines. Near the top of the plant there is a dense cluster of branches.
The stem branches (pads) are green, elliptical, relatively thin, often
curved, and 12 to 30 cm (5 to 12 in) long. The spines are in clusters
of five to nine, 7 to 11 cm (2.8 to 4.7 in) long, needle-like, with one
of the spines much longer than the others. Spines on the main stems of
older plants are enlarged. The flowers are bright red and 1.3 to 1.9 cm
(0.50 to 0.75 in) wide, and the fruits are yellow, egg-shaped, and 2.5
to 5.1 cm (1 to 2 in) long (Small 1930, pp. 25-26; Anderson 2001, pp.
170-171).
Taxonomy
John Kunkel Small discovered and described Consolea corallicola in
1930 (Small 1930, pp. 25-26). In 1971, Long and Lakela (1971, p. 626)
reassigned the plants occurring in the Florida Keys to Opuntia
spinosissima Miller, a species restricted to the Blue Hills of south
coastal Jamaica. Austin et al. (1998, pp. 151-158) determined that the
plants in Florida are morphologically distinct from O. spinosissima and
retained them as O. corallicola. Genetic studies by Gordon and Kubisiak
(1998, p. 209) confirmed that the Florida plants are a genetically
distinct species. Recent taxonomic treatments accept the genus Consolea
and apply the name C. corallicola to the Florida species (Areces-Mallea
1996, pp. 224-226; Anderson 2001, pp. 170-171; Parfitt and Gibson
2004a, pp. 92-94). Synonyms include Opuntia corallicola (Small)
Werdermann (Parfitt and Gibson 2004, p. 94).
Climate
The climate of south Florida where Consolea corallicola occurs is
classified as tropical savanna, as described above for Chromolaena
frustrata.
Habitat
Consolea corallicola occurs in rockland hammocks near sea level
(Small 1930, pp. 25-26; Benson 1982, p. 531) and in buttonwood forests
in the transitional area between rockland hammocks and mangrove swamps
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 77; Gann et al. 2002, p. 480; Higgins 2007,
pers. comm.). These community types are described above for Chromolaena
frustrata. Consolea corallicola occurs on sandy soils and limestone
rockland soils with little organic matter (Small 1930, pp. 25-26) and
seems to prefer areas where canopy cover and sun exposure are moderate
(Grahl and Bradley 2005, p. 4).

[[Page 61842]]

Historical Range
Consolea corallicola was known historically from three islands of
the Florida Keys in Monroe County (Small 1930, pp. 25-26) and one small
island in Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County (Bradley and Woodmansee
2002, p. 810). A population on the southeast portion of Big Pine Key in
the Florida Keys (Small 1921, p. 50) was extirpated by the 1960s, as a
result of road building and ``collecting by cactus enthusiasts''
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 77). A population known from Key Largo in
the Florida Keys was also extirpated, although the cause of its loss is
unknown (Bradley and Woodmansee 2002, p. 810).
Current Range
The current range of Consolea corallicola includes two naturally
occurring populations, one in Biscayne National Park (BNP; Miami-Dade
County) and one on a small island in the Florida Keys (Monroe County)
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 77; Bradley and Woodmansee 2002, p. 810).
These naturally occurring populations account for fewer than 1,000
plants. Consolea corallicola was also reintroduced at several sites in
the Florida Keys, and plants survive at two of these sites on State-
owned lands (Stiling 2009, pers. comm.; Stiling 2010, p. 1; Duquesnel
2011a,b, pers. comm.). Both sites together represent fewer than 50
plants. A survey of other areas containing suitable habitat in BNP was
undertaken in 2002 and 2003, to locate additional populations, but none
were found (Bradley and Koop 2003, p. 2).
Extant populations of Consolea corallicola are provided in Table 2
and are discussed below.

Table 2--Extant Populations of Consolea corallicola
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Ownership Size Habitat Trend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biscayne National Park.......... Federal--National 600 (McDonough rockland hammock Stable.
Park Service. 2010a, pers.
comm.).
Island in Florida Keys.......... Private--The 9 to 11 adults, rockland hammock, Declining.
Nature 100s of juveniles rockland hammock-
Conservancy. (Gun 2012, pers. buttonwood forest
comm.). ecotone.
Island in Florida Keys State--Florida 40 juveniles buttonwood forest- Declining.
(reintroduced). Department of (Duquesnel 2011a, saltmarsh
Environmental pers. comm.). ecotone, coastal
Protection. rock barren.
Island in Florida Keys State--Florida 7 juveniles Unknown Declining.
(reintroduced). Fish and Wildlife (Stiling 2010,
Conservation p.1).
Commission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reintroductions
Experimental plantings of Consolea corallicola were conducted at
several sites on State and Federal conservation lands in the Florida
Keys from 1996 to 2004. However, these plantings were largely
unsuccessful (with most plants succumbing to Cactoblastis moth damage
or rot), and plants currently remain at only two of these sites, one of
which is inundated too frequently during high tides to be favorable for
population expansion (Duquesnel 2008, 2009, 2011a,b, pers. comm.;
Stiling 2007, p. 2; Stiling 2009, pers. comm.; Stiling 2010, pp. 2,
193-194).
Reproductive Biology and Genetics
Consolea corallicola flowering occurs throughout the year, but
peaks in February and March (Bradley and Koop 2003, p. 2). Plants of C.
corallicola are functionally dioecious (i.e., with male and female
flowers on separate plants), but the flowers give the appearance of a
species that is hermaphroditic with perfect flowers (i.e., each flower
produces stamens and ovules) (Negr[oacute]n-Ortiz and Strittmatter
2004, p. 22; Negr[oacute]n-Ortiz 2007a, p. 3; 2007b, p. 1362).
Sexual reproduction has not been observed in Consolea corallicola.
All documented C. corallicola reproduction has been vegetative
(clonal), with new plants originating from pads that fall from larger
plants and take root (Negr[oacute]n-Ortiz 1998, p. 208). Survival rates
of fallen pads in research populations are low due to rot and
Cactoblastis moth damage (Stiling 2010, p. 193; see Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species below). Production of seeds is rare and the few
seeds that have been observed are thought to be the product of asexual
seed reproduction (agamospermy) (Negr[oacute]n-Ortiz 1998, p. 211). Two
hypotheses have been suggested to explain the lack of seed production
of C. corallicola. The first hypothesis is that the species is a
sterile polyploid (abnormal cell division that results in more than two
sets of chromosomes) (Negr[oacute]n-Ort[iacute]z 1998, p. 212). An
alternative hypothesis is the dioecious breeding system of C.
corallicola. All plants in the known populations produce only male
flowers, and no female individuals have ever been located. As a result,
all existing occurrences of C. corallicola appear to be incapable of
sexual reproduction at this time (Negr[oacute]n-Ortiz and Strittmatter
2004, p. 22).
Cariaga et al. (2005, pp. 225-230) found no genetic diversity
within the two remaining wild populations of Consolea corallicola and
concluded that all plants within each population are likely derived
clonally from a single parent plant. These data support asexual
propagation as the reproductive strategy of C. corallicola. However,
there is a small amount of variation between the two remaining wild
populations, suggesting the possibility that they originated from
different parent plants (Lewis 2007, p. 3). Likewise, Cariaga et al.
(2005, p. 225) found that a single plant collected by George Avery in
1963 from Big Pine Key and maintained at Fairchild Tropical Botanical
Gardens was a unique genotype, but Lewis (2007, pp. 6-7) found it to be
identical to the plants from the other populations. Thus, C.
corallicola has extremely limited genetic diversity, consisting of just
one to three genetic lines.
Demographics
Annual monitoring has provided a perspective on the population
structure and dynamics of Consolea corallicola. The wild population at
BNP was monitored from 2002 to 2005. At the beginning of the study, the
population consisted of 655 plants. At the end of the 3-year study in
2005, 594 plants were alive, and 61 had died (9 percent decline). Only
8 percent of plants produced flowers, and plants grew very slowly
(about 1.2 cm (0.5 in) per year) (Grahl and Bradley 2005, pp. 4-5).
From 2008 to 2010, the population was estimated to number approximately
600 individuals (McDonough 2010a, pers. comm.). Annual fluctuations in
the number of plants is largely due to mortality of branches (pads)
that fall from the larger plants but fail to

[[Page 61843]]

permanently establish (McDonough 2010a, pers. comm.). Overall, the
number of plants comprising this population appears to be stable
(Bradley and Koop 2003, p. 2; Grahl and Bradley 2005, p. 2; McDonough
2010a, pers. comm.).
Population decline has been shown in a wild population on an island
in the Florida Keys, which now consists of 9 to 11 adult plants
(defined as plants greater than 91.4 cm (3 ft) tall) and hundreds of
small juveniles originating from fallen pads. Overall, the number of
adult plants in this population has declined more than 50 percent over
the past 10 years, due to crown rot and damage caused by the
Cactoblastis moth and hurricanes (Higgins 2007, pers. comm.; Gun 2012,
pers. comm.; see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species below).
Harrisia aboriginum
Description
Harrisia aboriginum (Family: Cactaceae) is a sprawling cactus,
usually with multiple stems arising from a single base. The stems are
erect, slender, and cylindrical. They possess 9 to 11 longitudinal
ribs, and may reach 6 m (20 ft) in height. Spines are 1.0 cm (0.4 in)
long and originate in clusters of seven to nine spines. Flowers are
funnel-shaped, white, up to 15 cm (5.9 in) long, and have a slight
scent. The inside of the flower is lined with stiff, brown hairs.
Fruits are yellow, round in shape, and 6.1 to 7.6 cm (2.4 to 3.0 in) in
diameter (Small in Britton and Rose 1920, p. 154; Anderson 2001, p.
370; Parfitt and Gibson 2004b, p. 153). Each fruit contains hundreds of
small black seeds. Plants in full to partial sun typically consist of
several stems from a single base. Plants shaded by overstory vegetation
usually have stems that tend to be slender and taller. These slender
stems will topple over and eventually recorrect their growth upward, or
they may reproduce new upright stems along the prostrate stems. Some of
the prostrate stems deteriorate over time, obscuring the clonal origin
(single source) of upright stems. This results in more diffuse
groupings of clonal stems leaning at various angles (Bender 2011, p.
18).
Taxonomy
Harrisia aboriginum was described by John Kunkel Small, after he
discovered it in Manatee County in 1919 (Small in Britton and Rose
1920, p. 154). This name is still in use (Parfitt and Gibson 2004b, p.
153; Wunderlin and Hansen 2008, pp. 1-2), although possible alternative
names for the species have been proposed over the years. The genus-
level placement of H. aboriginum and other Florida relatives has been
in flux since they were first described, with some authors placing them
in the large and variable genus Cereus (i.e. Benson 1969, p. 126), and
others segregating them into the smaller Harrisia genus. Recent authors
have included the Florida species in the genus Harrisia (Hooten 1991,
pp. 64-66; Anderson 2001, p. 370; Ward 2004, pp. 365-371; Parfitt and
Gibson 2004b, pp. 150-153; Wunderlin and Hansen 2008, pp. 1-2).
Based upon the best available scientific information, Harrisia
aboriginum is a distinct taxon, endemic to the west coast of Florida.
Synonyms include Cereus aboriginum (Small ex Britton and Rose) Little,
C. gracilis var. aboriginus (Small ex Britton and Rose) L. D. Benson,
and Harrisia donae-antoniae Hooten (Parfitt and Gibson 2004b, p. 153).
Climate
The climate of south Florida where Harrisia aboriginum occurs is
classified as tropical savanna as described above for Chromolaena
frustrata.
Habitat
Harrisia aboriginum occurs on coastal berms, coastal strand,
coastal grasslands and maritime hammocks, with a sand substrate. It
also occurs on shell mounds with a calcareous shell substrate (Bradley
et al. 2004, pp. 4, 14). The coastal berm community is described above
for Chromolaena frustrata. Harrisia aboriginum growing in coastal berm
habitat sometimes occur close to the mangrove zone, but never within
it.
Coastal Strand
Coastal strand is an evergreen shrub community growing on
stabilized coastal dunes. It is usually the first woody plant community
inland from the coast. On the southwest Gulf coast of Florida, coastal
strand is patchily distributed. It usually develops as a band between
dunes dominated by Uniola paniculata (sea oats) along the immediate
coast, and maritime hammock, scrub, or mangrove swamp communities
farther inland. On broad barrier islands, it may also occur as patches
of shrubs within a coastal grassland matrix (FNAI 2010f, p. 2).
On the southwest Gulf coast of Florida, the species composition of
coastal strand consists of tropical plant species, including Coccoloba
uvifera, Forestiera segregata (Florida swampprivet), Rapanea punctata
(myrsine), Lantana involucrata, Randia aculeata, Chiococca alba
(snowberry), Eugenia foetida, Guapira discolor, Zanthoxylum fagara
(wild lime), Pithecellobium keyense, Chrysobalanus icaco (coco plum),
Dalbergia ecastaphyllum (coinvine), Sophora tomentosa var. truncata
(yellow necklacepod), Caesalpinia bonduc (gray nicker), Sideroxylon
celastrinum, and Jacquinia keyensis, (FNAI 2010f, p. 2).
Soils are deep, well-drained sands and may be somewhat alkaline,
consisting of quartz sand mixed with varying proportions of shell
fragments (FNAI 2010f, p. 2).
Storm waves periodically destroy dunes and the coastal strand
behind them, with the resulting bare area being recolonized first by
pioneer beach species and then by coastal grassland. The resulting
coastal grassland is in turn invaded by patches of woody species, which
eventually coalesce into a continuous woody community of coastal
strand. Natural disturbances, such as strong winds and storm surge
associated with hurricanes, or hard freezes, serve to open up coastal
strand canopies. There is little information on natural fire frequency
in coastal strand (FNAI 2010f, p. 2).
Coastal strand is distinguished from maritime hammock by the
absence of distinct tree canopy and understory layers. It is
distinguished from coastal berm and shell mound by its occurrence on
sand deposits along a high-energy sandy coast, rather than on shell
deposits along a low-energy, mangrove-dominated coast. It is
distinguished from coastal grassland by the dominance of woody, rather
than herbaceous, species.
Coastal Grassland
Coastal grassland is a predominantly herbaceous community occupying
the drier portions of the transition zone between beach dunes on the
immediate coast and communities dominated by woody species, such as
coastal strand or maritime hammock, farther inland. It occurs primarily
on the broader barrier islands and capes along the sandy coasts of
Florida. The specialized dune building grasses of the beach dune
community, Uniola paniculata, Panicum amarum (bitter panicgrass), and
Spartina patens (saltmeadow cordgrass), are usually present, along with
a variety of other herbaceous species typically found on more stable
soils, such as Andropogon and Schizachyrium (bluestem grasses),
Heterotheca subaxillaris (camphorweed), and Smilax auriculata. On the
southwest Gulf coast, a distinctive coastal grassland community is
found on the broad barrier islands such as Cayo Costa, North Captiva,
and

[[Page 61844]]

formerly Captiva and Sanibel. It consists of a short, dense sward (a
portion of ground covered with grass) of Bouteloua hirsuta (hairy
grama). Other species present include Ernodea littoralis (beach
creeper), Opuntia stricta, and Lantana depressa var. sanibelensis (Gulf
Coast Florida lantana) (FNAI 2010g, entire).
Coastal grassland develops either as a barrier island builds
seaward, developing new dune ridges along the shore that protect the
inland ridges from sand burial and salt spray, or as a beach recovers
after storm overwash and a new foredune ridge builds up along the
shore, protecting the overwashed area behind it from sand burial and
salt spray. As time passes, absent further storms, the coastal
grassland community itself will gradually be replaced by woody species
to form scrub, coastal strand, or maritime hammock communities (FNAI
2010g, entire).
Fire is naturally rare and localized in this community, with water
barriers and sparse fuels combining to limit its spread (FNAI 2010g,
entire).
Coastal grassland is distinguished from the beach dune community by
its position inland from the immediate coastline and the presence of a
variety of grasses, forbs, and pioneer dune-building grasses. It
differs from coastal berm in its position on a sandy coast, rather than
on a storm-deposited shell ridge on a mangrove-dominated shoreline.
Coastal grassland is distinguished from coastal strand and maritime
hammock in being dominated by herbaceous, rather than woody, species
(FNAI 2010g, entire).
Maritime Hammock
Maritime hammock is a predominantly evergreen hardwood forest
growing on stabilized coastal dunes lying at varying distances from the
shore. On the southwest Gulf coast of Florida, most of the barrier
islands and peninsulas are long and narrow with correspondingly small,
narrow areas of hammock. Maritime hammock is best developed on the few
broad islands, including Caladesi, Cayo Costa, North Captiva, and the
inner barrier islands at Stump Pass and Keewaydin Island (FNAI 2010h,
entire).
Canopy species include Cococarpus erectus, Piscidia piscipula,
Bursera simaruba, Sideroxylon foetidissimum, Exothea paniculata,
Eugenia axillaris (white stopper), Ficus aurea, Coccoloba uvifera,
Eugenia foetida, and Pithecellobium keyense; shrubs include Rapanea
punctata, Myrcianthes fragrans (Simpson's stopper), Ardisia
escallonioides, Psychotria nervosa, Chiococca alba, and Randia
aculeata. Cacti and other spiny species, such as Agave sisalana (sisal)
and Acanthocereus tetragonus, may also be present. The herb layer is
sparse to absent (FNAI 2010h, entire).
Maritime hammock occurs on deep, well-drained, acid quartz sands,
or well-drained, moderately alkaline, quartz sands mixed with shell
fragments (FNAI 2010h, entire).
Due to their coastal location with water barriers on at least one,
if not two sides, fire was probably naturally rare and very spotty in
maritime hammock, especially on the narrower barrier islands. Maritime
hammocks are principally influenced by wind-borne salt spray, storm
waves, and sand burial. If storm waves destroy the protective dunes
seaward of the hammock, sand can blow inland, burying the trees. In
addition to physical destruction by storm waves, hammock trees are
susceptible to being killed by standing salt water deposited in low
areas by storm surge (FNAI 2010h, entire).
Tropical maritime hammock can be distinguished from rockland
hammock by their occurrence on sand substrate, rather than limestone.
They may be similar in species composition to coastal berm, being
distinguished primarily by location along a high wave energy sandy
coast, rather than a low-energy, mangrove-dominated coast, and the
presence of a distinct canopy layer. They are very similar to shell
mounds in species composition, being distinguished by their occurrence
on a natural sand deposit rather than on pure shell (FNAI 2010h,
entire).
Shell Mound
Shell mounds are small hills, usually in coastal locations,
composed entirely of shells (clams, oysters, whelks) discarded by
generations of Native Americans. Shell mounds are found along the coast
throughout Florida and range westward and northward along the
coastlines of the southeastern United States. Originally, there were
many such shell mounds along coastal lagoons and at the mouths of
rivers, but most were destroyed for road building in the early part of
the last century. A rich, calcareous soil develops on the deposited
shells, which supports a diverse hardwood forest on undisturbed mounds.
Several shell mounds are now surrounded by mangroves, evidence that
they were built when sea level was lower than today (FNAI 2010i,
entire).
The plant species composition of shell mound forests tends to be
more strictly tropical than that of maritime hammocks on sandy
substrates in the same region. South Florida shell mounds are often
characterized by tropical tree species such as Bursera simaruba,
Eugenia axillaris, Amyris elemifera, Zanthoxylum fagara, Sideroxylon
foetidissimum, Exothea paniculata, Ficus aurea, and Ocotea coriacea.
Characteristic shrub species include Chiococca alba, Forestiera
segregata, and Sideroxylon celastrinum. Shell mounds may have
vegetation similar to tropical or temperate types of maritime hammock,
but differ in that they grow on pure shells rather than sand or sand
mixed with shell fragments (FNAI 2010i, entire).
In the habitats described above, Harrissia aboriginum seems to
prefer areas where canopy cover is open to partially closed (Fellows et
al. 2001, p. 3; Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 115). Mortality of plants
growing in deep shade under fully closed canopy has been observed
(Bradley et al. 2004, p. 11; Bender 2011, p. 5). Plants growing in open
to partially closed canopy sites tend to be more robust and produce
more flowers and fruits (Bender 2011, p. 17; Conrad 2012, pers. comm.).
Historical Range
Harrisia aboriginum was known historically from coastal areas of
southwest Florida along the Gulf coast in Manatee, Charlotte, Sarasota,
and Lee Counties. The species was documented on six keys along
approximately 125 km (78 mi) of Gulf coastline. Populations reported
for Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park, San Marco Island, Fort Pierce, and
ENP are considered unsubstantiated (Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 5-6).
Current Range
A 2004 status survey confirmed 10 extant populations along a 100-km
(62-mile) stretch of coast (Bradley et al. 2004, p. 8), one of which
has since been extirpated (Nielsen 2009, pers. comm.). The species is
extirpated in the northern extent of its historic range in Manatee
County (Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 3, 8-9). Currently 12 sites support
extant populations. Plants occur on seven public and private
conservation areas, four County parcels not managed for conservation,
and at least three unprotected private parcels. In total, the species
was represented by an estimated 300 to 500 individuals in 2007
(Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 87). Besides a few anecdotal accounts,
population trends were unknown prior to 2004. Extant populations of
Harrisia aboriginum are provided in Table 3.

[[Page 61845]]

Table 3--Extant Populations of Harrisia aboriginum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size (Number of
Population No. Ownership plants) Trend Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................. Private 5 (Woodmansee et al. declining......... maritime hammock.
conservation. 2007, p. 87).
2.............................. Private 5 (Woodmansee et al. declining......... shell mound.
conservation. 2007, p. 87).
3.............................. Sarasota County... 50-75 (Woodmansee et declining......... coastal strand,
al. 2007, p. 87). coastal berm.
4.............................. Sarasota County... 3 (Bender 2011, pp. unknown........... spoil mound.
9-12).
5.............................. Private........... at least 13 declining......... coastal strand,
(Woodmansee et al. coastal berm.
2007, p. 87).
6.............................. State--Florida 27 (Woodmansee et declining......... coastal berm,
Department of al. 2007, p. 87). shell mound.
Environmental
Protection.
7.............................. Private and approx. 10 (Bradley unknown........... coastal berm.
Charlotte County. et al. 2004, pp. 10-
37).
8.............................. Private 1 (Bradley et al. unknown........... coastal berm.
Conservation. 2004, pp. 10-37).
9.............................. Lee County........ 1 (Woodmansee et al. stable............ spoil mound.
2007, p. 87).
10............................. Lee County........ 4 (Woodmansee et al. declining......... coastal berm.
2007, p. 87).
11............................. Lee County........ 300-400 (Woodmansee stable............ coastal berm.
et al. 2007, p. 87).
12............................. Federal--Fish and 100-200 (Bradley et stable............ coastal berm.
Wildlife Service. al. 2004, pp. 10-
37).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reproductive Biology and Population Genetics
There has been little research into the reproductive biology of
Harrisia aboriginum. Flowers are produced May through September. Ripe
fruits have been observed from June through October. In some
populations, fruits are frequently removed from plants by unknown
animals (Fellows et al. 2001, p. 2). Observations suggest that
establishment of new plants is likely an infrequent event. Seedlings
are rarely observed. Plant fragmentation has been observed, suggesting
that this could be a dispersal mechanism. New clonal plants are
observed to arise from small stem fragments ranging from 5.1 to 7.6 cm
(2 to 3 in) in length (Bender 2011, p. 17). Establishment from plant
fragments is probably more frequent than from seed (Fellows et al.
2001, p. 2). There have been no genetic studies of H. aboriginum.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors as applied to these three plants is
discussed below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range

Human Population Growth and Development
Destruction and modification of habitat are a threat to Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum. Terrestrial
ecosystems of south Florida have been heavily impacted by humans,
through widespread clearing for agricultural, residential, commercial,
and infrastructure development. Extensive areas of rockland hammock,
pine rockland, and other ecosystems have been lost (Solecki 2001, p.
350; Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 6). Because of their proximity to the
beach and relatively higher elevations, coastal hammocks, strands, and
berms have been heavily impacted by residential and tourism
development. As a result, only isolated fragments of these habitats
remain (Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 3-4). Loss and modification of coastal
habitat due to development is expected to continue and increase in the
coming decades in Florida (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 13). Species
populations are more secure on public lands than on private lands, but
still face the threats of habitat loss and modification through
development of public facilities such as new buildings, parking lots,
and other associated facilities and through recreational opportunities
to support visitor services. Impacts to each of the species are
discussed below.
Chromolaena frustrata
Habitat destruction and modification resulting from development are
considered a major threat to Chromolaena frustrata throughout the
species' range (Gann et al. 2002, p. 387). The populations on Fiesta
Key, Knights Key, Key Largo, and Key West were lost due to development.
Fiesta Key is completely developed as a Kampgrounds of America (KOA)
campground and is devoid of native plant communities. Knights Key is
almost completely developed and has no remaining suitable habitat
(Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 5). Key Largo has undergone extensive
disturbance and development. Although suitable coastal berm and
rockland hammock habitat are still located in State and Federal
conservation sites on Key Largo (Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 8), despite
extensive surveys of the island C. frustrata has not been located
(Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 5).
Two Chromolaena frustrata populations, including the largest
population, are located on privately owned sites, which are vulnerable
to further development (Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 7; Table 1). The
statewide population of C. frustrata was estimated at fewer than 5,000
plants in 2004, but 4,500 plants (90 percent) are located at a single,
privately owned, unprotected site (Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 7). The
site, Big Munson Island, is owned by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA)
and is utilized as a Boy Scout Camp. Scout campsites have been
established along the coastal berm (Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 10),
and recreation development (campsites) and possibly recreational
activities (trampling) potentially remain a threat to C. frustrata at
this site. At this time, we do not believe that this site faces threats
from residential or commercial development. However, if development
pressure and BSA recreational usage increase, this largest population
may face threats from habitat loss and modification.

[[Page 61846]]

The population on Long Key at Layton Hammock is vulnerable to
commercial or residential development (Bradley and Gann 2004, pp. 3-
20). In addition, development remains a threat to any suitable rock
barren or rockland hammock habitat on private lands within the species'
historic range. Overall, the human population in Monroe County is
expected to increase from 79,589 to more than 92,287 people by 2060
(Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 21). All vacant land in the Florida Keys is
projected to be developed by then, including lands not currently
accessible by automobile (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 14).
Chromolaena frustrata populations in conservation areas have been
impacted and may continue to be impacted by development with increased
public use. Mechanical disturbances such as trail construction in
coastal berms may have exacerbated nonnative plant invasions (see
Factor E discussion below) (Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 4). C. frustrata
has been impacted by park development on State lands, and habitat
modifications such as mowing and trail maintenance remain a threat
(Gann et al. 2002, p. 391; Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 6; Hodges and
Bradley 2006, p. 30).
Consolea corallicola
Destruction and modification of habitat from development throughout
the species' range continue to be a threat to Consolea corallicola.
Unoccupied suitable habitat throughout the species' former range is
under intense development pressure. Development and road building were
the causes of this species' original extirpation on Big Pine Key
(Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 77; Bradley and Woodmansee 2002, p. 810).
Residential and commercial development and roadway construction
continue to occur throughout Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys.
Both remaining wild populations are secure from habitat destruction
because they are located within private and Federal conservation areas.
However, at one State-owned site where a reintroduction was attempted,
all of the plants were accidentally destroyed by the expansion of a
trail.
Harrisia aboriginum
Destruction and modification of habitat from development throughout
the species' range continue to be a threat to Harrisia aboriginum. The
coastal habitats of this species have been heavily impacted by
development over the past 50 years (Morris and Miller 1981, pp. 1-11;
Bradley et al. 2004, p. 3). Shell mounds created by Native Americans
were among the first areas colonized by early Western Europeans because
of their higher elevation and were later extensively utilized for
construction material, in some cases resulting in the complete
destruction of the habitat. Coastal hammocks, strands, and berms,
because of their proximity to the beach and higher elevations, were
also used for coastal residential construction. Only isolated fragments
of suitable habitat for H. aboriginum remain (Bradley et al. 2004, p.
3).
The species was extirpated from the northern extent of its range in
Manatee County by the 1970s, due to urbanization (Morris and Miller
1981, p. 2; Austin 1984, p. 69). Despite the recent downturn in
residential construction, coastal development is ongoing in the habitat
of H. aboriginum. Populations on private land or non-conservation
public land are most vulnerable to habitat loss. Threats include
residential development, road widening, and landscape maintenance
(Morris and Miller 1981, pp. 2-11; Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 36-37).
Suitable habitat within the species' range was recently destroyed by
encroachment from a private development onto State land (FNAI 2011a,
pp. 207-208). The threats of habitat loss, modification, and
degradation are expected to increase with increased human population,
development pressure, and infrastructure needs. Sarasota, Charlotte,
and Lee Counties, where this plant currently occurs, are expected to
build out before 2060 (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 13), placing further
pressure on remaining natural areas.
Populations located on public lands are better protected than those
on private land, but still may face the threat of habitat loss through
development of park facilities such as new buildings, parking lots, and
trails (Morris and Miller 1981, p. 4). Construction of new bathrooms in
2011 at a site owned by Sarasota County eliminated a portion of the
coastal berm habitat, and parking lot renovations are planned for 2012
at a second County site where Harrisia aboriginum occurs (Bender 2011,
p. 11). Not all land managers are aware of the presence of H.
aboriginum at sites under their jurisdiction; for example, managers at
one site in Charlotte County were unaware of H. aboriginum on county
lands (Bender 2011, p. 13). Nevertheless, the population has persisted,
probably due to its anonymity and difficulty of access. The lack of
management, however, has allowed a heavy infestation of nonnative
plants, which have modified the habitat and are shading out H.
aboriginum (Bender 2011, p. 13). Portions of at least two populations
located on public land also extend onto adjacent unprotected, private
lands (Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 16, 36).
Populations on privately owned conservation sites may have
inadequate protection from habitat loss or modification as well. One
such site that was declared a ``Preserve'' in 1992 as part of a
residential community has no formal protection; it was partially
bulldozed and landscaped with native species within the past 10 years
(Bradley et al. 2004, p. 10). The number of plants observed at this
``Preserve'' site decreased from 226 plants in 1981 (Morris and Miller
1981, p. 5), to 5 plants in 2006 (Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 87).
Another site is owned by a nonprofit organization and managed for
historical preservation. The site is severely disturbed from a long
history of human activity and is currently open to public visitation
(Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 103). This population has declined over the
past 30 years from 21 stems comprising 7 plants in 1981 (Morris and
Miller 1981, p. 4), to only 3 plants in 2003 (Bradley et al. 2004, p.
13). Development of the site for public visitation likely played a role
in the decline (Morris and Miller 1981, p. 4).
Other Conservation Efforts
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (601 FW 3, 602 FW 3) require
maintaining biological integrity and diversity, comprehensive
conservation planning for each refuge, and set standards to ensure that
all uses of refuges are compatible with their purposes and the Refuge
System's wildlife conservation mission. The comprehensive conservation
plans (CCP) address conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources
and their related habitats, while providing opportunities for
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation uses. An overriding
consideration reflected in these plans is that fish and wildlife
conservation has first priority in refuge management, and that public
use be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does
not detract from, the Refuge System mission and refuge purpose(s).
The CCP for the Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges
(National Key Deer Refuge, Key West National Wildlife Refuge, and Great
White Heron National Wildlife Refuge) provides a description of the
environment and priority resource issues that were considered in
developing the objectives and strategies that guide management over the
next 15 years. The CCP promotes the enhancement of wildlife populations
by

[[Page 61847]]

maintaining and enhancing a diversity and abundance of habitats for
native plants and animals, especially imperiled species that are only
found in the Florida Keys. The CCP also provides for obtaining baseline
data and monitoring indicator species to detect changes in ecosystem
diversity and integrity related to climate change. In the Lower Key
Refuges CCP management objective no. 16 provides specifically for
maintaining and expanding populations of candidate plant species
including Chromolaena frustrata and
Consolea corallicola
Special Use Permits (SUPs) are also issued by the Refuges as
authorized by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
(16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee) as amended, and the Refuge Recreation Act (16
U.S.C. 460k-460k-4). The SUPs cover commercial activities (such as
guiding hunters, anglers or other outdoor users, commercial filming,
agriculture, cabins, and trapping); research and monitoring by
students, universities, or other non-Service organizations; and general
use (woodcutting, miscellaneous events (fishing tournaments, one-time
events, other special events), cabins/subsistence cabins, education
activity). The Service has no information concerning the effects of the
issuance of SUPs for any of the three species.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, the decline of Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea
corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum habitat is the result of threats
that have operated in the past, are impacting these species now, and
will continue to impact these species in the future. It is reasonable
to conclude that the changes in the habitats historically and currently
occupied by the species are the cause of observed population-level
declines. The decline of these species is primarily the result of the
long-lasting effects of habitat loss, degradation, and modification
from human population growth and associated development. Thus, we
believe these changes in the species' historic or current range will
not be ameliorated in the future; therefore, we find it reasonably
likely that the effects on the species will continue at current levels
or potentially increase.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Overutilization (collection by hobbyists, also known as poaching)
is a major threat to Consolea corallicola (Gann et al. 2002, p. 440)
and Harrisia aboriginum (Austin et al. 1980, p. 2; Morris and Miller
1981, pp. 1-11; Gann et al. 2002, p. 481; Bradley et al. 2004, p. 6;
Bender 2011, p. 5). Cactus poaching is an international phenomenon.
Cacti are frequently impacted at sites that are known and easily
accessed by poachers (Anderson 2001, pp. 73-78). The rarity of C.
corallicola and H. aboriginum, coupled with their showy flowers, make
these cacti particularly desirable to collectors. Seeds of H.
aboriginum and H. fragrans (the fragrant prickly-apple, a federally
listed endangered cactus (listed as Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans)
from Florida's east coast) are currently offered for sale by online
plant distributors, demonstrating that a demand exists for these cacti
from collectors. The severity of the threat of poaching is exacerbated
by the fact that some populations of these cacti are limited to just a
few individual plants. These smaller populations could easily be
extirpated by a single poaching episode.
Consolea corallicola
Collecting by cactus hobbyists is suspected to have played a part
in the extirpation of Consolea corallicola from Big Pine Key and Key
Largo in the late 1970s, and poaching remains a major threat to this
species (Gann et al. 2002, p. 481). Other species of Consolea are
currently offered for sale by online plant distributors. Probable
evidence of poaching activity was observed at a site in Monroe County
on multiple occasions, and caused the death of one C. corallicola plant
(Slapcinsky et al. 2006, p. 3). Although the remaining populations are
somewhat protected due to their location on conservation lands, these
plants remain vulnerable to illegal collection because the sites are
remote and not patrolled regularly by enforcement personnel.
Collection for scientific and recovery purposes has so far relied
on the harvesting of cuttings from plants growing in botanical garden
and private collections. We expect that collection for the purposes of
recovery will continue and ultimately be beneficial in augmenting and
reintroducing C. corallicola at suitable sites. We have no evidence
that collection for scientific or recovery purposes is a threat to the
species at this time.
Harrisia aboriginum
Poaching of Harrisia aboriginum is a major threat (Morris and
Miller 1981, pp. 1-11; Gann et al. 2002, p. 440; Bradley et al. 2004,
p. 6). Damage and evidence of H. aboriginum poaching was reported by
Morris and Miller (1981, pp. 1-11) at several sites. Evidence of
poaching was recently observed at a site in Sarasota County that has
high public visitation. At that site, there was evidence that cuttings
had been removed from multiple H. aboriginum plants at numerous
different times (Bender 2011, pp. 5-6).
Chromolaena frustrata
We have no evidence suggesting that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes are a threat to
Chromolaena frustrata. Except for its rarity, the species does not
possess any attributes that would make it desirable to collectors, such
as showy foliage or flowers, and there are no known medicinal,
culinary, or religious uses for this species.
Summary of Factor B
In summary, based on our analysis of the best available scientific
and commercial information we find that collecting for commercial or
scientific reasons or recreational activities is not a threat to
Chromolaena frustrata in any portion of its range at this time and is
not likely to become so in the future.
We find that overutilization by poachers is a major threat to
Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. There is a current market
for these cacti and evidence of ongoing collecting activity such that
it is reasonable to conclude that collecting has caused declines and
extirpation of populations. All populations of C. corallicola and H.
aboriginum are vulnerable to this ongoing threat; however, populations
at sites that are easily accessible to the public likely face the
greatest threat from collectors. The small number of remaining plants
at most sites exacerbates this threat; smaller populations could be
completely lost to a single collection episode. The areas that support
these cacti are somewhat remote, making enforcement extremely
difficult. These threats have operated in the past, are impacting these
species now, and are expected to continue into the future. Based on our
analysis of the best available information, we find that
overutilization is a threat to these species throughout their entire
range. We believe that overutilization will not be ameliorated in the
future; therefore, we find it reasonably likely that the effects on the
species will continue at current levels or potentially increase.

C. Disease or Predation

Chromolaena frustrata
On Big Munson Island, much of the Chromolaena frustrata population
was

[[Page 61848]]

observed to suffer from severe herbivory in 2004. No insects were
observed on any plants, and the endangered Key deer (Odocoileus
virginianus clavium) was the suspected culprit (Bradley and Gann 2004,
p. 4). The significance of herbivory on C. frustrata population
dynamics is unknown. No diseases have been reported for C. frustrata.
Consolea corallicola
A fungal pathogen, Fusarium oxysporum, can infect Consolea
corallicola, causing crown rot, a disease in which plants rot near
their base (Slapcinsky et al. 2006, p. 2; Stiling 2010, p. 191). Cacti
in the Florida Keys populations that are affected by this disease have
also tested positive for a fungus, Phomopsis sp. (Slapcinsky et al.
2006, p. 3). This disease was largely responsible for the high
mortality rates in some reintroduced populations in the Florida Keys
(Stiling 2010, p. 193). At present, crown rot does not appear to be
affecting the population at BNP.
Predation by the moth Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) is considered a significant threat to Consolea corallicola
(Stiling et al. 2000, pp. 2, 6; Gann et al. 2002, p. 481; Wright and
Maschinski 2004, p. 4; Grahl and Bradley 2005, pp. 2, 7; Slapcinsky et
al. 2006, pp. 2-4). Native to South America, Cactoblastis cactorum was
introduced to Australia in 1925, as a biological control agent for
nonnative species of Opuntia. Adult moths deposit eggs on the branches
of host species. When these eggs hatch, larvae then burrow into the
cacti and feed on the inner tissue of the plant's stems. The larvae
then pupate, and the cycle repeats. Cactoblastis cactorum was extremely
effective as a biological control agent, and credited with reclaiming
6,474,970 ha (16,000,000 ac) of land infested with Opuntia species in
Australia alone. The moth also has been an effective control agent for
Opuntia species in Hawaii, India, and South Africa. It was introduced
to a few Caribbean islands in the 1960s and 1970s, and rapidly spread
throughout the Caribbean. The effectiveness of C. cactorum at
controlling Opuntia populations is described as ``rapid and
spectacular'' (Habeck and Bennett 1990. p. 1). The moth had spread to
Florida by 1989, prompting the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS) to issue an alert that C. cactorum, along
with another unidentified species of moth, had the potential to
adversely impact Opuntia populations due to the high rate of Opuntia
infestation and mortality, as demonstrated in other localities in the
Caribbean and elsewhere (Habeck and Bennett 1990. p. 1). Among local
cactus species in the Florida Keys, C. corallicola is a preferred host
(Stiling 2010, p. 190). Between 1990 and 2009, the moth infested and
damaged multiple C. corallicola plants in the Florida Keys' wild
populations, killing one plant and damaging others (Gun 2012 pers.comm.
Fortunately, these infestations were detected very early and controlled
before C. cactorum could kill multiple plants and fully spread
throughout the population. Planted C. corallicola populations in the
Florida Keys fared much worse; at one planting site, 90 individuals (50
percent of those planted) were killed by C. cactorum over a 4-year
period (Stiling 2010, p. 193). To date, C. cactorum has not been
observed in BNP (McDonough 2010a, pers. comm.). Even if the moth has
not yet reached the Park, it likely will, based on its rapid spread in
the Caribbean and Florida. This threat has the potential to cause steep
declines in populations of Consolea corallicola if they become
infested. No satisfactory method of large-scale control is known at
this time (Habeck et al. 2009, p. 2). Potential impacts to C.
corallicola at the population level as a result of predation by C.
cactorum are severe. As stated above, experts are certain of the
potential for the moth to cause massive mortality in populations of C.
corallicola if they become infested and the infestation is not caught
early and aggressively controlled.
Predation by the Cuban garden snail (Zachrysia provisoria) has been
observed at one Consolea corallicola reintroduction site (Duquesnel
2008, pers. comm.). The population-level impact of the Cuban garden
snail is not known.
Harrisia aboriginum
An as yet unidentified pathogen can attack Harrisia aboriginum and
cause stems to rot and die within about a week (Austin 1984, p. 2;
Bradley 2005, pers. comm.). However, no signs of this disease were
observed at several sites visited in 2011 (Bender 2011, p. 19).
Herbivory of flowers by iguanas (Bradley et al. 2004, p. 30) and
stems by gopher tortoises (Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 108) has been
noted. Scale insects have been observed in some H. aboriginum
populations, occasionally causing severe damage to plants (Bradley
2005, pers. comm.).
Overall, evidence indicates disease and predation are relatively
minor stressors to H. aboriginum at present, but could become threats
in the future if they become more prevalent in the cacti populations.
Summary of Factor C
In summary, Chromolaena frustrata does not appear to be affected by
disease or predation; disease and predation have been reported
occasionally for Harrisia aboriginum. We have no evidence that the
severity of either stressor has affected either species at a population
level. Though it is possible the amount of disease or predation may
increase in the future, there is no evidence that this stressor is
growing in extent. Thus, based on our analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial data available, we find that disease or
predation is not a significant stressor to the overall status of C.
frustrata or H. aboriginum at current levels, though these stressors
could potentially become a threat in the future if these pests become
more prevalent.
Disease and predation are severe threats to Consolea corallicola.
Threats from disease include a pathogen that can cause crown rot and
predation by the nonnative moth, Cactoblastis cactorum. Both are severe
and pervasive threats, and it is reasonable to conclude that disease
and predation have caused population declines. We have no reason to
believe that diseases or predation will be ameliorated in the future;
therefore, we find it reasonably likely that the effects on C.
corallicola will continue at current levels or potentially increase in
the future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.'' In
relation to Factor D, we interpret this language to require the Service
to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws, plans,
regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the
threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or
otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest weight
to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management
direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would
be State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or
constitution, or Federal action under statute.

[[Page 61849]]

State
Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia
aboriginum are listed on the Regulated Plant Index as endangered under
Chapter 5B-40, Florida Administrative Code. The Regulated Plant Index
also includes all federally listed endangered and threatened plant
species. Florida Statutes 581.185 sections (3)(a) and (b) prohibit any
person from willfully destroying or harvesting any species listed as
endangered or threatened on the Index, or growing such a plant on the
private land of another, or on any public land, without first obtaining
the written permission of the landowner and a permit from the Florida
Department of Plant Industry (DPI). The statute also requires that
collection permits issued for species listed under the Act must be
consistent with Federal standards (i.e., only the Service can issue
permits to collect plants on Federal lands). The statute further
provides that any person willfully destroying or harvesting;
transporting, carrying, or conveying on any public road or highway; or
selling or offering for sale any plant listed in the Index must have a
permit from the State at all times when engaged in any such activities.
However, despite these regulations, recent poaching is evident, and
threats to the three species (particularly the two cacti) remain. Lack
of implementation or compliance with existing regulations may be a
result of funding, work priorities, or staffing.
In addition, subsections (8)(a) and (b) of the statute waive State
regulation for certain classes of activities for all species on the
Regulated Plant Index, including the clearing or removal of regulated
plants for agricultural, forestry, mining, construction (residential,
commercial, or infrastructure), and fire-control activities by a
private landowner or his or her agent. However, section (10) of the
statute provides for consultation similar to section 7 of the Federal
Act for listed species by requiring the Department of Transportation to
notify the FDACS and the Endangered Plant Advisory Council of planned
highway construction at the time bids are first advertised, to
facilitate evaluation of the project for listed plants populations, and
to ``provide for the appropriate disposal of such plants'' (i.e.,
transplanting,). The Service has no information concerning the State of
Florida's implementation of the enforcement of these statutes. However,
it is clear that illegal collection and vandalism of cacti are both
occurring, despite these and other provisions that specifically
prohibit these activities. Insufficient implementation or enforcement
of these statutes constitutes a threat to both Consolea corallicola and
Harrisia aboriginum as they continue to decline in numbers.
Shell mounds on State land, some of which support populations of
Harrisia aboriginum, are protected as historical resources under
Florida Statute 267.13, sections (1)(a) and (b). Despite these
protections, there is a long history of utilization and excavation of
shell mounds by artifact hunters in Florida, causing erosion and
opening areas for invasion by invasive plants (FNAI 2010i, p.3).
The Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF) administers Florida's
outdoor burning and forest fire laws. Florida Statute 590.08 prohibits
any person to willfully or carelessly burn or cause to be burned, or to
set fire to or cause fire to be set to, any forest, grass, woods,
wildland, or marshes not owned or controlled by such person. Despite
this protection, unauthorized bonfires have been documented at sites
supporting Harrisia aboriginum (Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 108; Bender
2011, pp. 5-6).
Federal
National Park Service (NPS) regulations at 36 CFR 2.1 prohibit
visitors from harming or removing plants, listed or otherwise, from ENP
or BNP.
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (16
U.S.C. 470aa-470mm) protects archaeological sites, including shell
mounds, on Federal lands. Shell mounds are known from the area of ENP
where Chromolaena frustrata occurs; however the Service has no specific
information regarding illegally excavated or vandalized shell mounds at
ENP.
The Service has no information concerning ENP's or BNP's
implementation or the enforcement of these Federal regulations
protecting the plants and their habitats from harm. Insufficient
implementation or enforcement could become a threat to the two species
in the future if the species continue to decline in numbers.
Summary of Factor D
In summary, there are currently State regulatory mechanisms and NPS
regulatory mechanisms that provide for the conservation of Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum. Despite the
existing regulatory mechanisms, these species continue to decline due
to the effects of a wide array of threats, and it is reasonable to
conclude that the limitations of current regulatory mechanisms have
allowed population declines of Chromolaena frustrata and Consolea
corallicola due to habitat loss and modification and declines of
Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum due to poaching,
vandalism, and illegal bonfires.
Based on our analysis of the best available information, we find
that existing regulatory mechanisms, due to their inherent limitations
and constraints, are inadequate to address threats to these species
throughout their ranges. We have no information to indicate that
poaching, unauthorized fires, or habitat loss will be ameliorated in
the future by enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms. Therefore,
we find it reasonably likely that the effects on Chromolaena frustrata,
Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum will continue at current
levels or potentially increase in the future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence

Wildfire
Wildfire, whether naturally ignited or caused by unauthorized
burning, such as bonfires, is a threat to Consolea corallicola and
Harrisia aboriginum. In general these plants do not survive fires,
making this a severe threat to remaining populations and occupied
sites. At a site in Sarasota County, a large illegal bonfire pit is
located within the habitat that supports one of the larger populations
of H. aboriginum. The bonfires occur just a few yards from the plants
(Bender 2011, pp. 5-6). At least one plant was killed by an escaped
fire that affected part of this site in 2006 (Woodmansee et al. 2007,
p. 108) and should another fire escape into occupied habitat in the
future, it is reasonable to conclude this could result in the loss of
individuals or extirpation of populations.
Nonnative Plant Species
Nonnative, invasive plant species are a threat to all three species
(Morris and Miller 1981, pp. 1-11; Bradley et al. 2004, pp. 6, 25;
Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 91; Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 8; Bradley
2007, pers. comm.; Sadle 2010, pers. comm.; McDonough 2010b, pers.
comm.). They compete with native plants for space, light, water, and
nutrients, and they have caused population declines in all three
species.
Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper), a nonnative, invasive
tree, occurs in all of the habitats of the three species. Schinus
terebinthifolius forms dense thickets of tangled, woody stems that
completely shade out and displace

[[Page 61850]]

native vegetation (Loflin 1991, p. 19; Langeland and Craddock-Burks
1998, p. 54). Schinus terebinthifolius can dramatically change the
structure of rockland hammocks, coastal berms, and shell mounds, making
habitat conditions unsuitable for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea
corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum, which prefer moderate to full sun
exposure. For example, at more than one site, numerous H. aboriginum
plants occurring in the shade of S. terebinthifolius were observed to
have died (Bradley et al. 2004, p. 10; Bender 2011, pp. 5, 13). By the
mid-1990s, S. terebinthifolius had spread dramatically and had become a
dominant woody species at sites known to support H. aboriginum (Morris
and Miller 1981, pp. 5, 10; Loflin 1991, p. 19; Herwitz et al. 1996,
pp. 705-715; Bradley et al. 2004, p. 7). Schinus terebinthifolius is a
threat to populations of Chromolaena frustrata along the Coastal
Prairie Trail in ENP (Sadle 2010, pers. comm.) and is invading the
habitat of Consolea corallicola (McDonough 2010b, pers. comm.).
Colubrina asiatica (lather leaf), a nonnative shrub, has invaded
large areas of coastal berm and coastal berm edges (Bradley and Gann
2004, p. 4). Colubrina asiatica also forms dense thickets and mats, and
is of particular concern in coastal hammocks (Langeland and Craddock-
Burks 1998, p. 122). Colubrina asiatica is invading large areas of
hammocks within ENP along the edge of Florida Bay (Bradley and Gann
1999, p. 37). Populations of Chromolaena frustrata along the Coastal
Prairie Trail and habitat within ENP face threats from Colubrina
asiatica (Sadle pers. comm. 2010). Colubrina asiatica is also present
in BNP in areas supporting Consolea corallicola (McDonough 2010b, pers.
comm.).
Casuarina equisetifolia (Australian pine) invades coastal berm and
is a threat to suitable habitat at most sites that could support all
three species (FNAI 2010a, p. 2). Casuarina equisetifolia forms dense
stands that exclude all other species through dense shade and a thick
layer of needles that contain substances that leach out and suppress
the growth of other plants. Coastal strand habitat that once supported
Harrisia aboriginum has experienced dramatic increases in C.
equisetifolia over the past 30 years (Loflin 1991, p. 19; Herwitz et
al. 1996, pp. 705-715).
Other invasive plant species that are a threat to Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum include
Scaevola taccada (beach naupaka), Neyraudia reynaudiana (Burma reed),
Cupaniopsis anacardioides (carrotwood) Thespesia populnea (Portia
tree), Manilkara zapota (sapodilla), Hibiscus tiliaceus (hau), and
Hylocereus undatus (night blooming cactus) (FNAI 2010f, p. 4; Bradley
et al. 2004, p. 13; McDonough 2010b, pers. comm.;).
Vandalism
Vandalism is a threat to Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum, and has caused population declines in both species. For
Consolea corallicola, vandalism has been documented twice. In 1990,
branches were cut off plants at one site, but instead of being taken
(as would be the case for poaching), the cut stems were left at the
base of plants. In 2003, vegetative recruits and pads were damaged by
unauthorized removal of protective cages from plants (Slapcinsky et al.
2006, p. 3). At a Sarasota County site, the Service has documented
numerous H. aboriginum plants that have been uprooted, trampled, and
hacked with sharp implements. This population is impacted by people who
use the coastal berm and hammock interface to engage in a variety of
recreational (including unauthorized) activities as evidenced by a very
large bonfire site and vast quantities of garbage, bottles, and
discarded clothing (Bender 2011, p. 5).
Due to their historic significance and possible presence of
artifacts, shell mounds are susceptible to vandalism by artifact
hunters. Despite regulations that protect these sites on State lands
(Florida Statute 267. 13), there is a long history of artifact hunters
conducting unauthorized excavation of shell mounds in Florida,
including some mounds where Harrisia aboriginum has been found, causing
erosion and opening areas for invasion by nonnative plants (FNAI 2010i,
p.3).
Recreation
Recreational activities may inadvertently impact some populations
of Chromolaena frustrata. These activities may affect some individual
plants in some populations but have not likely caused significant
population declines in the species. Foot traffic and campsites at Big
Munson Island may be a threat to Chromolaena frustrata. Recreation is a
threat to some populations of Harrisia aboriginum. Coastal berms and
dunes are impacted by recreational activities that cause trampling of
plants, exacerbate erosion, and facilitate invasion by nonnative
plants. As noted above, in 2011, numerous plants at a Sarasota County
site were observed to be intentionally uprooted, hacked, and trampled,
and there was a large amount of trash deposited nearby. At the same
site, there is an ongoing problem with recreational bonfires in the
coastal berm habitat just a few yards from H. aboriginum plants
(Bradley et al. 2004, p. 16; Woodmansee et al. 2007, p.108; Bender
2011, pp. 5-6). One escaped bonfire has the potential to destroy this
entire population.
Hurricanes, Storm Surge, and Extreme High Tide Events
Hurricanes, storm surge, and extreme high tide events are natural
events that can pose a threat to all three species. Hurricanes and
tropical storms can modify habitat (e.g., through storm surge) and have
the potential to destroy entire populations. Climate change may lead to
increased frequency and duration of severe storms (Golladay et al.
2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p.
1015). All three species experienced these disturbances historically,
but had the benefit of more abundant and contiguous habitat to buffer
them from extirpations. With most of the historical habitat having been
destroyed or modified, the few remaining populations of these species
could face local extirpations due to stochastic events.
The Florida Keys were impacted by three hurricanes in 2005: Katrina
on August 26th, Rita on September 20th, and Wilma on October 24th.
Hurricane Wilma had the largest impact, with storm surges flooding much
of the landmass of the Keys. The vegetation in many areas was top-
killed due to salt water inundation (Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 9).
Chromolaena frustrata
The ecology of coastal rock barrens is poorly understood. Periodic
storm events may be responsible for maintaining the community (Bradley
and Gann 1999, p. 37). There is some evidence that, over the long term,
hurricanes can be beneficial to the species by opening up tree canopies
allowing more light to penetrate, thereby creating the necessary
conditions for growth (Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 115). The large
population of Chromolaena frustrata observed at Big Munson Island in
2004 suggests that this species may respond positively to occasional
hurricanes or tropical storms that thin hammock canopies, providing
more light (Bradley and Gann 2004, p. 8). Populations of C. frustrata
in ENP initially appeared to have been eliminated by storm surge during
Hurricane Wilma in 2005 (Bradley 2007, pers. comm.; Duquesnel 2005,
pers.

[[Page 61851]]

comm.), and habitat was significantly altered (Maschinski 2007, pers.
comm.). All communities where C. frustrata was found showed impacts
from the 2005 hurricane season, primarily thinning of the canopy and
numerous blow downs (Sadle 2007, pers. comm.). However, it appears that
the species has returned to some locations (Bradley 2009, pers. comm.).
The population of C. frustrata in ENP may have benefited from
hurricanes; surveys at some sites in ENP in 2007 detected more plants
than ever previously reported (Sadle 2007, pers. comm.). However, if
nonnative, invasive plants are present at sites when a storm hits, they
may respond similarly, becoming dominant and not allowing for a pulse
in the population of native species. This may radically alter the long-
term population dynamics of C. frustrata, keeping population sizes
small or declining, until they eventually disappear (Bradley and Gann
2004, p. 8).
Consolea corallicola
Suitable habitat such as coastal rock barrens on Key Largo have
been inundated with saltwater during spring and fall high tides over
the past 5 to 10 years; these extreme events killed planted Consolea
corallicola at one location (Duquesnel 2011a, pers. comm.). In the
future, sea level rise could cause increases in flooding frequency or
duration, prolonged or complete inundation of plants, and loss of
suitable habitat (see Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, below for more
information).
Harrisia aboriginum
In 2004, Hurricane Charley, a Category 4 hurricane, passed within 8
km (5 miles) of seven populations of Harrisia aboriginum and within 29
km (18 miles) of all populations (Bradley and Woodmansee 2004, p. 1).
Several populations suffered damage and loss of plants (Nielsen 2007,
pers. comm.; Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 85) due to fallen limbs and
shock caused by the sudden increase in sun exposure when the canopy was
opened. However, some plants damaged by Hurricane Charley in 2004 have
since recovered and seem to be thriving (Nielsen 2009, pers. comm.).
Freezing Temperatures
Occasional freezing temperatures that occur in south Florida are a
threat to Chromolaena frustrata (Bradley 2009, pers. comm.; Sadle 2011,
pers. comm.) and Harrisia aboriginum (Woodmansee et al. 2007, p. 91).
Under normal circumstances, occasional freezing temperatures would not
result in a significant impact to these species; however, the small
size of some populations makes impacts from freezing more significant.
Effects of Small Population Size and Isolation
Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of
isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from both random and
nonrandom catastrophic natural or human-caused events. Species that are
restricted to geographically limited areas are inherently more
vulnerable to extinction than widespread species because of the
increased risk of genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations,
climate change, and localized catastrophes such as hurricanes and
disease outbreaks (Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607; Pimm et al. 1988, p.
757). These problems are further magnified when populations are few and
restricted to a very small geographic area, and when the number of
individuals is very small. Populations with these characteristics face
an increased likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in
demography, the environment, genetics, or other factors (Gilpin and
Soule 1986, pp. 24-34).
Small, isolated populations often exhibit reduced levels of genetic
variability, which diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and
respond to environmental changes, thereby decreasing the probability of
long-term persistence (e.g., Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 4; Newman and
Pilson 1997, p. 361). Very small plant populations may experience
reduced reproductive vigor due to ineffective pollination or inbreeding
depression. Isolated individuals have difficulty achieving natural
pollen exchange, which limits the production of viable seed. The
problems associated with small population size and vulnerability to
random demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes are further
magnified by synergistic interactions with other threats, such as those
discussed above (Factors A, B, and C).
Chromolaena frustrata
The current range of Chromolaena frustrata includes eight
populations spread across 209 km (130 mi) between ENP and Boca Grande
Key; four of eight C. frustrata populations consist of fewer than 100
individuals (see Table 1). These populations may not be viable in the
long term due to their small number of individuals. Threats exacerbated
by small population size include hurricanes, storm surges, freezing
temperatures, and recreation impacts.
Consolea corallicola
The two natural populations of Consolea corallicola are spread
across 193 km (120 mi) between Biscayne Bay and Big Pine Key. One of
the two remaining natural populations of C. corallicola consists of
fewer than 20 adult plants (see Table 2). Threats exacerbated by small
population size include hurricanes, storm surges, and poaching.
Populations can also be impacted by demographic stochasticity, where
populations are skewed toward either male or female individuals by
chance. This may be the case with C. corallicola, in which the two
remaining populations do not contain any female plants. While the
species may continue to reproduce indefinitely by clonal means,
populations may not be viable over the long term due to a lack of
genetic mixing and thus the potential to adapt to environmental
changes.
Harrisia aboriginum
The current range of Harrisia aboriginum spans such a small
geographic area (100-km (62-mi)) stretch of coastline north to south)
that all populations could be affected by a single event (e.g.,
hurricane). Six of the 12 remaining populations have 10 or fewer
individual plants (see Table 3). Threats exacerbated by small
population size include hurricanes, storm surges, freezing
temperatures, recreation impacts, wildfires, and poaching.
Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia
aboriginum have restricted geographic distributions, and few
populations, some or all of which are relatively small in number and
extent. Therefore, it is essential to maintain the habitats upon which
they depend, which require protection from disturbance caused by
development, recreational activities and facilities maintenance,
nonnative species, or a combination of these. Due to ongoing and
pervasive threats, the number and size of existing populations of these
species are probably not sufficient to sustain them into the future.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
Climatic changes, including sea level rise, are major threats to
south Florida and Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum. Our analyses under the Act include consideration
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability
of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being
a typical period for such

[[Page 61852]]

measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC
2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in
the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g.,
temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period,
typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural
variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types
of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species.
These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change.
Projected changes in climate and related effects can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Thus, although global climate projections are
informative and in some cases are the only or the best scientific
information available, to the extent possible we use ``downscaled''
climate projections, which provide higher resolution information that
is more relevant to the spatial scales used to assess effects to a
given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61 for a discussion of
downscaling).
With regard to our analysis for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea
corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum, downscaled projections suggest
that sea-level rise is the largest climate-driven challenge to low-
lying coastal areas and refuges in the subtropical ecoregion of
southern Florida (U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2008, pp.
5-31, 5-32). The long-term record at Key West shows that sea level rose
on average 0.224 cm (0.088 in) annually between 1913 and 2006 (National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2008, p. 1). This
equates to approximately 22.3 cm (8.76 in) over the last 100 years
(NOAA 2008, p. 1). IPCC (2008, p. 28) emphasized it is very likely that
the average rate of sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed
that rate, although it was projected to have substantial geographical
variability.
Other processes expected to be affected by climate change include
temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and distribution), and
storms (frequency and intensity). Temperatures are projected to rise
from 2 [deg]C to 5 [deg]C (35.6 [deg]F to 41.5 [deg]F) for North
America by the end of this century (IPCC 2007, pp. 7-9, 13).
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) modeled several scenarios for the
Florida Keys, and predicted that sea level rise will first result in
the conversion of habitat, and eventually the complete inundation of
habitat. In the best-case scenario, by the year 2100, a rise of 18 cm
(7 in) would result in the inundation of 745 ha (1,840 acres) (34
percent) of Big Pine Key and the loss of 11 percent of the island's
upland habitat (TNC 2010, p. 1). In the worst-case scenario, a rise of
140 cm (4.6 ft) would result in the inundation of about 2,409 ha (5,950
acres) (96 percent) and the loss of all upland habitat on the Key (TNC
2010, p. 1).
Hydrology has a strong influence on plant distribution in these and
other coastal areas (IPCC 2008, p. 57). Such communities typically
grade from salt to brackish to freshwater species. From the 1930s to
1950s, increased salinity of coastal waters contributed to the decline
of cabbage palm forests in southwest Florida (Williams et al. 1999, pp.
2056-2059), expansion of mangroves into adjacent marshes in the
Everglades (Ross et al. 2000, pp. 9, 12-13), and loss of pine rockland
in the Keys (Ross et al. 1994, pp. 144, 151-155). The possible effects
of sea level rise were noted in the 1980s, at a site supporting
Harrisia aboriginum (Morris and Miller 1981, p. 10), and recent deaths
of cabbage palms at this location suggest that this is a continuing
threat (Bradley et al. 2004, p. 7). Furthermore, Ross et al. (2000, pp.
109-111) suggested that interactions between sea level rise and pulse
disturbances (e.g., storm surges) can cause vegetation to change sooner
than projected based on sea level alone. Patterns of development will
also likely be significant factors influencing whether natural
communities can move and persist (IPCC 2008, p. 57; CCSP 2008, p. 7-6).
Most populations of Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola,
and Harrisia aboriginum are located just slightly above mean sea level,
and the effects of sea level rise are expected to be a continual
problem for coastal species and habitats (Gann et al. 2002, p. 391,
481; Bradley et al. 2004, p. 7; Sadle 2007, pers. comm.; Higgins 2007,
pers. comm.; Duquesnel 2008, pers. comm.). Research on C. corallicola
(Stiling 2010, p. 2) and other Florida cacti suggests that increased
soil salinity levels can cause mortality of these plants (Goodman et
al. 2012, pp. 9-11). Natural populations of Harrisia aboriginum and
Consolea corallicola do not occur on saturated soils (fresh or saline)
and would likely be extirpated at sites affected by sea level rise.
Similarly, the extant populations of Consolea corallicola occur
near sea level in a transitional zone between mangrove and hardwood
hammock habitats. Populations at two sites have been declining for
years, and this may be partially attributed to rising sea level, as
most of the cacti are on the edge of the hammock and buttonwood
transition zone or directly in the transition zone (Higgins 2007, pers.
comm.; Duquesnel 2008, 2009, pers. comm.).
Summary of Factor E
In summary, Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum are vulnerable to a wide array of threats from
human activities; invasive, nonnative plant species; small population
sizes; weather events, and climate change, which have operated in the
past, are impacting these species now, and have caused population
declines in all three species. Based on our analysis of the best
available information, these threats are likely to continue in the
future at current levels or potentially increasing.
Cumulative Effects of Threats
The limited distributions and small population sizes of Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum make them
extremely susceptible to further habitat loss and competition from
nonnative species. Poaching, vandalism, and wildfires are additional
threats to C. corallicola and H. aboriginum. Mechanisms leading to the
decline of these species as discussed above, range from local (e.g.,
poaching, vandalism, wildfire), to regional (e.g., development,
nonnative species), to global (e.g., climate change, sea level rise).
The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of
threats (such as hurricane effects on a species with a limited
distribution consisting of just a few small populations) make it
difficult to predict population viability. While these stressors may
act in isolation, it is more probable that many stressors are acting
simultaneously (or in combination) on populations of Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and H. aboriginum.

Proposed Determination

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia
aboriginum. Section 3(6) of the Act defines an endangered species as
``any species that is in danger of

[[Page 61853]]

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
section 3(20) of the Act defines a threatened species as ``any species
that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant
portion of its range within the foreseeable future.''
As described in detail above, these three species are currently at
risk throughout all of their respective ranges due to the immediacy,
severity, and scope of threats from habitat destruction and
modification (Factor A), inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D), and other natural or manmade factors affecting their
continued existence (Factor E). Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum are currently at risk throughout all of their respective
ranges due to the immediacy, severity, and scope of threats from
overutilization (Factor B), and C. corallicola is immediately
threatened by disease or predation (Factor C). Although there are
ongoing actions to alleviate some threats, there appear to be no
populations without current significant threats. Current State and
Federal regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are inadequate to protect
Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum
from taking and habitat loss. Despite the existing regulatory
mechanisms, Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and H.
aboriginum continue to decline. In particular, poaching remains a
concern for Consolea corallicola, and H. aboriginum. Habitat loss or
modification from development (Factor A) and sea level rise,
competition from nonnative plants, small population sizes, and
restricted range (Factor E) are threats to all three species.
Hurricanes, storm surge, and future sea level rise are threats to all
three species through direct mortality of individuals and modification
of habitat. The majority of the remaining C. frustrata, C. corallicola,
and H. aboriginum populations are generally small and geographically
isolated. The narrow distribution of their populations in hurricane-
prone south Florida makes them more susceptible to extirpation from a
single catastrophic event. Furthermore, this level of isolation makes
natural recolonization of extirpated populations virtually impossible
without human intervention.
Chromolaena frustrata
Chromolaena frustrata has been extirpated (no longer in existence)
from half of the islands in the Florida Keys where it historically
occurred, and threats of competition from nonnative, invasive plants
(Factor E) and habitat loss (Factor A) are currently active in the
remaining populations. Populations of Chromolaena frustrata are
isolated from one another, and the species has a limited ability to
recolonize suitable habitat between populations. Because of the current
condition of the populations and life-history traits of the species, it
is vulnerable to natural or human-caused changes in its currently
occupied habitats. Significant threats are occurring now and are likely
to continue in the foreseeable future, at a high intensity, and across
the species' entire range; therefore, we have determined the species is
currently on the brink of extinction. Because these threats are placing
the species in danger of extinction now and not only at some point in
the foreseeable future, we find this species meets the definition of an
endangered species versus a threatened species. Therefore, we are
proposing to list it as an endangered species. We are not proposing
threatened species status for C. frustrata due to the high level of
continuing threats described above. These threats described above are
currently active, and will continue to affect the populations of C.
frustrata into the foreseeable future, and these threats will
individually and collectively contribute to the species' local
extirpation and potential extinction.
Consolea corallicola
Consolea corallicola has been extirpated from half of the islands
in the Florida Keys where it historically occurred. Threats of poaching
and vandalism (Factor B), predation by a nonnative moth, disease
(Factor C), competition from nonnative, invasive plant species and
wildfire (Factor E), and habitat loss (Factor A) still exist in the
remaining populations. Additionally, low genetic diversity and lack of
sexual reproduction are threats to C. corallicola. Because there are
only a few small populations of this cactus, and the remoteness of
occupied habitat that makes enforcement difficult, collection has and
continues to be a significant threat to the species. Existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) at the State level are inadequate to
protect the species from poaching or vandalism. Because populations are
isolated and the species has a limited ability to recolonize suitable
habitats, it continues to be vulnerable to natural or human-caused
changes in its habitats. As a result, impacts from continuing threats,
singly or in combination, are likely to result in the extinction of
this species. Significant threats are occurring now and are likely to
continue in the foreseeable future, at a high intensity, and across the
species' entire range; therefore, we have determined the species is
currently on the brink of extinction. Because these threats are placing
the species in danger of extinction now and not only at some point in
the foreseeable future, we find this species meets the definition of an
endangered species, versus a threatened species. Therefore, we are
proposing to list it as an endangered species. We are not proposing
threatened status for C. corallicola due to the severity of the threats
described above. These threats described above are currently active,
and will continue to affect the populations of C. corallicola into the
foreseeable future, and these threats will individually and
collectively contribute to the species' local extirpation and potential
extinction.
Harrisia aboriginum
Harrisia aboriginum has been extirpated from the northern extent of
its range in Manatee County, and threats of poaching (Factor B),
competition from nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire (Factor
E), disease, predation (Factor C), vandalism (Factor B), and habitat
loss (Factor A) still exist in the remaining populations. Because there
are only a few small populations of this cactus, and the remoteness of
occupied habitat that makes enforcement difficult, collection has and
continues to be a significant threat to this species. Existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) at the State level are inadequate to
protect this species from poaching or vandalism. Because populations
are isolated and the species has a limited ability to recolonize
historically occupied habitats, it is vulnerable to natural or human-
caused changes in its habitats. As a result, impacts from increasing
threats, singly or in combination, are likely to result in the
extinction of the species. Significant threats are occurring now and
are likely to continue in the foreseeable future, at a high intensity,
and across the species' entire range; therefore, we have determined the
species is currently on the brink of extinction. Because these threats
are placing the species in danger of extinction now and not only at
some point in the foreseeable future, we find this species meets the
definition of an endangered species, versus a threatened species.
Therefore, we are proposing to list it as an endangered species. We are
not proposing threatened status for H. aboriginum due to the severity
of the threats described above. These threats described above are
currently active, and will continue to affect the populations of H.
aboriginum into the foreseeable future, and these threats will

[[Page 61854]]

individually and collectively contribute to the species' local
extirpation and potential extinction.

Significant Portion of Its Range

We evaluated the current range of the Chromolaena frustrata,
Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum to determine if there is
any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats for either
species. All three species are highly restricted in their ranges, and
the threats occur throughout their ranges. We considered the potential
threats due to habitat loss or modification from development and sea
level rise, competition from nonnative plants, hurricanes, storm surge,
small populations, and restricted range. We found no concentration of
threats because of the species' limited and curtailed ranges, and
uniformity of the threats throughout their entire ranges. Having
determined that Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum are endangered throughout their entire ranges, it
is not necessary to evaluate whether there are any significant portions
of their ranges.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in public
awareness and conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies;
private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation
with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for
all listed species. The protection required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against take and harm are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and after preparation of a draft and
final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
down listed or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprising species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our South Florida Ecological Services Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. Achieving recovery of these species requires cooperative
conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and non-governmental organizations. In addition,
under section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be eligible for
Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection and recovery of Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola,
and Harrisia aboriginum. Information on our grant programs that are
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia
aboriginum are only being proposed for listing under the Act at this
time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Federal agencies are required to confer with us informally on any
action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
proposed species. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer
with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may adversely affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within these species' habitats that may
require conference or consultation or both as described in the
preceding paragraph include, but are not limited to, the funding of,
carrying out or issuance of permits for resource management activities,
development of facilities, road and trail construction, recreational
programs, and any other any landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the Department of Defense, NPS, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and U.S. Forest Service; or the issuance of Federal permits
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; construction and management of gas
pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by
the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants.
All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR
17.61, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or
export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a

[[Page 61855]]

commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas
under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as an
endangered species, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or
destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal,
cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such plants in
knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including State
criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
Preservation of native flora of Florida (Florida Statutes 581.185)
sections (3)(a) and (b) provide limited protection to species listed in
the State of Florida Regulated Plant Index including Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum, as described
under Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.
Federal listing increases protection by for these species by making
violations of Section 3 of the Florida Statute punishable as a Federal
offense under section 9 of the Act. This provides increased protection
from unauthorized collecting and vandalism for the plants on State and
private lands, where they might not otherwise be protected by the Act,
and increases the severity of the penalty for unauthorized collection,
vandalism, or trade in these species.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened plant species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.62 for endangered plants, and at 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plants.
With regard to endangered plants, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes or to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species.
The Service acknowledges that it cannot fully address some of the
natural threats facing Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum (e.g., hurricanes, tropical storms) or even some of
the other significant, long-term threats (e.g., climatic changes, sea
level rise). However, through listing, we provide protection to the
known population(s) and any new population of the species that may be
discovered (see discussion below). With listing, we can also influence
Federal actions that may potentially impact the species (see discussion
below); this is especially valuable if it is found at additional
locations. With this action, we are also better able to deter illicit
collection and trade.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Import any such species into, or export any such species from,
the United States;
(2) Remove and reduce to possession any such species from areas
under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy any such
species on any such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy
any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or
regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State
criminal trespass law;
(3) Deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a
commercial activity, any such species;
(4) Sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any
such species;
(5) Introduce any nonnative wildlife or plant species to the State
of Florida that compete with or prey upon Chromolaena frustrata,
Consolea corallicola, or Harrisia aboriginum;
(6) Release any unauthorized biological control agents that attack
any life stage of Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, or
Harrisia aboriginum;
(7) Modify the habitat of Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea
corallicola, or Harrisia aboriginum on Federal lands that is
unauthorized or not covered under the Act for impacts to these species.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Field
Supervisor of the Service's South Florida Ecological Services Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for copies of
regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about prohibitions
and permits should be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services Division, Endangered Species Permits, 1875 Century
Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 (Phone 404-679-7140; Fax 404-679-7081).
If Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia
aboriginum are listed under the Act, the State of Florida's Endangered
Species Act (Florida Statutes 581.185) is automatically invoked, which
would also prohibit take of these species and encourage conservation by
State government agencies. Further, the State may enter into agreements
with Federal agencies to administer and manage any area required for
the conservation, management, enhancement, or protection of endangered
species (Florida Statutes 581.185). Funds for these activities could be
made available under section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the
States). Thus, the Federal protection afforded to these species by
listing them as endangered species would be reinforced and supplemented
by protection under State law.

Critical Habitat Designation for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea
corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum

Background

It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aborigiunum in this
section of the proposed rule.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the

[[Page 61856]]

extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time we determine that a species is endangered or threatened. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected
to increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
This determination involves a weighing of the expected increase in
threats associated with a critical habitat designation against the
benefits gained by such designation. We have determined that for
Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum, identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to
the species from over utilization by collectors and poachers and that
the benefits of designating critical habitat are minimal.

Increased Threat to the Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum by
Designating Critical Habitat

Rare cacti are highly desirable to collectors and often targeted
for collection in the wild (Anderson 2001, pp. 73-78). The Service has
documented unauthorized collection of both Consolea corallicola and
Harrisia aboriginum on public lands in Florida. Collection appears to
be ongoing, prevalent, and damaging (see Factor B analysis above for
specific cases). In addition, we are aware that a market exists for
trade in rare, imperiled, and federally-listed cacti, including those
in south Florida (see Factor B analysis above). For example, there is
currently a demand for Harrisia fragrans, a rare cactus from south
Florida that is listed (under the scientific name Cereus eriophorus
var. fragrans) as an endangered species under the Act, and that closely
resembles H. aboriginum. Websites currently offer for sale seeds of C.
corallicola and H. aboriginum. It is clear that a demand currently
exists for specimens of both cacti.
Due to the low number of populations, small population sizes,
restricted range, and remoteness of occupied habitat (which makes
enforcement difficult), we believe that collection is a significant and
continuing threat to Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. Even
limited collection from the remaining populations (or other
populations, if discovered) could have significant and long-lasting
deleterious effects on reproductive and genetic viability and thus
could contribute to the extinction of these cacti. Identification of
critical habitat units would increase the severity of this threat by
describing the exact locations where the species may be found and more
widely publicizing this information, exposing small, isolated
populations and habitat to greater risks of collection and vandalism.
Designation of critical habitat requires the publication of maps
and a narrative description of specific critical habitat units in the
Federal Register. The degree of detail in those maps and boundary
descriptions would be greater than what is currently available to the
public. Thus, designation of critical habitat could more widely
announce the exact location of the two cacti to collectors and
poachers, and further encourage and facilitate unauthorized collection
and trade. Due to their extreme rarity (a low number of individuals,
combined with small areas inhabited by the remaining populations),
these cacti are highly vulnerable to collection. We believe that these
threats would be exacerbated by the publication of maps and
descriptions outlining the specific locations of these cacti in the
Federal Register, on Service Web sites, and in local newspapers.
Identification and publication of critical habitat for Consolea
corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum would also likely increase
enforcement problems. Although take prohibitions exist, effective
enforcement is difficult. As discussed under Factors B, D, and E and
elsewhere above, the threats of collection and inadvertent impacts from
human activities exists and areas where the species currently exist are
already difficult to patrol due to the remoteness of those areas. Many
of the areas supporting the cacti are remote and accessible mainly by
boat, making them difficult for law enforcement personnel to patrol and
monitor, and more desirable for illegal activities. Limited patrolling
is available for resource protection on the lands supporting Consolea
corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum. We believe that designation of
critical habitat would facilitate further use and misuse of sensitive
habitats and resources, creating additional difficulty for law
enforcement personnel in an already challenging environment. Overall,
we believe that designation of critical habitat would increase the
likelihood and severity of the threats of illegal collection of C.
corallicola and H. aboriginum, as well as exacerbate enforcement
issues.

Benefits to Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum From Critical
Habitat Designation

The principal benefit of including an area in critical habitat is
the requirement for agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or
carry out are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of any designated critical habitat, the regulatory
standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which consultation is
completed. Critical habitat provides protections only where there is a
Federal nexus, that is, those actions that come under the purview of
section 7 of the Act. Critical habitat designation has no application
to actions that do not have a Federal nexus. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act
mandates that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service,
evaluate the effects of its their proposed actions on any designated
critical habitat. Similar to the Act's requirement that a Federal
agency action not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species,
Federal agencies have the

[[Page 61857]]

responsibility not to implement actions that would destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat.
Federal actions affecting the species even in the absence of
designated critical habitat areas would still benefit from consultation
pursuant under to section 7(a)(2) of the Act and may still result in
jeopardy findings. However, the analysis of effects of a proposed
project on critical habitat is separate and distinct from that of the
effects of a proposed project on the species itself. The jeopardy
analysis evaluates the action's impact to survival and recovery of the
species, while the destruction or adverse modification analysis
evaluates the action's effects to the designated habitat's contribution
to conservation of the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes
of these two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical
habitat. This would, in some instances, lead to different results and
different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations
may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than would
listing alone.
Consolea corallicola
All areas known to support populations of Consolea corallicola are
on Federal, State, or private conservation lands; these areas are
currently being managed at some level for the species. Management
efforts include nonnative species control and efforts to detect and
control Cactobalastis cactorum. These efforts are consistent with, and
tailored for, C. corallicola conservation, and such efforts are
expected to continue in the future. Because C. corallicola is
restricted to two small natural populations, with by far the largest
occurring on NPS land, any future activity involving a Federal action
that would destroy or adversely modify occupied critical habitat would
also be expected to jeopardize the species' continued existence (see
Jeopardy Standard within proposed rule). On the other hand, designation
of unoccupied critical habitat for C. corallicola would provide a
measureable regulatory benefit in those instances when a Federal action
occurred in only unoccupied critical habitat. Because C. corallicola
has been extirpated from half of the islands where it occurred in the
Florida Keys, designation of critical habitat for this species could
cover a large area. Thus, for the species if consultation on the
Federal action was found to likely destroy or adversely modify
unoccupied critical habitat but not jeopardize the continued existence
of the species, a measurable regulatory benefit would be realized. In
the absence of a critical habitat designation, Federal lands that
support C. corallicola would continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard
consultation requirements and may still result in jeopardy findings.
Therefore, designation of specific areas as critical habitat that are
currently occupied is unlikely to provide a measurable benefit to the
species while designation of unoccupied areas as critical habitat could
provide a measurable benefit to the species.
Harrisia aboriginum
All Harrisia aboriginum populations are at least in part on
protected Federal, State, County, and private conservation lands. A few
plants are located on private non-conservation parcels adjacent to
larger populations on protected conservation sites. Most, but not all,
of the protected sites are currently being managed at some level for
the species. Management efforts are limited to nonnative species
control at this time. These efforts are expected to continue in the
future. The Federal listing of the species regardless of critical
habitat designation, could result in increased enforcement efforts and
population augmentation, although to what extent is unknown. One of the
12 sites where H. aboriginum occurs is on Federal lands and represents
approximately one third of all existing individuals and would be
subject to section 7(a)(2) consultation requirements of the Act.
However, Harrisia aboriginum has been extirpated from the northern
extent of its range in Manatee County. There are a few small County-
owned and private land parcels that are occupied and not currently
being managed for the species; and these lands would not be subject the
requirements of section 7 consultation without a Federal nexus.
Designation of these small parcels as occupied critical habitat would
provide limited additional to H. aboriginum because a Federal nexus
would still be needed to trigger consultation and it is unlikely the
loss of the habitat would have an adverse effect on the conservation of
the species. If unoccupied critical habitat were designated for H.
aboriginum, additional habitat could be protected from adverse habitat
modification or destruction on State, county, or private land if a
Federal nexus were present and the action rose to the level of
adversely modifying the critical habitat. Additional unoccupied habitat
may be necessary for the recovery of C. corallicola and H. aboriginum,
as areas targeted for reintroduction would likely be on existing State,
Federal, or county conservation lands. However, the identification of
these lands would increase the risk of poaching in the future at these
reintroduced sites.
In summary, for both Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum,
consultation with respect to critical habitat would provide additional
protection to a species if the agency action would result in the
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat but would
not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In the absence
of a critical habitat designation, areas that support C. corallicola
and H. aboriginum would continue to be subject to conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Also, Federal actions
affecting C. corallicola and H. aboriginum in the absence of designated
critical habitat areas would still benefit from consultation pursuant
under to section 7(a)(2) of the Act and may still result in jeopardy
findings. Therefore, although designation of specific areas as critical
habitat that is currently occupied, recently occupied, or unoccupied
would provide some additional protections under the Act, that
protection is likely to be minimal.
Another potential benefit to Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum from designating critical habitat is that it could serve to
educate private landowners, and Federal State, and local government
agencies, Refuge, or Park visitors, and the general public regarding
the potential conservation value of the area for the species. Through
the processes of listing the cacti under the State of Florida's
endangered species statute and the recognition of the C. corallicola
and H. aboriginum as a Federal candidate species in 2005 and 2006,
respectively, much of this educational component is already in effect.
Agencies, organizations, and stakeholders are actively engaged in
efforts to raise awareness for these cacti and their conservation
needs, including the need to deter poaching of wild specimens,
designation of critical habitat would help in increasing the awareness.
In addition, designation of critical habitat could inform State
agencies and local governments about areas that could be conserved
under State laws, local ordinances, or land management initiatives by
State, local, and Federal agencies. However, nearly all land managers
responsible for sites supporting Consolea corallicola and Harrisia
aboriginum are now aware the presence of these species. Designation of
critical habitat that is occupied would

[[Page 61858]]

likely provide benefits concerning awareness by private entities where
management for the species could be enhanced or initiated.

Increased Threat to Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum
Outweighs the Benefits of Critical Habitat Designation

Upon reviewing the available information, we have determined that
the designation of critical habitat would increase the threat to
Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum from unauthorized
collection and trade, and may further facilitate inadvertent or
purposeful disturbance and vandalism to the cacti's habitat. We believe
that designation of occupied critical habitat is likely to confer only
an educational benefit to these cacti beyond that provided by listing.
Alternatively, the designation of unoccupied critical habitat for
either species could provide an educational and at least some
regulatory benefit for each species. However, we believe that the risk
of increasing significant threats to the species by publishing more
specific location information in a critical habitat designation greatly
outweighs the benefits of designating critical habitat.
In conclusion, we find that the designation of critical habitat is
not prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), because Consolea
corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum are threatened by collection and
habitat destruction, and designation can reasonably be expected to
increase the degree of these threats to these species and their
habitats. Critical habitat designation could provide some benefit to
these species, but these benefits are significantly outweighed by the
increased risk of collection pressure and enforcement problems that
could result from depicting, through publicly available maps and
descriptions, exactly where these extremely rare cacti and their
habitat can be found.

Determination of Prudency for Chromolaena frustrata

In contrast to Consolea corallicola and Harrisia aboriginum,
Chromolaena frustrata is not sought after by collectors and there is no
evidence that the designation of critical habitat would result in an
increased threat from taking (particularly poaching) or other human
activity for this species. On the other hand, as for these other
species, we find that the designation of critical habitat for C.
frustrata, as for the other two species, is likely to provide at least
some benefit to the species by serving to focus conservation efforts on
the restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions that are
essential for attaining its recovery and long-term viability.
Similarly, the designation of critical habitat could serve to inform
management and conservation decisions by identifying any additional
physical and biological features of the ecosystem that may be essential
for the conservation of the species. We therefore find that designation
of critical habitat for C. frustrata is prudent.

Critical Habitat Determinability

Having determined that designation of critical habitat is prudent
for Chromolaena frustrata, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we must
find whether critical habitat is determinable for the species. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not
determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking; or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of Chromolaena frustrata and habitat characteristics where the
species is located. This and other information represent the best
scientific data available and have led us to conclude that the
designation of critical habitat is determinable for C. frustrata.

Designation 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 and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
specific elements of physical or biological features that provide for a
species' life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of
the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, would continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented

[[Page 61859]]

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded
by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies
to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) section 9 of
the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species,
including taking caused by actions that affect habitat. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings
in some cases. These protections and conservation tools would continue
to contribute to recovery of this species if we list Chromolaena
frustrata. 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.

Physical or Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features (PBFs) that are essential to the conservation of the species
and which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PBFs for Chromolaena frustrata from
observations of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as
described below. The PBFs for C. frustrata were defined on the basis of
the habitat features of the areas actually occupied by the plants,
which included climate, substrate types, hydrologic regimes, plant
community structure, associated plant species, and locale information.
Space for Individual and Population Growth
Plant Community and Competitive Ability. Chromolaena frustrata
occurs in communities classified as coastal berms, coastal rock
barrens, buttonwood forests, and rockland hammocks restricted to
tropical South Florida and the Florida Keys. These communities and
their associated native plant species are provided in the Status
Assessment for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum section above.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Climate (temperature and precipitation). The climate of south
Florida where Chromolaena frustrata occurs is characterized by distinct
wet and dry seasons, a monthly mean temperature above 18 [deg] (64.4
[deg]F) in every month of the year, and annual rainfall averaging 75 to
150 cm (30 to 60 in) (Gabler et al. 1994, p. 211). Freezes can occur in
the winter months, but are very infrequent at this latitude in Florida.
Soils. Substrates supporting Chromolaena frustrata for anchoring or
nutrient absorption vary depending on the habitat and location and
include marl (an unconsolidated sedimentary rock or soil consisting of
clay and lime) (Sadle, 2008 and 2012, pers. comm.); soils consisting of
covering limestone; exposed bare limestone rock or with a thin layer of
leaf litter or highly organic soil (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 37; FNAI
2010d, p.1); or loose sediment formed by a mixture of coarse sand,
shell fragments, pieces of coralline algae, and other coastal debris
(FNAI 2010a, p.1).
Hydrology. The species requires coastal berms and coastal rock
barrens that occur above the daily tidal range, but are subject to
flooding by seawater during extreme tides and storm surge. Rockland
hammock occurs on high ground that does not regularly flood, but it is
often dependent upon a high water table to keep humidity levels high,
and they can be inundated during storm surges (FNAI 2010d, p.1).
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The reproductive biology and needs of Chromolaena frustrata have
not been studied (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 37). We have no other
information available beyond the habitat preferences and demographic
trends and life-history cycles. Thus, except habitat requirements
discussed above we have no other information regarding the ecology of
the species related to reproduction needs.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
Chromolaena frustrata continues to occur in habitats that are
protected from human-generated disturbances and are representative of
the species' historical, geographical, and ecological distribution
although its range has been reduced. The species still is found in all
of its representative plant communities: Rock barrens, coastal berms,
buttonwood forest, and rockland hammocks. In addition, representative
communities are located on Federal, State, local, and private
conservation lands that implement conservation measures benefitting the
species.
Disturbance Regime. All of the habitats that support Chromolaena
frustrata depend on some degree of natural disturbance regime from
hurricanes or tidal inundation to reduce the canopy in order to provide
light levels sufficient to support the species. The historical
frequency and magnitude of hurricanes and tidal inundation has allowed
for the persistence of C. frustrata by occasionally creating areas of
open canopy that support the species.
In the absence of disturbance, some of these habitats may have
closed canopies, resulting in areas lacking enough available sunlight
to support Chromolaena frustrata. However, too frequent or severe
disturbance that transitions the habitat toward more saline conditions
could result in the decline of the species in the area.
The natural process giving rise to coastal rock barren is not
known, but as it occurs on sites where the thin layer of organic soil
over limestone bedrock is missing, coastal rock barren may have formed
by soil erosion following destruction of the plant cover by fire or
storm surge (FNAI 2010c, p. 2).
Fires are rare to nonexistent in coastal rock barren coastal berm,
and buttonwood forest communities (FNAI 2010a, b, c, entire).
Historically, rockland hammocks in south Florida evolved with fire in
the landscape; fire most often extinguished near the edges when it
encountered the hammock's moist microclimate and litter layer. However,
rockland hammocks are susceptible to damage from fire during extreme
drought or when the water table is lowered (FNAI 2010d, p. 2).
Cover or Shelter
Chromolaena frustrata occurs in open canopy and semi-open to closed
canopy

[[Page 61860]]

habitats and thrives in areas of moderate sun exposure (Bradley and
Gann 1999, p. 37). The amount and frequency of such microsites varies
by habitat type and time, and since the last disturbance. In rockland
hammocks, suitable microsites will often be found near the hammock edge
where the canopy is most open. However, the species has been observed
to spread into the hammocks when canopy cover is reduced by hurricane
damage to canopy trees. More open communities (e.g., coastal berm,
buttonwood and salt marsh ecotone) provide more abundant and temporally
consistent suitable habitat than communities capable of establishing a
dense canopy (e.g., hardwood hammock).
Accordingly, we have determined that Chromolaena frustrata requires
the following PBFs:
(1) Upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, coastal rock
barren, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest;
(2) Habitats inundated by storm surge or tidal events at a
frequency needed to limit plant species competition while not creating
too saline conditions;
(3) Substrate derived from calcareous sand, limestone, or marl to
provide anchoring and nutritional requirements;
(4) Vegetation composition and structure that allows for adequate
sunlight, and space for individual growth and population expansion;
(5) Habitat connectivity of sufficient size and suitability, or
habitat that can be restored to these conditions that supports species
growth, distribution and population expansion; and
(6) Disturbance regimes, including hurricanes, and infrequent
inundation events that saturate the substrate, to maintain suitable
sites for Chromolaena frustrata within these habitats.
Primary Constituent Elements for Chromolaena frustrata
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the PBFs essential to the conservation of Chromolaena
frustrata in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the
features' primary constituent elements (PCEs). Primary constituent
elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological
features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the species.
We derive the PCEs for Chromolaena frustrata primarily based on
those PBFs that support the successful functioning of the habitat upon
which the species depends. C. frustrata is dependent upon functioning
habitats to provide its fundamental life requirements, such as
substrate, hydrology, disturbance regime, and the species composition
and structure of vegetation. The PCEs collectively provide the suite of
PBFs essential to meeting the requirements of C. frustrata.
Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and habitat
characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history
processes, we determine that the PCEs for C. frustrata are:
(1) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, coastal
rock barren, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(A) Coastal berm habitat contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory;
(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, storm-deposited sediment; and
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation and either
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on the survival of
Chromolaena frustrata. Coastal berm habitat has a canopy vegetated by
Bursera, Coccoloba, Coccothrinax, Guapira, Drypetes, Genipa, and
Metopium; a subcanopy vegetated by Eugenia, Ximenia, Randia,
Pithecellobium, Laguncularia, Conocarpus, Avicennia, Rhizophora,
Suriana, Manilkara, Jacquinia, and Sideroxylon; and an understory
vegetated by Borrichia, Hymenocallis, Capparis, Lantana, Rivina,
Sesuvium, Distichlis, and Sporobolus.
(B) Coastal rock barren (Keys cactus barren, Keys tidal rock
barren) habitat contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory;
(2) Limestone rock substrate; and
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation and either
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on the survival of
Chromolaena frustrata. Coastal rock barren habitat has a subcanopy
vegetated by Conocarpus, Lycium, Gossypium, Sideroxylon,
Pithecellobium, Suriana, Randia, Metopium, Acanthocereus, Maytenus,
Opuntia, Agave, Bursera, and Eugenia; and an understory vegetated by
Evolvulus, Cienfuegosia, Indigofera, Borrichia, Sarcocornia, Batis,
Leptochloa, Paspalidium, Monanthochloe, Distichlis, Sporobolus, and
Fimbristylis.
(C) Rockland hammock habitat contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory;
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone; and
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation and either
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on the survival of
Chromolaena frustrata. Rockland hammock has a canopy vegetated by
Bursera, Lysiloma, Simarouba, Krugiodendron, Ocotea, Piscidia,
Swietenia, Sideroxylon, Exothea, Ficus, Coccoloba, Metopium,
Conocarpus, Guapira, and Pisonia; a subcanopy vegetated by Eugenia,
Thrinax, Amyris, Ardisia, Psychotria, Chrysophyllum, Sabal, Guaiacum,
Ximenia, and Colubrina; and an understory vegetated by Zamia,
Acanthocereus, and Oplismenus.
(D) Buttonwood forest habitat contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory;
(2) Substrate with calcareous marl muds, calcareous sands, or
limestone rock; and
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation and either
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on the survival of
Chromolaena frustrata. Buttonwood forest has a canopy vegetated by
Conocarpus, and an understory vegetated by Borrichia, Lycium, and
Limonium.
(2) A disturbance regime, due to the effects of strong winds or
salt-water inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation,
that creates canopy disruption in coastal berm, coastal rock barren,
rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest habitats listed above.
(3) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain
viable populations in in coastal berm, coastal rock barren, rockland
hammocks, and buttonwood forest habitats listed above.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
Management considerations or protection are necessary throughout
the critical habitat areas proposed here to avoid further degradation
or destruction of the habitat that provides those features essential to
the species'

[[Page 61861]]

conservation. The primary threats to the PBFs that Chromolaena
frustrata depends on include: (1) Habitat destruction and modification
by development; (2) competition with nonnative, invasive plant species;
(3) wildfire; (4) hurricanes and storm surge; and (5) sea level rise.
Some of these threats can be addressed by special management
considerations or protection while others (e.g., sea level rise,
hurricanes) are beyond the control of land owners and managers.
However, while land owners or land managers may not be able to control
all the threats, they may be able to address the results of the
threats.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include
the monitoring and minimization of recreational activities impacts,
nonnative species control, and protection from development. Precautions
are needed to avoid the inadvertent trampling of Chromolaena frustrata
in the course of management activities and public use. Development of
recreation facilities or programs should avoid impacting these habitats
directly or indirectly. Ditching should be avoided because it alters
the hydrology and species composition of these habitats. Sites that
have shown increasing encroachment of woody species over time may
require efforts to maintain the open nature of the habitat, which
favors these species. Nonnative species control programs are needed to
reduce competition and prevent habitat degradation. The reduction of
these threats will require the implementation of special management
actions within each of the critical habitat areas identified in this
proposed rule. All proposed critical habitat requires active management
to address the ongoing threats listed above (and those presented in
Factors A through E).
In summary, we find that each of the areas we are proposing as
critical habitat that are occupied by Chromolaena frustrate contain
features essential to the conservation of the species that may require
special management considerations or protection to ensure conservation
of the species. These special management considerations and protection
are required to preserve and maintain the essential features provided
to these species by the ecosystems upon which they depend. A more
detailed discussion of these threats is presented above in ``Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species.''

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. We reviewed
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of this
species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within
the geographical area occupied by Chromolaena frustrata at the time of
listing. All of these units are designated based on sufficient elements
of physical and biological features being present to support known
Chromolaena frustrata life-history processes.
In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50
CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time
of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species.
For the reasons described below, we also are proposing to designate
specific areas outside the geographical area currently occupied by the
species (that would mean occupied at the time of listing), but which
were historically occupied, because we have determined that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Small populations and plant species with limited distributions,
like those of Chromolaena frustrata, are vulnerable to relatively minor
environmental disturbances (Frankham 2005, pp. 135-136), and are
subject to the loss of genetic diversity from genetic drift, the random
loss of genes, and inbreeding (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217-237;
Leimu et al. 2006, pp. 942-952). Plant populations with lowered genetic
diversity are more prone to local extinction (Barrett and Kohn 1991,
pp. 4, 28). Smaller plant populations generally have lower genetic
diversity, and lower genetic diversity may in turn lead to even smaller
populations by decreasing the species' ability to adapt, thereby
increasing the probability of population extinction (Newman and Pilson
1997, p. 360; Palstra and Ruzzante 2008, pp. 3428-3447). Because of the
dangers associated with small populations or limited distributions, the
recovery of many rare plant species includes the creation of new sites
or reintroductions to ameliorate these effects.
When designating critical habitat, we consider future recovery
efforts and conservation of the species. Realizing that the current
occupied habitat is not enough for the conservation and recovery of
Chromolaena frustrata, we used habitat and historical occurrence data
to identify unoccupied habitat essential for the conservation of the
species. The justification for why unoccupied habitat is essential to
the conservation of these species and the methodology we used to
identify the best unoccupied areas for consideration of inclusion are
described below.
Habitat fragmentation can have negative effects on biological
populations, especially rare plants, and can affect survival and
recovery (Aguilar et al. 2006, pp. 968-980; Aguilar et al. 2008, pp.
5177-5188; Potts et al. 2010, pp. 345-352). Fragments are often not of
sufficient size to support the natural diversity prevalent in an area,
and thus exhibit a decline in biodiversity (Fahrig 2003, pp. 487-515).
Fragmentation effects are especially prevalent in systems where
multiple generations have elapsed since the fragmentation occurred
(Aguilar et al. 2008, p. 5177). Habitat fragmentation has been shown to
disrupt plant-pollinator interactions and predator-prey interactions
(Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke 1999, pp. 432-440; Aguilar et al.
2006, pp. 968-980; Eckert et al. 2010, pp. 35-43), alter seed
germination percentages (Menges 1991, pp. 158-164), affect recruitment
(Santos and Telleria 1997, pp. 181-187; Quesada et al. 2003, pp. 400-
406), and result in lowered fruit set (Burd 1994, pp. 83-139;
Cunningham 2000, pp. 1149-1152; Eckert et al. 2010, p. 38).
In general, habitat fragmentation causes habitat loss, habitat
degradation, habitat isolation, changes in species composition, changes
in species interactions, increased edge effects, and reduced habitat
connectivity (Fahrig 2003, pp. 487-515; Fisher and Lindenmayer 2007,
pp. 265-280). Habitat fragments are often functionally smaller than
they appear because edge effects (such as increased nonnative, invasive
species or wind speeds) impact the available habitat within the
fragment (Lienert and Fischer 2003, p. 597).
Shaffer and Stein (2000) identify a methodology for conserving
imperiled species known as the `three Rs': Representation, resiliency,
and redundancy. Representation, or preserving some of everything, means
conserving not just a species but its associated plant communities.
Resiliency and redundancy ensure there is enough of a species so it can
survive into the future. Resiliency means ensuring that the habitat is
adequate for a species and its representative components. Redundancy
ensures an adequate number of sites and individuals. This methodology
has been widely accepted as a reasonable conservation strategy (Tear et
al. 2005, p. 841).
We have addressed representation through our PCEs (as discussed
above) and by providing habitat for Chromolaena frustrata. There are
only approximately 6,000 to 8,000 known individuals and only 8
populations, four

[[Page 61862]]

of which have fewer than 100 individuals (low redundancy). Seven of
eight populations occur on small islands where the amount of suitable
and remaining habitat is limited (low resiliency). For adequate
redundancy and resiliency, we believe it is necessary for conservation
and recovery that additional populations of C. frustrata be
established. Therefore, we have proposed two unoccupied areas for
designation as critical habitat units on islands of the Florida Keys
where C. frustrata was historically recorded, but has since been
extirpated.
To determine the location and boundaries of critical habitat, the
Service used the following sources of information:
(1) FNAI population records and ArcGIS geographic information
system (GIS) software to spatially depict the location and extent of
documented populations of Chromolaena frustrata (FNAI 2011b, pp. 1-17);
(2) Reports prepared by botanists with the Institute for Regional
Conservation (IRC), NPS, and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP). Some of these were funded by the Service, others
were requested or volunteered by biologists with the NPS or FDEP;
(3) Historical records found in reports and associated voucher
specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are also referenced in the
above mentioned reports from the IRC and FNAI;
(4) Digitally produced habitat maps provided by NPS and Monroe
County; and
(5) Aerial images of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The presence
of PCEs was determined through the use of GIS spatial data depicting
the current habitat status. This habitat data for the Keys were
developed by Monroe County from 2006 aerial images, and ground
conditions for many areas were checked in 2009. Habitat data for ENP
were provided by the NPS. The areas that contain PCEs follow
predictable landscape patterns and have a recognizable signature in the
aerial photographs.
We have identified areas to include in this proposed designation by
applying the following considerations.
The amount and distribution of critical habitat being proposed for
designated would allow populations of Chromoleana frustrata to:
(1) Maintain their existing distribution;
(2) Expand their distribution into previously occupied areas
(needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
(3) Use habitat depending on habitat availability (response to
changing nature of coastal habitat including occurring sea level rise)
and support genetic diversity;
(4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the
threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties
are diminished; and
(5) Maintain their ability to withstand local or unit level
environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
We utilized the following process to select appropriate critical
habitat units for Chromolaena frustrata:

Areas Occupied at Time of Listing

(1) For the purpose of designating critical habitat for Chromolaena
frustrata, we defined the geographical area currently occupied by the
species as required by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Proposed occupied
critical habitat units were delineated around extant populations. These
units include the mapped extent of the population and adjacent areas
that contain the elements of the PBFs that allow for population growth
and expansion and to account for dynamic habitat processes (i.e., gain
and loss of areas with sufficient light availability due to disturbance
of canopy by natural events such as inundation and hurricanes), and
habitat transition or loss due to sea level rise. In the ENP, the
distribution of Chromolaena frustrata is across a larger area than at
any other single location. In the Keys, the same criteria were used,
but the size of the proposed units is limited by the size of individual
islands.
(2) Areas to maintain connectivity of habitat. Some areas that may
contain only some of the elements of the PBFs were included if they
were contiguous with areas containing one or more of those elements and
if they contribute to the hydrologic processes and disturbance regime
essential to the ecological function of the system. These areas
maintain connectivity within populations and allow for population
expansion.
(3) Areas for restoration. We have selected some areas within
occupied units that, once restored, would be able to support expansion
and a larger number of the species. These areas generally are habitats
within or adjacent to coastal berms, coastal barrens, rockland
hammocks, or buttonwood forest that retain some of the elements of the
PBFs although some PBFs have been lost through natural or anthropogenic
causes. These areas would provide habitat to off-set the anticipated
loss and degradation of habitat occurring or expected from the effects
of climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to development.
(4) Areas to allow the dynamic nature of coastal berm, buttonwood
forest, rockland hammock, and coastal rock barren habitats to respond
to hurricane and salt-water inundation. Areas with an open canopy which
are suitable for C. frustrata are patchy within rockland hammock and
coastal rock barren. At any one time, not all the elements of the PBFs
are found in these habitats and affect the suitability for C.
frustrata. The size and location of these areas are dynamic over time,
being largely driven by disturbance by hurricanes in hammocks and storm
surge in coastal rock barrens. After hurricanes, canopy gaps created by
the storm begin to close over time, limiting light availability and
suitability of the gap to C. frustrata. Thus, these areas could be
transitory in providing all the elements of the PBFs as canopy regrows
and closes. To address the dynamic nature of these habitats, we
included all contiguous habitat associated with a current population
record that retains at least one element of the PBFs.
(5) Areas to ensure the persistence of Chromolaena frustrata in the
face of imminent effects on habitats as a result of sea level rise.

Areas Not Occupied at Time of Listing

(1) Areas where Chromolaena frustrata occurred historically but has
since been extirpated. Chromolaena frustrata has been extirpated from
several locations where it was previously recorded. Of those areas
found in reports, we are proposing critical habitat only for those that
are well-documented and still retain some or all the elements of the
PBFs (i.e., Big Pine Key, Key Largo (Bradley and Gann 2004, pp. 4-6)).
Areas such as Fiesta Key and Knight's Key, which once supported
populations of C. frustrata but no longer contain any PCEs and cannot
be restored, are not included. As it is not always possible to identify
that exact location where a specimen was collected, we used available
descriptions to speculate upon likely locales, but ultimately were
guided by the location of remaining habitats on islands where little of
these habitats remain.
(2) Areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem processes for
occupied populations of Chromolaena frustrata. Large contiguous parcels
of habitat are more likely to be resilient to ecological processes of
disturbance and succession, and support viable populations of
Chromolaena frustrata.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by

[[Page 61863]]

buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features for Chromolaena frustrata. The scale of
the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076, on our Internet
sites (http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/), and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing nine units as critical habitat for Chromolaena
frustrata. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for C. frustrata. The nine areas we propose as critical habitat
are: (1) Everglades National Park; (2) Key Largo; (3) Upper Matecumbe
Key; (4) Lignumvitae Key; (5) Lower Matecumbe Key; (6) Long Key; (7)
Big Pine Key; (8) Big Munson Island; and (9) Boca Grande Key.
Landownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of Federal
(62 percent), State (30 percent), and private and other (8 percent).
Table 4 summarizes these units.

Table 4--Chromolaena frustrata Proposed Critical Habitat Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit number Unit name Ownership Percent Hectares Acres PCEs present Occupied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... Everglades National Federal............ 100 1,525 3,768 coastal berm, yes.
Park. rockland hammock,
buttonwood forest.
----------------------------------------------------------
Total.............. 100 1,525 3,768
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................... Key Largo.......... Federal............ 23 325 803 coastal berm, no.
rockland hammock,
buttonwood forest.
----------------------------------------------------------
State.............. 63 878 2,170
Private............ 13 185 457
Total.............. 100 1,388 3,430
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................... Upper Matecumbe Key State.............. 34 9 22 coastal berm, yes.
coastal rock
barren, rockland
hammock.
----------------------------------------------------------
Private............ 66 18 44
Total.............. 100 27 66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................... Lignumvitae Key.... State.............. 100 73 180 rockland hammock, yes.
buttonwood forest.
----------------------------------------------------------
Total.............. 100 73 180
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... Lower Matecumbe Key State.............. 49 9 22 coastal berm, yes.
coastal rock
barren, rockland
hammock,
buttonwood forest.
----------------------------------------------------------
Private............ 51 9 22
Total.............. 100 18 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61864]]

6............................... Long Key........... State.............. 73 61 151 coastal berm, yes.
coastal rock
barren, rockland
hammock,
buttonwood forest.
----------------------------------------------------------
Private............ 27 23 57
Total.............. 100 84 208
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7............................... Big Pine Key....... Federal............ 88 277 684 coastal berm, no.
coastal rock
barren, rockland
hammock,
buttonwood forest.
----------------------------------------------------------
Private............ 12 38 94
Total.............. 100................ 315 778
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................... Big Munson Island.. Private............ 100 11 27 coastal berm, yes.
rockland hammock,
buttonwood forest.
----------------------------------------------------------
Total.............. 100 11 27
9............................... Boca Grande Key.... Federal............ 100 25 62 coastal berm, yes.
rockland hammock,
buttonwood forest.
----------------------------------------------------------
Total.............. 100 25 62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Units................. ................... Federal............ 62 2,152 5,318
----------------------------------------------------------
State.............. 30 1,030 2,545
----------------------------------------------------------
Private and Other.. 8 284 702
----------------------------------------------------------
All................ ........... 3,466 8,565
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

Seven of the nine critical habitat units proposed for Chromolaena
frustrata are also currently designated under the Act for the wintering
piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and the American crocodile
(Crocodylus acutus) The specific units, and the species for which they
are designated are shown in Table 4.

Table 5--Critical Habitat Areas Proposed for Chromolaena frustrata That
Are Currently Designated or Proposed as Critical Habitat for Other
Federally Listed Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species for which
Proposed unit (unit ) critical habitat Federal Register
is designated reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1--Everglades National Park American Crocodile 50 CFR 17.95(c).
Unit 2--Key Largo............... American Crocodile 50 CFR 17.95(c).
Unit 3--Upper Matecumbe Key..... American Crocodile 50 CFR 17.95(c).
Unit 4--Lignumvitae Key......... American Crocodile 50 CFR 17.95(c).
Unit 5--Lower Matecumbe Key..... American Crocodile 50 CFR 17.95(c).
Unit 6--Long Key................ American Crocodile 50 CFR 17.95(c).
Unit 9--Boca Grande Key......... Wintering piping 50 CFR 17.95(b).
plover; Unit FL-
29.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We present brief descriptions of all units and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata,
below.

Unit 1: Everglades National Park, Monroe County and Miami-Dade County

Unit 1 consists of 1,525 ha (3,768 ac) in Monroe County and Miami-
Dade County. This unit is comprised entirely of lands in Federal
ownership, 100 percent of which are located within the ENP along the
southern coast of Florida from Cape Sable to Trout Cove, located
between the mean high water line to approximately 4.02 km (2.5 miles)
inland. This unit is currently occupied

[[Page 61865]]

and contains the features essential to the conservation of the species.
The unit contains coastal berm, rockland hammock, and buttonwood forest
PCEs. This unit contains all the PBFs, including suitable climate,
hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance
regimes, required by the species. The PBFs in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats of
nonnative plant species and sea level rise.

Unit 2: Key Largo, Monroe County

Unit 2 consists of 1,388 ha (3,430 ac) in Monroe County. This unit
is comprised of Federal lands within Crocodile Lake National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) (325 ha (803 ac)); State lands within Dagny Johnson
Botanical State Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and the
Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area (878 ha (2,170 ac)); and
parcels in private ownership (185 ha (457 ac)).
This unit extends from near the northern tip of Key Largo, along
the length of Key Largo, beginning at the south shore of Ocean Reef
Harbor near South Marina Drive and the intersection of County Road (CR)
905 and Clubhouse Road on the west side of CR 905, and between CR 905
and Old State Road 905, then extending to the shoreline south of South
Harbor Drive. The unit then continues on both sides of CR 905 through
the Crocodile Lake NWR, Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State
Park, and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. The unit then
terminates near the junction of U.S. 1 and CR 905 and Garden Cove
Drive. The unit resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 from South Andros
Road to Key Largo Elementary; then from intersection of Taylor Drive
and Pamela Street to Avenue A; then from Sound Drive to the
intersection of Old Road and Valencia Road; then resumes on the east
side of U.S. 1 from Hibiscus Lane and Ocean Drive. The unit continues
south near the Port Largo Airport from Poisonwood Road to Bo Peep
Boulevard. The unit resumes on the west side of U.S. 1 from the
intersection of South Drive and Meridian Avenue to Casa Court Drive.
The unit then continues on the west side of U.S. 1 from the point on
the coast directly west of Peace Avenue south to Caribbean Avenue. The
unit also includes a portion of the barrier island in Largo Sound
located directly east of Avenue A, extending south to a point directly
east of Mahogany Drive. This unit is not currently occupied but
contains habitat essential to the conservation of the species because
it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish
wild populations within the historical range of the species, and
maintain populations throughout the historic distribution of the
species in the Florida Keys, and provides area for recovery in the case
of stochastic events that otherwise would eliminate the species from
the one or more locations it is presently found.

Unit 3: Upper Matecumbe Key, Monroe County

Unit 3 consists of 27 ha (66 ac) in Monroe County. This unit is
comprised of State lands within Lignumvitae Key State Botanical Park,
Indian Key Historical State Park (9 ha (22 ac)); City of Islamorada
lands within the Key Tree Cactus Preserve and Green Turtle Hammock Park
and parcels in private ownership (18 ha (44 ac)). This unit extends
from Matecumbe Avenue south to Seashore Avenue along either side of
U.S. 1. The unit then continues along the west side of U.S. 1,
including the Green Turtle Hammock Park and a nature preserve owned by
the City of Islamorada; straddles U.S. 1 in the vicinity of Indian Key
Historical Park; and continues for 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to near the southern
tip of Key Largo on the west side of U.S. 1.
This unit is currently occupied and contains the features essential
to the conservation of the species. It contains the PCEs of coastal
berm, coastal rock barren, and rockland hammock. This unit contains all
PBFs, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated
native plant species, and disturbance regimes, required by the species.
The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of nonnative species and sea level rise.

Unit 4: Lignumvitae Key, Monroe County

Unit 4 consists of 73 ha (180 ac) in Monroe County. This unit is
comprised entirely of lands in State ownership, 100 percent of which
are located within the Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park (LKBSP).
This unit is currently occupied and contains the features essential
to the conservation of the species. This unit includes all PCEs of
rockland hammock and buttonwood forest habitat that occur within LKBSP
on Lignumvitae Key. This unit contains all PBFs, including suitable
climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and
disturbance regimes, required by the species. The PBFs in this unit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats of nonnative species and sea level rise.

Unit 5: Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County

Unit 5 consists of 18 ha (44 ac) in Monroe County. The unit is
comprised of State lands within Lignumvitae Key State Botanical Park,
parcels owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (9 ha (22
ac)); and parcels in private ownership (9 ha (22 ac)). This unit
extends from the east side of U.S. 1 from 0.2 km (0.14 mi) from the
north edge of Lower Matecumbe Key, situated across U.S. 1 from Davis
Lane and Tiki Lane. The unit continues on either side of U.S. 1
approximately 0.4 mi (0.6 km) from the north edge of Lower Matecumbe
Key for approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi).
This unit is currently occupied and contains the features essential
to the conservation of the species. It contains all PBFs, including
suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant
species, and disturbance regimes, required by the species. The PBFs in
this unit may require special management considerations or protection
to address threats of nonnative species and sea level rise.

Unit 6: Long Key, Monroe County

Unit 6 consists of 84 ha (208 ac) in Monroe County. This unit is
comprised of State lands within Long Key State Park (61 ha (151 ac))
and parcels in private ownership (23 ha (57 ac)). The unit extends from
the southwestern tip of Long Key along the island's west and south
shores.
The unit is currently occupied and contains the features essential
to the conservation of the species. It contains the PCEs of coastal
berm, coastal rock barren, rockland hammock, and buttonwood forest.
This unit contains all PBFs, including suitable climate, hydrology,
substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes
required by the species. The PBFs in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats of
development, nonnative species, and sea level rise.

Unit 7: Big Pine Key, Monroe County

Unit 7 consists of 315 ha (778 ac) in Monroe County. Unit 7
consists of 315 ha (778 ac) in Monroe County. This unit is comprised of
Federal land within the National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) (277 ha (684
ac)) and parcels in private ownership (38 ha (94 ac)). This unit
extends from near the northern tip of Big Pine Key along the eastern
shore to the vicinity of Hellenga Drive and

[[Page 61866]]

Watson Road; from Gulf Boulevard south to West Shore Drive; from the
southwest tip of Big Pine Key, bordered by Big Pine Avenue and Elma
Avenues on the east, Coral and Yacht Club Road, and U.S. 1 on the
north, and Industrial Avenue on the east; extending along the
undeveloped portion of Long Beach Drive; and from the southeastern tip
of Big Pine Key to Avenue A.
This unit is not currently occupied but is essential to the
conservation of the species because it serves to protect habitat needed
to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the
historical range of the species, and maintain populations throughout
the historic distribution of the species in the Florida Keys, and it
provides area for recovery in the case of stochastic events that
otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the species from the one or
more locations where it is presently found.

Unit 8: Big Munson Island, Monroe County

Unit 8 consists of 11 ha (27 ac) in Monroe County. This unit is
comprised entirely of lands in private ownership, owned by the Boy
Scouts of America.
This unit is occupied and contains the features essential to the
conservation of the species. It includes all the PCEs of coastal berm,
rockland hammock, and buttonwood forest habitat that occur on Big
Munson Island. This unit contains all PBFs, including suitable climate,
hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance
regimes, required by the species. The PBFs in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats of
development, recreation, small population size, nonnative species, and
sea level rise.

Unit 9: Boca Grande Key, Monroe County

Unit 9 consists of 25 ha (62 ac) in Monroe County. This unit is
comprised entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which
is located within the Key West National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
This unit is occupied and contains features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit includes all the PCEs of coastal
berm, rockland hammock, and buttonwood forest habitat on the island,
comprising the entirety of Boca Grande Key. This unit contains all
PBFs, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated
native plant species, and disturbance regimes, required by the species.
The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats of nonnative species and sea level rise.

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 which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth and
Ninth Circuits have invalidated our regulatory definition of
``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford
Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059
(9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et
al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this
regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the provisions of
the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis
of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that
involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that are not federally funded or authorized, do not
require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether,

[[Page 61867]]

with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat are those that alter the physical or biological
features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value
of critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata. As discussed above, the
role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the
species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for Chromolaena frustrata. These activities include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology or
substrate, such as ditching or filling. Such activities may include,
but are not limited to, road construction or maintenance, and
residential, commercial, or recreational development.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of
residences, facilities, trails, and roads.
(3) Actions that would introduce nonnative species that would
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such
activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and
commercial development, and road construction.

Exemptions

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

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use,
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
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 for Chromolaena frustrata.

Exclusions

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

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of designating any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors.
We will announce the availability of our draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed. During the development of a final designation,
we will consider the draft economic analysis, public comments, and
other new information related to economic impacts, and as a result
areas that were proposed for critical habitat may be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that none of the lands within the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata are owned or
managed by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently,
the Secretary does not intend to exercise his discretion to exclude any
areas from the final designation based on impacts on national security.
Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion of lands from, critical
habitat.

[[Page 61868]]

In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-
to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities.
We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this proposed rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans that affect Chromolaena
frustrata or its proposed critical habitat. Furthermore, we are not
aware of any potential social impacts that might occur because of the
designation. Accordingly, the Secretary does not intend to exercise his
discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on
other relevant impacts.

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our proposed listing and critical habitat designation are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited
these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment period on
our specific proposed rule.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a
final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from
this proposal.

Public Hearings

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated
by the rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly
affected entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by
critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our
position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated
by this designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small
entities, the Service certifies that the proposed critical habitat rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation would
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number

[[Page 61869]]

of third parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in
order to ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects
of this proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat would only directly regulate Federal
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities.
Accordingly, we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of
critical habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. However, though not
necessarily required by the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for
this proposal we will consider and evaluate the potential effects to
third parties that may be involved with consultations with Federal
action agencies related to this action.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions.
All proposed units are remote from energy supply, distribution, or
use activities. We do not expect that if made final, this designation
of 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. However,
we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic
analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This 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 would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because the areas proposed for
critical habitat designation are not owned by one Federal, State, or
City government. None of these government entities fit the definition
of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment if appropriate.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata in a takings implications
assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner
actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it
preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal
funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena
frustrata would not pose significant takings implications for lands
within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
federalism impact summary 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. If finalized, the designation of critical habitat
in areas occupied by Chromolaena frustrata may impose nominal
additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and,
therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit
to these governments because the areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species are
more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically
identified. This information does not alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them 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

[[Page 61870]]

affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be
required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Chromolaena frustrata within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as endangered or
threatened under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48
FR 49244).
It is also 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)).

Clarity of the Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
South Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
South Florida Ecological Services Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend Sec. 17.12 (h) by adding entries for Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum, in
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants, to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

[[Page 61871]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *
Chromolaena frustrata............ Thoroughwort, Cape U.S.A. (FL)......... Asteraceae.......... E ........... 17.96(a) NA
Sable.

* * * * * * *
Consolea corallicola............. Cape Sable U.S.A. (FL)......... NA.................. E ........... 17.96(h) NA
thoroughwort.
Cactus, Florida U.S.A. (FL)......... Cactaceae........... E ........... NA NA
semaphore.

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

3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by adding an entry for ``Chromolaena
frustrata (Cape Sable Thoroughwort)'' in alphabetical order under the
family Asteraceae, to read as follows:

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Asteraceae: Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable thoroughwort)
(1) Critical habitat units for Chromolaena frustrata are depicted
for Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Chromolaena frustrata are:
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, coastal
rock barren, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(A) Coastal berm habitat contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory;
(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, storm-deposited sediment; and
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation and either
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Chromolaena
frustrata. Coastal berm habitat has a canopy vegetated by Bursera,
Coccoloba, Coccothrinax, Guapira, Drypetes, Genipa, and Metopium; a
subcanopy vegetated by Eugenia, Ximenia, Randia, Pithecellobium,
Laguncularia, Conocarpus, Avicennia, Rhizophora, Suriana, Manilkara,
Jacquinia, and Sideroxylon; and an understory vegetated by Borrichia,
Hymenocallis, Capparis, Lantana, Rivina, Sesuvium, Distichlis, and
Sporobolus.
(B) Coastal rock barren (Keys cactus barren, Keys tidal rock
barren) habitat contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory;
(2) Limestone rock substrate; and
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation and either
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Chromolaena
frustrata. Coastal rock barren habitat has a subcanopy vegetated by
Conocarpus, Lycium, Gossypium, Sideroxylon, Pithecellobium, Suriana,
Randia, Metopium, Acanthocereus, Maytenus, Opuntia, Agave, Bursera, and
Eugenia; and an understory vegetated by Evolvulus, Cienfuegosia,
Indigofera, Borrichia, Sarcocornia, Batis, Leptochloa, Paspalidium,
Monanthochloe, Distichlis, Sporobolus, and Fimbristylis.
(C) Rockland hammock habitat contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy,
subcanopy, and understory;
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering
limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the underlying
limestone; and
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation and either
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Chromolaena
frustrata. Rockland hammock has a canopy vegetated by Bursera,
Lysiloma, Simarouba, Krugiodendron, Ocotea, Piscidia, Swietenia,
Sideroxylon, Exothea, Ficus, Coccoloba, Metopium, Conocarpus, Guapira,
and Pisonia; a subcanopy vegetated by Eugenia, Thrinax, Amyris,
Ardisia, Psychotria, Chrysophyllum, Sabal, Guaiacum, Ximenia, and
Colubrina; and an understory vegetated by Zamia, Acanthocereus, and
Oplismenus.
(D) Buttonwood forest habitat contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory;
(2) Substrate with calcareous marl muds, calcareous sands, or
limestone rock; and
(3) A plant community of predominately native vegetation and either
no competitive nonnative, invasive plant species or such species in
quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of Chromolaena
frustrata. Buttonwood forest has a canopy vegetated by Conocarpus, and
an understory vegetated by Borrichia, Lycium, and Limonium.
(ii) A disturbance regime, due to the effects of strong winds or
salt-water inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation,
that creates canopy disruption in all habitats listed above in (1).
(iii) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient area to sustain
viable populations in all habitats listed above in (1).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located exists within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Unit maps were developed using ESRI
ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS
was also used to calculate. The projection used in mapping and
calculating distances and locations within the units was North American
Albers Equal Area Conic, NAD 83. The maps in this entry, as modified by
any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on

[[Page 61872]]

which each map is based are available to the public at the Service's
internet site, (http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/), the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076)
and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.000

[[Page 61873]]

(6) Unit 1: Everglades National Park, Monroe and Miami-Dade
Counties, Florida. Map of Unit 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.001

[[Page 61874]]

(7) Unit 2: Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. Index
(i) Index map of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.002

[[Page 61875]]

(ii) Map A of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.003

[[Page 61876]]

(iii) Map B of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.004

[[Page 61877]]

(iv) Map C of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.005

[[Page 61878]]

(v) Map D of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.006

[[Page 61879]]

(vi) Map E of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.007

[[Page 61880]]

(vii) Map F of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.008

[[Page 61881]]

(8) Unit 3: Upper Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. Map of
Unit 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.009

[[Page 61882]]

(9) Unit 4: Lignumvitae Key, Monroe County, Florida. Map of Unit 4
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.010

[[Page 61883]]

(10) Unit 5: Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. Map of
Unit 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.011

[[Page 61884]]

(11) Unit 6: Long Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) Index map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.012

[[Page 61885]]

(ii) Map A of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.013

[[Page 61886]]

(iii) Map B of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.014

[[Page 61887]]

(12) Unit 7: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i) Index map of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.015

[[Page 61888]]

(ii) Map A of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.016

[[Page 61889]]

(iii) Map B of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.017

[[Page 61890]]

(iv) Map C of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.018

[[Page 61891]]

(v) Map D of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.019

[[Page 61892]]

(vi) Map E of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.020

[[Page 61893]]

(13) Unit 8: Big Munson Island, Monroe County, Florida. Map of Unit
8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.021

[[Page 61894]]

(14) Unit 9: Boca Grande Key, Monroe County, Florida. Map of Unit 9
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC12.022

* * * * *

Dated: September 25, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-24466 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P