Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Carex lutea, 11080-11103 [2010-4653]
Download as PDF
11080
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
in hard copy at a docket facility. The
Office of Water (OW) Docket Center is
open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The OW Docket Center
telephone number is (202) 566–2426,
and the Docket address is OW Docket,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744.
Public Hearings: Additional public
hearings will be held in Florida in midApril, 2010. The dates and locations of
these hearings have yet to be confirmed.
Relevant information pertaining to these
hearings will be provided at the
following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/standards/rules/florida/
Information on the public hearings will
be available shortly after publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. For
further information, please contact
Sharon Frey at 202–566–1480 or
frey.sharon@epa.gov
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Danielle Salvaterra, U.S. EPA
Headquarters, Office of Water,
Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: 202–564–1649; fax
number: 202–566–9981; e-mail address:
salvaterra.danielle@epa.gov.
Dated: March 4, 2010.
Peter S. Silva,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
Public Comments
[FR Doc. 2010–5103 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS- R4-ES-2010-0003]
[MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
[RIN 1018-AW55]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Carex lutea (Golden Sedge)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, propose to designate
critical habitat for the Carex lutea
(golden sedge) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. We
propose to designate as critical habitat
approximately 189 acres (76 hectares) in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
8 units. The proposed critical habitat is
located in Onslow and Pender Counties
in North Carolina.
DATES: We will consider comments from
all interested parties until May 10, 2010.
We must receive requests for public
hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section by April 26, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0003.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4ES-2010-0003; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete
Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and
Wildlife Office, P.O. Box 33726,
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726; telephone 919856-4520; facsimile 919-856-4556. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 government agencies,
the scientific community, industry, or
any other interested party concerning
this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
including whether there are threats to
the species from human activity, the
degree of which can be expected to
increase due to the designation, and
whether the benefit of designation
would be outweighed by threats to the
species caused by the designation, such
that the designation of critical habitat is
not prudent.
(2) Comments or information that may
assist us in identifying or clarifying the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
primary constituent elements for Carex
lutea.
(3) Specific information on:
• The amount and distribution of Carex
lutea habitat,
• What areas occupied at the time of
listing and that contain features
essential to the conservation of the
species which may require special
management considerations or
protections we should include in
the designation and why, and
• What areas not occupied at the time of
listing are essential for the
conservation of the species and
why.
(4) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation. We
are particularly interested in any
impacts on small entities (e.g., small
businesses or small governments) or
families, and the benefits of including or
excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing as critical habitat should be
considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the
benefits of potentially excluding any
specific area outweigh the benefits of
including that area under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
(7) Information on any quantifiable
economic costs or benefits of the
proposed designation of critical habitat.
(8) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of climate
change on Carex lutea, and any special
management needs or protections that
may be needed in the critical habitat
areas we are proposing.
(9) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We will not accept
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an
address not listed in the ADDRESSES
section.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. If your written
comments provide personal identifying
information, you may request at the top
of your document that we withhold this
information from public review.
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat in this
proposed rule. For more information on
Carex lutea, refer to the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on
January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3120).
Carex lutea is a perennial member of
the sedge family (Cyperaceae). Fertile
culms (stems) may reach 39 in (1 m) or
more in height. The yellowish green
leaves are grass-like, with those of the
culm mostly basal and up to 11 in (28
cm) in length, while those of the
vegetative shoots reach a length of 25.6
in (65 cm).
The species is endemic to Onslow and
Pender Counties in the Black River
section of the Coastal Plain Province of
North Carolina. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
recognizes eight populations made up of
17 distinct locations or element
occurrences. All of the locations occur
within a 16- by 5-mile (26-by-8kilometer) area, extending southwest
from the community of Maple Hill.
Carex lutea generally occurs on fine
sandy loam, loamy fine sands, and fine
sands with a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, and with
a mean of 6.7. These soils are moist to
saturated to periodically inundated.
Carex lutea occurs in the Pine Savanna
(Very Wet Clay Variant) natural
community type (Schafale 1994, p. 136).
Community structure is characterized
by an open to sparse canopy dominated
by pond pine (Pinus serotina), and
usually with some longleaf pine (P.
palustris) and pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens).
Carex lutea is threatened by fire
suppression; habitat alteration such as
land conversion for residential,
commercial, or industrial development;
mining, drainage for silviculture and
agriculture; highway expansion; and
herbicide use along utility and highway
rights-of-way.
Previous Federal Actions
Carex lutea was listed as endangered
under the Act on January 23, 2002 (67
FR 3120). Designation of critical habitat
had been found to be not prudent in the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
proposed listing rule (64 FR 44470,
August 16, 1999); however, following a
reevaulation of information available for
the proposal and new information that
came in through the public comment
period on the proposal, critical habitat
designation was determined to be
prudent in the final listing rule (67 FR
3120). However, the development of a
designation was deferred due to
budgetary and workload constraints.
On December 19, 2007, the Center for
Biological Diversity filed a complaint
for declaratory and injunctive relief
challenging the Service’s continuing
failure to timely designate critical
habitat for this species as well as three
other plant species (Center for Biological
Diversity v. Kempthorne, C-04-3240 JL
(N. D. Cal.). In a settlement agreement
dated April 11, 2008, the Service agreed
to submit for publication in the Federal
Register a proposed designation of
critical habitat, if prudent and
determinable, on or before February 28,
2010, and a final determination by
February 28, 2011.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
underuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11081
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7(a)(2)of the Act through
the prohibition against Federal agencies
carrying out, funding, or authorizing the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires
consultation on Federal actions that
may affect 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 seeks or 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) would
apply, but even in the event of a
destruction or adverse modification
finding, the Federal action agency’s and
the landowner’s obligation is not to
restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
To be considered for inclusion in a
critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
must contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. Areas supporting the
essential physical or biological features
are identified, to the extent known using
the best scientific data available, as the
habitat areas that provide essential life
cycle needs of the species. Habitat
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing that
contains features essential to the
conservation of the species meets the
definition of critical habitat only if these
features may require special
management consideration or
protection. Under the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed
only when we determine that the best
available scientific data demonstrate
that the designation of those areas is
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
11082
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species
may move from one area to another over
time. Climate change may lead to
increased frequency and duration of
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et
al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002,
p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
According to the America’s Longleaf
Regional Working Group (2009, p. 19),
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
concluded that longleaf pine may
extend its range northward, but will
likely lose very little of its southern
range. The Hadley Centre model
suggests that savanna and grasslands
may expand and replace southeastern
pine forests at some sites in the coastal
plain due to increased moisture stress
(America’s Longleaf Regional Working
Group 2009, p. 19). While the effects of
climate change on longleaf ecosystem
plant communities have not been well
studied, one report concluded that
while longleaf pine might perform well
with increased carbon dioxide, the
herbaceous species may not compete as
well (America’s Longleaf Regional
Working Group 2009, p. 19).
The information currently available
on the effects of global climate change
and increasing temperatures does not
make sufficiently precise estimates of
the location and magnitude of the
effects. Nor are we currently aware of
any climate change information specific
to the habitat of Carex lutea that would
indicate what areas may become
important to the species in the future.
Therefore, we are unable to determine
what additional areas, if any, may be
appropriate to include in the proposed
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
critical habitat for this species; however,
we specifically request information from
the public on the currently predicted
effects of climate change on Carex lutea
and its habitat. Additionally, 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 critical habitat area is
unimportant or may not be required for
recovery of the species.
Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, but are
outside the critical habitat designation,
will continue to be subject to
conservation actions we implement
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas
that support populations are also subject
to the regulatory protections afforded by
the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as
determined on the basis of the best
available scientific information at the
time of the agency action. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting
listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases.
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),
section 7 consultations, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate
critical habitat at the time the species is
determined to be endangered or
threatened. Our regulations at 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 activity and the identification
of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of threat to the
species; or (2) the designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the
species.
There is no documentation that Carex
lutea is threatened by taking or other
human activity such as collection. In the
absence of finding that the designation
of critical habitat would increase threats
to the species, if there are any benefits
to a critical habitat designation, then a
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
prudent finding is warranted. The
potential benefits include: (1) Triggering
consultation, under section 7 of the Act,
in new areas for action in which there
may be a Federal nexus where
consultation would not otherwise occur
because, for example, an area is or has
become unoccupied or the occupancy is
in question; (2) identifying the physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of Carex lutea and
focusing conservation activities on these
essential features and the areas that
support them; (3) providing educational
benefits to State or county governments
or private entities engaged in activities
or long-range planning in areas essential
to the conservation of the species; and
(4) preventing people from causing
inadvertent harm to the species.
Conservation of Carex lutea and the
essential features of the habitat will
require habitat protection and
restoration, which will be facilitated by
knowledge of habitat locations and the
physical and biological features of those
habitats.
Therefore, since we have determined
that the designation of critical habitat
will not likely increase the degree of
threat to the species and may provide
some measure of benefit, we find that
the designation of critical habitat for the
Carex lutea is prudent.
Critical Habitat Determinability
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the
Act requires the designation of critical
habitat concurrently with the species’
listing ‘‘to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable.’’ Our regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical
habitat is not determinable when one or
both of the following situations exist:
(1) Information sufficient to perform
required analyses of the impacts of the
designation is lacking, or
(2) The biological needs of the species
are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as
critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not
determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical
habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available
information pertaining to the biological
needs of the Carex lutea, the historical
distribution of the Carex lutea, and the
habitat characteristics where the species
currently occurs. This and other
information represent the best scientific
data available and led us to conclude
that the designation of critical habitat is
determinable for the Carex lutea.
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we used the best scientific and
commercial data available in
determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain the
features essential to the conservation of
the Carex lutea that may require special
management considerations or
protections, and which areas outside of
the geographical area occupied at the
time of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species.
We reviewed the available
information pertaining to historical and
current distributions, life histories, and
habitat requirements of this species. Our
sources included peer-reviewed
scientific publications; unpublished
survey reports; unpublished field
observations by Service, State, and other
experienced biologists; notes and
communications from qualified
biologists or experts; and Service
publications such as the final listing
rule for Carex lutea.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in
determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing to propose as critical habitat,
we consider the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species 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
historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We consider the physical and
biological features to be the primary
constituent elements PCEs laid out in
the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement for the conservation of the
species. We derive the PCEs from the
biological needs of Carex lutea as
described in the Background section of
this proposed rule and in the final
listing rule (67 FR 3120). The areas
included in this proposed critical
habitat rule for Carex lutea contain the
appropriate soils and associated
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
vegetation, and adjacent areas necessary
to maintain associated physical
processes such as a suitable
hydrological regime. The areas provide
suitable habitat, water, minerals, and
other physiological needs for
reproduction and growth of Carex lutea.
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
Clonal Growth
Carex lutea is a caespitose, or
clumping, perennial. New shoots
develop from a central point, forming a
tufted clump of vegetation that is
genetically identical to the parent plant.
The full extent to which a plant can
expand has not been determined.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify bare soil areas
immediately adjacent to existing clumps
of mature Carex lutea plants to allow
room for expansion of the clump to be
a PCE for this species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Water
Although the specific water needs of
the species are unknown, Carex lutea is
found in wet to saturated to periodically
inundated soils. The largest populations
are found in the wet to saturated
ecotones of savannas and hardwood
forests. At a few sites, the plants are
most abundant in wet to saturated soils
adjacent to drainage ditches, and in the
saturated to inundated ditches
themselves. The occurrence of
individuals in ditches is likely due to
the wetter soils of the ditches, or the
washing of seeds into the ditches from
adjacent habitat or both. Sometimes
Carex lutea occurs in very wet soil in
areas of savanna habitat characterized
by an open to absent canopy, suggesting
that its abundance in the savanna-wet
hardwood ecotone is strongly
influenced by hydrologic conditions as
well as by edaphic (influenced by
factors inherent in the soil rather than
by climatic factors) or light conditions
or both. The annual average
precipitation in Wilmington, NC,
(approximately 25 miles (40 kilometers)
south-southwest of the epicenter of
Carex lutea) is 54.3 inches (138
centimeters). (https://
www.weatherpages.com/variety/
precip.html).
Light
Most Carex lutea plants occur in the
partially tree-shaded ecotone between
savannas and hardwood swamps, with
scattered shrubs and a moderate to
dense herb layer. The savanna/
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11083
hardwood swamp ecotone is subject to
frequent fires, which favor an
herbaceous ground layer and suppress
shrub dominance. There is evidence
that increased shading and shrub
competition from fire suppression has
resulted in the reduction in the number
of individuals observed.
Soil
Carex lutea occurs on a wide variety
of mapped soil types, including fine
sands (Baymeade, Mandarin, and
Pactolus), loamy sands (Stallings),
loamy fine sands (Foreston and Grifton),
fine sandy loams (Torhunta and
Woodington), and loams (Muckalee).
The soils are formed from marine
sediments and have a range of
permeability (from rapid to moderately
rapid) and drainage class (from well
drained to very poorly drained). Soil
tests at the type site (The Neck Savanna)
indicate that microsites not supporting
Carex lutea regularly test at lower pH
levels than those supporting Carex
lutea, with values at inhabited sites
ranging from a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, with a
mean of 6.7 (Glover 1994, p. 7). This
finding may indicate a preference to
soils with a high base saturation or low
aluminum saturation or both. The extent
of the soils with these chemical
characteristics is usually limited within
the Coastal Plain and, therefore, are
normally not mapped as separate soil
map units due to the scale of mapping.
Temperature
The outer southeastern coastal plain
of North Carolina experiences hot and
humid subtropical summers and cool
temperate winters with subfreezing
periods. Persistent snow accumulation
is rare. The average crop growing season
(daily minimum temperature higher
than 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees
Celsius)) for Onslow County is 162 days
(Barnhill 1992, p. 99) and for Pender
County is 185 days (Barnhill 1990, p.
105). We have no information about the
tolerance of Carex lutea to temperature
extremes.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify wet to completely
saturated loamy fine sands, fine sands,
fine sandy loams, and loamy sands soils
with a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, in sunny to
partially tree-shaded areas or ecotones
between savannas and hardwood forests
to be a PCE for this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
The reproductive biology of Carex
lutea is unknown; however, due to the
observation of ample mature seed
production, we can confidently surmise
that Carex lutea reproduces both
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
11084
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
sexually, involving gravity and winddispersed pollen, as well as vegetatively
(LeBlond 1996, p. 19). Perigynia (a
special bract that encloses the achene of
a Carex species) are dispersed when
rigid fertile culms fall to the ground,
thereby depositing the fruits on the
substrate adjacent to, but at some
distance from, the maternal parent
(LeBlond 1996, p. 19). Seeds have been
observed in ditches adjacent to colonies,
indicating dispersal by precipitation
sheet flow. Animals may also be seed
dispersers; the perigynia beaks are
minutely serrulate (minutely serrated),
perhaps for attachment to fur (LeBlond
1996, p. 19). Survival rates of individual
plants are unknown. Based on
observation of the larger known
populations, it appears that Carex lutea
is a successful colonizer of suitable
newly disturbed areas (LeBlond 1996, p.
19).
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify areas of bare soil
immediately adjacent [within 12 inches
(30 cm)] to mature Carex lutea plants
where seeds may fall and germinate to
be a PCE for this species.
Habitats Protected from Disturbance or
Representative of the Historic,
Geographical, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species
The area supporting the Carex lutea
populations is located in the Black River
section of the Coastal Plain Province,
and within the Northeast Cape Fear
River watershed. The land surface is
characterized by large areas of broad,
level flatlands and shallow stream
basins. The broad flatlands support
longleaf pine forests, pond pine
woodlands, shrub swamp pocosins,
pine plantations, and cropland. The
geology is characterized by
unconsolidated sand overlying layers of
clayey sand and weakly consolidated
marine shell deposits (coquina
limestone). These sediments were
deposited and reshaped during several
cycles of coastal emergence and
submergence from the Cretaceous
period to the present (LeBlond et al.
1994, p. 159).
More specifically, Carex lutea occurs
in the Very Wet Clay Variant of the Pine
Savanna community (Schafale 1994, p.
136) or its ecotones. Community
structure is characterized by an open to
sparse canopy dominated by pond pine
(Pinus serotina), and usually with some
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and pond
cypress (Taxodium ascendens). The
shrub layer typically is sparse to patchy,
with wax myrtle (Morella carolinensis),
ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora), Ink berry (Ilex
glabra), myrtle dahoon (Ilex myrtifolia),
and black highbush blueberry
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(Vaccinium fuscatum) prominent.
Juvenile red maple (Acer rubrum var.
trilobum) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa
biflora) are often present. The herb layer
is dense, and dominated by
combinations of Ctenium aromaticum
(toothache grass), Carolina dropseed
(Sporobolus pinetorum), and several
Rhynchospora taxa [e.g., globe
beaksedge (R. globularis var.
pinetorum), sandswamp whitetop (R.
latifolia), and Thorne’s beakrush (R.
thornei)]. National vegetation type
classification places this natural
community in the Pinus palustris Pinus serotina / Sporobolus pinetorum
- Ctenium aromaticum - Eriocaulon
decangulare var. decangulare (Tenangle
pipewort) Woodland association of the
Pinus palustris - Pinus (P. elliottii, P.
serotina) Saturated Woodland Alliance
(NatureServe 2010). This association is
equivalent to the Pine Savanna (Very
Wet Clay Variant), a natural community
type with fewer than 10 occurrences
globally (Schafale 1994, p. 136). The
Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay Variant is
known only from the Maple Hill area
near the Onslow/Pender County line
and north and west of Holly Shelter
Game Land, and from the Old Dock area
of the Waccamaw River watershed along
the Brunswick/Columbus County line.
Therefore, based on the information
above, we identify areas containing the
natural plant community that would be
identified as the Pine Savanna (Very
Wet Clay Variant) according to
methodology used in Schafale (1994, p.
136) to be a PCE for this species. The
structure of this community is
characterized by an open to sparse
canopy dominated by pond pine, and
usually with some longleaf pine and
pond cypress.
Based on the above needs and our
current knowledge of the life history,
biology, and ecology of the species and
the habitat requirements for sustaining
the essential life history functions of the
species, we have determined that the
PCEs for Carex lutea is Pine Savanna
(Very Wet Clay Variant) natural plant
community or ecotones that contain:
1. Moist to completely saturated
loamy fine sands, fine sands, fine sandy
loams, and loamy sands soils with a pH
of 5.5 to 7.2;
2. Open to relatively open canopy that
allows full to part sun to penetrate to
the herbaceous layer between savannas
and hardwood forests; and
3. Areas of bare soil immediately
adjacent [within 12 inches (30 cm)] to
mature Carex lutea plants where seeds
may fall and germinate or existing
plants may expand in size.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species and whether those features may
require special management
considerations or protection.
As stated in the final listing rule,
threats to Carex lutea include habitat
alteration; conversion of its limited
habitat for residential, commercial, or
industrial development; mining;
drainage activities associated with
silviculture and agriculture; suppression
of fire; highway expansion; and
herbicide use along utility and highway
rights-of-way (67 FR 3120). Through our
review of the existing data on Carex
lutea, we conclude that the threats listed
in the final listing rule continue to
impact this species and its essential
physical and biological features.
The destruction of habitat or
conversion of habitat for residential,
commercial, or industrial development
can change the topography, soils, and
general character of the site, making it
uninhabitable for Carex lutea. These
activities can remove the PCEs by
removing soil (by grading) and changing
Carex lutea habitat to developed land,
which is unsuitable for the species.
Drainage activities associated with
silviculture and agriculture may alter
the hydrology, which can change the
groundwater levels and the amount of
moisture in the soil, creating conditions
under which Carex lutea may not be
able to survive. Further, removal of
existing vegetation or the planting of
trees for silviculture may change the
existing conditions such that Carex
lutea plants no longer receive optimal
amounts of sunlight.
The close proximity of roadways and
power line corridors to populations of
Carex lutea may affect the species.
Herbicide treatment to maintain
vegetation in rights-of-ways has the
potential to kill non-target plant species
such as Carex lutea. Highway expansion
may change the local topography and
affect water runoff making the site drier
or wetter than is optimal for Carex lutea.
Mining has been documented in close
proximity to one Carex lutea
population. Mining activities may alter
many aspects of Carex lutea habitat.
Heavy equipment can compact or
remove the appropriate soils. The
grading of areas adjacent to Carex lutea
habitat can change the hydrology of
those areas and make them more
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
susceptible to invasion by nonnative
plant species.
Regular fire in areas where Carex
lutea occurs helps to maintain the open
savanna habitat that is conducive to
Carex lutea growth. Fire reduces
competition and allows seeds to
germinate in open, bare soil areas. Fire
suppression in areas where Carex lutea
occurs may result in the growth of
shrubs and trees that will eventually
shade out herbaceous species such as
Carex lutea.
All of these activities may in turn lead
to the disruption of the growth and
reproduction of Carex lutea.
In summary, we find that the areas we
are proposing as critical habitat contain
the features essential to the conservation
of Carex lutea, and that these features
may require special management
considerations or protection. Special
management considerations or
protection may be required to eliminate,
or reduce to negligible level, the threats
affecting each unit or subunit and to
preserve and maintain the essential
features that the proposed critical
habitat units and subunits provide to
Carex lutea. Additional discussions of
threats facing individual sites are
provided in the individual unit and
subunit descriptions.
The designation of critical habitat
does not imply that lands outside of
critical habitat may not play an
important role in the conservation of
Carex lutea. In the future, and with
changed circumstances, these lands may
become essential to the conservation of
Carex lutea. Activities with a Federal
nexus that may affect areas outside of
critical habitat, such as development,
agricultural activities, and road
construction, are still subject to review
under section 7 of the Act if they may
affect Carex lutea because Federal
agencies must consider both effects to
the plant and effects to critical habitat
independently. The prohibitions of
section 9 of the Act applicable to Carex
lutea under 50 CFR 17.61 also continue
to apply both inside and outside of
designated critical habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we used the best scientific and
commercial data available in
determining areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing that contain the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of Carex lutea, and areas
outside of the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing that are
essential for the conservation of Carex
lutea. In order to determine which sites
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
were occupied at the time of listing, we
used the NCNHP database of rare
species (NCNHP 2009). If an element
occurrence (EO) record or site was first
observed after the species was listed
(effective on February 22, 2002), then
we considered that those sites were
unknown at the time of listing. Five
subunits had first observed dates after
February 22, 2002. However, given what
we know about the biology of this
species and the habitats where it occurs,
those five subunits were likely occupied
at the time the species was listed. The
occurrence at Watkins Savannah
(O’Berry Tract C) (EO 5.19) was found
during surveys for Carex lutea in 2006.
The two sites on Ashes Creek at the
Southwest Ridge Savanna (EO 11) were
found during surveys for Carex lutea in
2002, just 3 months after the species
was listed. In 2007, surveys for Carex
lutea at the McLean Savanna yielded
two new subpopulations of Carex lutea
(EOs 24.22 and 24.23). Carex lutea was
already known from a site nearby, and
all three of these subpopulations are
now considered to be part of one
population. To the best of our
knowledge, these areas had not been
surveyed for Carex lutea previously,
and we have no reason to believe that
the plant was imported or had dispersed
into these areas from other areas after
Carex lutea was listed in 2002. Based on
the biology of this species and its
limited ability for the seeds to move and
colonize new areas, the occurrences
identified since listing likely were in
existence for many years prior to listing
and were only recently detected due to
increased awareness of this species.
We have also reviewed available
information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of this species including
NCNHP data, the original species
description (LeBlond et al 1994, pp.
159-160), the status survey (LeBlond
1996, pp. 11-13), the Service’s draft
Recovery Plan and the 5-Year Review,
regional Geographic Information System
(GIS) coverages, survey reports, and
other relevant information.
The only criterion that we used to
identify proposed critical habitat was
that the areas are currently occupied by
Carex lutea. These areas occur on rare
or unique habitat (the Very Wet Clay
Variant of the Pine Savanna community,
remnant savannas, or ecotones thereof)
within the species’ range and contain all
of the PCEs identified as necessary for
the conservation of the species. Since so
few populations are known to exist,
they are all important to the long-term
survival and recovery of the species.
Eight units (19 subunits) are proposed
for designation based on sufficient
quantity and arrangement of the PCEs
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11085
being present to support Carex lutea’s
life processes.
When determining proposed critical
habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid including developed
areas, such as lands covered by
buildings, roads, and other structures,
because such lands lack PCEs for Carex
lutea. 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 and biological features in
the adjacent critical habitat.
To the best of our knowledge, there
are no unoccupied areas that contain
one or more of the PCEs for Carex lutea.
All of the areas proposed as critical
habitat for Carex lutea are currently
occupied by the species and contain the
PCEs. All of the areas proposed as
critical habitat are also within the
known historical range of the species.
Therefore, we are not proposing to
designate any areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. We believe
that the occupied areas are sufficient for
the conservation of the species.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 8 units (19
subunits) totaling approximately 189
acres (ac) (75.6 hectares (ha)) as critical
habitat for Carex lutea. The areas we
describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for Carex
lutea. The eight areas we propose as
critical habitat are: (1) Unit 1: Watkins
Savanna, (2) Unit 2: Haws Run
Mitigation Site, (3) Unit 3: Maple Hill
School Road Savanna, (4) Unit 4:
Southwest Ridge Savanna, (5) Unit 5:
Sandy Run Savannas, (6) Unit 6: The
Neck Savanna, (7) Unit 7: Shaken Creek
Savanna, and (8) Unit 8: McLean
Savanna. All units are now occupied by
Carex lutea, but five subunits in three
units were unknown at the time of
listing. However, based on the biology
of this species and its limited ability for
the seeds to move and colonize new
areas, the occurrences identified since
listing likely were in existence for many
years prior to listing and were only
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
11086
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
recently detected due to increased
awareness of this species. Therefore, we
are considering them to be occupied at
the time of listing. Table 1 identifies the
occupancy status for each subunit.
TABLE 1. OCCUPANCY OF Carex lutea BY PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS.
Unit
Subunit
Occupied at Time of Listing?
Currently Occupied?
1
A
Yes
Yes
1
B
Yes
Yes
1
C
Yes
Yes
2
Not applicable (N/A)
Yes
Yes
3
N/A
Yes
Yes
4
A
Yes
Yes
4
B
Yes
Yes
5
A
Yes
Yes
5
B
Yes
Yes
5
C
Yes
Yes
5
D
Yes
Yes
5
E
Yes
Yes
6
A
Yes
Yes
6
B
Yes
Yes
6
C
Yes
Yes
7
A
Yes
Yes
7
B
Yes
Yes
7
C
Yes
Yes
8
A
Yes
Yes
8
B
Yes
Yes
8
C
Yes
Yes
Table 2 includes the name, ownership
information, and size of each unit and
subunit we are proposing as critical
habitat.
TABLE 2. OWNERSHIP OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR Carex lutea.
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
Land Ownership by
Type
Subunit
1
A
Watkins Savanna, O’Berry, Tract A
1
B
1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Unit
Size of Unit Acres
Size of Unit Hectares
NCDPR
1.2
0.5
Watkins Savanna, Unnamed Tract
Private, NCDPR
2.0
0.8
C
Watkins Savanna, O’Berry, Tract C
NCDPR
0.6
0.2
2
N/A
Haws Run Mitigation Site
NCDOT
27.1
11.0
3
N/A
Maple Hill School Road, Savanna
Private
27.7
11.2
4
A
Southwest Ridge Savanna, Ashes Creek,
Carex lutea Survey Site, Southwest of
Ashes Creek
NCWRC with
Progress Energy,
ROW
2.3
0.9
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Name
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
11087
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2. OWNERSHIP OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR Carex lutea.—Continued
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
Land Ownership by
Type
Unit
Subunit
Name
Size of Unit Acres
Size of Unit Hectares
4
B
Southwest Ridge Savanna, Ashes Creek,
Carex lutea Survey Site, Northeast of
Ashes Creek
NCWRC with
Progress Energy,
ROW
1.0
0.4
5
A
Sandy Run Savannas
NCDPR with
Progress Energy,
ROW
2.6
1.1
5
B
Sandy Run Savannas
NCDPR
4.3
1.7
5
C
Sandy Run Savannas
NCDPR
0.3
0.1
5
D
Sandy Run Savannas
NCDPR
0.3
0.1
5
E
Sandy Run Swamp
NCDPR with
Progress Energy,
ROW
13.1
5.3
6
A
The Neck Savanna
NCDPR
3.6
1.5
6
B
The Neck Savanna, Thorne’s Beaksedge
Road
Private
0.7
0.3
6
C
The Neck Savanna, former Sandy Run
Savanna
Private with
Powerline ROW
0.1
0.1
7
A
Shaken Creek Savanna, East Population,
East of Patterson Road
TNC
6.9
2.8
7
B
Shaken Creek Savanna, West Population,
East of Patterson Road
TNC
24.7
10.0
7
C
Shaken Creek Savanna, West Population
TNC
26.1
10.6
8
A
McLean Savanna
TNC
42.3
17.1
8
B
McLean Savanna
Private
0.5
0.2
8
C
McLean Savanna
TNC, Private
1.6
0.6
189.0
76.5
Total*
*Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of each
unit, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for Carex
lutea, below
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Unit 1: Watkins Savanna, Pender
County, North Carolina
Unit 1 consists of 3.8 ac (1.5 ha) and
includes three subunits in Pender
County, NC. It contains all of the PCEs
for Carex lutea. This critical habitat unit
includes habitat for Carex lutea that is
under private and State ownership. This
unit contains three element occurrences,
two of which were known at the time of
listing. The subunits contain all of the
PCEs identified for Carex lutea;
however, they are all very fire
suppressed and have been altered by
timber management. The NC Division of
Parks and Recreation (NCDPR) is
currently negotiating with the NCNHP
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
to designate this site as a Dedicated
Nature Preserve.
Subunit A (EO 5.12) consists of 1.2 ac
(0.5 ha) and was known to be occupied
at the time of listing. It is owned by
NCDPR and is managed as part of the
Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area.
Subunit B (EO 5.13) consists of 2.0 ac
(0.8 ha) and was known to be occupied
at the time of listing. It is owned by
private entities and NCDPR. NCDPR
plans to manage their portion of the
subunit as part of the Sandy Run
Savannas State Natural Area.
Subunit C (EO 5.19) consists of 0.6 ac
(0.2 ha) and was not known to be
occupied at the time of listing. This
Carex lutea site was discovered in 2006;
however, based on the habitat
conditions at this site and the biology of
the species, we believe that this site was
occupied in 2002, when the species was
listed. It is in conservation ownership
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
by NCDPR and is managed as part of the
Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area.
Unit 2: Haws Run Mitigation Site,
Onslow County, North Carolina
Unit 2 (EO 7) consists of 27.1 ac (11.0
ha) in Onslow County, NC. This critical
habitat unit includes habitat for Carex
lutea and was occupied at the time of
listing. It is owned by the NC
Department of Transportation and is
managed by the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. This site was
purchased as mitigation for wetland
impacts from nearby transportation
projects. Although the site is somewhat
fire suppressed and has been altered by
timber management, it contains all of
the PCEs identified for Carex lutea. The
land managers conducted a prescribed
fire in the vicinity of the Carex lutea
plants during the summer of 2009 and
will continue restoration efforts there.
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
11088
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The population at this site appears to be
stable and not vulnerable to extirpation.
Managers are considering designating
this site as a Dedicated Nature Preserve
by the NCNHP.
Unit 3: Maple Hill School Road
Savanna, Pender County, North
Carolina
Unit 3 (EO 10) consists of 27.7 ac
(11.2 ha) in Pender County, NC. This
site is privately owned and has not been
revisited since it was discovered in
1998. It was occupied at the time of
listing. Although three clumps of Carex
lutea were discovered here in 1998, the
full extent of the population is unknown
and the habitat is vulnerable to land use
changes.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Unit 4: Southwest Ridge Savanna,
Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 4 (EO 11) consists of 3.3 ac (1.3
ha) in two subunits in Pender County,
NC. This unit is owned by NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and is managed
for conservation purposes. These two
subpopulations were discovered in May
2002, shortly after the species was listed
as endangered (effective on February
2002). Because the species is nearly
impossible to identify unless it is
flowering and plants less than 3 months
old would not be expected to flower in
May, it seems reasonable to assume that
the plants discovered in May 2002 were
present prior to the 2002 growing season
and that the site was occupied at the
time of listing. The Carex lutea plants
occur in a power line right-of-way
easement that is managed by Progress
Energy. The utility company entered
into a Registry Agreement with the
NCNHP and agreed not to use
herbicides or mow during critical Carex
lutea growth periods. This population is
relatively small in size compared to
some of the other populations, but
appears to be stable. The subunits
contain all of the PCEs identified for
Carex lutea.
Subunit A is 2.3 ac (0.9 ha) in size
and is located southwest of Ashes
Creek.
Subunit B is 1.0 ac (0.48 ha) in size
and is located northeast of Ashes Creek.
Unit 5: Sandy Run Savannas, Onslow
County, North Carolina
Unit 5 consists of 20.6 ac (8.3 ha) in
Onslow County, NC, and is divided into
five subunits. This critical habitat unit
is owned by NCDPR and managed as
part of the Sandy Run Savannas State
Natural Area. All five Carex lutea sites
were known at the time of listing. This
unit is a remnant pine savanna, and the
subunits contain all of the PCEs
identified for Carex lutea; however, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Subunit B (EO 18.16) consists of 0.7
ac (0.3 ha) and is privately owned. It is
currently threatened by fire
suppression, but the managers are
hopeful that they will be able to burn
this tract within the next year or two.
Subunit C (EO 18.17) consists of 0.1
ac (0.1 ha), is privately owned, and
occurs in a small power-line corridor
along a roadside. It is vulnerable to
woody growth and herbicide use in the
power line. There has been little
management of the site with prescribed
fire due to difficult land ownership
patterns.
subunits are all fire suppressed and
have been altered by timber
management including bedding and
ditching. The NCDPR is currently
negotiating the designation of a
Dedicated Nature Preserve with the
NCNHP.
Subunit A (EO 15.3) consists of 2.6 ac
(1.1 ha) and occurs on the east side of
NC 50. Progress Energy has a
transmission line right-of-way through
this subunit and has entered into a
Registry Agreement with the NCNHP in
which they have agreed not to use
herbicides or mow during critical Carex
lutea growth periods.
Subunit B (EO 15.4) consists of 4.3 ac
(1.7 ha) and occurs contiguous to and
along the north side of a private sand
road through the property.
Subunit C (EO 15.4) consists of 0.3 ac
(0.1 ha) and occurs along the south side
of a private sand road through the
property and on the west side of a small
stream swamp. The plants are growing
in an old, wet road bed.
Subunit D (EO 15.4) consists of 0.3 ac
(0.1 ha) and occurs along the south side
of a private sand road through the
property and on the east side of a small
stream swamp. The Carex lutea plants
are growing in a roadside ditch.
Subunit E (EO 15.14) consists of 13.1
ac (5.3 ha) and occurs contiguous to and
on the west side of NC 50. Progress
Energy has a transmission line right-ofway through this subunit and has
entered into a Registry Agreement with
the NCNHP in which they have agreed
not to use herbicides or mow during
critical Carex lutea growth periods.
Unit 7: Shaken Creek Savanna, Pender
County, North Carolina
Unit 7 consists of 57.7 ac (23.4 ha) in
Pender County, NC, and is divided into
three subunits. This critical habitat unit
includes habitat for Carex lutea that is
under private ownership. This area is
owned by TNC and managed by a
private hunt club. This unit contains
three element occurrences, all of which
were known at the time of listing. This
savanna complex contains the highest
quality natural habitat and the largest
population of Carex lutea known. With
continued fire management, this site
should remain stable. It contains all of
the PCEs identified for Carex lutea.
Subunit A (EO 21.8) consists of 6.9 ac
(2.8 ha) and is east of Patterson Road.
Subunit B (EO 21.8) consists of 24.7
ac (10.0 ha) and is west of Patterson
Road.
Subunit C (EO 21.20) consists of 26.1
ac (10.6 ha) and lies south of Bear
Garden Road.
Unit 6: The Neck Savanna, Pender
County, North Carolina
Unit 6 consists of 4.4 ac (1.8 ha) in
Pender County, NC, and is divided into
three subunits. This critical habitat unit
includes habitat for Carex lutea that is
under private and State ownership. This
unit contains three element occurrences,
two of which were known at the time of
listing. The subunits contain all of the
PCEs identified for Carex lutea;
however, they are all very fire
suppressed and have been altered by
timber management. The NCDPR is
currently negotiating the designation of
a Dedicated Nature Preserve with the
NCNHP. Privately owned portions of
this property are threatened by fire
suppression, timber harvesting, and
herbicide use. Drainage ditches impact
the hydrology of the soils in this area.
Subunit A (EO 18.1) consists of 3.6 ac
(1.5 ha) and was known to be occupied
at the time of listing. It is owned by
NCDPR and private entities, some of
which will become part of the Sandy
Run Savannas State Natural Area.
Unit 8: McLean Savanna, Pender
County, North Carolina
Unit 8 consists of 44.4 ac (17.7 ha)
and includes three subunits in Pender
County, NC. This site is known as
McLean Savanna or McLean Family
Farms and has been kept open for
hunting through the use of prescribed
burning. Carex lutea occurs over an
extensive area, and it is one of the larger
populations known. Each of the three
subunits contains all of the PCEs
identified for Carex lutea.
Subunit A (EO 24.9) is 42.3 ac (17.1
ha) in size and is owned by TNC. Carex
lutea occupied this area at the time of
listing.
Subunit B (EO 24.22) is 0.5 ac (0.2 ha)
in size and is privately owned. This
Carex lutea population was discovered
in June 2007, after the species was
listed; however, based on what we know
about the biology of the species, we
believe that this site was occupied at the
time of listing.
Subunit C (EO 24.23) is 1.6 ac (0.6 ha)
in size and is owned by both private
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
entities and TNC. This Carex lutea
population was also discovered in June
2007, after the species was listed; based
on what we know about the biology of
the species, we believe that this site was
occupied at the time of listing.
Because the savannas on the McLean
Family Farms have been managed by
fire for many years to facilitate hunting,
and one subpopulation (Subunit A) has
been known on this property since
1997, it is reasonable to believe that
these other subpopulations (Subunits B
and C) have also occurred there for
many years and were just undetected
because those areas had not been
surveyed specifically for Carex lutea
until 2007.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that actions they fund,
authorize, or carry out are not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Decisions by the Fifth and
Ninth Circuits Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our definition of
‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot
Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)
and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434, 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 statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse
modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would remain functional (or
retain the current ability for the PCEs to
be functionally established) to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act 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. Conference
reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in
eliminating conflicts that may be caused
by the proposed action. We may issue
a formal conference report if requested
by a Federal agency. Formal conference
reports on proposed critical habitat
contain an opinion that is prepared
according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical
habitat were designated. We may adopt
the formal conference report as the
biological opinion when the critical
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
habitat is designated, if no substantial
new information or changes in the
action alter the content of the opinion
(see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The
conservation recommendations in a
conference report or opinion are strictly
advisory.
If we list a species or designate
critical habitat, section 7(a)(2) of the Act
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 to
destroy or adversely modify its critical
habitat. 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. As a result of this consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
• A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat; or
• A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are
likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the project, if any are identifiable. We
define ‘‘reasonable and prudent
alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during
consultation that:
• Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
• Can be implemented consistent with
the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
• Are economically and technologically
feasible, and
• Would, in the Director’s opinion, avoid
jeopardizing the continued
existence of the listed species or
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11089
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies may sometimes need to
request reinitiating 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.
Federal activities that may affect
Carex lutea or its designated critical
habitat require section 7 consultation
under the Act. Activities on State,
Tribal, local, or private lands requiring
a Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit under
section 10 of the Act or involving some
other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency)) are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process. Federal actions not affecting
listed species or critical habitat, and
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private
lands that are not Federally funded,
authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7 consultations.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species, or would retain its current
ability for the essential features to be
functionally established. Activities that
may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat are those that alter the essential
features to an extent that appreciably
reduces the conservation value of
critical habitat for Carex lutea.
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, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, may affect critical habitat and
therefore should result in consultation
for Carex lutea include, but are not
limited to:
• Actions that would alter the hydrology
associated with Carex lutea habitat
or the savannas where this species
occurs. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to,
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
11090
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
water impoundment, stream
channelization, water diversion,
water withdrawal and development
activities. These activities could
alter the biological and physical
features that provide the
appropriate habitat for Carex lutea
by altering or eliminating moisture
regimes that this species may rely
on for seed dispersal and
germination and for control of
competing species; by reducing or
increasing the availability of
groundwater, which may result in a
shift of habitat type to a community
unsuitable for Carex lutea (shrubor tree-dominated habitat, which
would inhibit exposure to needed
sunlight); or by causing increased
erosion that could remove soils
appropriate for Carex lutea growth.
• Activities that remove soils
appropriate for Carex lutea growth,
such as plowing, grading, or ditch
cleaning, or activities that change
the characteristics of soils so that
Carex lutea growth is impeded,
such as soil compaction due to
silvicultural practices, vehicular
access along power line rights-ofways or roadway expansion or
maintenance. These activities may
adversely affect critical habitat.
Exemptions
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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:
• An assessment of the ecological needs
on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation
of listed species;
• A statement of goals and priorities;
• A detailed description of management
actions to be implemented to
provide for these ecological needs;
and
• 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108136) 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 geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan 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. As such, we are not
exempting any lands owned or managed
by the Department of Defense from this
designation of critical habitat for Carex
lutea.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must designate or 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 legislative history is 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
must identify the benefits of including
the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If based on this
analysis, we determine that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
inclusion, we can 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
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we are preparing an analysis of
the probable economic impacts of the
proposed critical habitat designation
and related factors.
We will announce the availability of
the draft economic analysis as soon as
it is completed, at which time we will
seek public review and comment. At
that time, copies of the draft economic
analysis will be available for
downloading from the Internet at the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov, or by contacting
the Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office
directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section). During the
development of a final designation, we
will consider economic impacts, public
comments, and other new information,
and as an outcome of our analysis of
this information, we may exclude areas
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 owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the
lands within the proposed designation
of critical habitat for Carex lutea are not
owned or managed by the Department of
Defense, and therefore, we anticipate no
impact to national security. There are no
areas proposed for exclusion 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 conservation plans or other
management plans for the area, or
whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged
by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. In addition, we look at
any Tribal issues, and consider the
government-to-government relationship
of the United States with Tribal entities.
We also consider any social impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
In preparing this proposed rule, we
have determined that there are currently
no conservation plans or other
management plans for Carex lutea, and
the proposed designation does not
include any Tribal lands or trust
resources. We anticipate no impact to
Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs or
other management plans from this
proposed critical habitat designation.
There are no areas proposed for
exclusion from this proposed
designation based on other relevant
impacts.
Notwithstanding these decisions, as
stated under the Public Comments
section above, we request specific
comments on whether any specific areas
proposed for designation for Carex lutea
should be excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act from the final
designation.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy
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 such review is to ensure that
our proposed actions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment, during the
public comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding
the proposed designation of critical
habitat.
We will consider all comments and
information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule
during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
The Act provides for one or more
public hearings on this proposal, if
requested. Requests for public hearings
must be made in writing within 45 days
of the publication of this proposal (see
DATES and ADDRESSES sections). We will
schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings in the Federal Register
and local newspapers at least 15 days
before the first hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and has not reviewed
this proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
its determination upon the following
four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
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 (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency must
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 RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
At this time, we lack the specific
information necessary to provide an
adequate factual basis for determining
the potential incremental regulatory
effects of the designation of critical
habitat for the Carex lutea to either
develop the required RFA finding or
provide the necessary certification
statement that the designation will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small business
entities. On the basis of the
development of our proposal, we have
identified certain sectors and activities
that may potentially be affected by a
designation of critical habitat for the
Carex lutea. These sectors include
industrial development, mining,
drainage for silviculture and agriculture,
highway expansion and herbicide use
along utility and highway rights-of-way.
We recognize that not all of these
sectors may qualify as small business
entities. However, while recognizing
that these sectors and activities may be
affected by this designation, we are
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11091
collecting information and initiating our
analysis to determine (1) which of these
sectors or activities are or involve small
business entities, and (2) what extent
the effects are related to the Carex lutea
being listed as an endangered species
under the Act (baseline effects) or
whether the effects are attributable to
the designation of critical habitat
(incremental). We believe that the
potential incremental effects resulting
from a designation will be small. As a
consequence, following an initial
evaluation of the information available
to us, we do not believe that there will
be a significant impact on a substantial
number of small business entities
resulting from this designation of
critical habitat for Carex lutea.
However, we will be conducting a
thorough analysis to determine if this
may in fact be the case. As such, we are
requesting any specific economic
information related to small business
entities that may be affected by this
designation and how the designation
may impact their business. Therefore,
we defer our RFA finding on this
proposal designation until completion
of the draft economic analysis prepared
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O.
12866.
As discussed above, this draft
economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA
finding. Upon completion of the draft
economic analysis, we will announce
availability of the draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation in
the Federal Register and reopen the
public comment period for the proposed
designation. We will include with this
announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a
certification that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
accompanied by the factual basis for
that determination. We have concluded
that deferring the RFA finding until
completion of the draft economic
analysis is necessary to meet the
purposes and requirements of the RFA.
Deferring the RFA finding in this
manner will ensure that we make a
sufficiently informed determination
based on adequate economic
information and provide the necessary
opportunity for public comment.
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:
(a) This rule would not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
11092
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species, or 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The lands being
proposed for critical habitat designation
are owned by private individuals, The
Nature Conservancy and the State of
North Carolina (Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of
Transportation and Wildlife Resources
Commission). 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 as warranted.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for Carex
lutea in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for Carex
lutea does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required.
In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce
policy, we requested information from,
and coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies
in North Carolina. The critical habitat
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the essential
features themselves are specifically
identified. While making this definition
and identification does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities
may occur, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where state and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform), the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that 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
PCEs within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the
habitat needs of the Carex lutea.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
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
(NEPA)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as
defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the
U.S. court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
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:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
11093
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) 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), E.O. 13175,
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 have determined that there are no
tribal lands occupied at the time of
listing that contain the features essential
for the conservation, and no tribal lands
that are essential for the conservation, of
Carex lutea. Therefore, we have not
proposed designation of critical habitat
for Carex lutea on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements
of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. A total of 19.1 ac (7.8
ha) of critical habitat occur in electrical
distribution lines. It is believed that the
regular disturbance prevents the natural
succession of woody species and serves
to keep the habitat open, similar to the
role that fire plays in the species’ more
natural savanna habitat. Critical habitat
will include approximately 2,500 linear
feet (762 meters) of power lines.
However, we do not expect it to
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action,
and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required. We will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic
analysis, and review and revise this
assessment as warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Field
Supervisor, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this package
are the staff members of the Raleigh Fish
and Wildlife 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. 99625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.12(h), revise the entry for
‘‘Carex lutea’’ under ‘‘Flowering Plants’’
in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants to read as follows:
§ 17.12
plants.
*
Endangered and threatened
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
Species
Historic range
Scientific name
Family
Status
When listed
Critical habitat
Special rules
Common name
FLOWERING PLANTS
*
*
Carex lutea
Golden Sedge
*
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
NC
*
Critical habitat—plants.
(a)Flowering plants
*
*
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
*
*
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Cyperacea
*
3. In § 17.96(a), add an entry for
‘‘Carex lutea (golden sedge),’’ in
alphabetical order under the family
Cyperacea, to read as follows:
§ 17.96
*
Jkt 220001
*
*
721
17.96(a)
*
E
*
*
Family Cyperacea: Carex lutea (golden
sedge)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Onslow and Pender Counties, NC, on
the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
(PCEs) of critical habitat for the Carex
lutea is Pine Savanna (Very Wet Clay
Variant) natural plant community or
ecotones that contain:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
NA
*
(i) Moist to completely saturated
loamy fine sands, fine sands, fine sandy
loams, and loamy sands soils with a pH
between 5.5 and 7.2.
(ii) Open to relatively open canopy
that allows full to part sun to penetrate
to the herbaceous layer between
savannas and hardwood forests.
(iii) Areas of bare soil immediately
adjacent (within 12 inches (30
centimeters)) to mature Carex lutea
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
11094
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
plants where seeds may fall and
germinate or existing plants may expand
in size.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
boundaries on the effective date of this
rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
using a base of aerial photographs
(USDA National Agriculture Imagery
Program; NAIP 2008). Critical habitat
units were then mapped using Universal
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 18
North American Datum (NAD) 1983
coordinates. These coordinates establish
the vertices and endpoints of the
boundaries of the units and subunits.
(5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–S
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
11095
EP10MR10.017
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(6) Unit 1: Watkins Savanna, Pender
County, NC.
(i) Subunit 1A
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 1A]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(ii) Subunit 1B
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 1B]
(iii) Subunit 1C
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 1C]
(iv) Map of Unit 1 (Watkins Savanna)
follows:
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
EP10MR10.018
11096
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 2]
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Map of Unit 2 (Haws Run
Mitigation Site) follows:
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
EP10MR10.019
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(7) Unit 2: Haws Run Mitigation Site,
Onslow County, NC.
11097
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(8) Unit 3: Maple Hill School Road
Savanna, Pender County, NC.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 3]
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Map of Unit 3 (Maple Hill School
Road Savanna) follows:
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
EP10MR10.020
11098
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 4A]
(ii) Subunit 4B
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 4B]
(iii) Map of Unit 4 (Southwest Ridge
Savanna) follows:
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
EP10MR10.021
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(9) Unit 4: Southwest Ridge Savanna,
Pender County, NC.
(i) Subunit 4A
11099
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(10) Unit 5: Sandy Run Savannas,
Onslow County, NC.
(i) Subunit 5A
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 5A]
(ii) Subunit 5B
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 5B]
(iii) Subunit 5C
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 5C]
(iv) Subunit 5D
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 5D]
(v) Subunit 5E
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 5E]
(vi) Map of Unit 5 (Sandy Run
Savannas) follows:
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
EP10MR10.022
11100
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(ii) Subunit 6B
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 6B]
(iii) Subunit 6C
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 6C]
(iv) Map of Unit 6 (The Neck
Savannas) follows:
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
EP10MR10.023
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(11) Unit 6: The Neck Savanna,
Pender County, NC.
(i) Subunit 6A
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 6A]
11101
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(12) Unit 7: Shaken Creek Savanna,
Pender County, NC.
(i) Subunit 7A
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 7A]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
(ii) Subunit 7B
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 7B]
(iii) Subunit 7C
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 7C]
(iv) Map of Unit 7 (Shaken Creek
Savanna) follows:
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
EP10MR10.024
11102
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Subunit 8B
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 8B]
(iii) Subunit 8C
*
Dated: February 24, 2010.
Will Shafroth,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
*
*
*
*
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 8C]
(iv) Map of Unit 8 (McLean Savanna)
follows:
[FR Doc. 2010–4653 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
EP10MR10.025
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(13) Unit 8: McLean Savanna, Pender
County, NC.
(i) Subunit 8A
[Reserved for textual description of
Subunit 8A]
11103
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11080-11103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4653]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS- R4-ES-2010-0003]
[MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
[RIN 1018-AW55]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Carex lutea (Golden Sedge)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate
critical habitat for the Carex lutea (golden sedge) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We propose to designate as
critical habitat approximately 189 acres (76 hectares) in 8 units. The
proposed critical habitat is located in Onslow and Pender Counties in
North Carolina.
DATES: We will consider comments from all interested parties until May
10, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by
April 26, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2010-0003.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0003; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office, P.O. Box
33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726; telephone 919-856-4520; facsimile 919-
856-4556. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
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 government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of
which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether
the benefit of designation would be outweighed by threats to the
species caused by the designation, such that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or
clarifying the primary constituent elements for Carex lutea.
(3) Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of Carex lutea habitat,
What areas occupied at the time of listing and that contain
features essential to the conservation of the species which may require
special management considerations or protections we should include in
the designation and why, and
What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small
entities (e.g., small businesses or small governments) or families, and
the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing as critical
habitat should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific
area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
(7) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of
the proposed designation of critical habitat.
(8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Carex lutea, and any special management needs or
protections that may be needed in the critical habitat areas we are
proposing.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If your written
comments provide personal identifying information, you may request at
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review.
[[Page 11081]]
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more
information on Carex lutea, refer to the final listing rule published
in the Federal Register on January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3120).
Carex lutea is a perennial member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae).
Fertile culms (stems) may reach 39 in (1 m) or more in height. The
yellowish green leaves are grass-like, with those of the culm mostly
basal and up to 11 in (28 cm) in length, while those of the vegetative
shoots reach a length of 25.6 in (65 cm).
The species is endemic to Onslow and Pender Counties in the Black
River section of the Coastal Plain Province of North Carolina. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) recognizes eight
populations made up of 17 distinct locations or element occurrences.
All of the locations occur within a 16- by 5-mile (26-by-8-kilometer)
area, extending southwest from the community of Maple Hill.
Carex lutea generally occurs on fine sandy loam, loamy fine sands,
and fine sands with a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, and with a mean of 6.7. These
soils are moist to saturated to periodically inundated. Carex lutea
occurs in the Pine Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant) natural community
type (Schafale 1994, p. 136). Community structure is characterized by
an open to sparse canopy dominated by pond pine (Pinus serotina), and
usually with some longleaf pine (P. palustris) and pond cypress
(Taxodium ascendens).
Carex lutea is threatened by fire suppression; habitat alteration
such as land conversion for residential, commercial, or industrial
development; mining, drainage for silviculture and agriculture; highway
expansion; and herbicide use along utility and highway rights-of-way.
Previous Federal Actions
Carex lutea was listed as endangered under the Act on January 23,
2002 (67 FR 3120). Designation of critical habitat had been found to be
not prudent in the proposed listing rule (64 FR 44470, August 16,
1999); however, following a reevaulation of information available for
the proposal and new information that came in through the public
comment period on the proposal, critical habitat designation was
determined to be prudent in the final listing rule (67 FR 3120).
However, the development of a designation was deferred due to budgetary
and workload constraints.
On December 19, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the
Service's continuing failure to timely designate critical habitat for
this species as well as three other plant species (Center for
Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, C-04-3240 JL (N. D. Cal.). In a
settlement agreement dated April 11, 2008, the Service agreed to submit
for publication in the Federal Register a proposed designation of
critical habitat, if prudent and determinable, on or before February
28, 2010, and a final determination by February 28, 2011.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided underuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7(a)(2)of the
Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out,
funding, or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation on Federal
actions that may affect 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 seeks or 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) would apply, but even in
the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal
action agency's and the landowner's obligation is not to restore or
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
To be considered for inclusion in a critical habitat designation,
the habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it was listed must contain the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. Areas supporting the
essential physical or biological features are identified, to the extent
known using the best scientific data available, as the habitat areas
that provide essential life cycle needs of the species. Habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
that contains features essential to the conservation of the species
meets the definition of critical habitat only if these features may
require special management consideration or protection. Under the Act
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate critical habitat in
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed only when we determine that the best available scientific
data demonstrate that the designation of those areas is essential for
the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General
[[Page 11082]]
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, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Climate change may lead to increased frequency and
duration of severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504;
McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). According
to the America's Longleaf Regional Working Group (2009, p. 19), the
U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that longleaf pine may extend
its range northward, but will likely lose very little of its southern
range. The Hadley Centre model suggests that savanna and grasslands may
expand and replace southeastern pine forests at some sites in the
coastal plain due to increased moisture stress (America's Longleaf
Regional Working Group 2009, p. 19). While the effects of climate
change on longleaf ecosystem plant communities have not been well
studied, one report concluded that while longleaf pine might perform
well with increased carbon dioxide, the herbaceous species may not
compete as well (America's Longleaf Regional Working Group 2009, p.
19).
The information currently available on the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. Nor are
we currently aware of any climate change information specific to the
habitat of Carex lutea that would indicate what areas may become
important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are unable to
determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate to include
in the proposed critical habitat for this species; however, we
specifically request information from the public on the currently
predicted effects of climate change on Carex lutea and its habitat.
Additionally, 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 critical habitat area is unimportant or
may not be required for recovery of the species.
Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be
subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. 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), section 7 consultations, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations at 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
activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) the designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is no documentation that Carex lutea is threatened by taking
or other human activity such as collection. In the absence of finding
that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to the
species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation,
then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits include:
(1) Triggering consultation, under section 7 of the Act, in new areas
for action in which there may be a Federal nexus where consultation
would not otherwise occur because, for example, an area is or has
become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) identifying the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of Carex
lutea and focusing conservation activities on these essential features
and the areas that support them; (3) providing educational benefits to
State or county governments or private entities engaged in activities
or long-range planning in areas essential to the conservation of the
species; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the
species. Conservation of Carex lutea and the essential features of the
habitat will require habitat protection and restoration, which will be
facilitated by knowledge of habitat locations and the physical and
biological features of those habitats.
Therefore, since we have determined that the designation of
critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the
species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that the
designation of critical habitat for the Carex lutea is prudent.
Critical Habitat Determinability
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(2) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the Carex lutea, the historical distribution of the Carex
lutea, and the habitat characteristics where the species currently
occurs. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the Carex lutea.
[[Page 11083]]
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
contain the features essential to the conservation of the Carex lutea
that may require special management considerations or protections, and
which areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing are essential for the conservation of the species.
We reviewed the available information pertaining to historical and
current distributions, life histories, and habitat requirements of this
species. Our sources included peer-reviewed scientific publications;
unpublished survey reports; unpublished field observations by Service,
State, and other experienced biologists; notes and communications from
qualified biologists or experts; and Service publications such as the
final listing rule for Carex lutea.
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species 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 historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We consider the physical and biological features to be the primary
constituent elements PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species. We derive the
PCEs from the biological needs of Carex lutea as described in the
Background section of this proposed rule and in the final listing rule
(67 FR 3120). The areas included in this proposed critical habitat rule
for Carex lutea contain the appropriate soils and associated
vegetation, and adjacent areas necessary to maintain associated
physical processes such as a suitable hydrological regime. The areas
provide suitable habitat, water, minerals, and other physiological
needs for reproduction and growth of Carex lutea.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Clonal Growth
Carex lutea is a caespitose, or clumping, perennial. New shoots
develop from a central point, forming a tufted clump of vegetation that
is genetically identical to the parent plant. The full extent to which
a plant can expand has not been determined.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify bare soil
areas immediately adjacent to existing clumps of mature Carex lutea
plants to allow room for expansion of the clump to be a PCE for this
species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Water
Although the specific water needs of the species are unknown, Carex
lutea is found in wet to saturated to periodically inundated soils. The
largest populations are found in the wet to saturated ecotones of
savannas and hardwood forests. At a few sites, the plants are most
abundant in wet to saturated soils adjacent to drainage ditches, and in
the saturated to inundated ditches themselves. The occurrence of
individuals in ditches is likely due to the wetter soils of the
ditches, or the washing of seeds into the ditches from adjacent habitat
or both. Sometimes Carex lutea occurs in very wet soil in areas of
savanna habitat characterized by an open to absent canopy, suggesting
that its abundance in the savanna-wet hardwood ecotone is strongly
influenced by hydrologic conditions as well as by edaphic (influenced
by factors inherent in the soil rather than by climatic factors) or
light conditions or both. The annual average precipitation in
Wilmington, NC, (approximately 25 miles (40 kilometers) south-southwest
of the epicenter of Carex lutea) is 54.3 inches (138 centimeters).
(https://www.weatherpages.com/variety/precip.html).
Light
Most Carex lutea plants occur in the partially tree-shaded ecotone
between savannas and hardwood swamps, with scattered shrubs and a
moderate to dense herb layer. The savanna/hardwood swamp ecotone is
subject to frequent fires, which favor an herbaceous ground layer and
suppress shrub dominance. There is evidence that increased shading and
shrub competition from fire suppression has resulted in the reduction
in the number of individuals observed.
Soil
Carex lutea occurs on a wide variety of mapped soil types,
including fine sands (Baymeade, Mandarin, and Pactolus), loamy sands
(Stallings), loamy fine sands (Foreston and Grifton), fine sandy loams
(Torhunta and Woodington), and loams (Muckalee). The soils are formed
from marine sediments and have a range of permeability (from rapid to
moderately rapid) and drainage class (from well drained to very poorly
drained). Soil tests at the type site (The Neck Savanna) indicate that
microsites not supporting Carex lutea regularly test at lower pH levels
than those supporting Carex lutea, with values at inhabited sites
ranging from a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, with a mean of 6.7 (Glover 1994, p.
7). This finding may indicate a preference to soils with a high base
saturation or low aluminum saturation or both. The extent of the soils
with these chemical characteristics is usually limited within the
Coastal Plain and, therefore, are normally not mapped as separate soil
map units due to the scale of mapping.
Temperature
The outer southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina experiences
hot and humid subtropical summers and cool temperate winters with
subfreezing periods. Persistent snow accumulation is rare. The average
crop growing season (daily minimum temperature higher than 32 degrees
Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius)) for Onslow County is 162 days (Barnhill
1992, p. 99) and for Pender County is 185 days (Barnhill 1990, p. 105).
We have no information about the tolerance of Carex lutea to
temperature extremes.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify wet to
completely saturated loamy fine sands, fine sands, fine sandy loams,
and loamy sands soils with a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, in sunny to partially
tree-shaded areas or ecotones between savannas and hardwood forests to
be a PCE for this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The reproductive biology of Carex lutea is unknown; however, due to
the observation of ample mature seed production, we can confidently
surmise that Carex lutea reproduces both
[[Page 11084]]
sexually, involving gravity and wind-dispersed pollen, as well as
vegetatively (LeBlond 1996, p. 19). Perigynia (a special bract that
encloses the achene of a Carex species) are dispersed when rigid
fertile culms fall to the ground, thereby depositing the fruits on the
substrate adjacent to, but at some distance from, the maternal parent
(LeBlond 1996, p. 19). Seeds have been observed in ditches adjacent to
colonies, indicating dispersal by precipitation sheet flow. Animals may
also be seed dispersers; the perigynia beaks are minutely serrulate
(minutely serrated), perhaps for attachment to fur (LeBlond 1996, p.
19). Survival rates of individual plants are unknown. Based on
observation of the larger known populations, it appears that Carex
lutea is a successful colonizer of suitable newly disturbed areas
(LeBlond 1996, p. 19).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas of
bare soil immediately adjacent [within 12 inches (30 cm)] to mature
Carex lutea plants where seeds may fall and germinate to be a PCE for
this species.
Habitats Protected from Disturbance or Representative of the Historic,
Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
The area supporting the Carex lutea populations is located in the
Black River section of the Coastal Plain Province, and within the
Northeast Cape Fear River watershed. The land surface is characterized
by large areas of broad, level flatlands and shallow stream basins. The
broad flatlands support longleaf pine forests, pond pine woodlands,
shrub swamp pocosins, pine plantations, and cropland. The geology is
characterized by unconsolidated sand overlying layers of clayey sand
and weakly consolidated marine shell deposits (coquina limestone).
These sediments were deposited and reshaped during several cycles of
coastal emergence and submergence from the Cretaceous period to the
present (LeBlond et al. 1994, p. 159).
More specifically, Carex lutea occurs in the Very Wet Clay Variant
of the Pine Savanna community (Schafale 1994, p. 136) or its ecotones.
Community structure is characterized by an open to sparse canopy
dominated by pond pine (Pinus serotina), and usually with some longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens). The shrub
layer typically is sparse to patchy, with wax myrtle (Morella
carolinensis), ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora), Ink berry (Ilex glabra),
myrtle dahoon (Ilex myrtifolia), and black highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium fuscatum) prominent. Juvenile red maple (Acer rubrum var.
trilobum) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) are often present. The herb
layer is dense, and dominated by combinations of Ctenium aromaticum
(toothache grass), Carolina dropseed (Sporobolus pinetorum), and
several Rhynchospora taxa [e.g., globe beaksedge (R. globularis var.
pinetorum), sandswamp whitetop (R. latifolia), and Thorne's beakrush
(R. thornei)]. National vegetation type classification places this
natural community in the Pinus palustris - Pinus serotina / Sporobolus
pinetorum - Ctenium aromaticum - Eriocaulon decangulare var.
decangulare (Tenangle pipewort) Woodland association of the Pinus
palustris - Pinus (P. elliottii, P. serotina) Saturated Woodland
Alliance (NatureServe 2010). This association is equivalent to the Pine
Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant), a natural community type with fewer
than 10 occurrences globally (Schafale 1994, p. 136). The Pine Savanna
Very Wet Clay Variant is known only from the Maple Hill area near the
Onslow/Pender County line and north and west of Holly Shelter Game
Land, and from the Old Dock area of the Waccamaw River watershed along
the Brunswick/Columbus County line.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas
containing the natural plant community that would be identified as the
Pine Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant) according to methodology used in
Schafale (1994, p. 136) to be a PCE for this species. The structure of
this community is characterized by an open to sparse canopy dominated
by pond pine, and usually with some longleaf pine and pond cypress.
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, and ecology of the species and the habitat
requirements for sustaining the essential life history functions of the
species, we have determined that the PCEs for Carex lutea is Pine
Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant) natural plant community or ecotones
that contain:
1. Moist to completely saturated loamy fine sands, fine sands, fine
sandy loams, and loamy sands soils with a pH of 5.5 to 7.2;
2. Open to relatively open canopy that allows full to part sun to
penetrate to the herbaceous layer between savannas and hardwood
forests; and
3. Areas of bare soil immediately adjacent [within 12 inches (30
cm)] to mature Carex lutea plants where seeds may fall and germinate or
existing plants may expand in size.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain physical and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species and whether those features may
require special management considerations or protection.
As stated in the final listing rule, threats to Carex lutea include
habitat alteration; conversion of its limited habitat for residential,
commercial, or industrial development; mining; drainage activities
associated with silviculture and agriculture; suppression of fire;
highway expansion; and herbicide use along utility and highway rights-
of-way (67 FR 3120). Through our review of the existing data on Carex
lutea, we conclude that the threats listed in the final listing rule
continue to impact this species and its essential physical and
biological features.
The destruction of habitat or conversion of habitat for
residential, commercial, or industrial development can change the
topography, soils, and general character of the site, making it
uninhabitable for Carex lutea. These activities can remove the PCEs by
removing soil (by grading) and changing Carex lutea habitat to
developed land, which is unsuitable for the species.
Drainage activities associated with silviculture and agriculture
may alter the hydrology, which can change the groundwater levels and
the amount of moisture in the soil, creating conditions under which
Carex lutea may not be able to survive. Further, removal of existing
vegetation or the planting of trees for silviculture may change the
existing conditions such that Carex lutea plants no longer receive
optimal amounts of sunlight.
The close proximity of roadways and power line corridors to
populations of Carex lutea may affect the species. Herbicide treatment
to maintain vegetation in rights-of-ways has the potential to kill non-
target plant species such as Carex lutea. Highway expansion may change
the local topography and affect water runoff making the site drier or
wetter than is optimal for Carex lutea.
Mining has been documented in close proximity to one Carex lutea
population. Mining activities may alter many aspects of Carex lutea
habitat. Heavy equipment can compact or remove the appropriate soils.
The grading of areas adjacent to Carex lutea habitat can change the
hydrology of those areas and make them more
[[Page 11085]]
susceptible to invasion by nonnative plant species.
Regular fire in areas where Carex lutea occurs helps to maintain
the open savanna habitat that is conducive to Carex lutea growth. Fire
reduces competition and allows seeds to germinate in open, bare soil
areas. Fire suppression in areas where Carex lutea occurs may result in
the growth of shrubs and trees that will eventually shade out
herbaceous species such as Carex lutea.
All of these activities may in turn lead to the disruption of the
growth and reproduction of Carex lutea.
In summary, we find that the areas we are proposing as critical
habitat contain the features essential to the conservation of Carex
lutea, and that these features may require special management
considerations or protection. Special management considerations or
protection may be required to eliminate, or reduce to negligible level,
the threats affecting each unit or subunit and to preserve and maintain
the essential features that the proposed critical habitat units and
subunits provide to Carex lutea. Additional discussions of threats
facing individual sites are provided in the individual unit and subunit
descriptions.
The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands
outside of critical habitat may not play an important role in the
conservation of Carex lutea. In the future, and with changed
circumstances, these lands may become essential to the conservation of
Carex lutea. Activities with a Federal nexus that may affect areas
outside of critical habitat, such as development, agricultural
activities, and road construction, are still subject to review under
section 7 of the Act if they may affect Carex lutea because Federal
agencies must consider both effects to the plant and effects to
critical habitat independently. The prohibitions of section 9 of the
Act applicable to Carex lutea under 50 CFR 17.61 also continue to apply
both inside and outside of designated critical habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available in determining areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of Carex
lutea, and areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time
of listing that are essential for the conservation of Carex lutea. In
order to determine which sites were occupied at the time of listing, we
used the NCNHP database of rare species (NCNHP 2009). If an element
occurrence (EO) record or site was first observed after the species was
listed (effective on February 22, 2002), then we considered that those
sites were unknown at the time of listing. Five subunits had first
observed dates after February 22, 2002. However, given what we know
about the biology of this species and the habitats where it occurs,
those five subunits were likely occupied at the time the species was
listed. The occurrence at Watkins Savannah (O'Berry Tract C) (EO 5.19)
was found during surveys for Carex lutea in 2006. The two sites on
Ashes Creek at the Southwest Ridge Savanna (EO 11) were found during
surveys for Carex lutea in 2002, just 3 months after the species was
listed. In 2007, surveys for Carex lutea at the McLean Savanna yielded
two new subpopulations of Carex lutea (EOs 24.22 and 24.23). Carex
lutea was already known from a site nearby, and all three of these
subpopulations are now considered to be part of one population. To the
best of our knowledge, these areas had not been surveyed for Carex
lutea previously, and we have no reason to believe that the plant was
imported or had dispersed into these areas from other areas after Carex
lutea was listed in 2002. Based on the biology of this species and its
limited ability for the seeds to move and colonize new areas, the
occurrences identified since listing likely were in existence for many
years prior to listing and were only recently detected due to increased
awareness of this species.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
habitat requirements of this species including NCNHP data, the original
species description (LeBlond et al 1994, pp. 159-160), the status
survey (LeBlond 1996, pp. 11-13), the Service's draft Recovery Plan and
the 5-Year Review, regional Geographic Information System (GIS)
coverages, survey reports, and other relevant information.
The only criterion that we used to identify proposed critical
habitat was that the areas are currently occupied by Carex lutea. These
areas occur on rare or unique habitat (the Very Wet Clay Variant of the
Pine Savanna community, remnant savannas, or ecotones thereof) within
the species' range and contain all of the PCEs identified as necessary
for the conservation of the species. Since so few populations are known
to exist, they are all important to the long-term survival and recovery
of the species. Eight units (19 subunits) are proposed for designation
based on sufficient quantity and arrangement of the PCEs being present
to support Carex lutea's life processes.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as lands covered
by buildings, roads, and other structures, because such lands lack PCEs
for Carex lutea. 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 and biological features
in the adjacent critical habitat.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no unoccupied areas that
contain one or more of the PCEs for Carex lutea. All of the areas
proposed as critical habitat for Carex lutea are currently occupied by
the species and contain the PCEs. All of the areas proposed as critical
habitat are also within the known historical range of the species.
Therefore, we are not proposing to designate any areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. We
believe that the occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of
the species.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 8 units (19 subunits) totaling approximately 189
acres (ac) (75.6 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for Carex lutea.
The areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Carex lutea. The
eight areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Unit 1: Watkins
Savanna, (2) Unit 2: Haws Run Mitigation Site, (3) Unit 3: Maple Hill
School Road Savanna, (4) Unit 4: Southwest Ridge Savanna, (5) Unit 5:
Sandy Run Savannas, (6) Unit 6: The Neck Savanna, (7) Unit 7: Shaken
Creek Savanna, and (8) Unit 8: McLean Savanna. All units are now
occupied by Carex lutea, but five subunits in three units were unknown
at the time of listing. However, based on the biology of this species
and its limited ability for the seeds to move and colonize new areas,
the occurrences identified since listing likely were in existence for
many years prior to listing and were only
[[Page 11086]]
recently detected due to increased awareness of this species.
Therefore, we are considering them to be occupied at the time of
listing. Table 1 identifies the occupancy status for each subunit.
TABLE 1. Occupancy of Carex lutea by Proposed Critical Habitat Units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at Time of
Unit Subunit Listing? Currently Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Not applicable (N/A) Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 N/A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 D Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 E Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 includes the name, ownership information, and size of each
unit and subunit we are proposing as critical habitat.
TABLE 2. Ownership of Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Carex lutea.
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Ownership by
Unit Subunit Name Type Size of Unit Acres Size of Unit Hectares
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 A Watkins Savanna, NCDPR 1.2 0.5
O'Berry, Tract A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 B Watkins Savanna, Private, NCDPR 2.0 0.8
Unnamed Tract
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 C Watkins Savanna, NCDPR 0.6 0.2
O'Berry, Tract C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 N/A Haws Run Mitigation NCDOT 27.1 11.0
Site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 N/A Maple Hill School Private 27.7 11.2
Road, Savanna
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 A Southwest Ridge NCWRC with Progress 2.3 0.9
Savanna, Ashes Creek, Energy, ROW
Carex lutea Survey
Site, Southwest of
Ashes Creek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11087]]
4 B Southwest Ridge NCWRC with Progress 1.0 0.4
Savanna, Ashes Creek, Energy, ROW
Carex lutea Survey
Site, Northeast of
Ashes Creek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 A Sandy Run Savannas NCDPR with Progress 2.6 1.1
Energy, ROW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 B Sandy Run Savannas NCDPR 4.3 1.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 C Sandy Run Savannas NCDPR 0.3 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 D Sandy Run Savannas NCDPR 0.3 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 E Sandy Run Swamp NCDPR with Progress 13.1 5.3
Energy, ROW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 A The Neck Savanna NCDPR 3.6 1.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 B The Neck Savanna, Private 0.7 0.3
Thorne's Beaksedge
Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 C The Neck Savanna, Private with 0.1 0.1
former Sandy Run Powerline ROW
Savanna
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 A Shaken Creek Savanna, TNC 6.9 2.8
East Population, East
of Patterson Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 B Shaken Creek Savanna, TNC 24.7 10.0
West Population, East
of Patterson Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 C Shaken Creek Savanna, TNC 26.1 10.6
West Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 A McLean Savanna TNC 42.3 17.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 B McLean Savanna Private 0.5 0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 C McLean Savanna TNC, Private 1.6 0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total* 189.0 76.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of each unit, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Carex lutea, below
Unit 1: Watkins Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 1 consists of 3.8 ac (1.5 ha) and includes three subunits in
Pender County, NC. It contains all of the PCEs for Carex lutea. This
critical habitat unit includes habitat for Carex lutea that is under
private and State ownership. This unit contains three element
occurrences, two of which were known at the time of listing. The
subunits contain all of the PCEs identified for Carex lutea; however,
they are all very fire suppressed and have been altered by timber
management. The NC Division of Parks and Recreation (NCDPR) is
currently negotiating with the NCNHP to designate this site as a
Dedicated Nature Preserve.
Subunit A (EO 5.12) consists of 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) and was known to be
occupied at the time of listing. It is owned by NCDPR and is managed as
part of the Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area.
Subunit B (EO 5.13) consists of 2.0 ac (0.8 ha) and was known to be
occupied at the time of listing. It is owned by private entities and
NCDPR. NCDPR plans to manage their portion of the subunit as part of
the Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area.
Subunit C (EO 5.19) consists of 0.6 ac (0.2 ha) and was not known
to be occupied at the time of listing. This Carex lutea site was
discovered in 2006; however, based on the habitat conditions at this
site and the biology of the species, we believe that this site was
occupied in 2002, when the species was listed. It is in conservation
ownership by NCDPR and is managed as part of the Sandy Run Savannas
State Natural Area.
Unit 2: Haws Run Mitigation Site, Onslow County, North Carolina
Unit 2 (EO 7) consists of 27.1 ac (11.0 ha) in Onslow County, NC.
This critical habitat unit includes habitat for Carex lutea and was
occupied at the time of listing. It is owned by the NC Department of
Transportation and is managed by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
This site was purchased as mitigation for wetland impacts from nearby
transportation projects. Although the site is somewhat fire suppressed
and has been altered by timber management, it contains all of the PCEs
identified for Carex lutea. The land managers conducted a prescribed
fire in the vicinity of the Carex lutea plants during the summer of
2009 and will continue restoration efforts there.
[[Page 11088]]
The population at this site appears to be stable and not vulnerable to
extirpation. Managers are considering designating this site as a
Dedicated Nature Preserve by the NCNHP.
Unit 3: Maple Hill School Road Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 3 (EO 10) consists of 27.7 ac (11.2 ha) in Pender County, NC.
This site is privately owned and has not been revisited since it was
discovered in 1998. It was occupied at the time of listing. Although
three clumps of Carex lutea were discovered here in 1998, the full
extent of the population is unknown and the habitat is vulnerable to
land use changes.
Unit 4: Southwest Ridge Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 4 (EO 11) consists of 3.3 ac (1.3 ha) in two subunits in
Pender County, NC. This unit is owned by NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and is managed for conservation purposes. These two
subpopulations were discovered in May 2002, shortly after the species
was listed as endangered (effective on February 2002). Because the
species is nearly impossible to identify unless it is flowering and
plants less than 3 months old would not be expected to flower in May,
it seems reasonable to assume that the plants discovered in May 2002
were present prior to the 2002 growing season and that the site was
occupied at the time of listing. The Carex lutea plants occur in a
power line right-of-way easement that is managed by Progress Energy.
The utility company entered into a Registry Agreement with the NCNHP
and agreed not to use herbicides or mow during critical Carex lutea
growth periods. This population is relatively small in size compared to
some of the other populations, but appears to be stable. The subunits
contain all of the PCEs identified for Carex lutea.
Subunit A is 2.3 ac (0.9 ha) in size and is located southwest of
Ashes Creek.
Subunit B is 1.0 ac (0.48 ha) in size and is located northeast of
Ashes Creek.
Unit 5: Sandy Run Savannas, Onslow County, North Carolina
Unit 5 consists of 20.6 ac (8.3 ha) in Onslow County, NC, and is
divided into five subunits. This critical habitat unit is owned by
NCDPR and managed as part of the Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area.
All five Carex lutea sites were known at the time of listing. This unit
is a remnant pine savanna, and the subunits contain all of the PCEs
identified for Carex lutea; however, the subunits are all fire
suppressed and have been altered by timber management including bedding
and ditching. The NCDPR is currently negotiating the designation of a
Dedicated Nature Preserve with the NCNHP.
Subunit A (EO 15.3) consists of 2.6 ac (1.1 ha) and occurs on the
east side of NC 50. Progress Energy has a transmission line right-of-
way through this subunit and has entered into a Registry Agreement with
the NCNHP in which they have agreed not to use herbicides or mow during
critical Carex lutea growth periods.
Subunit B (EO 15.4) consists of 4.3 ac (1.7 ha) and occurs
contiguous to and along the north side of a private sand road through
the property.
Subunit C (EO 15.4) consists of 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) and occurs along
the south side of a private sand road through the property and on the
west side of a small stream swamp. The plants are growing in an old,
wet road bed.
Subunit D (EO 15.4) consists of 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) and occurs along
the south side of a private sand road through the property and on the
east side of a small stream swamp. The Carex lutea plants are growing
in a roadside ditch.
Subunit E (EO 15.14) consists of 13.1 ac (5.3 ha) and occurs
contiguous to and on the west side of NC 50. Progress Energy has a
transmission line right-of-way through this subunit and has entered
into a Registry Agreement with the NCNHP in which they have agreed not
to use herbicides or mow during critical Carex lutea growth periods.
Unit 6: The Neck Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 6 consists of 4.4 ac (1.8 ha) in Pender County, NC, and is
divided into three subunits. This critical habitat unit includes
habitat for Carex lutea that is under private and State ownership. This
unit contains three element occurrences, two of which were known at the
time of listing. The subunits contain all of the PCEs identified for
Carex lutea; however, they are all very fire suppressed and have been
altered by timber management. The NCDPR is currently negotiating the
designation of a Dedicated Nature Preserve with the NCNHP. Privately
owned portions of this property are threatened by fire suppression,
timber harvesting, and herbicide use. Drainage ditches impact the
hydrology of the soils in this area.
Subunit A (EO 18.1) consists of 3.6 ac (1.5 ha) and was known to be
occupied at the time of listing. It is owned by NCDPR and private
entities, some of which will become part of the Sandy Run Savannas
State Natural Area.
Subunit B (EO 18.16) consists of 0.7 ac (0.3 ha) and is privately
owned. It is currently threatened by fire suppression, but the managers
are hopeful that they will be able to burn this tract within the next
year or two.
Subunit C (EO 18.17) consists of 0.1 ac (0.1 ha), is privately
owned, and occurs in a small power-line corridor along a roadside. It
is vulnerable to woody growth and herbicide u