Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Georgia Rockcress, 56505-56540 [2013-22128]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56505-56540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22128]



[[Page 56505]]

Vol. 78

Thursday,

No. 177

September 12, 2013

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Georgia Rockcress; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 56506]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ55


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Georgia Rockcress

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate 
critical habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, we propose 
to designate as critical habitat approximately 323 hectares (786 acres) 
of riparian, river bluff habitat for this species. The intended effect 
of this rule is to conserve Georgia rockcress and its habitat under the 
Act. The proposed critical habitat is located in Georgia, including 
parts of Gordon, Floyd, Harris, Muscogee, Chattahoochee, and Clay 
Counties, and in Alabama, including parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, 
Monroe, Russell, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
November 12, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests 
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by October 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2013-0030, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical 
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record 
for this rulemaking and are available at https://www.fws.gov/athens/, 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030, and at 
the Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information 
that we may develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the 
Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and 
may also be included in the preamble and/or at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 105 Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA 30606; 
telephone 706-613-9493; facsimile 706-613-6059. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will refer to Arabis georgiana by its 
common name, Georgia rockcress, in this proposed rule.

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Critical habitat shall be 
designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any 
species determined to be an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be 
completed by issuing a rule in the Federal Register. Elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register, we propose to list Georgia rockcress as 
threatened under the Act.
    This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for Georgia 
rockcress. In total, we propose to designate as critical habitat 
approximately 323 hectares (786 acres) of riparian, river bluff habitat 
for the species. The proposed critical habitat is located in Georgia, 
including parts of Gordon, Floyd, Harris, Muscogee, Chattahoochee, and 
Clay Counties, and in Alabama, including parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, 
Monroe, Russell, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, if we intend to list a 
species as endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in 
the Federal Register to list the species as endangered or threatened 
and make a determination on our proposal within 1 year. We are also 
required under the Act to designate critical habitat, to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act concurrently with 
listing.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our 
analysis of the best available science and application of that science 
and to provide any additional scientific information to improve this 
proposed rule. Because we will consider all comments and information we 
receive during the comment period, our final determinations may differ 
from this proposal.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned 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 Act, 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 
that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that 
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Georgia rockcress and its 
habitat;
    (b) What areas, that are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., 
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why; and
    (c) What areas not occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently 
not occupied) are essential for the conservation of the species and 
why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
areas occupied by the species or proposed to be designated as critical 
habitat, and

[[Page 56507]]

possible impacts of these activities on this species and proposed 
critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Georgia rockcress and proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included 
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts 
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas 
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
    (6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (7) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. You may request 
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such 
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public 
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    For information on previous Federal actions concerning Georgia 
rockcress, refer to the proposal to list Georgia rockcress as a 
threatened species under the Act, which appears elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register.

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 pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, and 
transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population 
pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may 
include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or 
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it 
is listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the 
elements of physical or biological features that, when laid out in the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' 
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For 
example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not 
occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of 
the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We 
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data

[[Page 56508]]

available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with 
the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use 
primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of a listed 
species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not 
signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may 
not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to 
the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. These protections and conservation tools continue to contribute 
to recovery of the listed species. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical 
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of 
the following situations exist:
    (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species; or
    (2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species.
    There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to 
collection or vandalism for this species (see the proposed listing 
rule, which appears elsewhere in today's Federal Register), and 
identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to 
initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the 
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if 
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a 
prudent finding is warranted. Here, the potential benefits of 
designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the 
Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus 
where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has 
become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing 
conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) 
providing educational benefits to State or county governments or to 
private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent 
harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined that the 
designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of 
threat to the species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find 
that designation of critical habitat is prudent for Georgia rockcress.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether critical habitat for Georgia 
rockcress is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist:
    (i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.

When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service 
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 species and habitat characteristics where the species is 
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data 
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for Georgia rockcress.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. 
These include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features required for 
Georgia rockcress from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and 
life history as described below. Additional information can be found in 
the proposed listing rule published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Georgia rockcress is known from the Lower Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper 
Gulf Coastal Plain, Red Hills, Black Belt, Piedmont, and the Ridge and 
Valley Physiographic Provinces (Schotz 2010, p. 6; Allison 1995, p. 6), 
generally occurring within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by 
sandstone, granite, and limestone (Moffett 2007, p. 1; Schotz 2010, p. 
6). This species occurs on soils that are circumneutral to slightly 
basic (or buffered) and is primarily associated with high bluffs along 
major river courses, with dry-mesic to mesic soils of open, rocky, 
woodland and forested slopes,

[[Page 56509]]

including shallow soil accumulations on rocky bluffs, ecotones of 
sloping rock outcrops, and sandy loam along eroding riverbanks (Moffett 
2007, p. 1; Schotz 2010, p. 6). The habitat supports a relatively 
closed to open canopy of deciduous trees with a rich diversity of 
grasses and forbs characterizing the herb layer (Schotz 2010, p. iii). 
Therefore, we identify well-drained soils that are buffered or 
circumneutral to be a physical or biological feature for this species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Georgia rockcress generally occurs on steep river bluffs often with 
shallow soils overlaying rock or with exposed rock outcroppings. These 
edaphic conditions result in micro-disturbances, such as sloughing 
soils with limited accumulation of leaf litter or canopy gap dynamics, 
possibly with wind-thrown trees, which provide small patches of exposed 
mineral soil in a patchy distribution across the river bluff (Schotz 
2010, p. 6). Georgia rockcress is a poor competitor (Alison 1995, p. 8; 
Moffett 2007, p. 4; Schotz 2010 p. 9); therefore, small-scale 
disturbances are critical for this species. Exposed mineral soil 
provides for seed to soil contact for good germination and allows 
Georgia rockcress to occupy habitat with limited competition for light, 
mineral, and water resources. Therefore, we identify large river bluffs 
with steep slopes and/or shallow soils that are subject to localized 
disturbances to be a physical or biological feature for this species.
Cover, Shelter, and Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or 
Development) of Offspring
    Georgia rockcress generally occurs at sites with a substantial, 
mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity, which provides for mixed 
sunlight and shade throughout the day and impedes invasive species. The 
habitat supports a relatively closed to open canopy of Juniperus 
virginiana (eastern red cedar), Ostrya virginiana (American 
hophornbeam), Quercus muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak), Fraxinus 
americana (white ash), Acer barbatum (southern sugar maple), and Cercis 
canadensis (eastern redbud) with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs 
characterizing the herb layer (Schotz 2010, p. iii). Georgia rockcress 
generally occurs on sites with a mature canopy providing partial 
shading (Moffett 2007, p. 4). Although Georgia rockcress can survive 
deep shade primarily as a vegetative rosette without flowering or 
fruiting (Alison 1995, p. 7; Moffett 2007, p. 4; Schotz 2010, p. 10), 
it cannot reproduce in heavily shaded conditions. It is often the 
mature trees grown on shallow soils that are subject to wind throw. 
Therefore, we identify a mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial 
heterogeneity to be a physical or biological feature for this species.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
    While Georgia rockcress needs small-scale disturbances to exploit, 
the species is a poor competitor and is easily outcompeted by 
aggressive competitors. Natural large-scale disturbances, such as fire 
and catastrophic flooding, are unlikely to occur on the steep river 
bluffs occupied by Georgia rockcress. Edge effects may penetrate as far 
as 175 meters (m) (574 feet (ft)), resulting in changes in community 
composition (Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 21). Aspect is an important 
factor in determining how forest microclimate and vegetation are 
influenced by the external environment (Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 30) 
and likely plays an important role on bluff habitat inhabited by 
Georgia rockcress. Edge effects are reduced by a protective vegetative 
border with buffers eliminating most microhabitat edge effects (see the 
proposed listing rule, which appears elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register) (Honu and Gibson 2006, p. 255; Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 
32). Management strategies for the control of invasive plants should 
encourage canopy closure of greater than 85 percent for forested stands 
(Honu and Gibson 2006, p. 255). Therefore, we identify the intact 
habitat that is buffered to impede the invasion of nonnatives to be a 
physical or biological feature for this species.
Primary Constituent Elements for Georgia Rockcress
    According to 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are required to identify the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
Georgia rockcress in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on 
the features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary 
constituent elements to be the elements of physical or biological 
features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    The proposed critical habitat is designed to provide sufficient 
habitat to maintain self-sustaining populations of Georgia rockcress. 
We believe the conservation of Georgia rockcress is dependent upon the 
protection and management of sites where existing populations grow, and 
the maintenance of normal ecological functions within these sites. 
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features 
and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-
history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements 
specific to Georgia rockcress are:
    (1) Large river bluffs with steep and/or shallow soils that are 
subject to localized disturbances that limit the accumulation of leaf 
litter and competition within the Lower Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper Gulf 
Coastal Plain, Red Hills, Black Belt, Piedmont, and Ridge and Valley 
Physiographic Provinces of Georgia and Alabama.
    (2) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral generally 
within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by granite, sandstone, 
or limestone.
    (3) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity, 
providing mottled shade and often including species such as eastern red 
cedar, America hophornbeam, chinquapin oak, white ash, southern sugar 
maple, and redbud with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs 
characterizing the herb layer.
    (4) Intact habitat with mature canopy and discrete disturbances, 
buffered by surrounding habitat to impede the invasion of competitors.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the 
species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. A fully functioning bluff habitat (i.e., with mature canopy 
and discrete disturbances) is required to provide the features 
essential to the conservation of this species and may require special 
management considerations or protection to reduce the following 
threats: Land-clearing activities that alter the canopy, including 
silvicultural management, building of utility lines, structures, roads 
or bridges; construction of reservoirs that inundate habitat; mining 
activities; or introduction of invasive species that compete directly 
with Georgia rockcress. Large-scale disturbances, such as fire or soil-
disturbing activities, should be minimized. A mature canopy with 
spatial heterogeneity should be maintained to impede invasive species 
while providing an opportunity for localized disturbances as canopy-gap 
dynamics develop. Invasive species

[[Page 56510]]

should be eliminated from the critical habitat units. A mature canopy 
on the bluffs and a surrounding buffer area will help to exclude 
nonnatives.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If 
after identifying currently occupied areas, a determination is made 
that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, 
in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12(e) we then consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied--are essential for the conservation of 
the species. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species because occupied 
areas are sufficient for the conservation of the species. The 18 
proposed critical habitat units capture populations across the known 
range of the species, providing conservation in five different 
physiographic provinces in three different river drainages. This 
effectively protects against the loss of one of the three genetic 
groups and provides for the expansion of all known genetic groups in 
each physiographic province. Therefore, we are not currently proposing 
to designate any areas outside the geographic area occupied by the 
species.
    In preparing this proposed rule, we reviewed and summarized the 
current information available on Georgia rockcress; the information 
used includes known locations, our own site-specific species and 
habitat information, Statewide Geographic Information System (GIS) 
coverages (e.g., soils, geologic formations, and elevation contours), 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service's soil surveys, recent 
biological surveys and reports, peer-reviewed literature, and 
discussions and recommendations from Georgia rockcress experts.
    As discussed below, when determining proposed critical habitat 
boundaries we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such 
as lands covered by water, buildings, pavement, and other structures 
because such lands lack physical or biological features for Georgia 
rockcress. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
    We propose to designate critical habitat on lands that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient 
elements of physical or biological features to support life-history 
processes essential for the conservation of the species. Specifically, 
we are proposing 18 units for designation based on the presence of 
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support 
Georgia rockcress's life-history processes. All of the proposed units 
contain all of the identified elements of physical or biological 
features and support all of the life-history processes, at least in the 
majority of the unit.
    We considered several factors in the selection and proposal of 
specific areas as critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. This 
especially included the protection of populations throughout the 
species' range in Georgia and Alabama. Given the extremely small number 
of total plants (fewer than 5,000 in a given year, 12 of the 18 
populations have fewer than 50 plants (Schotz 2010, p. iii; Elmore 
2010, pp. 1-4; Moffett 2007, pp. 2-7; Alison 1999, pp. 1-5; Alison 
1995, pp. 7-18)), distributed as disjunct populations across five 
physiographic provinces (Schotz 2010, pp. 9-10; Moffett 2007, pp. 2-7; 
Alison 1995, pp. 7-18) in three major river systems with each 
genetically important to the conservation of the species (Garcia 2012, 
pp. 30-36), we consider all of the known populations located on major 
river bluffs to be critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. In order to 
decrease the probability of loss of genetic diversity, extant 
populations need to be distributed across the range of the species and 
across all five physiographic provinces.
    Our approach to delineating specific proposed critical habitat 
units focused first on considering all areas of suitable habitat within 
the geographic distribution of this species and the known locations of 
the extant and historical populations. We evaluated field data 
collected from documented occurrences, various GIS layers, soil 
surveys, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps. 
These data include Georgia rockcress locations, soils, elevation, 
topography, geologic formations, streams, and current land uses.
    In this way, we determined that 18 populations are essential to the 
conservation of Georgia rockcress. We then used site-specific 
information to determine the extent of these populations. The proposed 
critical habitat units were then delineated by screen-digitizing 
polygons (map units) using ArcView, a computer GIS program. We buffered 
known populations to maintain intact habitat that would be resistant to 
invasive species and would provide suitable habitat for expansion of 
the population when appropriate small-scale disturbances occur. Edges 
function as sources of propagules for disturbed habitats and represent 
complex environmental gradients with changes in light availability, 
temperature, humidity, wind speed, and soil moisture, with plant 
species responding directly to environmental changes (Meiners et al. 
1999, p. 261). Edge effects, including canopy break due to timber 
harvest, fields, or maintained rights-of-way, may penetrate from 30 m 
(98 ft) to 175 m (574 ft), resulting in changes in community 
composition. Nonnatives may invade 30 to 120 m (394 ft), with the 
greatest prevalence of nonnatives occurring between 10 meters (33 feet) 
and 30 meters (Honu and Gibson 2006, p. 264; Forman 2002, p. 95; 
Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 21; Meiners et al. 1999, p. 266; Fraver 
1994, p. 830). While Gehlhausen (2000, p. 32), suggesting that a 
protective vegetative buffer strip would eliminate edge effect. Honu 
and Gibson (2006, p. 264) suggested that a buffer of at least 50 m (164 
ft) eliminates most edge effects.
    In selecting an area to include as proposed critical habitat, we 
started from known occurrences and then selected a minimum distance 
needed to capture sufficient bluff habitat to provide opportunities for 
plants to migrate across the bluff habitat to take advantage of 
localized disturbances and to provide a reasonable measure of 
protection from nonnatives. To capture sufficient bluff habitat 
vertically (up and down slope) from the river edge to the top of the 
slope, we buffered known occurrences 76 m (250 ft) up and down slope, 
because we found that this distance captures most of the physical and 
biological features of critical habitat, as well as providing a buffer

[[Page 56511]]

against nonnatives that will at least exclude the high prevalence range 
(area most likely to result in invasion by nonnatives), as described by 
Honu and Gibson (2006, p. 264).
    However, the vertical buffering alone does not provide sufficient 
habitat for plants to migrate across the bluff. Therefore, in the 
lateral direction along the river, we added an additional distance 
around occurrences of up to 305 m (1,000 ft). This buffer captures 
sufficient bluff habitat to provide opportunity for plants to take 
advantage of localized disturbances.
    Based on the known plant distribution, we placed boundaries around 
the populations that included the plants, as well as their primary 
constituent elements. We used UTM zone 16N/North American Datum 1983 
(NAD 83) coordinates to delineate the boundaries of the proposed 
critical habitat. In defining these critical habitat boundaries, we 
made an effort to exclude all developed areas, such as housing 
developments, open areas, rivers (or lakes), and other lands unlikely 
to contain the primary constituent elements essential for the 
conservation of Georgia rockcress. We then evaluated the topography, 
soils, geology, and canopy cover to identify intact habitat that could 
buffer against invasive species and provide habitat for future 
populations. In most cases, habitat that was lacking the primary 
constituent elements was deemed unsuitable and is not included in the 
proposed critical habitat polygon. We removed areas from the proposed 
designated area if they are in the water, had been clear cut, had been 
converted to pasture, had been converted to a road, had a structure 
built on them, or had been used as a quarry. We include utility line 
rights-of-ways because Georgia rockcress will persist in this habitat. 
While the removal of the canopy for a right-of-way makes the habitat 
receptive to nonnatives, the ongoing mowing keeps nonnatives from 
outcompeting Georgia rockcress and allows this species to persist. 
Starting from the polygon or point data of a Georgia rockcress location 
and moving down slope, the proposed critical habitat area generally 
ends at the water's edge.
    The 18 units in this proposed designation include the geographic 
spread of the entire historical range of the species. All proposed 
units contain the primary constituent elements essential for the 
conservation of Georgia rockcress (see ``Primary Constituent Elements 
for Georgia Rockcress,'' above). The omission of historically occupied 
sites and the rest of the currently occupied sites from this proposed 
critical habitat designation does not diminish their individual or 
cumulative importance to the species. Rather, it is our determination 
that the habitat contained within the 18 units included in this 
proposed rule constitutes our best determination of areas essential for 
the conservation, and eventual recovery, of Georgia rockcress. The 18 
units we are proposing as critical habitat encompass approximately 323 
hectares (ha) (786 acres (ac)) in Georgia and Alabama.
    To the extent feasible, we will continue, with the assistance of 
other Federal, State, and private researchers, to conduct surveys, 
research, and conservation actions on the species and its habitat in 
areas that may be designated and not designated as critical habitat. If 
additional information becomes available on the species' biology, 
distribution, and threats, we would evaluate the need to designate 
additional critical habitat, delete or reduce critical habitat, or 
refine the boundaries of critical habitat. If the species is listed 
(see the proposed listing rule, which appears elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register), sites that are occupied by this plant that are not 
being proposed for critical habitat would continue to receive 
protection under the Act's section 7 jeopardy standard where a Federal 
nexus may occur.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    The 18 areas we propose as critical habitat are numbered and 
provided in Table 1 below. All of the proposed areas are occupied. 
Except as noted, all of the units contain all of the PCEs and require 
special management consideration or protection to address the threats 
(see discussion above) and to ensure their contribution to the 
conservation of Georgia rockcress. Unit names were derived from reports 
generated from previous survey efforts (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Moffett 
2007, pp. 5-8; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8; Allison 1995, pp. 18-28), to 
promote continuity with monitoring efforts.

                         TABLE 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Georgia Rockcress
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Unit No.             Unit name           County/State            Ownership          Hectares      Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................  Fort Tombecbee......  Sumter/AL...........  State................            6           14
2..................  Marshalls Bluff.....  Monroe/AL...........  Private..............           11           27
3..................  Prairie Bluff.......  Wilcox/AL...........  Private..............           13           32
4..................  Portland Landing      Dallas/AL...........  Private..............           12           31
                      River Slopes.
5..................  Durant Bend.........  Dallas/AL...........  Private..............           12           28
6..................  Murphys Bluff Bridge  Bibb/AL.............  Private..............           11           26
                      Cahaba River.
7A.................  Creekside Glades....  Bibb/AL.............  Private..............           12           29
7B.................  Little Schulz Creek.  Bibb/AL.............  Private..............           12           28
8A.................  Cottingham Creek      Bibb/AL.............  Private..............           22           55
                      Bluff.
8B.................  Pratts Ferry........  Bibb/AL.............  Private..............           11           28
9A.................  Fern Glade..........  Bibb/AL.............  Federal..............           14           34
9B.................  Sixmile Creek.......  Bibb/AL.............  Private..............           13           21
10A................  Browns Dam Glade      Bibb/AL.............  Private..............           14           35
                      North.
10B................  Browns Dam Glade      Bibb/AL.............  Private..............           15           37
                      South.
11.................  McGuire Ford [bond]   Bibb/AL.............  Private..............            6           15
                      Limestone Park.
12.................  Fort Toulouse State   Elmore/AL...........  State................            7           17
                      Park.
13.................  Fort Gaines Bluff...  Clay/GA.............  Private..............           17           42
14A................  Fort Benning (GA)...  Chattahoochee/GA....  Federal..............           14           35
14B................  Fort Benning (AL)...  Russell/AL..........  Federal..............           11           26
15A................  Goat Rock North.....  Harris/GA...........  Private..............            7           19
15B................  Goat Rock South.....  Harris, Muscogee/GA.  Private..............           24           59
16.................  Blacks Bluff          Floyd/GA............  Private..............           37           92
                      Preserve.
17.................  Whitmore Bluff......  Floyd/GA............  Private..............           17           43

[[Page 56512]]

 
18.................  Resaca Bluffs.......  Gordon/GA...........  Private..............            5           13
                                                                                       -------------------------
    Total..........  ....................  ....................  .....................          323          786
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

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

Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions

    We are proposing a total of 18 critical habitat units for Georgia 
rockcress located in Georgia, including parts of Chattahoochee, Clay, 
Floyd, Gordon, Harris, and Muscogee Counties, and in Alabama, including 
parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Russell, Wilcox, and Sumter 
Counties. Each proposed critical habitat unit contains all of the PCEs 
and can accommodate all of the life stages of this species. In order to 
provide determinable legal descriptions of the critical habitat 
boundaries, we drew polygons around these units, using as criteria the 
plant's primary constituent elements, the known extent of the 
populations, and the elevation contours on the map. We made an effort 
to avoid developed areas that are unlikely to contribute to the 
conservation of Georgia rockcress. Areas within the boundaries of the 
mapped units, such as buildings, roads, clearings, lawns, and other 
urban landscaped areas, do not contain one or more of the primary 
constituent elements. As such, Federal actions limited to these areas 
would not trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act, unless they 
affect the species or its primary constituent elements in the critical 
habitat.
Unit 1. Fort Tombecbee, Sumter County, Alabama
    The 6 ha (14 ac) Fort Tombecbee unit is approximately 0.5 
kilometers (km) (0.3 miles (mi)) northeast of the city of Epes, 
Alabama, and is owned by the University of West Alabama. This Georgia 
rockcress occurrence inhabits the crest and steep slopes of a deeply-
incised stream bank overlooking a small intermittent creek 
approximately 91 m (300 ft) upstream from its confluence with the 
Tombigbee River. Livestock grazing was observed during a visit made in 
May 2010, in a portion of the site where the species was previously 
observed; it is conceivable that livestock may have further impacted 
the occurrence. Only four plants were found in 2010 (Schotz 2010, p. 
51). The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species in this unit may require special management 
considerations or protection to address threats associated with road 
crossings and development.
Unit 2. Marshalls Bluff, Monroe County, Alabama
    The 11-ha (27-ac) Marshall Bluff unit is a privately owned tract 
9.6 km (6 mi) southwest of Perdue Hill, Alabama, on the eastern bank of 
the Alabama River on a high bluff (Marshalls Bluff) overlooking the 
Alabama River. An abandoned quarry exists approximately 150 m (500 ft) 
distant to the east, and while the quarry may have destroyed bluff 
habitat, the quarry currently poses no threat to the occurrence, and 
there are no plans to expand the quarry (Schotz 2010, p. 22). More than 
400 plants were found in 2010. The physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats 
associated with mining.
Unit 3. Prairie Bluff, Wilcox County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the 13-ha (32-ac) Prairie Bluff unit is located 
along the banks of the Millers Ferry (William ``Bill'' Dannelly) 
Reservoir, approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) north of the Lee Long Bridge on 
State Route 28. Georgia rockcress is scattered along the bluffs and 
ravines associated with the Alabama River. Nonnative species, most 
notably Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) and Lonicera japonica 
(Japanese honeysuckle), threaten this site (Alison 1999, p. 2; Schotz 
2010, pp. 54-55). More than 500 plants were found in this unit in 2010; 
however, some habitat was likely inundated by the reservoir. This site 
is slated for residential development with lakeside lots, and the 
infestation of nonnatives will likely become worse. The physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in 
this unit may require special management considerations or protection 
to address threats associated with roads, development, hydropower, and 
nonnative species.
Unit 4. Portland Landing River Slopes, Dallas County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the 12-ha (31-ac) Portland Landing River Slopes 
unit is located 18 km (11.5 mi) south of Orrville, Alabama, on the 
south side of the Alabama River at Portland Landing. This occurrence of 
Georgia rockcress is restricted to the unstable, highly erodible, sandy 
soils along the bank of the Alabama River. Nonnatives most notably 
Melia azedarach (Chinaberry or bead-tree), Japanese honeysuckle, and 
Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu) are present, and although not 
severe, these nonnatives will persist without active management (Schotz 
2010, p. 40). In 2010, 498 Georgia rockcress plants were recorded 
(Schotz 2010, p. 40). The physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species in this unit may require special 
management considerations or protection to address threats associated 
with timber harvest, hydropower, and nonnative species.
Unit 5. Durant Bend, Dallas County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the 12-ha (28-ac) Durant Bend unit occurs 16 km 
(10 mi.) east of Selma in a sharp bend on the Alabama River. Fewer than 
50 plants were reported in sandy alluvium along the Alabama River under 
a partially open to filtered canopy in 2010 (Schotz 2010, p. 37). While 
the majority of plants occur in forested conditions, a small number of 
plants were observed in relatively open and exposed soils of actively 
eroding sections of the riverbank. Nonnatives, including Chinese privet 
and Japanese honeysuckle, are present but not severe. Timber harvesting 
has recently taken place approximately 46 m (150 ft) north of the site, 
but it currently has not impacted species' viability or habitat 
integrity (Schotz 2010, p. 37). The physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats 
associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.

[[Page 56513]]

Unit 6. Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba River, Bibb County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the 11-ha (26-ac) Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba 
River unit is 11.4 km (7 mi) southwest of Centreville, Alabama, and 
located along the west bank of the Cahaba River downstream (southwest) 
of the Murphy Road Bridge. Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and 
other nonnatives are present, but are relatively sparse. Infestation of 
nonnative plants could worsen. Timber harvesting has been observed 
nearby and may pose a potential concern (Schotz 2010, p. 22). Sixteen 
Georgia rockcress plants were found at this location during the 2010 
survey. The physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species in this unit may require special management 
considerations or protection to address threats associated with road 
crossings and nonnative species.
Unit 7A. Creekside Glades, Bibb County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the 12-ha (29-ac) Creekside Glades subunit is 
located 9.6 km (6 mi) north-northeast of Centreville, Alabama, along 
the banks of Little Schultz Creek. Georgia rockcress occurs in 
association with a small dolomite glades complex on either side of 
Little Schultz Creek. The plants (mostly rosettes, i.e., non-
reproductive) predominantly occur in the ecotone of the glades and the 
encompassing woodland, in association with a mix of shrubs and low-
growing trees. A smaller number of individuals (mostly mature) can be 
found in the glades and surrounding woodlands (Alison 1999, p. 2; 
Schotz 2010, p. 30). This subunit contained 42 plants in 2010. A 
utility line right-of-way passes through this subunit, and while there 
is no canopy on the right-of-way, it provides essential supporting 
habitat such that the right-of-way has not been excluded from critical 
habitat. The physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special 
management considerations or protection to address threats associated 
with development and utility right-of-way maintenance.
Unit 7B. Little Schulz Creek, Bibb County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the 12-ha (28-ac) Little Schulz Creek subunit is 
located 8.9 km (5.5 mi) north-northeast of Centreville, Alabama. In 
2010, 29 plants occurred on limestone outcrops along the west bank of 
the Cahaba River. The site is characterized as a bouldery limestone 
woodland situated along a low bluff overlooking the Cahaba River. 
Georgia rockcress inhabits shallow soils associated with the bluff, 
occurring under an open to lightly shaded canopy (Schotz 2010, p. 32). 
This subunit consisted of 29 plants in 2010. The physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
threats associated with development and utility right-of-way 
maintenance.
Unit 8A. Cottingham Creek Bluff and Unit 8B. Pratts Ferry, Bibb County, 
Alabama
    Privately owned, the Cottingham Creek Bluff subunit is located on 
the east side of the Cahaba River, upstream of Pratts Ferry Bridge, 10 
km (6.2 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. The Pratts Ferry subunit 
is located on the west side of the Cahaba River, downstream of Pratts 
Ferry Bridge, 10 km (6.2 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. A small 
portion (26 percent (5.88 ha (14.5 ac)) of the Cottingham Creek Bluff 
subunit is owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). A small number of 
plants are confined to an abandoned limestone quarry several hundred 
feet back from the southeastern side of the river's edge. Chinese 
privet and Japanese honeysuckle impact this site, particularly in the 
vicinity of the abandoned quarry. Nonnatives could become worse. Timber 
harvesting is of potential concern in an area adjacent to the 
population on the west side of the Cahaba River, which was selectively 
logged in the 1990s (Alison 1999, p. 3; Schotz 2010, pp. 34-35). 
Subunit 8A is 22 ha (55 ac), and subunit 8B is 11 ha (28 ac). In 2010, 
these two units together contained 299 Georgia rockcress plants. The 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species in these subunits may require special management considerations 
or protection to address threats associated with road crossings, timber 
harvest, and nonnative species.
Unit 9A. Fern Glade, Bibb County Alabama
    The 14-ha (34-ac) Fern Glade subunit is centered near the 
confluence of the Little Cahaba River and Sixmile Creek approximately 
14.2 km (8.9 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. Twelve percent of 
the Fern Glade subunit (4.2 ha (1.7 ac)) is owned by TNC, and 79 
percent (10.9 ha (27 ac)) of this subunit is part of the Cahaba 
National Wildlife Refuge. A moderate incursion of invasive Chinese 
privet and Japanese honeysuckle occurs at this site. Nonnatives will 
likely become worse (Alison 1999, p. 3; Schotz 2010, p. 26). A small 
glade on the north side of the Little Cahaba River had 81 Georgia 
rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special 
management considerations or protection to address threats associated 
with timber harvest and nonnative species.
Unit 9B. Sixmile Creek, Bibb County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the Sixmile Creek subunit is located 13.7 km (8.5 
mi) northeast of Centreville, 0.8 km (0.5 mi) upstream on Sixmile Creek 
from its confluence with the Little Cahaba River. The majority of this 
subunit (96.6 percent or 8.2 ha (20.3 ac)) is proposed for acquisition 
by TNC in 2013. This population of Georgia rockcress is on the west 
side of Sixmile Creek. In a relatively isolated site, Georgia rockcress 
occupies the upper slope and summit of a steep forested bluff 
overlooking Sixmile Creek. This 13-ha (21 ac) subunit had 59 Georgia 
rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special 
management considerations or protection to address threats associated 
with timber harvest and nonnative species.
Unit 10A. Browns Dam Glade and Unit 10B. Browns Dam Glade 2, Bibb 
County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the Browns Dam Glade subunits are located 15.8 km 
(9.8 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama, on both sides of the Little 
Cahaba River. Subunit 10A is on the north side of the river, and 
subunit 10B is in a sharp bend on the south side of the River. More 
than 96 percent of subunit 10A (13.7 ha (33.8 ac)) and all of subunit 
10B are owned by TNC. A combination of open woodland and dolomitic 
glades characterize the site. An infestation of nonnatives, most 
notably Chinese privet, occurs at this unit. This site serves as a 
primitive recreation area for local residents, resulting in some trash 
disposal and the construction of fire pits (Alison 1999, p. 5; Schotz 
2010, pp. 24-25). Subunits 10A and 10B are 14 ha (35 ac) and 15 ha (37 
ac), respectively. A complex of dolomitic glades and associated 
woodlands along both sides of the Little Cahaba River contained 71 
Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species in these subunits may 
require special management considerations or

[[Page 56514]]

protection to address threats associated with nonnative species.
Unit 11. McGuire Ford/Limestone Park, Bibb County, Alabama
    Privately owned, the McGuire Ford/Limestone Park unit is located 
18.7 km (11.6 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama, on the southeast 
side of the Little Cahaba River. A small number of plants occupy 
shallow soils of low, rocky limestone outcrops along the Little Cahaba 
River under a lightly shaded canopy of eastern red cedar, chinquapin 
oak, white ash, Southern sugar maple, and redbud, among others (Alison 
1999, p. 5; Schotz 2010, p. 20). This 6-ha (15-ac) unit contained 50 
Georgia rockcress plants during the 2010 survey. The physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in 
this unit may require special management considerations or protection 
to address threats associated with roads, development, and maintenance 
of a field.
Unit 12. Fort Toulouse State Park, Elmore County, Alabama
    State-owned, the Fort Toulouse State Park unit is located 16 km (10 
mi) north of Montgomery, Alabama, on the south side of the Coosa River. 
Georgia rockcress is widely scattered along the bluffs overlooking the 
Coosa River, primarily occupying mesic, sandy soils of upper slopes and 
crest. Japanese honeysuckle is beginning to severely impact many areas 
of the site (Alison 1999, p. 2; Schotz 2010, p. 42). This 7-ha (17-ac) 
unit contained 47 Georgia rockcress plants during the 2010 survey. The 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats associated with maintenance of a field 
and nonnative species.
Unit 13. Fort Gaines Bluff, Clay County, Georgia
    Privately owned, the Fort Gaines Bluff unit is located 1.5 km (0.9 
mi) south of Fort Gaines, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River. This 
high, steep, eroding river bank has sandy loam soils and an intact 
hardwood overstory. Japanese honeysuckle has become severe over much of 
area (Alison 1995, pp. 18-29; Moffett 2007, p. 9). This 17-ha (43-ac) 
unit contained 84 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in 
this unit may require special management considerations or protection 
to address threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative 
species.
Unit 14A. Fort Benning (GA), Chattahoochee County, Georgia
    Federally owned, the Fort Benning (GA) subunit is 17.9 km (11.1 mi) 
south of Columbus, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River, near its 
confluence with Oswichee Creek. The plants occupy the bluff and 
associated steep forested slopes along the Chattahoochee River, where 
they inhabit loamy, sandy soils under a partially open to filtered 
canopy of various hardwoods. Japanese honeysuckle is adversely 
affecting this site with an infestation of autumn olive (Elaeagnus 
umbellata) in the woodland habitat on top of the bluff (Alison 1995, 
pp. 19-20; Allison 1999, p. 1; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9; Elmore 2010, pp. 
1-3). Fort Benning has not completed an integrated natural resources 
management plan (INRMP) that addresses this species or its habitat (see 
Exemptions, below, for more details). This 14-ha (35-ac) subunit 
contained more than 850 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in 
this subunit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats associated with nonnative species.
Unit 14B. Fort Benning (AL), Russell County, Alabama
    Federally owned, the Fort Benning (AL) subunit is 21 km (13 mi) 
south of Columbus, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River, across from the 
confluence of Red Mill Creek. An exceptionally vigorous occurrence, the 
site contains the greatest number of plants of any site in Alabama, and 
likely represents one of the highest quality examples known for the 
species rangewide. The plants occupy the bluff and associated steep 
forested slopes along the Chattahoochee River with loamy, sandy soils 
under a partially open to filtered canopy of various hardwoods. 
Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese privet are adversely affecting this 
site (Alison 1999, p. 1; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9; Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3; 
Schotz 2010, pp. 48-49). This 11-ha (26-ac) subunit contained more than 
800 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
threats associated with roads and nonnative species.
Unit 15A. Goat Rock North and Unit 15B. Goat Rock South, Harris and 
Muscogee Counties, Georgia
    Privately owned, the Goat Rock Dam is 18.5 km (11.5 mi) north of 
Columbus Georgia. The Goat Rock North subunit is immediately north of 
Goat Rock Dam on the banks of Goat Rock impoundment, while the Goat 
Rock South subunit is immediately downstream of Goat Rock Dam along the 
high bluffs overlooking the Chattahoochee River. All of Goat Rock North 
subunit and the majority of the Goat Rock South subunit are owned by a 
cooperation that supports conservation efforts for Georgia rockcress. 
The corporately owned property is provided modest protection in the 
shoreline management plan, which was developed during Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing (FERC 2004, pp.29-30). However, 
the southernmost portion of the Goat Rock South subunit is privately 
owned. This high rocky bluff is mostly covered by a mature canopy of 
trees. A narrow portion of this habitat has a transmission line passing 
over the top where all woody species have been removed; however, 
Georgia rockcress plants are scattered in the transmission line right-
of-way. This area contains PCEs 1 and 2. Nonnative species, including 
Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle, have severely impacted this 
site (Alison 1995, pp. 24-27; Moffett 2007, pp. 6-9). Conservation 
actions here have included invasive species/woody competition removal 
(both manually and chemically) to benefit existing Georgia rockcress 
plants, and prescribed burning to open up new adjacent sites for 
outplanting enhancement. The Chattahoochee Nature Center (CNC) 
outplanted approximately 300 Georgia rockcress plants of the Goat Rock 
genotype at this site in 2008. The local office of TNC has also 
expressed interest in possibly including this site in their long-range 
ecosystem planning (Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). Subunits 15A and 15 B are 7 
ha (19 ac) and 24 ha (59 ac), respectively. In 2007, approximately 
1,000 Georgia rockcress plants were found scattered across these 
subunits. The physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species in these subunits may require special 
management considerations or protection to address threats associated 
with hydropower, utility line maintenance, and nonnative species.
Unit 16. Blacks Bluff Preserve, Floyd County, Georgia
    Privately owned, the 37 ha (92 ac) Blacks Bluff Preserve unit is 
located 6.5

[[Page 56515]]

km (4.0 mi) southwest of Rome, Georgia, on the Coosa River. Blacks 
Bluff is in private ownership with a conservation easement on the 
property. There were 27 Georgia rockcress plants reported on this site 
in 1995; however, the presence of nonnative species has since 
extirpated all Georgia rockcress from this site. The Georgia Plant 
Conservation Alliance (GPCA) and TNC agreed to bolster the existing 
population with plants grown from seed collected at the two nearby 
(Ridge and Valley physiographic province) populations, Whitmore Bluff, 
and Resaca Bluffs. The CNC collected seed and grew 35 plants from 
Whitmore Bluff and 65 plants from Resaca Bluffs. In 2008, 100 Georgia 
rockcress plants were planted in this unit, with 84 Georgia rockcress 
surveyed on this site in 2011 (Goldstrohm 2011, p. 1). This steep bluff 
with limestone ledges and boulders has a mature deciduous canopy. 
Multiple sources of disturbance, including an abandoned quarry, have 
impacted this site and resulted in the establishment of many nonnative 
species, including Japanese honeysuckle and Nepalese browntop (Alison 
1995, pp. 19-20; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9; Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). The 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protection to address threats associated with roads, mining, and 
nonnative species.
Unit 17. Whitmore Bluff, Floyd County, Georgia
    Privately owned, the 17-ha (43-ac) Whitmore Bluff unit is located 
6.5 km (4 mi) northeast of Rome, Georgia, on the east bank of the 
Oostanaula River. This steep bluff with limestone boulders has a mature 
canopy with Ulmus alata (winged elm), Quercus montana (chestnut oak), 
and Fraxinus americana (white ash), and an understory including 
Hydrangea arborescens (wild hydrangea), Toxicodendron radicans (poison 
ivy), and Sedum ternatum (woodland stonecrop). Japanese honeysuckle has 
severely impacted this site (Alison 1995, p. 21; Moffett 2007, pp. 6-9; 
Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). Sixty-three rockcress plants were documented in 
this unit in 1995, but only 12 in 2010. The physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may 
require special management considerations or protection to address 
threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.
Unit 18. Resaca Bluffs, Gordon County, Georgia
    Privately owned, the 5-ha (13-ac) Resaca Bluffs unit is located 0.8 
km (0.5 mi) southwest of Resaca, Georgia, immediately east of I-75 
along the northern bank of the Oostanaula River. A rocky limestone 
bluff with a mature canopy, including eastern red cedar, Quercus nigra 
(water oak), Quercus velutina (black oak), winged elm, white ash, 
southern sugar maple, and redbud. Nonnative species, including Chinese 
privet and Japanese honeysuckle, have severely impacted this site 
(Alison 1995, pp. 22-23; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9; Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). 
This unit contained 51 plants in 1995, and 42 in 2010. The physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in 
this unit may require special management considerations or protection 
to address threats associated with road crossings, development, and 
nonnative species.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001)), 
and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether 
an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
Under the provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse 
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the 
proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue 
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect or are 
likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.

[[Page 56516]]

    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. As 
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the Georgia rockcress. These activities include, but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter the canopy. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, silvicultural 
management, construction of utility lines, creation of pasture or 
maintained lawn, construction of buildings, and construction of roads 
or bridges. Invasive species should be precluded from the critical 
habitat units. A mature canopy on the bluffs and a surrounding buffer 
area will help to preclude nonnative and invasive species. Activities 
that alter the canopy could alter the natural canopy gap dynamic that 
provides Georgia rockcress a competitive advantage and result in direct 
or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life 
cycles.
    (2) Actions that would inundate habitat. Construction of a dam 
downstream of a critical habitat unit could result in the loss of 
habitat. These activities could alter the functioning bluff habitat and 
result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and 
their life cycles.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter the soil. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, construction of roads 
or bridges, construction of buildings (e.g., dams, residential housing, 
or commercial buildings), and mining activities. These activities would 
permanently alter the soil that Georgia rockcress is dependent on to 
complete its life cycle.

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
requires each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned 
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, 
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan 
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to 
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for Georgia rockcress to 
determine if the lands are exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. In 
2001, Fort Benning completed its Service-approved INRMP. The 
installation is currently revising its INRMP to include specific 
measures for the Georgia rockcress and its habitat. The revised INRMP 
is expected by July 2014. Therefore, we are notifying the public that 
this area is being considered for an exemption from the final 
designation based on the revised approved INRMP.

Exclusions

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify 
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the 
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate 
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. 
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, the

[[Page 56517]]

Secretary may exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such 
exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species.
Economic Analysis
    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 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 https://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Ecological Services Office in 
Athens, Georgia, directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). During 
the development of a final designation, we will consider economic 
impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas may be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this 
proposal, we are considering exemption of lands owned and managed by 
the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on 
national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not intend to 
exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation 
based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the 
landowners have developed any habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or 
other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation 
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion 
from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and 
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States 
with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might 
occur because of the designation.
    We consider a current land management or conservation plan (HCPs as 
well as other types) to provide adequate management or protection if it 
meets the following criteria:
    (1) The plan is complete and provides a conservation benefit for 
the species and its habitat;
    (2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the 
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or 
regulations; and
    (3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures 
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
    We are unaware of any plans meeting these criteria; however, we 
request public comment related to existing plans. At this time, we are 
not considering the exclusion of any areas from the proposed critical 
habitat for Georgia rockcress.

Peer Review

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

Public Hearings

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

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

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

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include such businesses as

[[Page 56518]]

manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, 
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and 
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general 
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in 
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 
million in annual business, and forestry and logging operations with 
fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than $7 million. To 
determine whether small entities may be affected, we will consider the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both 
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under 
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are 
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify. 
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be 
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial, 
the Service may also certify.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, 
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential 
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated 
by the rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly 
affected entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency is not 
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal 
action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory 
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by 
critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our 
position that only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated 
by this designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small 
entities, the Service certifies that the proposed critical habitat 
rule, if adopted as proposed, would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In conclusion, based on our interpretation of directly regulated 
entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this designation of 
critical habitat, if adopted as proposed, would only directly regulate 
Federal agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. 
As such, we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical 
habitat will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily 
required by the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal 
we will consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties 
that may be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies 
related to this action.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. Two proposed subunits, 7A (Creekside Glades) and 15B 
(Goat Rock South), have major transmission lines passing through them. 
However, we do not expect the designation of this proposed critical 
habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
The regular mowing and maintenance of these subunits will not destroy 
existing populations of Georgia rockcress at these sites. In fact, 
nonnative species will persist in these subunits, but regular mowing 
will prevent nonnatives from overtopping and out-competing Georgia 
rockcress. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, 
and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will 
further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and 
review and revise this assessment as warranted.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The government-owned lands being 
proposed as critical habitat are owned by the State of Alabama, the 
Department of Defense, and the Department of the Interior. None of 
these government entities meets

[[Page 56519]]

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 Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), 
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating 
critical habitat for Georgia rockcress in a takings implications 
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this 
designation of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress does not pose 
significant takings implications. However, we will further evaluate 
this issue as we develop our final designation, and review and revise 
this assessment as warranted.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this 
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A 
federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with 
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this 
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource 
agencies in Alabama and Georgia. We are not currently proposing any 
unoccupied areas. The designation of critical habitat in areas 
currently occupied by the Georgia rockcress would impose no additional 
restrictions to those that would be put in place by listing the species 
and, therefore, would have little incremental impact on State and local 
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit 
to these governments because the areas that contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species are 
more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat 
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically 
identified. This information does not alter where and what federally 
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for 
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

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

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

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

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in connection with designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

Clarity of the Rule

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

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2013-0030 and upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ecological 
Services Office in

[[Page 56520]]

Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rulemaking are the staff 
members of the Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia.

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]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Arabis 
georgiana (Georgia rockcress)'' in alphabetical order under Family 
Brassicaceae, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Brassicaceae: Arabis Georgiana (Georgia Rockcress)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted in Georgia, including 
Chattahoochee, Clay, Gordon, Floyd, Harris, and Muscogee Counties, and 
in Alabama, including Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Russell, Sumter, 
and Wilcox Counties, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Arabis 
georgiana (Georgia rockcress) consist of four components:
    (i) Large river bluffs with steep and/or shallow soils that are 
subject to localized disturbances that limit the accumulation of leaf 
litter and competition within the Lower Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper Gulf 
Coastal Plain, Red Hills, Black Belt, Piedmont, and Ridge and Valley 
Physiographic Provinces of Georgia and Alabama.
    (ii) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral 
generally within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by granite, 
sandstone, or limestone.
    (iii) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity, 
providing mottled shade and often including species such as Juniperus 
virginiana (eastern red cedar), Ostrya virginiana (American 
hophornbeam), Quercus muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak), Fraxinus 
americana (white ash), Acer barbatum (southern sugar maple), and Cercis 
canadensis (eastern redbud) with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs 
characterizing the herb layer.
    (iv) Intact habitat with mature canopy and discrete disturbances, 
buffered by surrounding habitat to impede the invasion of competitors.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining critical 
habitat map units were created using GIS shapefiles of Natural Heritage 
Element Occurrence (EO) data for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress) 
locations that were provided by the Alabama Department of Conservation 
and Natural Resources and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 
and 1-meter resolution National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) 
images from 2009. Each EO feature was buffered by 76 m (250 ft) up and 
down slope and 304.8 m (1,000 ft) laterally. The 76-m (250-ft) buffer 
was used as a guideline for delineating critical habitat upslope and 
downslope of the EO feature, with the downslope direction extending 76 
m (250 ft) or to the edge of the water, whichever was shorter. The 
304.8-m (1,000-ft) buffer was used a guideline for delineating critical 
habitat adjacent to the EO features along the length of the river. The 
critical habitat polygons were manually drawn using a mouse on a 
computer screen by visually checking for PCEs within the buffer areas 
against 2009 NAIP imagery. The critical habitat polygons were then 
viewed over the ArcGIS basemap Bing Aerial Imagery as an additional 
assessment tool for the placement of the critical habitat polygon 
boundaries. Critical habitat units were mapped using Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM), zone 16N. The maps in this entry, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries 
of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or 
both on which each map is based are available to the public at the 
Service's Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/athens/, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030, and at the 
Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia. You may obtain field 
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional 
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index maps of critical habitat units for Arabis georgiana 
(Georgia rockcress) follow:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 56521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.021


[[Page 56522]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.022


[[Page 56523]]


    (6) Unit 1: Fort Tombecbee, Sumter County, Alabama. Map of Unit 1 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.023


[[Page 56524]]


    (7) Unit 2: Marshalls Bluff, Monroe County, Alabama. Map of Unit 2 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.024


[[Page 56525]]


    (8) Unit 3: Prairie Bluff, Wilcox County, Alabama. Map of Unit 3 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.025


[[Page 56526]]


    (9) Unit 4: Portland Landing River Slopes, Dallas County, Alabama. 
Map of Unit 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.026


[[Page 56527]]


    (10) Unit 5: Durant Bend, Dallas County, Alabama. Map of Unit 5 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.027


[[Page 56528]]


    (11) Unit 6: Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba River, Bibb County, 
Alabama. Map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.028


[[Page 56529]]


    (12) Unit 7, Bibb County, Alabama.
    (i) Subunit 7A: Creekside Glades.
    (ii) Subunit 7B: Little Schultz Creek.
    (iii) Map of Subunits 7A and 7B follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.029
    

[[Page 56530]]


    (13) Unit 7B: Little Schultz Creek, Bibb County, Alabama. Map of 
Subunits 7A and 7B is provided in paragraph (12) of this entry.
    (14) Unit 8, Bibb County, Alabama.
    (i) Subunit 8A: Cottingham Creek Bluff.
    (ii) Subunit 8B: Pratts Ferry.
    (iii) Map of Subunits 8A and 8B follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.030
    

[[Page 56531]]


    (15) Unit 9, Bibb County, Alabama.
    (i) Subunit 9A: Fern Glade.
    (ii) Subunit 9B: Sixmile Creek.
    (iii) Map of Subunits 9A and 9B follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.031
    

[[Page 56532]]


    (16) Unit 10, Bibb County, Alabama.
    (i) Subunit 10A: Browns Dam Glade North.
    (ii) Subunit 10B: Browns Dam Glade South.
    (iii) Map of Subunits 10A and 10B follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.032
    

[[Page 56533]]


    (17) Unit 11: McGuire Ford/Limestone Park, Bibb County, Alabama. 
Map of Unit 11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.033


[[Page 56534]]


    (18) Unit 12: Fort Toulouse State Park, Elmore County, Alabama. Map 
of Unit 12 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.034


[[Page 56535]]


    (19) Unit 13: Fort Gaines Bluff, Clay County, Georgia. Map of Unit 
13 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.035


[[Page 56536]]


    (20) Unit 14, Chattahoochee County, Georgia, and Russell County, 
Alabama.
    (i) Subunit 14A: Fort Benning Georgia.
    (ii) Subunit 14B: Fort Benning Alabama.
    (iii) Map of Subunits 14A and 14B follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.036
    

[[Page 56537]]


    (21) Unit 15, Harris and Muscogee Counties, Georgia.
    (i) Subunit 15A: Goat Rock North.
    (ii) Subunit 15B: Goat Rock South.
    (iii) Map of Subunits 15A and 15B follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.037
    

[[Page 56538]]


    (22) Unit 16: Blacks Bluff Preserve, Floyd County, Georgia. Map of 
Unit 16 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.038


[[Page 56539]]


    (23) Unit 17: Whitmore Bluff, Floyd County, Georgia. Map of Unit 17 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.039


[[Page 56540]]


    (24) Unit 18: Resaca Bluffs, Gordon County, Georgia. Map of Unit 18 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE13.040

* * * * *

    Dated: September 3, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-22128 Filed 9-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C