Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Georgia Rockcress, 54635-54667 [2014-21380]
Download as PDF
54635
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act need
not be prepared in connection with
listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
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.
This species is not currently known to
occur on tribal lands.
Services Office in Athens, Georgia (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
References Cited
■
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
A complete list of all references cited
in this rule is available on the Internet
at https://www.regulations.gov or upon
request from the Field Supervisor,
Ecological Services Office in Athens,
Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authors
§ 17.12
*
*
(h) * * *
Status
Historic
range
Family
Common name
Scientific name
Endangered and threatened plants.
*
When
listed
The primary authors of this rule are
the staff members of the Ecological
Species
2. Amend § 17.12(h) by adding an
entry for ‘‘Arabis georgiana’’ to the List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants in
alphabetical order under Flowering
Plants, to read as follows:
■
*
Georgia rockcress ..
*
U.S.A. (GA, AL) ......
*
Brassicaceae ..........
*
*
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
FLOWERING PLANTS
*
Arabis georgiana .....
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–21394 Filed 9–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0030;
4500030113]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
RIN 1018–AZ55
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Georgia Rockcress
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
*
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, designate critical
habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia
rockcress) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
In total, we are designating
approximately 297 hectares (732 acres)
of riparian, river bluff habitat in
Georgia, including parts of Gordon,
Floyd, Harris, Muscogee, and Clay
Counties, and in Alabama, including
parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, Monroe,
Sumter, and Wilcox Counties, as critical
habitat for this species.
DATES: This rule is effective October 14,
2014.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and https://
www.fws.gov/athens/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as some
supporting documentation we used in
preparing this final rule, are available
for public inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov. All of the
comments, materials, and
SUMMARY:
Dated: August 29, 2014.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
*
849
*
*
*
T
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
17.96(a)
NA
*
documentation that we considered in
this rulemaking are available by
appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Georgia Ecological Services Office, 105
Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA
30606; telephone 706–613–9493;
facsimile 706–613–6059.
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.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0030, at https://
www.fws.gov/athens/, 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.
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
54636
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Don
Imm, 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 final
rule.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, when we determine that any
species is an endangered or threatened
species, we must designate critical
habitat, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. Designations of
critical habitat can only be completed
by issuing a rule in the Federal Register.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
In total, we are designating 17 critical
habitat units with approximately 297
hectares (732 acres) of riparian, river
bluff habitat for the species. Five critical
habitat units are located in Georgia,
including parts of Gordon, Floyd,
Harris, Muscogee, and Clay Counties,
and 12 critical habitat units in Alabama,
including parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore,
Monroe, 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 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.
Elsewhere in this Federal Register,
we publish a final rule listing the
species as a threatened species under
the Act.
We have prepared an economic
analysis of the designation of critical
habitat. We have prepared an analysis
of the economic impacts of the critical
habitat designation and related factors.
We announced the availability of the
draft economic analysis (DEA) in the
Federal Register on May 9, 2014 (79 FR
26679), allowing the public to provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
comments on our analysis. We address
the comments in this final designation.
Peer review and public comment. We
sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our
designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. Specifically,
we obtained opinions from three
knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise to review our
technical assumptions and analysis, and
whether or not we used the best
available information. These peer
reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions, and provided
additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve this final
rule. Information we received from peer
review is incorporated into this final
designation. We also considered all
comments and information received
from the public during the comment
period, and we held a public hearing on
May 28, 2014.
letter of support from the State of
Georgia.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing
rule for the Georgia rockcress (78 FR
56192, September 12, 2013) for a
detailed description of previous Federal
actions concerning this species.
Summary of Changes From Proposed
Rule
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We requested written comments from
the public on the proposed designation
of critical habitat for the Georgia
rockcress during two comment periods.
The first comment period opened with
the publication of the proposed rule (78
FR 56506) on September 12, 2013, and
closed on November 12, 2013. The
second comment period, during which
we requested (79 FR 26679) comments
on the proposed critical habitat
designation and associated draft
economic analysis (DEA), opened May
9, 2014, and closed on June 9, 2014. We
received no comments during a public
hearing in Columbus, Georgia, on May
28, 2014. We also contacted appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies;
scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to
comment on the proposed rule and
DEA.
During the first comment period, we
received one comment letter from the
public addressing the proposed critical
habitat designation. During the second
comment period, we received one
comment letter from the public
addressing the proposed critical habitat
designation. Comments received from
the public stated opinions that were not
focused on the issue. No substantive
comments were received on this rule
from the public in either of the
comment periods. We also received a
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions
from three knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species
occurs, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from
all three of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received
from the peer reviewers for substantive
issues and new information regarding
critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress.
The peer reviewers generally concurred
with our methods and conclusions.
They provided only editorial comments,
which are incorporated into the final
rule as appropriate.
In August 2014, Fort Benning, in
which proposed critical habitat units
14A and 14B are located, completed a
revision to its integrated natural
resources management plan (INRMP),
which includes specific measures for
the Georgia rockcress and its habitat. We
determine that the revised INRMP
provides a benefit to the species.
Pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), lands covered by
the revised INRMP are exempt from the
final designation. We have exempted
Units 14A Fort Benning (GA) and 14B
Fort Benning (AL) from this final
designation of critical habitat.
Additionally, we have made
corrections to acreages and unit
numbers in the proposed rule. In the
proposed rule, we listed Unit 7A as
having 12 hectares (ha) (29 acres (ac))
and Unit 9B as having 13 ha (21 ac), and
the total area of designated critical
habitat was 323 ha (786 ac). The
corrected numbers are 11 ha (26 ac) for
Unit 7A and 13 ha (32 ac) for Unit 9B;
with the exemption of Units 14A and
14B (25 ha (61 ac)), the total area of
critical habitat is 297 ha (732 ac).
Furthermore, due to the exemption of
the Fort Benning units from the critical
habitat designation, the remaining units
have been renumbered in the final rule
as Units 1 through 17 by shifting some
of them up one number (i.e., 15A
became 14A, 15B became 14B, and so
forth). The revised unit numbers and
their descriptions can be found in the
Final Critical Habitat Designation
section later in this rule.
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features 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 those specific
elements of the physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. 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 geographical area occupied
by a species only when a designation
limited to its range would be inadequate
to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54637
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological
assessments, other unpublished
materials, or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, 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 insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) section 9
of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including
taking caused by actions that affect
habitat. Federally funded or permitted
projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas
may still result in jeopardy findings in
some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations
made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or
other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
54638
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing to designate as critical habitat,
we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require
special management considerations or
protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or
biological features required for Georgia
rockcress from studies of this species’
habitat, ecology, and life history, as
described below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 drymesic to mesic soils of open, rocky,
woodland and forested slopes,
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 specialized
soil conditions result in micro-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 (Allison 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 (Allison
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, mixedlevel 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 smallscale 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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 (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 the
Georgia rockcress
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, 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. Primary
constituent elements are those specific
elements of the physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species.
The 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.
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(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 that is fully
functional (i.e., with mature canopy and
discrete disturbances) and 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
should be eliminated from the critical
habitat units. A mature canopy on the
bluffs and a surrounding buffer area will
help to exclude nonnatives.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
For the Georgia rockcress, we are not
designating any areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species because occupied areas are
sufficient for the conservation of the
species. The 17 critical habitat units
capture populations across the known
range of the species, providing
conservation in six 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.
In preparing this 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 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 final rule have been
54639
excluded by text in the final rule and
are not designated as critical habitat.
Therefore, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7
consultation with respect to critical
habitat and the requirement of no
adverse modification unless the specific
action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is
defined by the maps, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, presented
at the end of this document in the
Regulation Promulgation section. We
include more detailed information on
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this rule.
We will make the coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is
based available to the public on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0030, on our
Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/
athens/, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 17 units as critical
habitat for Georgia rockcress. As
described below, the critical habitat
areas constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for Georgia
rockcress. All of the designated 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. Goat Rock Dam (Unit
14 A/B) provides the highest
conservation value to the overall
designation, having the largest
population outside of Ft. Benning. The
other units provide the representation
and redundancy needed to support
viability of the species across six
physiographic provinces and multiple
river basins.
TABLE 1—FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR GEORGIA ROCKCRESS
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
Unit #
Unit name
County/State
Ownership
1 ...................
2 ...................
3 ...................
Fort Tombecbee ......................................
Marshalls Bluff .........................................
Prairie Bluff ..............................................
Sumter/AL ..................................
Monroe/AL ..................................
Wilcox/AL ...................................
State .......................
Private ....................
Private ....................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Hectares
6
11
13
Acres
14
27
32
54640
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR GEORGIA ROCKCRESS—Continued
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
Unit #
Unit name
County/State
Ownership
Hectares
Acres
4 ...................
5 ...................
6 ...................
7A .................
7B .................
8A .................
8B .................
9A .................
9B .................
10A ...............
10B ...............
11 .................
12 .................
13 .................
14A ...............
14B ...............
15 .................
16 .................
17 .................
Portland Landing River Slopes ...............
Durant Bend ............................................
Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba River .......
Creekside Glades ....................................
Little Schulz Creek ..................................
Cottingham Creek Bluff ...........................
Pratts Ferry ..............................................
Fern Glade ..............................................
Sixmile Creek ..........................................
Browns Dam Glade North .......................
Browns Dam Glade South ......................
McGuire Ford √ Limestone Park .............
Fort Toulouse State Park ........................
Fort Gaines Bluff .....................................
Goat Rock North .....................................
Goat Rock South .....................................
Blacks Bluff Preserve ..............................
Whitmore Bluff .........................................
Resaca Bluffs ..........................................
Dallas/AL ....................................
Dallas/AL ....................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Bibb/AL .......................................
Elmore/AL ...................................
Clay/GA ......................................
Harris/GA ....................................
Harris, Muscogee/GA .................
Floyd/GA ....................................
Floyd/GA ....................................
Gordon/GA .................................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Federal ...................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
State .......................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
Private ....................
12
12
11
11
12
22
11
14
13
14
15
6
7
17
7
24
37
17
5
31
28
26
26
28
55
28
34
31
35
37
15
17
42
19
59
92
43
13
Total ......
..................................................................
.....................................................
.................................
297
732
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions
We are designating a total of 17
critical habitat units for Georgia
rockcress located in Georgia, including
parts of Clay, Floyd, Gordon, Harris, and
Muscogee Counties, and in Alabama,
including parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore,
Monroe, Wilcox, and Sumter Counties.
In order to provide definite 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.
However, some 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. Accordingly,
Federal actions limited to these areas
would not trigger consultation under
section 7 of the Act, unless they
otherwise 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
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,
development and potentially grazing.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 (Allison
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
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
with road crossings and nonnative
species.
Unit 7A. Creekside Glades, Bibb County,
Alabama
Privately owned, the 11-ha (26-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 (Allison 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-ofway 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-ofway 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-ofway 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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54641
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 (Allison 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 subunits
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
(Allison 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)) was acquired
by TNC in 2013. This population of
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
54642
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 (31-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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Unit 10A. Browns Dam Glade North and
Unit 10B. Browns Dam Glade South,
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
(Allison 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
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
(Allison 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
protection to address threats associated
with roads, development, and
maintenance of a pasture.
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 (Allison
1999, p. 2; Schotz 2010, p. 42). This 7ha (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 recreational 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 (Allison 1995,
pp. 18–29; Moffett 2007, p. 9). This 17ha (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. Goat Rock North and Unit
14B. 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 corporation 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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; therefore, it is included
in the final designation. Nonnative
species, including Chinese privet and
Japanese honeysuckle, have severely
impacted this site (Allison 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 14A and 14B are 7 ha (19
ac) and 24 ha (59 ac), respectively, and
contain two or more of the PCEs
throughout the subunits. 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 15. Blacks Bluff Preserve, Floyd
County, Georgia
Privately owned, the 37-ha (92-ac)
Blacks Bluff Preserve unit is located 6.5
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
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 (Allison 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Unit 16. Whitmore Bluff, Floyd County,
Georgia
Privately owned, the 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 (Allison
1995, p. 21; Moffett 2007, pp. 6–9;
Elmore 2010, pp. 1–3). This 17-ha (43ac) unit contained 63 Georgia rockcress
plants 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 17. Resaca Bluffs, Gordon County,
Georgia
Privately owned, the 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.
This unit includes 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 (Allison 1995, pp. 22–23;
Moffett 2007, pp. 5–9; Elmore 2010, pp.
1–3). This 5-ha (13-ac) 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54643
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect or are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
54644
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 lifehistory 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
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
requires each military installation that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 has revised its INRMP to
include specific measures for the
Georgia rockcress and its habitat,
including monitoring and management
for the Georgia rockcress including:
Management of feral swine, limiting
timber harvest within 200 feet of
Georgia rockcress populations,
monitoring of known Georgia rockcress
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
populations and surveys for new
populations, and monitoring and
control of invasive species. The revised
INRMP became effective August 2014.
In accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act, we have determined that the
lands within Fort Benning that were
originally proposed for critical habitat
are subject to the Fort Benning INRMP
and that conservation efforts identified
in the INRMP will provide a benefit to
Georgia rockcress. Therefore, lands
within this installation are exempt from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 25 ha (61 ac) of
habitat in this final critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
As described in the proposed critical
habitat rule, these lands are located in
Chattahoochee County, Georgia, and
Russell County, Alabama, south of
Columbus, Georgia, on the
Chattahoochee River near its confluence
with Oswichee Creek and across from
its confluence with Red Mill Creek.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if she determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless she
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.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) and
screening analysis which together with
our narrative and interpretation of
effects we consider our draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical
habitat designation and related factors
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013;
Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014). The
analysis, dated April 8, 2014, was made
available for public review from May 29,
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
2014, through June 9, 2014, and a
summary of the findings were provided
on https://www.regulations.gov from May
9, 2014, to June 9, 2014 (79 FR 26679).
The DEA addressed potential economic
impacts of critical habitat designation
for Georgia rockcress. Following the
close of the comment period, we
reviewed and evaluated all information
submitted during the comment period
that may pertain to our consideration of
the probable incremental economic
impacts of this critical habitat
designation. Additional information
relevant to the probable incremental
economic impacts of critical habitat
designation for the Georgia rockcress is
summarized below and available in the
screening analysis for the Georgia
rockcress, available at https://
www.regulations.gov.
In our DEA, we concluded that
section 7-related costs of designating
critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress
are likely to be limited to additional
administrative effort to consider
possible adverse effects to critical
habitat during consultation. This
finding is based on several factors,
including:
1. Project modifications requested to
avoid adverse modification are likely to
be the same as those needed to avoid
jeopardy in occupied habitat; and
2. All units are considered occupied
by the plant, providing significant
baseline protection.
The number of future consultations is
expected to be at most five in a given
year. Unit costs of the administrative
effort necessary to address adverse
modification of critical habitat during
section 7 consultation is estimated to
range from approximately $400 to
$9,000 (2014 dollars, total incremental
costs for all parties participating in a
single consultation). Thus, the annual
administrative burden due solely to the
critical habitat designation is unlikely to
reach $100 million. Given the estimates
in the screening analysis for the Georgia
rockcress, predictions are that costs are
unlikely to exceed $45,000 in a given
year (2014 dollars). This is essentially
the upper end of the cost for section 7
consultations and is the cost attributable
to just the critical habitat.
In other words, the incremental
administrative burden resulting from
the designation of critical habitat for the
Georgia rockcress is unlikely to reach
$100 million in a given year based on
the small number of anticipated
consultations and per-consultation
costs. Furthermore, the designation is
unlikely to trigger additional
requirements under State or local
regulations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Our economic analysis did not
identify any disproportionate costs that
are likely to result from the designation.
Consequently, the Secretary is not
exercising her discretion to exclude any
areas from this designation of critical
habitat for the Georgia rockcress based
on economic impacts.
A copy of the IEM and screening
analysis with supporting documents
may be obtained by contacting the
Georgia Ecological Services Office (see
ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts or Homeland Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
final rule, we have exempted from the
designation of critical habitat those
Department of Defense lands with
completed INRMPs determined to
provide a benefit to the Georgia
rockcress. We have also determined that
the remaining lands within the
designation of critical habitat for the
species are not owned or managed by
the Department of Defense or
Department of Homeland Security, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on
national security or homeland security.
Consequently, the Secretary is not
exercising her discretion to exclude any
areas from this final designation based
on impacts on national security or
homeland 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.
In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that there are currently no
HCPs or other management plans for the
Georgia rockcress, and the final
designation does not include any tribal
lands or trust resources, and so we
anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54645
partnerships, or HCPs from this critical
habitat designation. Accordingly, the
Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this
final designation based on other
relevant impacts.
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 (SBREFA) of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (i.e. small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations, such as
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
54646
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation, as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firms’ business
operations.
The Service’s current understanding
of the requirements under the RFA, as
amended, and following recent court
decisions, is that Federal agencies are
only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on
those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, not
required to evaluate the potential
impacts to indirectly regulated entities.
The regulatory mechanism through
which critical habitat protections are
realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or
carried by the agency is not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only
Federal action agencies are directly
subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and
adverse modification) imposed by
critical habitat designation.
Consequently, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies will be
directly regulated by this designation.
There is no requirement under RFA to
evaluate the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover,
Federal agencies are not small entities.
Therefore, because no small entities are
directly regulated by this rulemaking,
the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
We did not receive any substantive
comments pertaining to our
consideration of the probable
incremental economic impacts of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
critical habitat designation. Therefore,
we affirm our certification that this
designation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 13211;
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’) on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements
of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided
guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a
significant adverse effect’’ when
compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration. The
economic analysis finds that none of
these criteria are relevant to this
analysis. Thus, based on information in
the draft economic analysis, energyrelated impacts associated with Georgia
rockcress conservation activities within
critical habitat are not expected. As
such, the designation of critical habitat
is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
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 will 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
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘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 nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The governmentowned lands being designated as critical
habitat are owned by the State of
Alabama and the Department of the
Interior. None of these government
entities meets the definition of ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ Therefore, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not
required.
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
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
habitat for Georgia rockcress in a takings
implications assessment. The economic
cost of implementing the rule through
section 7 of the Act will most likely be
limited to additional administrative
effort to consider adverse modification
during consultations. According to a
review of consultation records and
discussions with multiple Service field
offices, the additional administrative
cost of addressing adverse modification
during the section 7 consultation
process ranges from approximately $400
to $9,000 per consultation (2014
dollars). Based on the project activity
identified by relevant action agencies,
the number of future consultations is
likely to be less than five consultations
per year. Thus, the incremental
administrative burden resulting from
the rule is unlikely to reach $100
million in a given year, and given the
economic analysis we have determined
that there are no additional takings
implications. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for
Georgia rockcress does not pose
significant takings implications.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order
13132 (Federalism), this 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
critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in
Alabama and Georgia. We are not
designating any unoccupied areas. The
designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by the Georgia
rockcress will impose no additional
restrictions to those that will be put in
place by listing the species and,
therefore, will 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 caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) will 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
The Department, in promulgating this
rule, has determined that this rule will
not unduly burden the judicial system
and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988. We are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. To assist the
public in understanding the habitat
needs of the species, the rule identifies
the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Georgia rockcress. The designated
areas of critical habitat are presented on
maps, and the rule provides several
options for the interested public to
obtain more detailed location
information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain 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, 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)).
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54647
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. Therefore,
we are not designating critical habitat
for the Georgia rockcress on tribal lands.
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
Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final
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.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
54648
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
2. In § 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Arabis georgiana
(Georgia rockcress)’’ in alphabetical
order under Family Brassicaceae, to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.96
Critical habitat—plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
*
*
*
*
*
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Family Brassicaceae: Arabis georgiana
(Georgia Rockcress)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
in Georgia, including Clay, Gordon,
Floyd, Harris, and Muscogee Counties,
and in Alabama, including Bibb, Dallas,
Elmore, Monroe, Sumter, and Wilcox
Counties, on the maps in this entry.
(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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
(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 that is fully
functional (i.e., with mature canopy and
discrete disturbances) and 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 October 14, 2014.
(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 meters (m)
(250 feet (ft)) up and down slope and
304.8 m (1,000 ft) laterally. The 76-m
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(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.
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
54649
(5) Index maps of critical habitat units
for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
follow:
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Georgia rockcress Critical Habitat Units, Alabama
Location Index
0
30
60
90
120
--==:=:~--===:::~Kilometers
0
25
50
75
100
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.008
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
---=====---===:=::~Miles
54650
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Georgia rockcress Critical Habitat Units, Georgia
Georgia
Location Index
0
40
80
120 160
--c:===--c:==:::JKilometers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.009
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
0
30
60
90
120
---=====---====:::JMiles
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
54651
(6) Unit 1: Fort Tombecbee, Sumter
County, Alabama. Map of Unit 1
follows:
Unit 1: Fort Tombecbee
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Sumter County, Al
Alabama
--c::::::::J Kilometers
. . Critical Habitat
/'V Road
Jkt 232001
0
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
0.35
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
0.7
ER12SE14.010
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
0.9
---===::::::~Miles
s
,.,River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
0.45
0
54652
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(7) Unit 2: Marshalls Bluff, Monroe
County, Alabama. Map of Unit 2
follows:
. . ·CiilicaJ Habitat
--===::::1·~
o
~··.Road
Jkt 232001
.CJ
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.011
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
1.2
--==::::::r....
0.45
IUt
NRNe.t
VerDate Mar<15>2010
em
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
54653
(8) Unit 3: Prairie Bluff, Wilcox
County, Alabama. Map of Unit 3
follows:
--===:::r·~.·
~.Road
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
·NR~Vet
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
·OJi
0
D
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
.'12
...c::=::::::::~liiBS
Dc45
OS ..
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.012
. . .~.ijabitat·
54654
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(9) Unit 4: Portland Landing River
Slopes, Dallas County, Alabama. Map of
Unit 4 follows:
.U'lilA: Porlfsndl_andlng RiVer Slopes
Critical·HabillltforArabis ~· . . .(~ mc:kaesS}
.· ·· . ·ana · · · . · · · ·
·.··.··.
·..·· ... ··· ..
...
Balllls CQUOIJ~Al
--=:=:::J·ICitomelels
1145 Q.t.··
. . CljliQII Habitat
0
ft.J.·Road
--~::===:tl.ikis
0.35.
.0.1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
D
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.013
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
NRiVet
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
54655
(10) Unit 5: Durant Bend, Dallas
County, Alabama. Map of Unit 5
follows:
Unit 5: Durant Bend
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Dallas County, AL
Alabama River
Alabama
1!1
--c::=::JKilometers
0
0.45 0.9
Critical Habitat
/'VRoad
---===:::::~Miles
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
,.,River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
0
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
0;35
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
0.7
12SER1
ER12SE14.014
-
54656
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(11) Unit 6: Murphys Bluff Bridge
Cahaba River, Bibb County, Alabama.
Map of Unit 6 follows:
Unit 6: Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba River
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Bibb County, AL
Alabama
-<>E
/'-/Road
s
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
,.,River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
--c:::::::::::J Kilometers
0
0.6
---===:::::~Miles
0
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
1.2
0.45
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
0.9
ER12SE14.015
N
. . Critical Habitat
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(12) Unit 7: Bibb County, Alabama.
(i) Subunit 7A: Creekside Glades.
(ii) Subunit 7B: Little Schultz Creek.
54657
(iii) Map of Subunits 7A and 7B
follows:
Subunits 7A and 78: Creekside Glades and Little Schultz Creek
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia Rockcress)
Bibb County, AL
Subunit 7A: (
Creekside Glades
Subunit7B:
Little Schultz Creek
Alabama
--c::=.:!Kilometers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
0
Fmt 4700
0.7
---====::~Mites
s
Frm 00091
0.35
0
Sfmt 4725
0.25
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
0.5
12SER1
ER12SE14.016
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Critical Habitat
/'V Road
,._,River
54658
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(13) Unit 8: Bibb County, Alabama.
(i) Subunit 8A: Cottingham Creek
Bluff.
(ii) Subunit 8B: Pratts Ferry.
(iii) Map of Subunits 8A and 8B
follows:
Subunits 8A and 86: Cottingham Creek Bluff and Pratts Ferry
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Bibb County, AL
Subunit SA:
Cottingham
Creek Bluff
Alabama
El
--c:::::::JKilometers
0
0.35
0.7
. . Critical Habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
---===::::~Miles
8
0
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
0.25
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
0.5
12SER1
ER12SE14.017
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
/'V Road
,.,River
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(14) Unit 9: Bibb County, Alabama.
(i) Subunit 9A: Fern Glade.
(ii) Subunit 9B: Sixmile Creek.
54659
(iii) Map of Subunits 9A and 9B
follows:
Subunits 9A and 98: Fern Glade and Sixmile Creek
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Bibb County, AL
Alaba.ma
I!
--c:::::JKilometers
0
0.2
0.4
. . Critical Habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
---====:::JMiles
s
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4700
0
Sfmt 4725
0.15
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
0.3
12SER1
ER12SE14.018
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
/'V Road
,.,River
54660
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(15) 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:
Subunits 1OA and 1OB: Browns Dam Glade North and Browns Dam Glade South
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana {Georgia rockcress)
Bibb County, AL
Alabama
EJ
--C:::::::::J Kilometers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
0
Fmt 4700
0.3
---====::::~Miles
s
Frm 00094
0.15
0
Sfmt 4725
0.1
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
0.2
12SER1
ER12SE14.019
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
. . Critical Habitat
/"-../Road
,_,River
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
54661
(16) Unit 11: McGuire Ford/Limestone
Park, Bibb County, Alabama. Map of
Unit 11 follows:
Unit 11: McGuire Ford/Limestone Park
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Bibb County, AL
Alabama
a
c:
3
(J)
5
:::i
(J)
"0
J
W~E
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
/'V Road
,..,River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
0
0.15
s
0
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
0.1
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
Kilometers
0.3
Miles
0.2
12SER1
ER12SE14.020
N
. . Critical Habitat
54662
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(17) Unit 12: Fort Toulouse State Park,
Elmore County, Alabama. Map of Unit
12 follows:
Unit 12: Fort Toulouse State Park
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Elmore County, AL
Alabama
Gl
--c::=:=::JKilometers
0
0.35
0.7
. . Critical Habitat
/'../Road
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
0
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
0.25
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
0.5
12SER1
ER12SE14.021
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
---===::::~Miles
s
,.,River
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
54663
(18) Unit 13: Fort Gaines Bluff, Clay
County, Georgia. Map of Unit 13
follows:
Unit 13: Fort Gaines Bluff
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Clay County, GA
GA-37
Henry
Georgia
ALABAMA
County
. . Critical Habitat
-c::::::J-Kilometers
/'V' Road
s
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
,.,River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.022
0 0.3 0.6 0.9
--===-•Miles
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
54664
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(19) Unit 14: Harris and Muscogee
Counties, Georgia.
(i) Subunit 14A: Goat Rock North.
(ii) Subunit 14B: Goat Rock South.
(iii) Map of Subunits 14A and 14B
follows:
Subunits 14A and 14B: Goat Rock North and Goat Rock South
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Harris and Muscogee Counties, GA
County
. . Critical Habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
s
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.023
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
,.,River
/'V Road
--==--Kilometers
0 0.3 0.6 0.9
--==:::J-•Miles
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
54665
(20) Unit 15: Blacks Bluff Preserve,
Floyd County, Georgia. Map of Unit 15
follows:
Unit 15: Blacks Bluff Preserve
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Floyd County. GA
. . Critical Habitat
A/Road
--==::::~Kilometers
0
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
1
Frm 00099
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
0.5
1
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.024
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
0
s
,.,River
VerDate Mar<15>2010
0.5
---====::::~Miles
54666
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(21) Unit 16: Whitmore Bluff, Floyd
County, Georgia. Map of Unit 16
follows:
Unit 16: Whitmore Bluff
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress}
Floyd County, GA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
--===::~Kilometers
0
0.5
1
---c::::===:=::JMiles
0
s
Frm 00100
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
0.5
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
1
ER12SE14.025
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
. . Critical Habitat
A/Road
,.,River
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
54667
(22) Unit 17: Resaca Bluffs, Gordon
County, Georgia. Map of Unit 17
follows:
Unit 17: Resaca Bluffs
Critical Habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Gordon County, GA
. . Critical Habitat
/'VRoad
,.,River
*
*
*
0.3
0.6
--C:::::::::J--Miles
0
s
0.2
0.4
0.6
Dated: September 2, 2014.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
*
[FR Doc. 2014–21380 Filed 9–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Sep 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
ER12SE14.026
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
--===::JKilometers
0
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54635-54667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21380]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical
habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, we are designating
approximately 297 hectares (732 acres) of riparian, river bluff habitat
in Georgia, including parts of Gordon, Floyd, Harris, Muscogee, and
Clay Counties, and in Alabama, including parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore,
Monroe, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties, as critical habitat for this
species.
DATES: This rule is effective October 14, 2014.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/athens/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we used
in preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection at
https://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and
documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are available by
appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office, 105 Westpark Dr., Suite D,
Athens, GA 30606; telephone 706-613-9493; facsimile 706-613-6059.
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.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030, at https://www.fws.gov/athens/, 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.
[[Page 54636]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Imm, 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 final rule.
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, when we determine
that any species is an endangered or threatened species, we must
designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule in the Federal Register.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
In total, we are designating 17 critical habitat units with
approximately 297 hectares (732 acres) of riparian, river bluff habitat
for the species. Five critical habitat units are located in Georgia,
including parts of Gordon, Floyd, Harris, Muscogee, and Clay Counties,
and 12 critical habitat units in Alabama, including parts of Bibb,
Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, 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 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.
Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we publish a final rule listing
the species as a threatened species under the Act.
We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts
of the critical habitat designation and related factors. We announced
the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal
Register on May 9, 2014 (79 FR 26679), allowing the public to provide
comments on our analysis. We address the comments in this final
designation.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. Specifically, we obtained opinions from three
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
technical assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we used the best
available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred with
our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information
we received from peer review is incorporated into this final
designation. We also considered all comments and information received
from the public during the comment period, and we held a public hearing
on May 28, 2014.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Georgia rockcress
(78 FR 56192, September 12, 2013) for a detailed description of
previous Federal actions concerning this species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress during two
comment periods. The first comment period opened with the publication
of the proposed rule (78 FR 56506) on September 12, 2013, and closed on
November 12, 2013. The second comment period, during which we requested
(79 FR 26679) comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and
associated draft economic analysis (DEA), opened May 9, 2014, and
closed on June 9, 2014. We received no comments during a public hearing
in Columbus, Georgia, on May 28, 2014. We also contacted appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and
DEA.
During the first comment period, we received one comment letter
from the public addressing the proposed critical habitat designation.
During the second comment period, we received one comment letter from
the public addressing the proposed critical habitat designation.
Comments received from the public stated opinions that were not focused
on the issue. No substantive comments were received on this rule from
the public in either of the comment periods. We also received a letter
of support from the State of Georgia.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from all three
of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the Georgia rockcress. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions. They provided only editorial comments, which
are incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In August 2014, Fort Benning, in which proposed critical habitat
units 14A and 14B are located, completed a revision to its integrated
natural resources management plan (INRMP), which includes specific
measures for the Georgia rockcress and its habitat. We determine that
the revised INRMP provides a benefit to the species. Pursuant to
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), lands covered by
the revised INRMP are exempt from the final designation. We have
exempted Units 14A Fort Benning (GA) and 14B Fort Benning (AL) from
this final designation of critical habitat.
Additionally, we have made corrections to acreages and unit numbers
in the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, we listed Unit 7A as having
12 hectares (ha) (29 acres (ac)) and Unit 9B as having 13 ha (21 ac),
and the total area of designated critical habitat was 323 ha (786 ac).
The corrected numbers are 11 ha (26 ac) for Unit 7A and 13 ha (32 ac)
for Unit 9B; with the exemption of Units 14A and 14B (25 ha (61 ac)),
the total area of critical habitat is 297 ha (732 ac). Furthermore, due
to the exemption of the Fort Benning units from the critical habitat
designation, the remaining units have been renumbered in the final rule
as Units 1 through 17 by shifting some of them up one number (i.e., 15A
became 14A, 15B became 14B, and so forth). The revised unit numbers and
their descriptions can be found in the Final Critical Habitat
Designation section later in this rule.
[[Page 54637]]
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, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. 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 geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features 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 those
specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. 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
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available.
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, 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 insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which
[[Page 54638]]
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
Georgia rockcress from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and
life history, as described below.
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, 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
specialized soil 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 (Allison
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 (Allison 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 (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 the Georgia rockcress
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, 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.
Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the
physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
The 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.
[[Page 54639]]
(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 that is fully functional (i.e., with mature
canopy and discrete disturbances) and 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 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.
For the Georgia rockcress, we are not designating any areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the species because occupied areas
are sufficient for the conservation of the species. The 17 critical
habitat units capture populations across the known range of the
species, providing conservation in six 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.
In preparing this 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 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 final rule have been
excluded by text in the final rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this rule. We will make the coordinates
or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the
public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030,
on our Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/athens/, and at the field
office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above).
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 17 units as critical habitat for Georgia
rockcress. As described below, the critical habitat areas constitute
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. All of the designated 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. Goat Rock Dam (Unit 14 A/B)
provides the highest conservation value to the overall designation,
having the largest population outside of Ft. Benning. The other units
provide the representation and redundancy needed to support viability
of the species across six physiographic provinces and multiple river
basins.
Table 1--Final Critical Habitat Units for Georgia Rockcress
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 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
[[Page 54640]]
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............ 11 26
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 31
10A.................. Browns Dam Glade Bibb/AL............. Private............ 14 35
North.
10B.................. Browns Dam Glade Bibb/AL............. Private............ 15 37
South.
11................... McGuire Ford 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.................. Goat Rock North..... Harris/GA........... Private............ 7 19
14B.................. Goat Rock South..... Harris, Muscogee/GA. Private............ 24 59
15................... Blacks Bluff Floyd/GA............ Private............ 37 92
Preserve.
16................... Whitmore Bluff...... Floyd/GA............ Private............ 17 43
17................... Resaca Bluffs....... Gordon/GA........... Private............ 5 13
-------------------------
Total............ .................... .................... ................... 297 732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 designating a total of 17 critical habitat units for Georgia
rockcress located in Georgia, including parts of Clay, Floyd, Gordon,
Harris, and Muscogee Counties, and in Alabama, including parts of Bibb,
Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Wilcox, and Sumter Counties. In order to
provide definite 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. However, some 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. Accordingly, Federal actions limited to these areas would not
trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act, unless they otherwise
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, development and potentially grazing.
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 (Allison 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
[[Page 54641]]
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.
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 11-ha (26-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 (Allison 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 (Allison 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 subunits 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 (Allison 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)) was acquired by TNC in 2013.
This population of
[[Page 54642]]
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 (31-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 North and Unit 10B. Browns Dam Glade South,
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 (Allison 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 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 (Allison
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 pasture.
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 (Allison 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
recreational 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 (Allison 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. Goat Rock North and Unit 14B. 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
corporation 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; therefore, it is included in
the final designation. Nonnative species, including Chinese privet and
Japanese honeysuckle, have severely impacted this site (Allison 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 14A and 14B are 7 ha (19 ac) and 24 ha
(59 ac), respectively, and contain two or more of the PCEs throughout
the subunits. 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 15. Blacks Bluff Preserve, Floyd County, Georgia
Privately owned, the 37-ha (92-ac) Blacks Bluff Preserve unit is
located 6.5 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
[[Page 54643]]
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 (Allison
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 16. Whitmore Bluff, Floyd County, Georgia
Privately owned, the 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 (Allison 1995, p. 21; Moffett 2007, pp. 6-9; Elmore
2010, pp. 1-3). This 17-ha (43-ac) unit contained 63 Georgia rockcress
plants 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 17. Resaca Bluffs, Gordon County, Georgia
Privately owned, the 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. This unit includes 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 (Allison 1995, pp. 22-23; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9;
Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). This 5-ha (13-ac) 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.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether,
[[Page 54644]]
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
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 has revised its INRMP to include specific measures for the
Georgia rockcress and its habitat, including monitoring and management
for the Georgia rockcress including: Management of feral swine,
limiting timber harvest within 200 feet of Georgia rockcress
populations, monitoring of known Georgia rockcress populations and
surveys for new populations, and monitoring and control of invasive
species. The revised INRMP became effective August 2014. In accordance
with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the
lands within Fort Benning that were originally proposed for critical
habitat are subject to the Fort Benning INRMP and that conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Georgia
rockcress. Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from
critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are
not including approximately 25 ha (61 ac) of habitat in this final
critical habitat designation because of this exemption. As described in
the proposed critical habitat rule, these lands are located in
Chattahoochee County, Georgia, and Russell County, Alabama, south of
Columbus, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River near its confluence with
Oswichee Creek and across from its confluence with Red Mill Creek.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she 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.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which together with our
narrative and interpretation of effects we consider our draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013; Industrial Economics,
Inc. 2014). The analysis, dated April 8, 2014, was made available for
public review from May 29,
[[Page 54645]]
2014, through June 9, 2014, and a summary of the findings were provided
on https://www.regulations.gov from May 9, 2014, to June 9, 2014 (79 FR
26679). The DEA addressed potential economic impacts of critical
habitat designation for Georgia rockcress. Following the close of the
comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted
during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the
probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat
designation. Additional information relevant to the probable
incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the
Georgia rockcress is summarized below and available in the screening
analysis for the Georgia rockcress, available at https://www.regulations.gov.
In our DEA, we concluded that section 7-related costs of
designating critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress are likely to be
limited to additional administrative effort to consider possible
adverse effects to critical habitat during consultation. This finding
is based on several factors, including:
1. Project modifications requested to avoid adverse modification
are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid jeopardy in occupied
habitat; and
2. All units are considered occupied by the plant, providing
significant baseline protection.
The number of future consultations is expected to be at most five
in a given year. Unit costs of the administrative effort necessary to
address adverse modification of critical habitat during section 7
consultation is estimated to range from approximately $400 to $9,000
(2014 dollars, total incremental costs for all parties participating in
a single consultation). Thus, the annual administrative burden due
solely to the critical habitat designation is unlikely to reach $100
million. Given the estimates in the screening analysis for the Georgia
rockcress, predictions are that costs are unlikely to exceed $45,000 in
a given year (2014 dollars). This is essentially the upper end of the
cost for section 7 consultations and is the cost attributable to just
the critical habitat.
In other words, the incremental administrative burden resulting
from the designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress is
unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on the small
number of anticipated consultations and per-consultation costs.
Furthermore, the designation is unlikely to trigger additional
requirements under State or local regulations.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from
this designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress based on
economic impacts.
A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting documents
may be obtained by contacting the Georgia Ecological Services Office
(see ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have
exempted from the designation of critical habitat those Department of
Defense lands with completed INRMPs determined to provide a benefit to
the Georgia rockcress. We have also determined that the remaining lands
within the designation of critical habitat for the species are not
owned or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security
or homeland security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on
impacts on national security or homeland 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.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Georgia rockcress,
and the final designation does not include any tribal lands or trust
resources, and so we anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this critical habitat designation.
Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude
any areas from this final designation based on other relevant impacts.
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
(SBREFA) of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is
required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule
on small entities (i.e. small businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to
provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as
[[Page 54646]]
independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer
than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation, as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firms' business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We did not receive any substantive comments pertaining to our
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. Therefore, we affirm our certification
that this designation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 (E.O.
13211; ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing
this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute
``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the
regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that
none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on
information in the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts
associated with Georgia rockcress conservation activities within
critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical
habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
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 will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The government-owned lands being designated
as critical habitat are owned by the State of Alabama and the
Department of the Interior. None of these government entities meets the
definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required.
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
[[Page 54647]]
habitat for Georgia rockcress in a takings implications assessment. The
economic cost of implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act
will most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to
consider adverse modification during consultations. According to a
review of consultation records and discussions with multiple Service
field offices, the additional administrative cost of addressing adverse
modification during the section 7 consultation process ranges from
approximately $400 to $9,000 per consultation (2014 dollars). Based on
the project activity identified by relevant action agencies, the number
of future consultations is likely to be less than five consultations
per year. Thus, the incremental administrative burden resulting from
the rule is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year, and given
the economic analysis we have determined that there are no additional
takings implications. The takings implications assessment concludes
that this designation of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress does
not pose significant takings implications.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this 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 critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Alabama and Georgia. We are
not designating any unoccupied areas. The designation of critical
habitat in areas currently occupied by the Georgia rockcress will
impose no additional restrictions to those that will be put in place by
listing the species and, therefore, will 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) will 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
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this
rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. We
are designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the Georgia rockcress. The
designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the
rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain 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, 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. Therefore, we are not
designating critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress on tribal lands.
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 Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final 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.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we 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.
[[Page 54648]]
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 Clay,
Gordon, Floyd, Harris, and Muscogee Counties, and in Alabama, including
Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties, on the maps
in this entry.
(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 that is fully functional (i.e., with mature
canopy and discrete disturbances) and 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
October 14, 2014.
(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 meters (m) (250
feet (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.
[[Page 54649]]
(5) Index maps of critical habitat units for Arabis georgiana
(Georgia rockcress) follow:
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.008
[[Page 54650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.009
[[Page 54651]]
(6) Unit 1: Fort Tombecbee, Sumter County, Alabama. Map of Unit 1
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.010
[[Page 54652]]
(7) Unit 2: Marshalls Bluff, Monroe County, Alabama. Map of Unit 2
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.011
[[Page 54653]]
(8) Unit 3: Prairie Bluff, Wilcox County, Alabama. Map of Unit 3
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.012
[[Page 54654]]
(9) Unit 4: Portland Landing River Slopes, Dallas County, Alabama.
Map of Unit 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.013
[[Page 54655]]
(10) Unit 5: Durant Bend, Dallas County, Alabama. Map of Unit 5
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.014
[[Page 54656]]
(11) Unit 6: Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba River, Bibb County,
Alabama. Map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.015
[[Page 54657]]
(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] TR12SE14.016
[[Page 54658]]
(13) 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] TR12SE14.017
[[Page 54659]]
(14) 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] TR12SE14.018
[[Page 54660]]
(15) 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] TR12SE14.019
[[Page 54661]]
(16) Unit 11: McGuire Ford/Limestone Park, Bibb County, Alabama.
Map of Unit 11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.020
[[Page 54662]]
(17) Unit 12: Fort Toulouse State Park, Elmore County, Alabama. Map
of Unit 12 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.021
[[Page 54663]]
(18) Unit 13: Fort Gaines Bluff, Clay County, Georgia. Map of Unit
13 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.022
[[Page 54664]]
(19) Unit 14: Harris and Muscogee Counties, Georgia.
(i) Subunit 14A: Goat Rock North.
(ii) Subunit 14B: Goat Rock South.
(iii) Map of Subunits 14A and 14B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.023
[[Page 54665]]
(20) Unit 15: Blacks Bluff Preserve, Floyd County, Georgia. Map of
Unit 15 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.024
[[Page 54666]]
(21) Unit 16: Whitmore Bluff, Floyd County, Georgia. Map of Unit 16
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.025
[[Page 54667]]
(22) Unit 17: Resaca Bluffs, Gordon County, Georgia. Map of Unit 17
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.026
* * * * *
Dated: September 2, 2014.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-21380 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C