Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Ocmulgee Skullcap and Designation of Critical Habitat, 86670-86712 [2024-24897]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
86670
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059;
FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000]
RIN 1018–BE01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Ocmulgee Skullcap and
Designation of Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), list the
Ocmulgee skullcap (Scutellaria
ocmulgee), a plant species from Georgia
and South Carolina as an endangered
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We also
designate critical habitat. In total,
approximately 6,661 acres (2,696
hectares) in Bibb, Bleckley, Burke,
Columbia, Houston, Monroe, Pulaski,
Richmond, Screven, and Twiggs
Counties, Georgia, and in Aiken and
Edgefield Counties, South Carolina, fall
within the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. This rule extends
the protections of the Act to this species
and its designated critical habitat.
DATES: This rule is effective November
29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments and
materials we received are available for
public inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059.
Availability of supporting materials:
Supporting materials we used in
preparing this rule, such as the species
status assessment report, are available at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059. For the
critical habitat designation, the
coordinates or plot points or both from
which the maps are generated are
included in the decision file for this
critical habitat designation and are
available at https://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Maholland, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia
Ecological Services Field Office, 355
East Hancock Avenue, Room 320,
Athens, GA 30601; telephone 706–613–
9493. Individuals in the United States
who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing,
or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, a species warrants listing if it
meets the definition of an endangered
species (in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range) or a threatened species (likely
to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range). If we
determine that a species warrants
listing, we must list the species
promptly and designate the species’
critical habitat to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. We have
determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap
meets the Act’s definition of an
endangered species; therefore, we are
listing it as such and finalizing a
designation of its critical habitat. Both
listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designating
critical habitat can be completed only
by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq.).
What this document does. This rule
lists the Ocmulgee skullcap as an
endangered species and designates
critical habitat for the species in 18
units totaling approximately 6,661 acres
(ac) (2,696 hectares (ha)) within portions
of 10 counties in Georgia and 2 counties
in South Carolina.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may determine that a species is
an endangered or threatened species
because of any of five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We
have determined that the Ocmulgee
skullcap is an endangered species due
to the following threats: habitat loss and
fragmentation due to development and
urbanization (Factor A); competition
and encroachment from nonnative,
invasive species (Factors A and E); and
herbivory from white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) (Factor C).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, concurrently with listing
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
designate critical habitat for the species.
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines
critical habitat as (i) the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species, at the time it is listed,
on which are found those physical or
biological features (I) essential to the
conservation of the species and (II)
which may require special management
considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary must make the designation on
the basis of the best scientific data
available and after taking into
consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any
other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing
and critical habitat rule (87 FR 37378)
for the Ocmulgee skullcap published on
June 22, 2022, for a detailed description
of previous Federal actions concerning
this species.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA)
team prepared an SSA report for the
Ocmulgee skullcap. The SSA team was
composed of Service biologists, in
consultation with other species experts.
The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning
the status of the species, including the
impacts of past, present, and future
factors (both negative and beneficial)
affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer
review of listing actions under the Act,
we solicited independent scientific
review of the information contained in
the Ocmulgee skullcap SSA report. As
discussed in the June 22, 2022,
proposed rule (87 FR 37378), we sent
the SSA report to three independent
peer reviewers and received one
response. The peer review can be found
at the docket on https://
www.regulations.gov. In preparing the
proposed rule, we incorporated the
results of the review, as appropriate,
into the SSA report, which was the
foundation for the proposed rule and
this final rule. A summary of the peer
review comments and our responses can
be found under Summary of Comments
and Recommendations, below.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
This final rule incorporates changes
from our June 22, 2022, proposed rule
(87 FR 37378) based on the comments
that we received and respond to in this
document as discussed in the Summary
of Comments and Recommendations.
Based on the comments and new
information received (as described
below) and our further consideration of
the threats to the species, we
determined the current risk of
extinction is higher (see Determination
of Ocmulgee Skullcap’s Status, below)
than we characterized in the proposal to
list the Ocmulgee skullcap as a
threatened species (87 FR 37378; June
22, 2022). We reassessed our analysis
and found that habitat conditions in
some areas, along with the low
resiliency condition of most of the
known Ocmulgee skullcap populations,
places the species at a currently high
risk of extinction throughout its range.
Thus, after evaluating the best available
information and the Act’s regulations
and policies, we determined that the
Ocmulgee skullcap meets the definition
of an endangered species, and such
status is more appropriate than that of
a threatened species as originally
proposed. Because we determined that
the Ocmulgee skullcap meets the
definition of an endangered species, a
4(d) rule is inapplicable; consequently,
we have removed that portion of the
proposed rule issued under the
authority of section 4(d) of the Act from
this final rule.
New information (i.e., updated
surveys and habitat condition in areas
considered extirpated or containing no
suitable habitat, including updates
regarding the Savannah River Bluffs
Natural Heritage Preserve and Horse
Creek sites) was submitted to us during
the proposed rule’s comment period.
This new information and the
comments we received during the
comment period prompted us to
reevaluate the best available information
around the inclusion of sites previously
considered extirpated in the SSA report,
which is reflected in a new version of
the SSA report (version 1.3) (Service
2023, pp. 21–22; 20–28). Applying the
methodology to designate critical
habitat (see Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat, below) to the new
information, we determined that it is
appropriate to add an occupied subunit
to the critical habitat designation. The
results of this updated analysis have
been incorporated into this final rule
and revises Unit 1 to add a new Subunit
1d, based on the area that we found to
meet the definition of critical habitat, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
described in this rule. The addition of
Subunit 1d increases the total critical
habitat designation by 84 ac (34 ha)
from the proposed critical habitat
designation. The full descriptions of the
designated units and subunits follow in
III. Critical Habitat, below.
We changed the name of critical
habitat Unit 9 from Robins Air Force
Base to Adjoins Robins Air Force Base,
to clarify the unit does not extend onto
Robins Air Force Base but is
immediately adjacent to the installation.
In addition, we erroneously stated that
Unit 9 consisted of 455 ac (184 ha) and
that it included 231 ac (93 ha) of
privately owned land and 224 ac (91 ha)
of Department of Defense owned lands,
even though the Robins Air Force Base
was exempted. We changed the unit
description to accurately reflect the
exemption of the Robins Air Force Base,
leaving 231 ac (93 ha) of privately
owned land in Unit 9.
In the Summary of Biological Status
and Threats, we clarified the
significance of silvicultural and
agricultural land uses on Ocmulgee
skullcap populations.
Further, we have made minor
editorial or stylistic changes and
corrections to the June 22, 2022,
proposed rule (87 FR 37378) in this final
rule.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on
June 22, 2022 (87 FR 37378), we
requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the
proposal by August 22, 2022. We also
contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts,
organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on
the proposal. Newspaper notices
inviting general public comment were
published in the Aiken Standard,
Augusta Chronicle, and Macon
Telegraph newspapers on June 23, 2022.
We did not receive any requests for a
public hearing. All substantive
information we received during
comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final
determination or is addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above,
we received comments from one peer
reviewer on the draft SSA report. We
reviewed the comments we received
from the peer reviewer for substantive
issues and new information regarding
the contents of the SSA report. Peer
reviewer comments are addressed in the
following summary. As discussed
above, because we conducted this peer
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86671
review prior to the publication of our
proposed rule, we had already
incorporated all applicable peer review
comments into version 1.2 of the SSA
report, which was the foundation for the
proposed rule and this final rule.
The peer reviewer generally
concurred with our methods and
conclusions and provided support for
thorough and descriptive narratives of
assessed issues, additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the final SSA report (version
1.2, Service 2020, entire). No
substantive changes to our analysis and
conclusions within the SSA report were
deemed necessary, and the peer
reviewer comments are addressed in
versions 1.2 (Service 2020, entire) of the
SSA report, which is available for
public review at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059.
(1) Comment: The peer reviewer
suggested that the threat of land
conversion to industrial silviculture or
agriculture should be included in the
future condition scenarios.
Our response: Our SSA report
identifies urbanization and deer
herbivory as the primary threats to the
species. Although industrial silviculture
or agriculture land uses may occur near
the species’ occurrences, the species
typically occurs on steep slopes and
bluffs that are less suitable for
conversion to silviculture and
agriculture. Thus, silviculture and
agriculture activities that do not
implement State-approved best
management practices (BMPs) to buffer
slopes (i.e., Ocmulgee skullcap habitat)
from erosion may impact populations.
At least one occurrence, Boggy Gut
Creek, has been affected by land use
change associated with silviculture. The
Boggy Gut Creek occurrence was last
observed in 1999, but the entire site was
clearcut in 2005, planted in loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), and subsequently
cut in 2014 and 2017. In the most recent
rangewide survey, Ocmulgee skullcap
was not observed on the site and is
categorized as ‘‘possibly extirpated’’
(Bradley 2019, p. 30).
At this time, the best available
information is not sufficiently detailed
to determine the level of BMP
implementation in sites with Ocmulgee
skullcap occurrences. However,
implementation of State-approved BMPs
for forestry activities are reportedly high
for streamside management zones
(SMZs) across Georgia and South
Carolina, 91 and 99 percent,
respectively (South Carolina Forestry
Commission 2020, p. 6; Georgia Forestry
Commission 2021, p. 3). Further, given
the steep slopes associated with most
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86672
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences, if BMP
implementation is high in these areas,
forestry activities are less likely to
impact the species. Finally, in our
future scenarios analysis in the SSA
report, we describe how populations
that occur on protected lands would not
only be protected from urbanization but
would also be protected from direct
impacts from silviculture and
agriculture (Service 2023, pp. 38–41).
Public Comments
(2) Comment: Several commenters
stated their view that the Ocmulgee
skullcap warrants listing as an
endangered species rather than a
threatened species. In support of this
assertion, these commenters point to: (a)
the current low or very low resiliency
exhibited by 16 of 19 delineated
populations, (b) 11 of 19 populations
occurring on lands not categorized as
protected lands, and (c) the effects of
climate change, in addition to the effects
of other threats, on the species.
Our response: We further considered
our analysis and the impacts of
individual and cumulative threats to the
current condition of the Ocmulgee
skullcap. After further consideration of
current threats to the species, the low
resiliency condition of most of the
known Ocmulgee skullcap populations,
and new information on habitat
condition in some areas, we determined
the current risk of extinction for the
Ocmulgee skullcap is higher (see
Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap’s
Status, below), than we characterized in
the proposal to list the species as a
threatened species. Therefore, we have
determined the Ocmulgee skullcap is
currently at risk of extinction as a result
of the threats of habitat degradation and
loss from development, competition and
encroachment from nonnative and
invasive (plant) species, and herbivory
by white-tailed deer.
However, the best available
information does not indicate that the
effects of climate change have
negatively impacted or are currently
negatively impacting the Ocmulgee
skullcap’s viability. In the future,
projected changes due to climate
change, including the frequency and
severity of drought and changes in
rainfall patterns, may negatively impact
the species in the future as the effects
of climate change increase or may
exacerbate the effects of other threats.
(3) Comment: One commenter
suggested our determination that the
threats are not concentrated in any
portion of the Ocmulgee skullcap’s
range at a biologically meaningful scale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
is not appropriate. The commenter
recommended we revise our significant
portion of the range analysis to evaluate
the 16 of 19 populations that the
commenter notes are impacted by small
population size and isolation, as well as
the threats to 11 populations that do not
occur on protected lands.
Our response: Under the Act and our
implementing regulations, a species
may warrant listing if it is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. As stated
above under Our Response to (2)
Comment, we have determined that the
Ocmulgee skullcap meets the definition
of an endangered species (see
Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap’s
Status, below), and we accordingly did
not undertake or revise an analysis of
any significant portions of its range.
(4) Comment: One commenter
recommended we include areas
surrounding existing Ocmulgee skullcap
populations in the critical habitat
designation.
Our response: For Ocmulgee skullcap
populations to be sufficiently resilient,
life-history requirements must be met,
including areas of suitable habitat large
enough to support pollinators needed
for Ocmulgee skullcap reproduction.
These areas of suitable habitat include
habitat that acts to prevent or delay
encroachment by nonnative, invasive
species. To address this life-history
requirement, we:
(a) Address the species’ requirement
of intact hardwood forest to provide the
appropriate canopy conditions in large
enough areas to prevent or delay
encroachment of nonnative, invasive
species. We recognize the life-history
requirement for habitat conditions to
reduce encroachment and competition,
and we include that habitat as a
physical or biological feature essential
to the conservation of the species (see
Summary of Essential Physical or
Biological Features, below) to impede
the invasion of competitors.
(b) Address the need for critical
habitat areas to include habitat
surrounding Ocmulgee skullcap
occurrences that support the life-history
requirements for pollinators. We
delineated populations of Ocmulgee
skullcap using a 2-kilometer (km) (1.24mile (mi)) radius circle around species’
occurrences, with overlapping areas
determined to be within the same
population based on the need for
sufficient space and resources for
required pollinators (NatureServe 2020,
entire; Service 2023, p. 21). The SSA
report contains the best available
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
information used to identify critical
habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap,
which includes existing monitoring
data, population status surveys, and
maps using the best available
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
layers (Service 2023, pp. 21, 37–38,
appendix A).
(5) Comment: A commenter requested
that we include areas with historical
and current Ocmulgee skullcap
occurrences, including the Horse Creek
occurrence and 15 other sites (as
described in Morris 1999), in the final
critical habitat designation.
Our response: In our delineation of
critical habitat for the Ocmulgee
skullcap, we relied on the best available
scientific and commercial information,
including Morris (1999). We also
incorporated occurrence data (1961 to
present) obtained from peer-reviewed
articles, unpublished survey reports,
and survey records contained in agency
and partner databases (i.e., Georgia and
South Carolina Natural Heritage
databases), including the most recent
rangewide species survey (Bradley 2019,
entire; Service 2022, entire).
Of the 16 sites described by the
commenter, 13 are included in the final
critical habitat designation (see table 1,
below). As noted below in table 1, two
occurrences described by the
commenter were misidentified as
Ocmulgee skullcap until 2018, when the
sites were resurveyed and the
occurrences correctly identified as the
congeneric Mellichamp’s skullcap
(Scutellaria mellichampii) (Bradley
2019, pp. 42–45; Service 2023, pp. 6–7;
87 FR 37378, June 22, 2022, p. 37380).
In table 1, below, we list the 16 sites
recommended for inclusion by the
commenter, the county and State where
the site is located, the corresponding
site name in Bradley (2019), and the
proposed and final critical habitat unit
where the site occurs, or the correct
identification of the species.
Ocmulgee skullcap was last observed
in 1961 on the remaining site, Horse
Creek. In a recent survey, some
Ocmulgee skullcap habitat
characteristics were documented but no
Ocmulgee skullcap were found in the
area of the 1961 Horse Creek occurrence
(Service 2022, entire). Given that
Ocmulgee skullcap has not been
observed in the Horse Creek area for
more than 60 years and there is limited
suitable habitat, it is unlikely this area
would support the conservation of the
species. Therefore, we did not include
the Horse Creek occurrence in our
delineation of critical habitat.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86673
TABLE 1—SITES RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY THE COMMENTER
Site
County, State
Recent survey description
Proposed critical habitat
unit
Augusta Lock and Dam .....
Columbia County, Georgia
Augusta Canal ...................
Richmond County, Georgia
Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond.
Unit 2: Barney Bluff ...........
Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond.
Unit 2: Barney Bluff.
Barney Bluff .......................
McBean Creek-Beazley
Property.
McBean Creek—Miller
Property.
Boggy Gut Creek ...............
Richmond County, Georgia
Burke County, Georgia .....
Unit 2: Barney Bluff ...........
Unit 3: Burke North ...........
Unit 2: Barney Bluff.
Unit 3: Burke North.
Unit 3: Burke North ...........
Unit 3: Burke North.
Unit 3: Burke North ...........
Unit 3: Burke North.
Shell Bluff North ................
Burke County, Georgia .....
Unit 3: Burke North ...........
Unit 3: Burke North.
Shell Bluff South ................
Burke County, Georgia .....
Unit 3: Burke North ...........
Unit 3: Burke North.
Blue Buff ............................
Burke County, Georgia .....
Unit 4: Burke South ..........
Unit 4: Burke South.
Hancock Landing North .....
Burke County, Georgia .....
Unit 4: Burke South ..........
Unit 4: Burke South.
Griffin Landing North .........
Burke County, Georgia .....
Unit 4: Burke South ..........
Unit 4: Burke South.
Griffin Landing South ........
Burke County, Georgia .....
Unit 4: Burke South ..........
Unit 4: Burke South.
Prescott Lakes ...................
Screven County, Georgia
Unit 5: Prescott Lakes ......
Unit 5: Prescott Lakes.
Blue Springs Landing ........
Screven County, Georgia
Not included ......................
Not included.
Porters Landing .................
Effingham County, Georgia
Not included ......................
Not included.
Horse Creek ......................
Aiken County, South Carolina.
Bradley 2019, pp. 25–27;
Site 4.
Bradley 2019, pp. 25–27;
Site 4.
Bradley 2019, p. 29; Site 6
Bradley 2019, pp. 29–30;
Site 7.
Bradley 2019, pp. 29–30;
Site 7.
Bradley 2019, pp. 30–31;
Site 8.
Bradley 2019, pp. 31–32;
Site 9.
Bradley 2019, pp. 31–32;
Site 9.
Bradley 2019, pp. 33–35;
Site 11.
Bradley 2019, pp. 32–33;
Site 10.
Bradley 2019, pp. 35–36;
Site 12.
Bradley 2019, pp. 35–36;
Site 12.
Bradley 2019, pp. 38–39;
Site 14.
Scutellaria mellichampii,
see Bradley 2019, pp.
42–43.
Scutellaria mellichampii,
see Bradley 2019, pp.
43–45.
Service 2022, entire ..........
Not included ......................
Not included.
Burke County, Georgia .....
Burke County, Georgia .....
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy,
life history, and ecology of the
Ocmulgee skullcap is presented in the
SSA report (version 1.3; Service 2023,
pp. 4–11). Ocmulgee skullcap is a
perennial herb in the Lamiaceae (mint)
family with 4-sided stems that grows up
to 16 to 32 inches (in) (40 to 80
centimeters (cm)) tall. It bears blueviolet colored and faintly fragrant
flowers in July. Although taxonomy for
Ocmulgee skullcap has been consistent
through time, identification of the
species is difficult; as a result, some
occurrences of the congeneric S.
mellichampii were misidentified as
Ocmulgee skullcap prior to 2018.
Ocmulgee skullcap is restricted to the
moist, calcareous (calcium rich) northfacing slopes along the Ocmulgee and
Savannah River watersheds in Georgia
and South Carolina. In these isolated
bluff and slope areas, the forest
structure is composed of a mixedhardwood species of trees with a
partially open canopy to allow the
plants to reach maturity and produce
viable seed. The mature, mixed-level
canopy provides the mottled shade
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
required by Ocmulgee skullcap. The
river bluffs and steep slopes experience
localized disturbances including water
runoff that limit the accumulation of
leaf litter and limit competition from
other plants in the shaded, steep forest
environment.
The lifespan of Ocmulgee skullcap is
estimated to be 5 to 8 years, with 3 to
6 years of potential viable seed
production. The species matures to
produce seed in either the first or
second year following spring
germination. Ocmulgee skullcap
reproduces sexually and is pollinated by
over 35 different pollinator species,
including bees, moths, butterflies, and
sometimes flies and wasps (Cruzan
2001, pp. 1577–1578; Adams et al. 2010,
p. 53,).
Ocmulgee skullcap seeds release from
the plant in response to disturbance of
the stem by wind, rain, animal activity,
or other means. The seeds require this
dislodging and bare soil that is rich in
calcium, and under partial shade, in
order to germinate. Juvenile Ocmulgee
skullcap individuals require sufficient
amounts of sunlight, moisture, and
calcium, as well as the presence of
pollinators and stable soil conditions, to
reach maturity and produce seed. In
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Final critical habitat unit
addition, juvenile plants are sensitive to
competition for needed resources.
Mature Ocmulgee skullcap plants
require the same resources as juvenile
plants, including sufficient time without
herbivory or other removal of the seed
calyx in order disperse seed.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and the implementing regulations in
title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations set forth the procedures for
determining whether a species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species, issuing protective regulations
for threatened species, and designating
critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. On April 5, 2024,
jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Service issued a
final rule that revised the regulations in
50 CFR 424 regarding how we add,
remove, and reclassify endangered and
threatened species and what criteria we
apply when designating listed species’
critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the
same day, the Service published a final
rule revising our protections for
endangered species and threatened
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
86674
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919).
These final rules are now in effect and
are incorporated into the current
regulations. Our analysis for this final
decision applied our current
regulations. Given that we proposed
listing and critical habitat for this
species under our prior regulations
(revised in 2019), we have also
undertaken an analysis of whether our
decision would be different if we had
continued to apply the 2019 regulations;
we concluded that the decision would
be the same. The analyses under both
the regulations currently in effect and
the 2019 regulations are available on
https://www.regulations.gov.
The Act defines an ‘‘endangered
species’’ as a species that is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and a
‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself.
However, the mere identification of
any threat(s) does not necessarily mean
that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining
whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the
species’ expected response and the
effects of the threats—in light of those
actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its
expected effects on the species, then
analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only
after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected
effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009
Memorandum Opinion on the
foreseeable future from the Department
of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor
(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://
www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/
uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable
future extends only so far into the future
as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Marine Fisheries Service
(hereafter, the Services) can reasonably
make predictions about the threats to
the species and the species’ responses to
those threats. We need not identify the
foreseeable future in terms of a specific
period of time. We will describe the
foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and
taking into account considerations such
as the species’ life-history
characteristics, threat-projection
timeframes, and environmental
variability. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time
over which we can make reasonably
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of
the conservation purposes of the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results
of our comprehensive biological review
of the best scientific and commercial
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
data regarding the status of the species,
including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report
does not represent our decision on
whether the species should be listed as
an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. However, it does provide
the scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decisions, which involve the
further application of standards within
the Act and its implementing
regulations and policies.
To assess Ocmulgee skullcap’s
viability, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer
and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to
withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example,
wet or dry, warm or cold years);
redundancy is the ability of the species
to withstand catastrophic events (for
example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation is the ability
of the species to adapt to both near-term
and long-term changes in its physical
and biological environment (for
example, climate conditions,
pathogens). In general, species viability
will increase with increases in
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p.
306). Using these principles, we
identified the species’ ecological
requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual,
population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors
influencing the species’ viability.
The SSA process can be categorized
into three sequential stages. During the
first stage, we evaluated the individual
species’ life-history needs. The next
stage involved an assessment of the
historical and current condition of the
species’ demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an
explanation of how the species arrived
at its current condition. The final stage
of the SSA involved making predictions
about the species’ responses to positive
and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. Throughout
all of these stages, we used the best
available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to
sustain populations in the wild over
time, which we then used to inform our
regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key
results and conclusions from the SSA
report; the full SSA report can be found
at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059
on https://www.regulations.gov and at
https://www.fws.gov/office/georgiaecological-services/library.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
In this discussion, we review the
biological condition of the species and
its resources, and the threats that
influence the species’ current and future
condition, in order to assess the species’
overall viability and the risks to that
viability. For Ocmulgee skullcap
populations to be sufficiently resilient,
the needs of individuals (calcium-rich
soil, shade or partial shade from canopy
cover, adequate precipitation, reduced
competition, pollinators) must be met at
a large scale. Areas of suitable habitat
must be large enough to support
pollinators needed for Ocmulgee
skullcap reproduction and habitat that
acts to prevent or delay encroachment
by nonnative, invasive species. At the
species level, the Ocmulgee skullcap
needs a sufficient number and
distribution of healthy populations to
withstand environmental stochasticity
(resiliency) and catastrophes
(redundancy) and to adapt to biological
and physical changes in its environment
(representation).
Influences on Ocmulgee Skullcap’s
Viability
In the SSA analysis, we reviewed and
summarized the factors that may
influence the viability of Ocmulgee
skullcap. Threats to Ocmulgee
skullcap’s viability include the
following factors: (1) Habitat destruction
and modification; (2) competition from
other species (e.g., Elaeagnus pungens
(thorny olive), E. umbellata (autumn
olive), Ligustrum sinense (Chinese
privet), Lonicera japonica (Japanese
honeysuckle), and Pueraria montana
var. lobata (kudzu)); (3) collection and
harvest; (4) herbivory; (5) climate
change; and (6) pollinator visitation and
reproduction (Service 2023, pp. 12–17).
The primary factors driving the species’
current and future conditions are habitat
loss and fragmentation due to
development and urbanization (Factor
A); competition and encroachment from
nonnative, invasive species (Factors A
and E); and herbivory from white-tailed
deer (Factor C). Although medicinal
properties of other Scutellaria species
have been investigated (Service 2023, p.
13), there is no evidence that
overutilization (Factor B) has impacted
Ocmulgee skullcap. In addition,
conditions across the species’ range are
likely to be hotter and subject to
variable precipitation including extreme
weather events in the future. Although
we do not have specific information
regarding the species’ likely response to
these effects of climate change, we
expect that the effects of climate change
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
will negatively affect Ocmulgee skullcap
by reducing available resources such as
water and limited competition. We have
determined that climate change (Factor
E) is not a primary risk factor for the
species at this time; however, the effects
of climate change, including drought
and changes in rainfall patterns, may
affect the species in the future as
changes become more extreme. We also
reviewed the conservation efforts being
undertaken for the habitat where
Ocmulgee skullcap occurs. A brief
summary of relevant stressors is
presented below; for a more detailed
discussion of our evaluation of the
biological status of Ocmulgee skullcap
and the influences that may affect its
continued existence, refer to chapter 3
of the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 12–
20).
Urbanization and Land Conversion
Population growth and associated
urbanization and development has
increased in the Southeast at a rate 40
percent greater than the rest of the
United States over the last 60 years.
Much of this growth is in sprawling
low-density, suburban areas
encompassing large areas of singlefamily housing and infrastructure
(Terando et al. 2014, p. e102261). Land
conversion for residential, commercial,
and infrastructure development is
associated with an increase in
population. Two Ocmulgee skullcap
populations occur near the city of
Macon, Georgia, and another population
occurs near the city of Augusta, Georgia.
Urbanization and land conversion can
directly and indirectly impact Ocmulgee
skullcap (Morris et al. 2000, pp. 31–32).
Urbanization or land conversion can
result in the direct loss of individuals or
a population. For example, two
occurrences have experienced altered
conditions, such as erosion on the bluff
due to nearby residential development
and a parking lot expansion (Bradley
2019, pp. 27–29).
Further, land use patterns and
urbanization near Ocmulgee skullcap
occurrences can impact population
resiliency. Urbanization modifies
surrounding and nearby habitat
conditions required by Ocmulgee
skullcap by fostering the introduction of
nonnative, invasive species and
increasing the amount and velocity of
water runoff during precipitation events
due to an increase of impervious
surfaces. As further discussed below,
nonnative, invasive species compete
with Ocmulgee skullcap for required
resources. Increased runoff reduces the
availability of nutrients and soil
conditions required for successful
reproduction, affecting Ocmulgee
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86675
skullcap recruitment and resiliency.
Because Ocmulgee skullcap grows along
steep slopes, when the tops of bluffs are
logged or cleared for other land uses
without implementation of BMPs runoff
and erosion are increased.
Silvicultural Activities
Silviculture (timber harvests) has
been documented on bluffs above or
adjacent to four extant Ocmulgee
skullcap sites: Augusta Canal, Boggy
Gut Creek, Hancock Landing North, and
Plant Vogtle (Morris 1999, pp. 5, 12, 29,
34, 55–56, 65 and Bradley 2019, p. 29).
Because silvicultural activities are
primarily occurring upslope or adjacent
to sites, erosion into the Ocmulgee
skullcap sites has the potential for
negative, indirect effects. Two sites
(Barney Bluff and Plant Vogtle sites)
historically showed signs of erosion
from upslope timber harvests (Morris
1999 pp. 5, 65). One site (Boggy Gut
Creek) has been directly impacted by
clear-cut timber harvests and the status
of this population is considered
possibly extirpated. However, selective
timber harvests (hardwood thinning)
within Ocmulgee sites may be beneficial
to populations when actions create the
mottled shade conditions the species
needs (Morris 1999 p. 5, Bradley 2019
pp. 29, 78).
In general, silviculture or timber
harvests are not a key driver of species
status across the range but may be a
threat to individuals or populations
when BMPs intended to buffer slopes
(i.e., Ocmulgee skullcap habitat) from
erosion are not implemented or are
implemented improperly. Although
Georgia considers the application of
BMPs to be quasi-regulatory and South
Carolina considers the application of
BMPs to be nonregulatory, forest
landowners certified under forest
certification standards are required to
implement appropriate BMPs to
maintain certification and BMPs are
expected to be protective of habitat
conditions in areas where implemented
correctly (Englund and Berndes 2015,
pp. 34–37; Demarais et al. 2017, p. 6;
National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement (NCASI) 2022, pp. 2–9).
Across all ownership types (nonindustrial private forest, private, and
public) in the Upper Coastal Plain
region of Georgia where the Ocmulgee
skullcap occurs, implementation of
BMPs associated with streamside
management zone (SMZ), stream
assessment, timber harvest and
mechanical site prep outside SMZs
range from 89.5 to 100 percent (GFC
2021, entire). At this time, the best
available information is not sufficiently
detailed to determine the level of BMP
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86676
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
implementation in sites with Ocmulgee
skullcap occurrences. However, given
the steep slopes associated with most
Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences, and if
BMP implementation is high in these
areas, silvicultural activities are less
likely to impact the species.
Herbivory
Over the last century, white-tailed
deer abundance has increased
substantially (Horsely et al. 2003, p. 98).
White-tailed deer presence results in
herbivory (including preferential
browsing of native plants) and
trampling, causing impacts to plant
development and species density,
diversity, and composition (Miller et al.
1992, entire; Horsely et al. 2003, p. 113;
Averill et al. 2017, p. 2). For many
Scutellaria species, including Ocmulgee
skullcap, immature stems are often
browsed by deer; this herbivory can
prevent reproduction of that stem for
the year if the plant does not flower
(Bradley 2019, p. 77). In addition,
individual plants may be pulled from
the ground during browsing. In contrast,
deer herbivory was found to have a
potential positive influence on the largeflowered skullcap (Scutellaria
montana), where deer browsed on all
vegetation and large-flowered skullcap
individuals benefited from the
reduction in competing vegetation
(Benson and Boyd 2014, p. 89).
However, the direct impacts from whitetailed deer are widely noted across the
range of the Ocmulgee skullcap, with
herbivory documented in over 75
percent of occurrences and herbivory by
deer noted as a limiting factor for
Ocmulgee skullcap populations
(Cammack and Genachte 1999, entire;
Morris 1999, entire; Snow 1999, entire;
Morris et al. 2000, entire; Snow 2001,
entire; Bradley 2019, entire). In 2018,
deer herbivory was observed in every
Ocmulgee skullcap population surveyed
(n = 6) by Bradley (2019, entire), with
severe impacts on reproduction
documented at some sites. Therefore,
we conclude that deer herbivory
continues to be an ongoing threat to
Ocmulgee skullcap.
In addition to direct impacts, deer
browse affects the vegetative community
through facilitation of browse-resilient
species and potential increases in
species that compete with Ocmulgee
skullcap for resources (Horsely et al.
2003, pp. 114–115). Encroaching
development has decreased the amount
and quality of forage and habitat for
white-tailed deer, which can increase
the probability of herbivory within
Ocmulgee skullcap’s suitable habitat.
Further, as development increases,
restrictions on deer harvest in proximity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
to residential areas may lead to an
increase in deer populations and
associated herbivory of Ocmulgee
skullcap.
The Ocmulgee skullcap occurrence at
the Savannah River Bluffs Heritage
Preserve in Aiken County, South
Carolina, has been impacted by severe
deer herbivory (Bradley 2019, p. 24).
The preserve is the site of intense public
recreation; therefore, deer harvest is not
permitted within the preserve for public
safety reasons. In addition, residents in
housing developments adjacent to the
preserve feed the deer and may
maintain large piles of ‘‘deer corn’’
(Bradley 2019, p. 24). This abundance of
food and lack of hunting pressure has
resulted in an unnaturally dense deer
population surrounding this occurrence.
Although suitable habitat remains at
this site; it has previously been
described as depauperate, with an
almost barren herbaceous layer.
Nonnative, Invasive Species
Invasive plant species limit the
available resources (nutrients, space,
sunlight, pollinators) necessary for
Ocmulgee skullcap germination, growth,
and reproduction. The introduction and
spread of nonnative invasive species
often occur with development
(McKinney 2002, p. 888). However,
nonnative invasive species can also be
introduced from other types of adjacent
land uses, such as agriculture and
silviculture. This introduction occurs
through the creation of transitional areas
between natural and anthropogenic
affected habitat types and associated
edge effects (Brown and Boutin 2009, p.
1654; Honu et al. 2009, p. 182).
Nonnative invasive plant species have
been documented at 8 of the 32
Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences
(Bradley 2019, entire; Morris 1999,
entire).
Nonnative, invasive species known to
affect multiple Ocmulgee skullcap
populations include: Elaeagnus
pungens (thorny olive), E. umbellata
(autumn olive), Ligustrum sinense
(Chinese privet), Lonicera japonica
(Japanese honeysuckle), and
Microstegium vimineum (Japanese
stiltgrass) (Morris et al. 2000, p. 31;
Bradley 2019, p. 77). On some sites,
other nonnative, invasive species,
including Pueraria montana var. lobata
(kudzu), Vinca minor (periwinkle),
Citrus trifoliata (hardy orange), and
Pyrus communis (common pear), pose
localized threats to occurrences or
populations (Bradley 2019, p. 77). These
nonnative, invasive species, when
present, compete with Ocmulgee
skullcap plants for required resources,
including sunlight, water, and space.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Intact forested habitat with a mature
canopy and discrete disturbances
provides important habitat for
Ocmulgee skullcap populations which
limits encroachment of competing
nonnative, invasive plants. Competition
with other native species and nonnative,
invasive species can restrict seedlings,
vegetative plants, and flowering plants
from obtaining the three key resources
(water, sunlight, and soil) needed to
grow and reproduce; therefore, healthy
Ocmulgee skullcap individuals and
populations need reduced competition.
Climate Change
In the southeastern United States,
several climate change models have
projected more frequent drought, more
extreme air temperatures, increased
heavy precipitation events (e.g.,
flooding), and more intense storms (e.g.,
frequency of major hurricanes increases)
(Burkett and Kusler 2000, p. 314; Klos
et al. 2009, p. 699; IPCC 2013, pp. 3–29).
When taking into account future climate
projections for temperature and
precipitation where Ocmulgee skullcap
occurs, warming is expected to be
greatest in the summer, which is
predicted to increase drought frequency.
Additionally, annual mean precipitation
is expected to increase, but only
slightly, leading to a slight increase in
flooding events (Alder and Hostetler
2013, unpaginated; IPCC 2013, entire;
USGS 2020, unpaginated).
To understand how climate change is
projected to change where Ocmulgee
skullcap occurs, we used the National
Climate Change Viewer (NCCV), a
climate-visualization tool developed by
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to
generate future climate projections
across the range of the species. The
NCCV is a web-based tool for
visualizing projected changes in climate
and water balance at watershed, State,
and county scales (USGS 2020,
unpaginated). To evaluate the effects of
climate change in the future, we used
projections from representative
concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and
RCP8.5 to characterize projected future
changes in climate and water resources,
averaged for the State of Georgia and
encompassing the majority of the range
of the Ocmulgee skullcap. The
projections estimate change in mean
annual values for maximum air
temperature, minimum air temperature,
monthly precipitation, and monthly
runoff, among other factors, from
historical (1950–2005) to future (2040–
2060) time series.
Within the range of the Ocmulgee
skullcap, the NCCV projects that under
the RCP4.5 scenario, maximum air
temperature will increase by 3.4 degrees
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Fahrenheit (°F) (1.9 degrees Celsius
(°C)), minimum air temperature will
increase by 3.2 °F (1.8 °C), precipitation
will increase by 0.2 in (5.36 millimeters
(mm)) per month, and runoff will
remain the same in the 2040–2060 time
period (USGS 2020, unpaginated).
Under the more extreme RCP8.5
emissions scenario, the NCCV projects
that maximum air temperature will
increase by 5.0 °F (2.8 °C), minimum air
temperature will increase by 4.9 °F
(2.7 °C), precipitation will increase by
0.2 in (5.36 mm) per month, and runoff
will remain the same (USGS 2020,
unpaginated). These estimates indicate
that, despite projected minimal
increases in annual precipitation,
anticipated increases in maximum and
minimum air temperatures will likely
offset those gains. Based on these
projections, Ocmulgee skullcap will, on
average, be exposed to increased air
temperatures across its range, despite
limited increases in precipitation in
scenarios based on RCP4.5 and RCP8.5.
The increase of maximum and
minimum temperatures and variability
in precipitation are expected to result in
an increased probability of longer and
more severe droughts in the future.
Within the mixed hardwood forests
where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs,
drought conditions due to higher
temperatures and variable precipitation
could reduce the available resources
required for plant survival, including
water and reduced competition.
Extreme rainfall events may increase
negative effects associated with erosion
on the steep slopes where the species
occurs and with increased mobilization
of pollutants and sedimentation carried
in runoff from urbanized areas near
species sites. Increased competition
from other species that are more tolerant
of drought and extreme rainfall events
may also limit the ability of Ocmulgee
skullcap to produce viable seed and
sustain populations in the wild over
time. The species occupies hardwood
forests with mature overstory and
midstory canopy cover, and these more
mesic, shaded habitats may provide a
buffer to changes induced by climate
change (such as increased
temperatures). If precipitation increases
slightly, as predicted in some models,
and extreme rainfall events are
infrequent, the effects to Ocmulgee
skullcap could be beneficial, although
this scenario is quite uncertain and
climate change is not expected to
benefit the species (Alder and Hostetler
2013, unpaginated).
The potential risks associated with
long-term climate change as described
above will affect ecosystem processes in
Ocmulgee skullcap habitat, but there is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
uncertainty in how the ecosystems and
species will respond. Overall, we do not
expect the effects of climate change to
be beneficial to the species, but the
extent of the negative effects cannot be
estimated with the available information
on the species’ responses to increased
temperature and variability in
precipitation. Likewise, the threshold or
level at which changes in temperature
(prolonged hot weather) and rainfall
(drought or extreme rainfall events) are
expected to affect Ocmulgee skullcap is
not available for the species or its
congeners. We have determined that
climate change is not a primary risk
factor for the species at this time;
however, the effects of climate change,
including drought and changes in
rainfall patterns, may affect the species
in the future as changes become more
extreme.
Small Population Size
Some plant species, such as Ocmulgee
skullcap, are naturally distributed as
small and disjunct populations in
heterogeneous landscapes because of
their requirements for specific habitat
conditions. The specific habitat
requirement of Ocmulgee skullcap (i.e.,
calcium-rich soil on forested bluffs) is
disjunct, and, therefore, populations are
generally very small, with 16 of 19
populations having fewer than 60
individuals and 9 populations having 10
or fewer individuals. Only three
populations have more than 100
individuals (Service 2023, appendix A).
It is unknown whether Ocmulgee
skullcap was historically more abundant
but given the magnitude and scope of
past habitat loss and modification, it is
likely the species’ numbers are lower
than in the past. In addition, small and
isolated populations offer limited nectar
and pollen resources available to
pollinators, making visitation to these
sites more energetically expensive.
Small, isolated populations of rare plant
species often receive less pollinator
visitation in comparison with larger or
more widespread plant species
(Ellstrand and Elam 1993, p. 227).
Small populations are vulnerable to
habitat impacts and face a higher risk of
extinction (Matthies et al. 2004, p. 481).
Small population size may increase the
extinction risk of individual
populations due to stochasticity of
demographic (fluctuations in population
size) and genetic (fluctuations in gene
expression) characteristics,
environmental stochasticity
(spatiotemporal fluctuations in
environmental conditions), or impacts
from catastrophic events (e.g.,
hurricanes) (Lande 1993, entire). Within
each population, genetic, phenotypic,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86677
and demographic structure must have
adequate representation for populations
to respond to environmental change
over time.
Genetic stochasticity due to small
population size can contribute to
population extirpation, especially when
population fragmentation disrupts gene
flow. Two genetic consequences of
small population size are increased
genetic drift and inbreeding. Genetic
drift is the random change in allele
frequency that occurs because gametes
transmitted from one generation to the
next carry only a sample of the alleles
present in the parental generation. In
large populations, changes due to
chance in allele frequency from drift are
generally small. In contrast, in small
populations (e.g., fewer than 100
individuals), allele frequencies may
undergo large and unpredictable
fluctuations due to drift that can erode
genetic variation (diversity) over time
and may decrease the potential for a
species to persist in the face of
environmental change (Ellstrand and
Elam 1993, pp. 219, 224). Inbreeding,
which can be caused by genetic drift, is
the mating of related individuals.
Inbreeding can lead to increased
homozygosity in a population above
levels expected under random mating
(Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 19). Small
population size alone may not
necessarily be a threat to the long-term
viability of a given population, as small
populations of some isolated endemic
plant species are known to maintain
stable populations for at least 40 years
(Abeli 2010, p. 6). However, the
synergistic effect of habitat
fragmentation, reduced population size,
and inbreeding may lead to inbreeding
depression and reduced fitness.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory
Mechanisms
Ocmulgee skullcap is listed as
threatened in Georgia (Patrick et al.
1995, pp. 173–174) and is not listed or
otherwise protected in South Carolina.
In Georgia, the Georgia Wildflower
Preservation Act of 1973 (Georgia Code,
title 12, chapter 6, article 3, sections 12–
6–170 to 12–6–176) protects Ocmulgee
skullcap growing on State lands from
cutting, digging, pulling, or removing
unless the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources has authorized such
acts. The six populations occurring on
State-owned or State-managed wildlife
management areas in Georgia receive
the benefits of protection under the
Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act of
1973.
Throughout the range of the species,
portions of eight populations occur on
lands owned and managed by State or
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86678
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Federal entities that prioritize
conservation as a management objective.
The Robins Air Force Base Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan
(INRMP) specifically considers and
manages for one Ocmulgee skullcap
population (three occurrences) on the
installation (for more information, see
Exemptions, below). The State
conservation lands owned or leased and
managed by the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources where six Ocmulgee
skullcap populations occur include
Yuchi Creek Wildlife Management Area
(WMA), Ocmulgee WMA, and the Oaky
Woods WMA. One Ocmulgee skullcap
population occurs on the Savannah
River Heritage Preserve owned and
managed by the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources. It is
expected that the eight Ocmulgee
skullcap populations are positively
affected by protection from
development on these State-owned and
State-managed lands. However, Stateowned or managed land and the Georgia
Wildflower Protection Act do not
require or ensure species appropriate
habitat management (e.g., invasive
species and deer management) that may
be needed to conserve the species. The
one population on Federal land (Robins
Air Force Base) is protected and
managed via an INRMP. However, the
negative impacts associated with
herbivory and the effects of climate
change continue to impact Ocmulgee
skullcap populations on all protected
lands.
the SSA report, we have analyzed the
cumulative effects of identified threats
and conservation actions on the species.
To assess the current and future
condition of the species, we evaluate the
effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species,
including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework
considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they
collectively influence risk to the entire
species, our assessment integrates the
cumulative effects of the factors and
replaces a standalone cumulative-effects
analysis.
In addition to factors impacting
Ocmulgee skullcap individually, it is
likely that several of the threats
summarized above are acting
synergistically or cumulatively on the
species. The combined impacts of
multiple threats are likely more harmful
than a single threat acting alone.
Development and urbanization may
remove or degrade habitat where
Ocmulgee skullcap occurs and may also
bring an increase in encroaching
nonnative, invasive species and whitetailed deer due to hunting restrictions
near inhabited areas. In addition,
herbivory by white-tailed deer may
change the community structure to favor
plants more resistant to deer browse.
The impacts of herbivory by whitetailed deer and competition from
nonnative, invasive species were
recently noted in several populations
(Bradley 2019, entire).
Synergistic and Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA
framework to guide our analysis of the
scientific information documented in
Methods To Assess Current Condition
To evaluate the biological status of
Ocmulgee skullcap both currently and
into the future, we assessed a range of
conditions to consider the species’
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. For the purposes of our
analysis, representative units (RUs)
were delineated to describe the breadth
of known genetic, phenotypic, and
ecological diversity within the species.
We divided the Ocmulgee skullcap
range into two noncontiguous RUs, the
Ocmulgee and Savannah River
watersheds. We used the 2-km
separation distance rule in
NatureServe’s habitat-based plant
element occurrence delineation
guidance (NatureServe 2020, entire) to
delineate populations. We delineated
populations of the Ocmulgee skullcap
using occurrence data obtained from
peer-reviewed articles, unpublished
survey reports, and survey records (1961
to present) contained in agency and
partner databases (i.e., Georgia and
South Carolina Natural Heritage
databases).
Occurrences are defined as an
individual or group of individuals in
close proximity in an area not widely
separated from other individuals.
Rangewide, each of the 32 occurrences
was buffered by a 2-km (1.24-mi) radius
circle and occurrences with overlapping
buffers were considered within the same
population, resulting in 19 Ocmulgee
skullcap populations (13 in the
Ocmulgee RU and 6 in Savannah RU)
(see table 2, below). Historical
occurrence data are limited, but we
assumed that the current distribution of
Ocmulgee skullcap populations
represents at least most of the historical
range of the species within the
Ocmulgee and Savannah watersheds in
Georgia and South Carolina.
TABLE 2—POPULATIONS USED TO ASSESS VIABILITY OF THE OCMULGEE SKULLCAP IN THE OCMULGEE AND SAVANNAH
REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Ocmulgee representative unit populations
Savannah representative unit populations
James Dykes Memorial
Adjoins Robins Air Force Base
Savage Branch
Bolingbroke Rest Area
Crooked Creek
Jordan Creek
Shellstone Creek
Dry Creek
Oaky Woods Wildlife Management Area North
Oaky Woods Wildlife Management Area South
River North Bluff
South Shellstone Creek
Tributary to Richland Creek
Burke South
Burke North
Columbia Richmond
Barney Bluff
Horse Creek
Prescott Lakes
After the proposed rule published, we received new information about the Horse Creek population and now consider it a historical population
(Service 2022, entire).
The Ocmulgee skullcap needs
multiple, sufficiently resilient
populations distributed across its range
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
to maintain viability. A sufficiently
resilient population exhibits high or
moderate resiliency and is characterized
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
by 60 or more individuals in stable or
increasing numbers of widespread
occurrences with no or few invasive
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
species and no or minor change in
habitat condition. A number of factors
influence whether Ocmulgee skullcap
populations exhibit resiliency to
stochastic events. These factors include:
(1) Number of individuals in all
occurrences within a population; (2)
number of flowering individuals
(reproductive adults) within a
population; (3) number of occurrences
(groups of individuals) within a
population; (4) change in number of
occurrences within a population over
time; and (5) condition of habitat, which
is directly related to growth, survival,
and reproductive success (Service 2023,
p. 24). To capture important aspects of
the habitat condition, we used two
factors, both of which characterize the
quality and quantity of native
herbaceous ground cover: (1) Presence
of nonnative, invasive plant species
(competition); and (2) presence of deer
herbivory (browsing) (Service 2023, p.
24).
We assessed representation for the
Ocmulgee skullcap based on the
potential adaptive capacity of the
species as expressed in the number of
populations across the range of the
species and within representative units.
Finally, we assessed Ocmulgee
skullcap’s redundancy (the ability of a
species to withstand catastrophic
events) by evaluating the number and
distribution of sufficiently resilient
populations throughout the species’
range.
Current Conditions of Ocmulgee
Skullcap
As described above, we delineated the
range of Ocmulgee skullcap into two
representative units and 19 populations
for our analyses. Having a greater
number of self-sustaining populations
distributed across the known range of
the species is associated with an overall
higher viability of the species into the
future. We determined four condition
classes for Ocmulgee skullcap
resiliency: very low, low, moderate, and
high. A population exhibiting high
resiliency is characterized by: 100 or
more individuals, with multiple,
widespread clusters of individuals; an
increasing trend in the number of
occurrences; few or no nonnative,
invasive plant species; no evident deer
browse impacts; and no substantial
change in habitat condition. Moderate
resiliency populations are characterized
by: 60–99 individuals, with a few,
somewhat widespread clusters of
individuals; stable number of
occurrences; few or no nonnative,
invasive plant species; evident deer
browse impacts; and only minor
changes in habitat condition. A
population in low resiliency is
characterized by: 40–59 individuals,
with two clusters of individuals; a
decreasing trend in the number of
occurrences; presence of nonnative,
invasive plant species and deer browse
impacts; and moderate change in habitat
condition. A very low resiliency
population is characterized by: fewer
than 40 individuals in a single, isolated
site; presence of nonnative, invasive
plant species and deer browse; and
substantial change in habitat condition.
Resiliency categories are further
described in the SSA report (Service
2023, p. 24, table 4–1).
Currently, 16 of 19 populations
within the species’ range exhibit low or
very low resiliency (see table 3, below).
One population (James Dykes Memorial)
within the Ocmulgee RU exhibits
moderate resiliency, and two
86679
populations (Burke North and Burke
South) within the Savannah RU exhibit
moderate or high resiliency (see table 3,
below). The majority of Ocmulgee
skullcap populations have low or very
low resilience to stochastic events. One
occurrence within an extant population
in the Savannah RU has been extirpated
because of land conversion to pine
plantation; currently, there are no
known extirpations at the population
level. The Horse Creek population is
considered historical because it has not
been found in over twenty years;
however, it has not been surveyed
extensively enough since the 1960s to
confirm there is no habitat and the plant
no longer occurs there (Service 2022,
entire).
The Ocmulgee skullcap is found in
two non-contiguous RUs (watersheds);
and currently occupies the known
historical range of the species. One
occurrence within a population has
been extirpated, but the population is
still extant. Thus, representation may be
slightly reduced from the species’
historical condition. Based on available
information, we determined the
Ocmulgee skullcap has adaptive
capacity or ability to adapt to changing
environmental conditions, given that 19
populations occur in two watersheds in
two States and no populations have
been lost from the known historical
range. Sixteen of 19 known populations
currently exhibit low to very low
resiliency across the range, but these
populations are distributed across two
watersheds in two States across the
historical range. Overall, the Ocmulgee
skullcap’s current condition is
characterized by low or reduced
resiliency, moderate representation, and
multiple redundant populations.
TABLE 3—CURRENT RESILIENCY CATEGORY OF EACH OCMULGEE SKULLCAP POPULATION
[Service 2023]
Number of
individuals
Population name
Overall resiliency category *
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Ocmulgee Representative Unit (Ocmulgee River watershed)
James Dykes Memorial ................................................................................................
Adjoins Robins Air Force Base ....................................................................................
Savage Branch .............................................................................................................
Bolingbroke Rest Area .................................................................................................
Crooked Creek .............................................................................................................
Jordan Creek ................................................................................................................
Shellstone Creek ..........................................................................................................
Dry Creek .....................................................................................................................
Oaky Woods WMA North .............................................................................................
Oaky Woods WMA South ............................................................................................
River North Bluff ...........................................................................................................
South Shellstone Creek ...............................................................................................
Tributary to Richland Creek .........................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
54
3
50
8
31
50
46
10
1
1
1
15
6
Moderate.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Very low.
Very low.
Very low.
Very low.
Very low.
Very low.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86680
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—CURRENT RESILIENCY CATEGORY OF EACH OCMULGEE SKULLCAP POPULATION—Continued
[Service 2023]
Number of
individuals
Population name
Overall resiliency category *
Savannah Representative Unit (Savannah River watershed)
Burke South ..................................................................................................................
Burke North ..................................................................................................................
Columbia Richmond .....................................................................................................
Barney Bluff ..................................................................................................................
Horse Creek .................................................................................................................
Prescott Lakes ..............................................................................................................
319
112
450
50
0
0
High.
Moderate.
Low.
Low.
Very low (historical).
Very low.
* Overall resiliency category includes the demographic metrics of the number of individuals, number of occurrences, and change in number of
occurrences, and the habitat metric assessment of native herbaceous groundcover/habitat condition.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Future Scenarios
Given the current conditions of
Ocmulgee skullcap and the expected
influences on viability, we projected the
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of Ocmulgee skullcap
under three plausible future scenarios.
Our projections incorporate the effects
of development (urbanization) and
habitat management actions that reduce
nonnative, invasive species and
herbivory from white-tailed deer.
However, having determined that the
current condition of the Ocmulgee
skullcap is consistent with that of an
endangered species (see Determination
of Ocmulgee Skullcap’s Status, below),
we are not presenting the results in this
final rule. Please refer to the proposed
listing and designation of critical habitat
rule for the Ocmulgee skullcap (87 FR
37378; June 22, 2022) and the SSA
report, version 1.3 (Service 2023, entire)
for the full analysis of future conditions
and descriptions of the associated
scenarios.
Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap’s
Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species meets
the definition of an endangered species
or a threatened species. The Act defines
an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and a
‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. The
Act requires that we determine whether
a species meets the definition of
endangered species or threatened
species because of any of the following
factors: (A) the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species
and assessing the cumulative effect of
the threats under the Act’s section
4(a)(1) factors, we determined the
Ocmulgee skullcap to be an endangered
species throughout all of its range due
to current and ongoing threats across the
range. We have carefully assessed the
best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats, and the
cumulative effect of the threats to the
Ocmulgee skullcap. Our review of the
best available information indicates
Ocmulgee skullcap occurs in 19
populations in 2 representative units,
the Ocmulgee River watershed in
Georgia (13 populations) and the
Savannah River watershed in Georgia/
South Carolina (6 populations), across
the historical range of the species.
Recently, there has been one extirpation
of an occurrence within a currently
extant population in the Savannah River
watershed resulting from land use
conversion to a pine plantation.
Ocmulgee skullcap populations are
generally small. At present, 3
populations contain more than 100
individuals, and 16 populations have
fewer than 60 individuals. Generally,
the Ocmulgee skullcap has low
resiliency to stochastic events at the
population level. Sixteen of the known
populations have low abundance and
exhibit low or very low resiliency to
stochastic events. Of the remaining
three (out of 19) populations, one
population in the Savannah RU has high
resiliency and two have moderate
resiliency (one in each the Ocmulgee
and Savannah RUs).
As stated previously, Ocmulgee
skullcap populations are distributed in
two watersheds across the historical
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
range of the species. We determined the
Ocmulgee skullcap has some adaptive
capacity or representation based on the
species occurrences across the known
historical range. The species-level
redundancy was determined to be
reduced from historical condition due to
the loss of one occurrence. Although the
resiliency of most populations is low or
very low, populations are distributed
across the species’ range, giving it some
redundancy and ability to withstand
catastrophic events.
Ocmulgee skullcap faces threats from
habitat degradation or loss as a result of
development and urbanization (Factor
A); competition and encroachment from
nonnative, invasive species (Factors A
and E); and herbivory by white-tailed
deer (Factor C). These threats are
exacerbated by small population size
(Factor E) and existing regulatory
mechanisms that do not adequately
address the threats (Factor D).
Overutilization (Factor B) and disease
(Factor C) are not currently affecting
Ocmulgee skullcap populations. Climate
change (Factor E) is not a primary risk
factor for the species at this time;
however, the effects of climate change,
including drought and changes in
rainfall patterns, may affect the species
in the future as changes become more
extreme.
While we anticipate that the threats
will continue to act on the species in the
future, they are affecting the species
such that it is in danger of extinction
now, and therefore, we find that a
threatened species status is not
appropriate. We find that the Ocmulgee
skullcap’s vulnerability to ongoing
stressors is heightened to such a degree
that it is currently in danger of
extinction as a result of its low number
of populations, low population size, and
response to current and ongoing threats.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we determine that
Ocmulgee skullcap is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We have
determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap
is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range and
accordingly did not undertake an
analysis of any significant portion of its
range. Because the Ocmulgee skullcap
warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our
determination does not conflict with the
decision in Center for Biological
Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69
(D.D.C. 2020), because that decision
related to significant portion of the
range analyses for species that warrant
listing as threatened, not endangered,
throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best scientific and
commercial data available indicates that
the Ocmulgee skullcap meets the Act’s
definition of an endangered species.
Therefore, we are listing the Ocmulgee
skullcap as an endangered species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act
include recognition as a listed species,
planning and implementation of
recovery actions, requirements for
Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public
awareness, and conservation by Federal,
State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act
encourages cooperation with the States
and other countries and calls for
recovery actions to be carried out for
listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies, including the
Service, and the prohibitions against
certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the
Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins
with development of a recovery outline
made available to the public soon after
a final listing determination. The
recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery
actions while a recovery plan is being
developed. Recovery teams (composed
of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement
recovery plans. The recovery planning
process involves the identification of
actions that are necessary to halt and
reverse the species’ decline by
addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a
species may be ready for reclassification
from endangered to threatened
(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from
protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and
methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan
may be done to address continuing or
new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes
available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and
any revisions will be available on our
website as they are completed (https://
www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies), or from our Georgia Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86681
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the States of Georgia and South
Carolina will be eligible for Federal
funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or
recovery of the Ocmulgee skullcap.
Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can
be found at: https://www.fws.gov/
service/financial-assistance.
Please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery
efforts for the Ocmulgee skullcap.
Additionally, we invite you to submit
any new information on this species
whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled
‘‘Interagency Cooperation,’’ and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to
use their existing authorities to further
the conservation purposes of the Act
and to ensure that their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species or adversely
modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at
50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal
action agency shall, in consultation with
the Secretary, ensure that any action
they authorize, fund, or carry out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat. Each
Federal agency shall review its action at
the earliest possible time to determine
whether it may affect listed species or
critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed
species or critical habitat, formal
consultation is required (50 CFR
402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in
writing that the action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical
habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a
biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal
action is likely to result in jeopardy or
adverse modification.
Examples of discretionary actions for
the Ocmulgee skullcap that may be
subject to consultation procedures
under section 7 include management
and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered
by the National Park Service as well as
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
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
86682
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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,
authorized, or carried out by a Federal
agency—do not require section 7
consultation. Federal agencies should
coordinate with the local Service Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) with any specific questions on
Section 7 consultation and conference
requirements.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to endangered plants. The prohibitions
of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the
Service’s implementing regulations
codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States to commit, to
attempt to commit, to solicit another to
commit, or to cause to be committed any
of the following with regard to any
endangered plant: (1) import to, or
export from, the United States; (2)
remove and reduce to possession from
areas under Federal jurisdiction;
maliciously damage or destroy on any
such area; remove, cut, dig up, or
damage or destroy on any other area in
knowing violation of any law or
regulation of any State or in the course
of any violation of a State criminal
trespass law; (3) deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce, by any means whatsoever
and in the course of a commercial
activity; or (4) sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain
exceptions to these prohibitions apply
to employees or agents of the Service,
other Federal land management
agencies, and State conservation
agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under
certain circumstances. Service
regulations governing permits for
endangered plants are codified at 50
CFR 17.62, and general Service
permitting regulations are codified at 50
CFR part 13. With regard to endangered
plants, a permit may be issued for
scientific purposes or for enhancing the
propagation or survival of the species.
The statute also contains certain
exemptions from the prohibitions,
which are found in sections 9 and 10 of
the Act.
It is the policy of the Services, as
published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify
to the extent known at the time a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
species is listed, specific activities that
will not be considered likely to result in
violation of section 9 of the Act. To the
extent possible, activities that will be
considered likely to result in violation
will also be identified in as specific a
manner as possible. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within the range of
the species.
At this time, we are unable to identify
specific activities that will or will not be
considered likely to result in violation
of section 9 of the Act beyond what is
already clear from the descriptions of
prohibitions or already excepted
through our regulations at 50 CFR 17.61
(e.g., any employee or agent of the
Service, any other Federal land
management agency, or a State
conservation agency, who is designated
by that agency for such purposes, may,
when acting in the course of official
duties, remove and reduce to possession
endangered plants from areas under
Federal jurisdiction without a permit if
such action is necessary to: (i) care for
a damaged or diseased specimen; (ii)
dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii)
salvage a dead specimen which may be
useful for scientific study). Also, as
discussed above, certain activities that
are prohibited under section 9 may be
permitted under section 10 of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Georgia Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires
that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we designate a
species’ critical habitat concurrently
with listing the species. Critical habitat
is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02
define the geographical area occupied
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
by the species as an area that may
generally be delineated around species’
occurrences, as determined by the
Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may
include those areas used throughout all
or part of the species’ life cycle, even if
not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats,
and habitats used periodically, but not
solely by vagrant individuals).
This critical habitat designation was
proposed when the regulations defining
‘‘habitat’’ (85 FR 81411; December 16,
2020) and governing the 4(b)(2)
exclusion process for the Service (85 FR
82376; December 18, 2020) were in
place and in effect. However, those two
regulations have been rescinded (87 FR
37757, June 24, 2022; and 87 FR 43433,
July 21, 2022) and no longer apply to
any designations of critical habitat.
Therefore, for this final rule designating
critical habitat for the Ocmulgee
skullcap, we apply the regulations at 50
CFR 424.19 and the Policy Regarding
Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the
‘‘2016 Policy’’; 81 FR 7226, February 11,
2016).
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 also
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. Rather, designation
requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
affect areas designated as critical
habitat, the Federal agency consult with
the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act. If the action may affect the listed
species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal action
agency would have already been
required to consult with the Service
even absent the critical habitat
designation because of the requirement
to ensure that the action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the
proposed activity is likely to result in
destruction or adverse modification of
the critical habitat, the Federal action
agency and the landowner are not
required to abandon the proposed
activity, or to restore or recover the
species; instead, they must implement
‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’
to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
data available, those physical or
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected
habitat).
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.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
available, 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 from the SSA
report and information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include any generalized
conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the
species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed
journals; conservation plans developed
by States and counties; scientific status
surveys and studies; biological
assessments; other unpublished
materials; or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species; and (3) the
prohibitions found in section 9 of the
Act. 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 Essential
to the Conservation of the Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86683
424.12(b), in determining which areas
we will designate as critical habitat from
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, we
consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define
‘‘physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species’’ as
the features that occur in specific areas
and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including,
but not limited to, water characteristics,
soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single
habitat characteristic or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics.
Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral
or dynamic habitat conditions. Features
may also be expressed in terms relating
to principles of conservation biology,
such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity. For
example, physical features essential to
the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size
required for spawning, alkaline soil for
seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding
or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey
species, forage grasses, specific kinds or
ages of trees for roosting or nesting,
symbiotic fungi, or absence of a
particular level of nonnative species
consistent with conservation needs of
the listed species. The features may also
be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or
the necessary amount of a characteristic
essential to support the life history of
the species.
In considering whether features are
essential to the conservation of the
species, we may consider an appropriate
quality, quantity, and spatial and
temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of
the species. These characteristics
include, but are not limited to, space for
individual and population growth and
for normal behavior; food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,
or rearing (or development) of offspring;
and habitats that are protected from
disturbance.
Our SSA report for the Ocmulgee
skullcap provides the scientific
information upon which this critical
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86684
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
habitat designation is based (Service
2023, entire). A thorough account of the
ecological needs of the Ocmulgee
skullcap can be found in the SSA report
(Service 2023, chapter 2, pp. 4–11), and
is briefly summarized here in the
context of the physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Habitat
As described above under
Background, the Ocmulgee skullcap
occurs in moist, calcareous hardwood
forests on north- to northeast-facing
slopes of river bluffs and their
floodplains in the Ocmulgee and
Savannah River watersheds in Georgia
and South Carolina. River bluffs and
steep slopes are subject to localized
disturbances that limit the accumulation
of leaf litter and competition. Ocmulgee
skullcap individuals require reduced
competition to grow and reproduce
within suitable habitat.
These hardwood forests are
characterized by a mature, mixed-level
canopy with spatial heterogeneity that
provides mottled shade required by
Ocmulgee skullcap. Intact calcareous
forests are characterized by a diverse
species composition ranging from shortlived pioneer species to long-lived,
shade-tolerant species (Edwards et al.
2013, p. 406). Communal species in
these areas may consist of red buckeye
(Aesculus pavia), eastern redbud (Cercis
canadensis), white oak (Quercus alba),
basswood (Tilia americana), American
holly (Ilex opaca), and relict trillium
(Trillium reliquum) (Edwards et al.
2013, p. 409; Bradley 2019, pp. 21–28).
The herbaceous layer in this forest type
includes a rich diversity of grasses and
forbs that support the required
pollinators for the species in adequate
numbers to facilitate Ocmulgee skullcap
reproduction. The upper canopy of
mixed hardwoods in a forest with
suitable habitat provides the partial
shade required for germination, growth,
and reproduction.
Intact forested habitat with a mature
canopy and discrete disturbances
provides important habitat for
Ocmulgee skullcap populations to
decrease encroachment of competing
nonnative, invasive plants. Competition
with other native species and nonnative,
invasive species can restrict seedlings,
vegetative plants, and flowering plants
from obtaining the three key resources
(water, sunlight, and soil) needed to
grow and reproduce; therefore, healthy
Ocmulgee skullcap individuals and
populations need reduced competition.
Soils
The calcareous hardwood forests
where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs are
influenced by outcroppings of limestone
or marl that provide the calcium-rich
parent material for soils. Ocmulgee
skullcap requires well-drained soils or
shallow, calcium-rich soils that are
buffered or circumneutral (pH between
6.5 and 7.5) to germinate. These soils
occur within regions underlain or
otherwise influenced by limestone or
marl.
Summary of Resource Needs
More detail on the species’ habitat
and life-history needs is provided above
under Background, and a thorough
review is available in the SSA report
(Service 2023, entire; available at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059).
A summary of the resource needs of
the Ocmulgee skullcap is provided
below in table 5.
TABLE 5—OCMULGEE SKULLCAP INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES NEEDS BY LIFE STAGE
[Key resource needs are in bolded text and include precipitation (water), partial sunlight, soil, and reduced competition (Collins 1976, pp. 1, 70;
Chafin 2008, p. 2)]
Life stage
Resources and circumstances needed for individuals to complete life stage
Seed ..........................................
Fall/winter precipitation ................................................................................................................
Bare mineral calcium-rich soil ...................................................................................................
Partial sunlight ..............................................................................................................................
Sufficient summer/fall precipitation ..............................................................................................
Calcium-rich soil ..........................................................................................................................
Reduced competition from invasives/encroaching plants ..........................................................
Partial sunlight for photosynthesis ...............................................................................................
Spring/summer precipitation ........................................................................................................
Calcium-rich soil ..........................................................................................................................
Reduced competition from invasives/encroaching plants ..........................................................
Partial sunlight for photosynthesis ...............................................................................................
Spring/summer precipitation ........................................................................................................
Calcium-rich soil ..........................................................................................................................
Reduced competition from invasives/encroaching plants ..........................................................
Pollinators ....................................................................................................................................
Partial sunlight for photosynthesis ...............................................................................................
Seedling ....................................
Vegetative plant ........................
Flowering plant .........................
Resource
function *
N
H,
N
N
H,
H
N
N
H,
H
N
N
H,
H
R
N
N, R
N
N
N
* H = Habitat, N = Nutrition, and R = Reproduction.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Summary of Essential Physical or
Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Ocmulgee skullcap from
studies of the species’ habitat, ecology,
and life history as described below.
Additional information can be found in
the SSA report (Service 2023, entire;
available on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059). We have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
determined that the following physical
or biological features are essential to the
conservation of Ocmulgee skullcap:
(1) 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 Upper Gulf
Coastal Plain and Piedmont of Georgia.
(2) Well-drained soils that are
buffered or circumneutral (pH between
6.5 and 7.5) generally within regions
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
underlain or otherwise influenced by
limestone or marl (mixed carbonate-clay
rock).
(3) A mature, mixed-level canopy
with spatial heterogeneity, providing
mottled shade and often including a
rich diversity of grasses and forbs
characterizing the herbaceous layer.
(4) Intact forested habitat that is
ecologically functional (i.e., with mature
canopy and discrete disturbances) and
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
buffered by surrounding habitat to
impede the invasion of competitors.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The
features essential to the conservation of
Ocmulgee skullcap may require special
management considerations or
protection to reduce the following
threats: development; nonnative,
invasive species (plants); and indirect
effects on habitat quality due to
herbivory by white-tailed deer and
adjacent land uses such as silviculture
and agriculture.
Special management considerations
or protection may be required within
critical habitat areas to address these
threats. Management activities that
could ameliorate these threats include,
but are not limited to, local review of
proposed county and State projects and
other development projects that may
affect Ocmulgee skullcap habitat to
determine whether or not the project
will avoid impacts to the species’
habitat; control and reduction of
nonnative, invasive species; harvest of
deer to reduce changes in plant
community and increase in browseresistant plants in affected populations;
implementation of BMPs (for
silvicultural and agricultural land uses);
and habitat restoration projects. These
management activities would protect
the physical or biological features for
the species by promoting intact
vegetative community with mixed
heterogeneity, mottled shade, and a
diverse herbaceous layer.
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.
The SSA report, version 1.3 (Service
2023, entire), contains the best available
information used to identify critical
habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap,
which includes existing monitoring
data, population status surveys, and
relevant Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) layers (Service 2023, pp.
21, 37–38, appendix A). In accordance
with the Act and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining
to the habitat requirements of the
species and identify specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
by the species at the time of listing and
any specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species to be considered for designation
as critical habitat. We are not
designating any areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified
any unoccupied areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. The
protection of the current extant
populations in both representative units
will sufficiently reduce the risk of
extinction, and improving the resiliency
within these currently occupied units
should increase viability to the point
that the protections of the Act are no
longer necessary. We have determined
that the areas we are designating as
critical habitat are sufficient for the
recovery of the species and align with
our conservation strategy for Ocmulgee
skullcap.
To determine and select appropriate
occupied areas that contain the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, we
developed a conservation strategy for
the species. The goal of the conservation
strategy for the Ocmulgee skullcap is to
recover the species to the point where
the protections of the Act are no longer
necessary. The role of critical habitat in
achieving this conservation goal is to
identify the specific areas within the
species’ range that provide essential
physical or biological features, without
which rangewide resiliency,
redundancy, and representation could
not be achieved. We anticipate that
recovery will require continued
protection of existing populations and
habitats that contribute to the viability
of the species: ensuring there are
adequate numbers of individual plants
in populations; and ensuring multiple
sufficiently resilient populations in each
representative unit and across the
current range of the species. This
approach may lead to connectivity
among populations and will help to
ensure that catastrophic events cannot
simultaneously affect all known
populations of the Ocmulgee skullcap.
Recovery considerations, such as
striving for representation of both
watersheds in the species’ current range,
were considered in formulating this
designation.
Ocmulgee skullcap populations, with
the exception of one large area, are
confined to small patches (ranging in
size from 0.24 to 24 ac (0.1 to 9.7 ha)).
Ocmulgee skullcap requires areas of
intact hardwood forest to provide the
appropriate canopy conditions in large
enough areas to protect the species from
encroachment of nonnative, invasive
species. The small patches typically do
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86685
not provide enough habitat to support
the species or provide connectivity
among populations. In addition, the
small populations in these patches
experience the exacerbation of other
threats associated with small population
size (see Influences on Ocmulgee
Skullcap’s Viability, above).
Based on the Act’s implementing
regulations (see 50 CFR 424.12(d)),
when habitats are in close proximity to
one another, an inclusive area may be
designated. We delineated populations
of Ocmulgee skullcap using a 2-km
(1.24-mi) radius circle, with overlapping
buffers determined to be within the
same population based on the need for
sufficient space and resources for
required pollinators (NatureServe 2020,
entire; Service 2023, p. 21). Therefore,
the habitat areas surrounding Ocmulgee
skullcap occurrences are also included
within these occupied units, because
they have the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species, provide space for
population expansion that would
increase the resiliency within these
units, provide connectivity between
individual patches of occupied habitat,
and support the conditions that
Ocmulgee skullcap individuals and
populations require.
In summary, for areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species
at the time of listing, we delineated
critical habitat unit boundaries using
the following criteria:
• We identified areas that are
considered to be occupied at the time of
listing within the historical range of the
species, and
• We determined if those areas
contain the physical or biological
features to support life-history functions
that are essential for the conservation of
the species.
For the purposes of the critical habitat
designation, and for areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species
at the time of listing, we determined a
unit to be occupied if it contains a
recent observation (i.e., observed since
1999). These areas are consistent with
the identified populations in the SSA
report that were derived using
occurrence data and a 2-km separation
distance for sufficient space and
resources for required pollinators
(NatureServe 2020, entire; Service 2023,
p. 21). Suitable habitat within the
identified populations was determined
through site specific surveys and GIS
analyses that identified the areas with
appropriate aspect, geomorphons
(landform pattern), temperature, burned
area, soil type, vegetation cover, and
land cover, using source data from the
National Elevation Dataset, Landsat,
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86686
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
WorldClim, NatureServe landcover
map, and the GAP/LANDFIRE National
Terrestrial Ecosystems dataset.
Information specific to calcium-rich
soils was not available; therefore, we
rely on species occurrence data to
represent presence of this identified
species need.
Based on this analysis, the following
areas meet the critical habitat criteria for
the species at the time of listing:
Columbia/Richmond, Barney Bluff,
Burke North, Burke South, Prescott
Lakes, Bolingbroke Rest Area, River
North Bluff, Savage Branch, Adjoins
Robins Air Force Base, Tributary (Trib)
Richland Creek, Oaky Woods North,
Crooked Creek, Shellstone Creek, Oaky
Woods South, Dry Creek, James Dykes
Memorial, South Shellstone Creek, and
Jordan Creek. These areas are known to
be occupied by the species, including
the element occurrence at Savannah
River Bluffs Natural Heritage Preserve.
These areas meet our conservation
strategy and provide the essential
physical or biological features necessary
to support and increase resiliency,
redundancy, and representation for the
Ocmulgee skullcap. Designating critical
habitat units in these areas will
sufficiently lead to the protection, and
eventual reduction in risk of extirpation
of the species.
Sources of data for this designation of
critical habitat include multiple
databases maintained by universities
and State agencies in Georgia and South
Carolina, as well as numerous reports
from surveys conducted in suitable
habitat throughout the species’ range.
Other sources of available information
on habitat requirements for this species
include studies conducted at occupied
sites and published in peer-reviewed
articles, agency reports, and data
collected during monitoring efforts
(Cammack and Genachte 1999, entire;
Morris 1999, entire; Snow 1999 and
2001, entire; Bradley 2019, entire;
Service 2022, entire; Service 2023,
entire). Occurrence records were
compiled and provided to us by State
partners during the SSA analysis.
When determining critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to
avoid including developed areas such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement,
and other structures because such lands
lack physical or biological features
necessary for Ocmulgee skullcap. 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 rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not
designated as critical habitat. Therefore,
a Federal action involving these lands
will not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification
unless the specific action will 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 under
Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the
boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this
document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059, and on our
internet site https://www.fws.gov/office/
georgia-ecological-services/library.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 18 units as critical
habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap. The
critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap. The 18
areas we designate as critical habitat are:
(1) Columbia/Richmond; (2) Barney
Bluff; (3) Burke North; (4) Burke South;
(5) Prescott Lakes; (6) Bolingbroke Rest
Area; (7) River North Bluff; (8) Savage
Branch; (9) Adjoins Robins Air Force
Base; (10) Trib Richland Creek; (11)
Oaky Woods North; (12) Crooked Creek;
(13) Shellstone Creek; (14) Oaky Woods
South; (15) Dry Creek; (16) James Dykes
Memorial; (17) South Shellstone Creek;
and (18) Jordan Creek. All 18 critical
habitat units are currently considered
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Table 6
shows the critical habitat units and the
approximate area of each unit.
Approximately 84.2 percent of the
designated critical habitat occurs on
private lands, 0.4 percent occurs on
county lands, and the remaining 15.3
percent occurs on State-owned or Statemanaged lands. No Federal lands are
included in this critical habitat
designation.
TABLE 6—FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR OCMULGEE SKULLCAP
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
Size of unit in acres
(hectares)
Critical habitat unit No. and name
Land ownership by type
1a: Columbia/Richmond .....................................................
1b: Columbia/Richmond .....................................................
1c: Columbia/Richmond ......................................................
1d. Columbia/Richmond .....................................................
2: Barney Bluff ....................................................................
3: Burke North ....................................................................
4: Burke South ....................................................................
5: Prescott Lakes ................................................................
6: Bolingbroke Rest Area ...................................................
7: River North Bluff .............................................................
8: Savage Branch ...............................................................
9: Adjoins Robins Air Force Base ......................................
10: Trib Richland Creek ......................................................
11: Oaky Woods North .......................................................
12: Crooked Creek .............................................................
13: Shellstone Creek ..........................................................
14: Oaky Woods South ......................................................
15: Dry Creek .....................................................................
16: James Dykes Memorial ................................................
17: South Shellstone Creek ...............................................
18: Jordan Creek ................................................................
Richmond County; Private .................................................
Private ................................................................................
Private ................................................................................
State of South Carolina ......................................................
Private ................................................................................
Private ................................................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
Private ................................................................................
Private ................................................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
Private ................................................................................
Private ................................................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
State of Georgia; Private ....................................................
Private ................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
106 (43)
117 (47)
334 (135)
84 (34)
415 (168)
526 (213)
976 (395)
81 (33)
338 (137)
115 (46)
115 (46)
231 (93)
340 (138)
657 (266)
205 (83)
160 (65)
363 (147)
330 (133)
515 (208)
403 (163)
250 (101)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86687
TABLE 6—FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR OCMULGEE SKULLCAP—Continued
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
Critical habitat unit No. and name
Size of unit in acres
(hectares)
Land ownership by type
Total .............................................................................
.............................................................................................
6,661 (2,696)
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for
Ocmulgee skullcap, below.
Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond
Unit 1 consists of four subunits
comprising 641 ac (259 ha) in Columbia
and Richmond Counties, Georgia, and
Aiken and Edgefield Counties, South
Carolina. This unit consists of land
owned by Richmond County (4 percent),
the State of South Carolina (13 percent),
and private landowners (83 percent),
with 35 percent of Unit 1 held in a
conservation easement. All subunits are
located near Interstate 20 along the
Savannah River and the South CarolinaGeorgia State border.
Subunit 1a consists of 106 ac (43 ha)
in Columbia County, Georgia. This
subunit lies on the west side of the
Savannah River, just north of the City of
Augusta. Richmond County owns and
manages 28 ac (11.3 ha) in this subunit,
and the other 78 ac (31.7 ha) are
privately owned. The essential physical
or biological feature concerning intact
forested habitat is degraded in this
subunit, which is adjacent to developed
areas. Special management
considerations or protection may be
required in Subunit 1a to address and
alleviate impacts from stressors that
have led to the loss or degradation of the
habitat, including urbanization and
commercial development and
nonnative, invasive species (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Special management
considerations related to developed
areas that would benefit the habitat in
this subunit include, but are not limited
to, review of county development plans
and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid
areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap,
and control or removal of nonnative,
invasive species.
Subunit 1b consists of 117 ac (47 ha)
in Richmond County, Georgia, on lands
in private ownership. This subunit lies
on the west side of the Savannah River,
just north of the City of Augusta. The
essential physical or biological feature
concerning intact forested habitat is
degraded in this subunit, which is
adjacent to developed areas. Special
management considerations or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
protection may be required in Subunit
1b to address and alleviate impacts from
stressors that have led to the loss or
degradation of the habitat, including
urbanization and commercial
development and nonnative, invasive
species (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Special management considerations
related to developed areas that would
benefit the habitat in this subunit
include, but are not limited to, review
of county development plans and other
projects considering land use changes
with recommendations to avoid areas
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap, and
control or removal of nonnative,
invasive species.
Subunit 1c consists of 334 ac (135 ha)
in Aiken and Edgefield Counties, South
Carolina. This subunit lies on the east
side of the Savannah River, just north of
the City of Augusta. The Nature
Conservancy owns and manages the
224-ac (90-ha) Greystone Preserve for
conservation in this subunit, and the
remaining 110 ac (45 ha) are in private
ownership. Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Subunit 1c to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the loss and degradation of the habitat,
including urbanization and residential
and commercial development;
nonnative, invasive species; and
herbivory by deer. Special management
considerations related to encroachment
of nonnative, invasive species and
herbivory by deer that would benefit the
habitat in this subunit include, but are
not limited to, removal of nonnative,
invasive species via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments;
restoration of forest conditions; and
increased harvest/hunting or exclusion
of white-tailed deer. In addition, special
management considerations related to
developed areas that would benefit the
habitat in this subunit include, but are
not limited to, review of county
development plans and other projects
considering land use changes with
recommendations to avoid areas
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap; native
vegetation restoration in right-of-way
and transmission line vegetation
maintenance areas (edge effect); and
removal of nonnative, invasive species.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Subunit 1d consists of 84 ac (34 ha)
in Aiken County, South Carolina. This
subunit lies on the east side of the
Savannah River, just east of the City of
Augusta. The South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources owns
and manages the 84-ac (34-ha) Savannah
River Bluffs Heritage Preserve for
conservation in this subunit. Special
management considerations or
protection may be required within
Subunit 1d to alleviate impacts from
stressors that have led to the loss and
degradation of the habitat, including
nonnative, invasive species and
herbivory by deer. Special management
considerations related to encroachment
of nonnative, invasive species and
herbivory by deer that would benefit the
habitat in this subunit include, but are
not limited to, removal of nonnative,
invasive species via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments;
restoration of forest conditions; and
increased harvest/hunting or exclusion
of white-tailed deer.
Unit 2: Barney Bluff
Unit 2 consists of 415 ac (168 ha) in
the southeast portion of Richmond
County, Georgia. This unit lies to the
west of the Savannah River south of the
City of Augusta on land in private
ownership. Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 2 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the degradation of the habitat, including
urbanization and development, erosion
due to logging practices that do not
properly implement BMPs, and
herbivory by deer. Such special
management or protection may include
conservation efforts to reduce deer
browsing through hunting/harvest or
exclusion. Special management or
protection to reduce erosion may also
include habitat restoration efforts and
implementation of State-approved BMPs
for silviculture or logging activities. In
addition, special management
considerations related to developed
areas that would benefit the habitat in
this unit include, but are not limited to,
review of county development plans
and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid
areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86688
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Unit 3: Burke North
Unit 3 consists of 526 ac (213 ha) in
the northwestern portion of Burke
County, Georgia. The unit lies to the
west of the Savannah River on land in
private ownership. A conservation
easement is in place on 9 ac (3.6 ha) of
private land within the unit. Special
management considerations or
protection may be required within Unit
3 to alleviate impacts from stressors that
have led to the loss or degradation of the
habitat, including the effects of
silviculture and logging that do not
properly implement BMPs, as well as
herbivory by deer. Such special
management or protection may include
conservation efforts to reduce deer
browsing through hunting/harvest or
exclusion. Special management or
protection may also include habitat
restoration efforts and implementation
of State-approved BMPs for silviculture
or logging activities.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Unit 4: Burke South
Unit 4 consists of 976 ac (395 ha) in
the western portion of Burke County,
Georgia. This unit lies west of the
Savannah River on lands owned by the
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (199 ac (80 ha) on the Yuchi
Wildlife Management Area), and on
lands in private ownership (777 ac (314
ha)). Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 4 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the degradation of the habitat, including
urbanization and development, and
herbivory by deer. In some cases, these
threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative,
invasive plants via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments,
and to reduce deer browsing through
hunting/harvest or exclusion. In
addition, special management
considerations related to developed
areas that would benefit the habitat in
this unit include, but are not limited to,
review of county development plans
and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid
areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap.
Special management or protection may
also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 5: Prescott Lakes
Unit 5 consists of 81 ac (33 ha) in the
northern portion of Screven County,
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the
main stem of the Savannah River and
lies on lands in private ownership.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
Special management considerations or
protection may be required within Unit
5 to alleviate impacts from stressors that
have led to the loss or degradation of the
habitat, including land conversion to
agriculture and herbivory by deer. Such
special management or protection may
include conservation efforts to reduce or
control nonnative, invasive plants via
prescribed burning or mechanical or
chemical treatments, and to reduce deer
browsing through hunting/harvest or
exclusion. Special management or
protection may also include habitat
restoration efforts.
Unit 6: Bolingbroke Rest Area
Unit 6 consists of 338 ac (137 ha) in
southern Monroe County, Georgia. This
unit falls on lands in private ownership
adjacent to the main stem of the
Ocmulgee River, north of the city of
Macon. Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 6 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the loss or degradation of the habitat,
including commercial development,
silviculture and logging activities
without properly implemented BMPs,
road maintenance, and herbivory by
deer. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative,
invasive plants via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments,
and to reduce deer browsing through
hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special
management or protection may also
include habitat restoration efforts and
implementation of State-approved BMPs
for silviculture and logging activities. In
addition, special management
considerations related to developed
areas that would benefit the habitat in
this unit include, but are not limited to,
review of county development plans
and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid
areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap.
Unit 7: River North Bluff
Unit 7 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in the
northern corner of Bibb County,
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the
main stem of the Ocmulgee River, north
of the city of Macon. This unit contains
land owned by the Georgia Department
of Natural Resources (10 ac (4 ha) on the
Echeconnee Wildlife Management
Area), and lands in private ownership
(105 ac (42 ha). Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 7 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the degradation of the habitat, including
competition and encroachment by
nonnative, invasive species. In some
cases, these threats are being addressed
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative,
invasive plants via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments.
Special management or protection may
also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 8: Savage Branch
Unit 8 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in the
northern portion of Bibb County,
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the
main stem of the Ocmulgee River, north
of the city of Macon, and falls on lands
in private ownership. Special
management considerations or
protection may be required within Unit
8 to alleviate impacts from stressors that
have led to the loss or degradation of the
habitat, including urbanization and
development and nonnative, invasive
species. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative,
invasive plants via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments.
In addition, special management
considerations related to developed
areas that would benefit the habitat in
this unit include, but are not limited to,
review of county development plans
and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid
areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap.
Special management or protection may
also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 9: Adjoins Robins Air Force Base
Unit 9 consists of 231 ac (93 ha) in
western Houston County, Georgia. This
unit is adjacent to Robins Air Force Base
and the main stem of the Ocmulgee
River. All lands in this unit are in
private ownership. Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 9 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the degradation of the habitat, including
urbanization and development and
nonnative, invasive species. Such
special management or protection may
include conservation efforts to reduce or
control nonnative, invasive plants via
prescribed burning or mechanical or
chemical treatments. In addition,
special management considerations
related to developed areas that would
benefit the habitat in this unit include,
but are not limited to, review of county
development plans and other projects
considering land use changes with
recommendations to avoid areas
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special
management or protection may also
include habitat restoration efforts.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Unit 10: Trib Richland Creek
Unit 10 consists of 340 ac (138 ha) in
eastern Twiggs County, Georgia. This
unit lies east of Robins Air Force Base
and along a tributary of the Ocmulgee
River. The unit falls on lands leased by
the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (242 ac (98 ha) on the
Ocmulgee Wildlife Management Area),
and lands in private ownership (98 ac
(40 ha)). Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 10 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the loss or degradation of the habitat,
including land conversion to agriculture
and herbivory by deer. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce deer browsing through
hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special
management or protection related to
land conversion may also include
consideration of Ocmulgee skullcap in
agriculture conversion plans and habitat
restoration efforts in affected field/forest
edges.
Unit 11: Oaky Woods North
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Unit 11 consists of 657 ac (266 ha) in
western Houston County, Georgia. This
unit lies adjacent to the county line,
along a tributary of the Ocmulgee River.
The unit falls on lands owned by the
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (228 ac (92 ha) on the Oaky
Woods Wildlife Management Area) and
lands in private ownership (429 ac (174
ha)). Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 11 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the degradation of the habitat, including
limited effects of nonnative, invasive
species and herbivory by deer. In some
cases, these threats are being addressed
or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative,
invasive plants via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments,
and to reduce deer browsing through
hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special
management or protection may also
include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 12: Crooked Creek
Unit 12 consists of 205 ac (83 ha) in
southeastern Twiggs County, Georgia.
This unit is located south of Highway
96, and along a tributary of the
Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands
leased by the Georgia Department of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
86689
Natural Resources (201 ac (81 ha) on the
Ocmulgee Wildlife Management Area)
and on lands in private ownership (4 ac
(1.6 ha)). Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 12 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the degradation of the habitat, including
nonnative, invasive species and
herbivory by deer. In some cases, these
threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include continued
conservation efforts to reduce deer
browsing through hunting/harvest or
exclusion. Special management or
protection may also include habitat
restoration efforts.
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 14 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the loss or degradation of the habitat,
including urbanization and commercial
development. In some cases, these
threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include considerations
related to developed areas that would
benefit the habitat in this unit include,
but are not limited to, review of county
development plans and other projects
considering land use changes with
recommendations to avoid areas
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special
management or protection may also
include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 13: Shellstone Creek
Unit 13 consists of 160 ac (65 ha) in
southeastern Twiggs County, Georgia.
This unit lies east of Unit 12, along a
tributary of the Ocmulgee River. The
unit falls on lands leased by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (15 ac
(6 ha) on the Ocmulgee Wildlife
Management Area) and on lands in
private ownership (145 ac (59 ha)).
Special management considerations or
protection may be required within Unit
13 to alleviate impacts from stressors
that have led to the loss or degradation
of the habitat, including forest
conversion to agriculture; residential
development; nonnative, invasive
species; and herbivory by deer. In some
cases, these threats are being addressed
or coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative,
invasive plants via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments,
and to reduce deer browsing through
hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special
management or protection related to
land conversion may also include
consideration of Ocmulgee skullcap in
agriculture conversion plans and habitat
restoration efforts in affected field/forest
edges. Special management or
protection may also include habitat
restoration efforts.
Unit 15: Dry Creek
Unit 15 consists of 330 ac (133 ha) in
western Houston and northern Pulaski
Counties, Georgia. This unit is adjacent
to the county line, and along a tributary
of the Ocmulgee River. This unit falls on
lands leased by the Georgia Department
of Natural Resources (50 ac (20 ha) on
the Ocmulgee Wildlife Management
Area), and lands in private ownership
(280 ac (113 ha)). Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 15 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the degradation of the habitat, including
nonnative, invasive species and
herbivory by deer. In some cases, these
threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative,
invasive plants via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments,
and to reduce deer browsing through
hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special
management or protection may also
include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 14: Oaky Woods South
Unit 14 consists of 363 ac (147 ha) in
western Houston County, Georgia. This
unit is west of units 15 and 16, and
along a tributary of the Ocmulgee River.
This unit falls on lands leased by the
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (84 ac (34 ha) on the Oaky
Woods Wildlife Management Area), and
on lands in private ownership (279 ac
(113 ha)). Special management
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Unit 16: James Dykes Memorial
Unit 16 consists of 515 ac (208 ha) in
eastern Bleckley County and northern
Pulaski County, Georgia. This unit is
adjacent to the main stem of the
Ocmulgee River, west of the City of
Cochran. This unit falls on lands owned
by the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (497 ac (201 ha) on the
Ocmulgee Wildlife Management Area),
and on lands in private ownership (18
ac (7.3 ha)). Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 16 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the loss or degradation of the habitat,
including land conversion to
agriculture; nonnative, invasive species;
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86690
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and herbivory by deer. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or
protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative,
invasive plants via prescribed burning
or mechanical or chemical treatments,
and to reduce deer browsing through
hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special
management or protection related to
land conversion may also include
consideration of Ocmulgee skullcap in
agriculture conversion plans and habitat
restoration efforts in affected field/forest
edges. Special management or
protection may also include habitat
restoration efforts.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Unit 17: South Shellstone Creek
Unit 17 consists of 403 ac (163 ha) in
eastern Bleckley County, Georgia. This
unit is adjacent to a tributary of the
Ocmulgee River, north of the City of
Cochran. This unit falls on lands owned
by the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (4 ac (1.6 ha)) and on lands
in private ownership (399 ac (161 ha)).
Special management considerations or
protection may be required within Unit
17 to alleviate impacts from stressors
that have led to the loss or degradation
of the habitat, including land
conversion to agriculture. In some cases,
these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and
landowners to implement needed
actions. Special management or
protection related to land conversion
may also include consideration of
Ocmulgee skullcap in agriculture
conversion plans and habitat restoration
efforts in affected field/forest edges.
Special management or protection may
also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 18: Jordan Creek
Unit 18 consists of 250 ac (101 ha) in
northern Pulaski County, Georgia. This
unit is adjacent to a tributary of the
Ocmulgee River, north of the City of
Hawkinsville. The unit falls on lands in
private ownership. Special management
considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 18 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to
the degradation of the habitat, including
limited urbanization and development.
In addition, special management
considerations related to developed
areas that would benefit the habitat in
this unit include, but are not limited to,
review of county development plans
and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid
areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap.
Special management or protection may
also include habitat restoration efforts.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
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 authorize,
fund, 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.
Destruction or adverse modification
means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of
critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species (50 CFR
402.02).
Compliance with the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) is documented 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, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director’s
opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of
the listed species and/or avoid the
likelihood of destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth
requirements for Federal agencies to
reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of
consultation is required and shall be
requested by the Federal agency, where
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
discretionary Federal involvement or
control over the action has been
retained or is authorized by law and: (1)
if the amount or extent of taking
specified in the incidental take
statement is exceeded; (2) if new
information reveals effects of the action
that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not
previously considered; (3) if the
identified action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an
effect to the listed species or critical
habitat that was not considered in the
biological opinion or written
concurrence; or (4) if a new species is
listed or critical habitat designated that
may be affected by the identified action.
As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the
requirement to reinitiate consultations
for new species listings or critical
habitat designation does not apply to
certain agency actions (e.g., land
management plans issued by the Bureau
of Land Management in certain
circumstances).
Destruction or Adverse Modification of
Critical Habitat
The key factor related to the
destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether
implementation of the proposed Federal
action directly or indirectly alters the
designated critical habitat in a way that
appreciably diminishes the value of the
critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of the listed species. As
discussed above, the role of critical
habitat is to support physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of a listed species and
provide for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that
our Federal Register notices ‘‘shall, to
the maximum extent practicable also
include a brief description and
evaluation of those activities (whether
public or private) which, in the opinion
of the Secretary, if undertaken may
adversely modify [critical] habitat, or
may be affected by such designation.’’
Activities that may be affected by
designation of critical habitat for the
Ocmulgee skullcap include those that
may affect the physical or biological
features of the Ocmulgee skullcap’s
critical habitat (see Physical or
Biological Features Essential to the
Conservation of the Species).
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
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))
provides that the Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of Defense
(DoD), or designated for its use, that are
subject to an INRMP prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), if the Secretary determines in
writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat
is proposed for designation.
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 critical
habitat designation for Ocmulgee
skullcap to determine if they meet the
criteria for exemption from critical
habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
The following areas are DoD lands with
completed, Service-approved INRMPs
within the critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
Robins Air Force Base, 224 ac (91 ha)
Robins Air Force Base (AFB) has an
approved INRMP. The U.S. Air Force is
committed to working closely with the
Service and the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources to continually refine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
the existing INRMP as part of the Sike’s
Act INRMP review process.
Robins AFB completed an INRMP in
2017, which serves as the principal
management plan governing all natural
resource activities on the installation
(Robins AFB INRMP 2017, entire). The
2017 INRMP includes benefits for
Ocmulgee skullcap through: (1) control
or elimination of competing, nonnative
vegetation (mowing or hand clearing
during winter months when Ocmulgee
skullcap is dormant); (2) limiting
recreational and other activities that
may impact the species near Ocmulgee
skullcap locations; and (3) promoting
natural regeneration of the dominant
plant species in upland hardwood bluff
forest communities. Further, Robins
AFB environmental staff review projects
and enforce existing regulations and
orders that, through their
implementation, avoid and minimize
impacts to natural resources, including
Ocmulgee skullcap and its habitat. In
addition, Robins AFB INRMP provides
protection to forested habitat for
Ocmulgee skullcap by implementing
forest management activities,
designating stream and wetland
protection zones, and engaging in public
outreach and education. Robins AFB
INRMP specifies periodic monitoring of
the distribution and abundance of the
Ocmulgee skullcap populations on the
base.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the Robins AFB INRMP and
that conservation efforts identified in
the INRMP will provide a benefit to
Ocmulgee skullcap. Therefore, lands
within this installation are exempt from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 224 ac (91 ha)
of forested habitat on Robins AFB in
this final critical habitat designation
because of this exemption.
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 based on economic
impacts, impacts on national security,
or any other relevant impacts. Exclusion
decisions are governed by the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the
Policy Regarding Implementation of
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86691
Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act (hereafter, the ‘‘2016
Policy’’; 81 FR 7226, February 11,
2016)—both of which were developed
jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer
to a 2008 Department of the Interior
Solicitor’s opinion entitled, ‘‘The
Secretary’s Authority to Exclude Areas
from a Critical Habitat Designation
under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act’’ (M–37016). We explain
each decision to exclude areas, as well
as decisions not to exclude, to
demonstrate that the decision is
reasonable.
The Secretary may exclude any
particular area if she determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of including 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 the determination to
exclude a particular area, the statute on
its face, as well as the legislative history,
are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to
use and how much weight to give to any
factor. In this final rule, we are not
excluding any areas from critical
habitat.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its
implementing regulations require that
we consider the economic impact that
may result from a designation of critical
habitat. 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 economic
analysis of the critical habitat
designation and related factors
(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2021). The
analysis, dated February 12, 2021, was
made available for public review from
June 22, 2022, through August 22, 2022
(87 FR 37378). The economic analysis
addresses probable economic impacts of
critical habitat designation for
Ocmulgee skullcap. 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. We
did not receive any comments or
information related to the economic
impacts of the critical habitat
designation. Additional information
relevant to the probable incremental
economic impacts of critical habitat
designation for the Ocmulgee skullcap
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
86692
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
is summarized below and available in
the screening analysis for the Ocmulgee
skullcap, available at https://
www.regulations.gov.
The full description of the findings
from the economic analysis are outlined
in the June 22, 2022, proposed rule (87
FR 37378). The critical habitat
designation for the Ocmulgee skullcap
totals approximately 6,661 ac (2,696 ha)
in 10 Georgia counties and 2 South
Carolina counties. All 18 designated
critical habitat units are considered
occupied because they contain current
(1999–2020) occurrences of Ocmulgee
skullcap. We are not designating any
units of unoccupied habitat. In occupied
areas, any actions that may affect the
species or its habitat would also affect
designated critical habitat, and it is
unlikely that any additional
conservation efforts would be
recommended to address the adverse
modification standard over and above
those recommended as necessary to
avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the Ocmulgee skullcap.
Therefore, the potential incremental
economic effects of the critical habitat
designation are expected to be limited to
administrative costs and minor costs of
conservation efforts. Administrative
costs include the additional effort from
the Service and the Federal action
agency to consider critical habitat for
Ocmulgee skullcap in a section 7
consultation that already considers the
presence of Ocmulgee skullcap.
The probable incremental economic
impacts of the Ocmulgee skullcap
critical habitat designation are expected
to be limited to additional
administrative effort and minor costs of
conservation efforts resulting from a
small number of future section 7
consultations (Industrial Economics,
Inc. 2020, entire). The analysis projects
that approximately 73 section 7
consultations (approximately 1 formal
consultation, 2 informal consultations,
and 70 technical assistance efforts
including species lists) will occur
annually in the critical habitat areas,
based on the previous consultation
history in the area. The annual costs to
the Service and other action agencies
are estimated at approximately $39,700.
Units 1, 3, 4, and 7 are projected to have
the highest number of consultations
with six or more per unit. At
approximately $10,000 per formal
programmatic consultation, the burden
resulting from the designation of critical
habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap, based on
the anticipated annual number of
consultations and associated
consultation costs, is not expected to
exceed $39,700 in most years (Industrial
Economics, Inc. 2020, pp. 1–2, 11, 13).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
The designation is unlikely to trigger
additional requirements under State or
local regulations. Thus, the annual
administrative burden is relatively low.
As discussed above, we considered the
economic impacts of the critical habitat
designation, and the Secretary is not
exercising her discretion to exclude any
areas from this designation of critical
habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap based
on economic impacts.
Exclusions Based on Impacts on
National Security and Homeland
Security
In preparing this rule, we determined
that there are no lands within the
designated critical habitat for the
Ocmulgee skullcap that are owned or
managed by the DoD or Department of
Homeland Security, and, therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national
security or homeland security. We did
not receive any additional information
during the public comment period for
the proposed designation regarding
impacts of the designation on national
security or homeland security that
would support excluding any specific
areas from the final critical habitat
designation under authority of section
4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as well as
the 2016 Policy.
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 as
discussed above. To identify other
relevant impacts that may affect the
exclusion analysis, we consider a
number of factors, including whether
there are permitted conservation plans
covering the species in the area such as
HCPs, conservation benefit agreements,
safe harbor agreements, or candidate
conservation agreements with
assurances, or whether there are nonpermitted conservation agreements and
partnerships that would be encouraged
by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. In addition, we look at
whether Tribal conservation plans or
partnerships, Tribal resources, or
government-to-government
relationships of the United States with
Tribal entities may be affected by the
designation. We also consider any State,
local, social, or other impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
We are not excluding any areas from
critical habitat. In preparing this final
rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management
plans for Ocmulgee skullcap, and the
designation does not include any Tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lands or trust resources. We anticipate
no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships,
or permitted plans from this final
critical habitat designation. We did not
receive any additional information
during the public comment period for
the proposed rule regarding other
relevant impacts to support excluding
any specific areas from the final critical
habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as well as
the 2016 Policy. Accordingly, the
Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this
designation based on other relevant
impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094)
Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563
and states that regulatory analysis
should facilitate agency efforts to
develop regulations that serve the
public interest, advance statutory
objectives, and are consistent with E.O.
12866 and E.O. 13563. Regulatory
analysis, as practicable and appropriate,
shall recognize distributive impacts and
equity, to the extent permitted by law.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that
regulations must be based on the best
available science and that the
rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed
by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides
that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office
of Management and Budget will review
all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rule is not
significant.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as
understood in light of recent court
decisions, Federal agencies are required
to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities
directly regulated by the rulemaking
itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated
entities. The regulatory mechanism
through which critical habitat
protections are realized is section 7 of
the Act, which requires Federal
agencies, in consultation with the
Service, to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by the
agency is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Therefore, under section 7, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is
our position that only Federal action
agencies will be directly regulated by
this designation. The RFA does not
require evaluation of the potential
impacts to entities not directly
regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
are not small entities. Therefore,
because no small entities will be
directly regulated by this rulemaking,
we certify that this critical habitat
designation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
During the development of this final
rule, we reviewed and evaluated all
information submitted during the
comment period on the proposed rule
(87 FR 37378; June 22, 2022) that may
pertain to our consideration of the
probable incremental economic impacts
of this critical habitat designation.
Based on this information, we affirm our
certification that this critical habitat
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
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
to prepare statements of energy effects
‘‘to the extent permitted by law’’ when
undertaking actions identified as
significant energy actions (66 FR 28355;
May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a
‘‘significant energy action’’ as an action
that (i) is a significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR
21879; Apr. 11, 2023); and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or
14094. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and there is no
requirement to prepare a statement of
energy effects for this action.
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 finding:
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86693
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 are not
likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat under section 7. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because, apart from
privately owned lands, the lands
designated as critical habitat are owned
by Richmond County (in the State of
Georgia) and the States of Georgia and
South Carolina. These governments do
not fit the definition of ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction,’’ nor does the
designation of critical habitat impose an
obligation on State or local
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86694
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
governments. Small governments will
be affected only to the extent that any
programs having Federal funds, permits,
or other authorized activities must
ensure that their actions will not
adversely affect the designated critical
habitat. In addition, this rule will not
produce a Federal mandate of $200
million or greater in any year; that is, it
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. Therefore, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for Ocmulgee
skullcap in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize
us to regulate private actions on private
lands or confiscate private property as a
result of critical habitat designation.
Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any
closures, or restrictions on use of or
access to the designated areas.
Furthermore, the designation of critical
habitat does not affect landowner
actions that do not require Federal
funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take
permits to permit actions that do require
Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are
prohibited from carrying out, funding,
or authorizing actions that would
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. A takings implications
assessment has been completed and
concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for the Ocmulgee
skullcap does not pose significant
takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A
federalism 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. From a
federalism perspective, the designation
of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies.
The Act imposes no other duties with
respect to critical habitat, either for
States and local governments, or for
anyone else. As a result, this final rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
does not have substantial direct effects
either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The designation
may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that
contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the physical or
biological features of the habitat
necessary for 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 State and
local governments in long-range
planning because they no longer have to
wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act 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
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule will not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. 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, this final rule
identifies the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. 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
information collection requirements,
and a submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required.
We may not conduct or sponsor and you
are not required to respond to a
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do
not require an environmental analysis
under NEPA. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This
includes listing, delisting, and
reclassification rules, as well as critical
habitat designations. In a line of cases
starting with Douglas County v. Babbitt,
48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts
have upheld this position.
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, May 4,
1994), Executive Order 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments), the
President’s memorandum of November
30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5,
2022), and the Department of the
Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes and Alaska
Native Corporations (ANCs) on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretaries’ Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
We have coordinated with the Catawba
Tribe regarding the SSA that informed
this listing determination and critical
habitat designation and provided the
Tribe with an opportunity to review the
SSA report. We informed the Catawba
Tribe of the proposed rule publication
and opportunity to comment. We have
determined that no Tribal lands fall
within the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation for the Ocmulgee
skullcap, so no Tribal lands will be
affected by the designation.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86695
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Georgia
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule
are the staff members of the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment
Team and the Georgia Ecological
Services Field Office.
Scientific name
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
2. In § 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants by adding an entry for
‘‘Scutellaria ocmulgee’’ in alphabetical
order under FLOWERING PLANTS to
read as follows:
■
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—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
§ 17.12
*
Endangered and threatened plants.
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Common name
Where listed
Status
Listing citations and applicable rules
FLOWERING PLANTS
*
Scutellaria ocmulgee
*
*
*
Ocmulgee skullcap .................
*
*
3. In § 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Family Lamiaceae:
Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee
skullcap)’’ following the entry for
‘‘Family Lamiaceae: Monardella
viminea (willowy monardella)’’, to read
as follows:
■
§ 17.96
Critical habitat—plants.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(a) Flowering plants.
*
*
*
*
*
Family Lamiaceae: Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Bibb, Bleckley, Burke, Columbia,
Houston, Monroe, Pulaski, Richmond,
Screven, and Twiggs Counties in
Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield
Counties in South Carolina, on the maps
in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Ocmulgee skullcap
consist of the following components:
(i) River bluffs with steep and/or
shallow soils that are subject to
localized disturbances that limit the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
*
Wherever found ..............
Jkt 265001
*
*
E
*
*
89 [INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE
WHERE DOCUMENT BEGINS], 10/30/2024; 50
CFR 17.96(a).CH
*
accumulation of leaf litter and
competition within the Upper Gulf
Coastal Plain and Piedmont of Georgia.
(ii) Well-drained soils that are
buffered or circumneutral (pH between
6.5 and 7.5) generally within regions
underlain or otherwise influenced by
limestone or marl.
(iii) A mature, mixed-level canopy
with spatial heterogeneity, providing
mottled shade and often including with
a rich diversity of grasses and forbs
characterizing the herbaceous layer.
(iv) Intact forested habitat that is
ecologically 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 November 29, 2024.
(4) Data layers defining map units
were created using ArcMap version 10.6
(Environmental Systems Research
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Institute, Inc.), a geographic information
systems program on a base of USA Topo
Maps. Critical habitat units were then
mapped using North American Datum
(NAD) 1983, Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 17N coordinates.
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/office/georgia-ecologicalservices/library, at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059, and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
86696
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat Index Map for Ocmulgee Skullcap {Scutellaria ocmulgee)
25
I
I
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(6) Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond;
Columbia and Richmond Counties,
Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield
Counties, South Carolina.
(i) Unit 1 includes four subunits:
(A) Subunit 1a consists of 106 acres
(ac) (43 hectares (ha)) in Columbia
County, Georgia. The lands in this
subunit are owned and managed by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
N
50 Kilometers
I
25
50 Miles
A
Richmond County (28 ac (11.3 ha)) and
privately owned (78 ac (31.7 ha)).
(B) Subunit 1b consists of 117 ac (47
ha) in Richmond County, Georgia. The
lands in this subunit are privately
owned.
(C) Subunit 1c consists of 334 ac (135
ha) in Aiken and Edgefield Counties,
South Carolina. The lands in this
subunit are privately owned.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
' - - Critical Habitat
" - , Streams
(D) Subunit 1d consists of 84 ac (34
ha) in Aiken County, South Carolina.
The lands in this subunit are owned and
managed by the State of South Carolina
and include the Savannah River Bluffs
Heritage Preserve.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
Figure 2 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (6)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.000</GPH>
0
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86697
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 1, Columbia/Richmond
Columbia and Richmond Counties
South Carolina -
..-..
N
A
Al..
0
I
1
I
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(7) Unit 2: Barney Bluff; Richmond
County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 2 consists of 415 ac (168 ha)
in Richmond County, Georgia, and is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
,,,,,,,,I
2 Kilometers
I
1
0
2 Mlles
composed of lands in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Edgefield and Aiken Counties
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
./\I
Critical Habitat
County Boundary
State Boundary
Figure 3 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (7)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.001</GPH>
Georgia -
86698
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 2, Barney Bluff, Richmond County, GA
..-.
N
A
0
I
2
I
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(8) Unit 3: Burke North; Burke
County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 3 consists of 526 ac (213 ha)
in Burke County, Georgia, and is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
'\
...... '/
3 Kilometers
I
2
3Miles
composed of lands in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
I
/V
County Boundary
State Boundary
Figure 4 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (8)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.002</GPH>
AL
Critical Habitat
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86699
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 3, Burke North, Burke County, Georgia
.....
A
Al
0
2
3 Kilometers
t
I
I
2
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(9) Unit 4: Burke South; Burke
County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 4 consists of 976 ac (395 ha)
in Burke County, Georgia, and is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
3 Mlle!;
.,, ,
.,, ',.,
County Boundary
/\I
State Boundary
composed of lands in State (199 ac (80
ha)) and private (777 ac (314 ha))
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Critical Habitat
Figure 5 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (9)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.003</GPH>
N
86700
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 4, Burke South, Burke County, Georgia
A
()
2
3 Kilometers
I
I
I
2
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(10) Unit 5: Prescott Lakes; Screven
County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 5 consists of 81 ac (33 ha) in
Screven County, Georgia, and is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
3Miles
composed of lands in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
~
Critical Habitat
,,
County Boundary
,
,,
., I
'I
/\/
State Boundary
Figure 6 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(10)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.004</GPH>
N
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86701
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 5, Prescott Lakes, Screven County, Georgia
N
A
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
2
3 Kilometers
I
i
I
I
I
I
l
0
1
2
3Mftes
composed of lands in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Critical Habitat
,
County Boundary
,,,'.,. ,I
,/\/
State Boundary
Figure 7 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(11)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.005</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(11) Unit 6: Bolingbroke Rest Area;
Monroe County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 6 consists of 338 ac (137 ha)
in Monroe County, Georgia, and is
0
11111-
86702
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 6, Bolingbroke Rest Area, Monroe County, Georgia
Al
A
•
0
I
2
3Kl1ometers
I
I
2
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(12) Unit 7: River North Bluff; Bibb
County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 7 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in
Bibb County, Georgia, and is composed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Critical Habitat
/V
State Boundary
.,.,
3MUe$
of lands in State (10 ac (4 ha)) and
private (105 ac (42 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
PO 00000
1111.
,, ,
,
\,
County Boundary
Figure 8 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(12)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.006</GPH>
N
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86703
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 7, River North Bluff, Bibb County, Georgia
Jones
County
..,...
N
A
1 Kilometers
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
(i) Unit 8 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in
Bibb County, Georgia, and is composed
of lands in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
PO 00000
,
County Boundary
1 Mites
0
(13) Unit 8: Savage Branch; Bibb
County, Georgia.
...,
, ... \ .,,
Critical Habitat
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Figure 9 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(13)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.007</GPH>
Al
86704
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 8, Savage Branch, Bibb County, Georgia
N
A
li1!I- Critical Habitat
1 Kilometers
0
,,._
/
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
County Boundary
1 Miles
composed of lands in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:
PO 00000
I
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Figure 10 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(14)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.008</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(14) Unit 9: Adjoins Robins Air Force
Base; Houston County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 9 consists of 231 ac (93 ha) in
Houston County, Georgia, and is
'/
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86705
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 9, Adjoins Robins Air Force Base, Houston CC>unty, Georgia
Twiggs
County
N
A
lill-,
2 Kilometers
0
/
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
composed of lands in State (242 ac (98
ha)) and private (98 ac (40 ha))
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:
PO 00000
'./
County Boundary
2 Miles
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Figure 11 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(15)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.009</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(15) Unit 10: Trib Richland Creek;
Twiggs County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 10 consists of 340 ac (138 ha)
in Twiggs County, Georgia, and is
,, ,
Critical Habitat
86706
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 10, Trib Richland Creek, Twiggs County, Georgia
Twiggs
County
N
A
2Kilometers
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
/
I
0
(16) Unit 11: Oaky Woods North;
Houston County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 11 consists of 657 ac (266 ha)
in Houston County, Georgia, and is
""'./I
Frm 00038
County Boundary
2Miles
composed of lands in State (228 ac (92
ha)) and private (429 ac (174 ha))
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
PO 00000
Critical Habitat
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Figure 12 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(16)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.010</GPH>
0
I
11)1..
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86707
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 11, Oaky Woods North, Houston County, Georgia
Twiggs
County
N
A
~ Critical Habitat
0
2 Kilometers
j
I
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(17) Unit 12: Crooked Creek; Twiggs
County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 12 consists of 205 ac (83 ha)
in Twiggs County, Georgia, and is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
/
"''' /I
2MUes
composed of lands in State (201 ac (81
ha)) and private (4 ac (1.6 ha))
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:
PO 00000
County Boundary
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Figure 13 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(17)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.011</GPH>
AL
86708
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 12, Crooked Creek, Twiggs County, Georgia
Twiggs
County
N
A
0
lill,.
2Kllometers
/
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
composed of lands in State (15 ac (6 ha))
and private (145 ac (59 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:
PO 00000
I
County Boundary
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Figure 14 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(18)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.012</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
\,'
2Miles
0
(18) Unit 13: Shellstone Creek; Twiggs
County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 13 consists of 160 ac (65 ha)
in Twiggs County, Georgia, and is
,,
Critical Habitat
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86709
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 13, Shellstone Creek, Twiggs County, Georgia
Twiggs
County
Bleckley
County
N
A
0
1 Kilometers
I
I
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
composed of lands in State (84 ac (34
ha)) and private (279 ac (113 ha))
ownership.
(ii) Map of Units 14 and 15 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
County Boundary
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Figure 15 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(19)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.013</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Critical Habitat
1 Mnes
0
(19) Unit 14: Oaky Woods South;
Houston County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 14 consists of 363 ac (147 ha)
in Houston County, Georgia, and is
~
,,,,,,,,
86710
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 14, Oaky Woods South, Houston County, Georgia
Unit 15, Dry Creek, Houston and Pulaski Counties, Georgia
...
N
A
0
2 KIiometers
I
I
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(20) Unit 15: Dry Creek; Houston and
Pulaski Counties, Georgia.
(i) Unit 15 consists of 330 ac (133 ha)
in Houston and Pulaski Counties,
Georgia, and is composed of lands in
State (50 ac (20 ha)) and private (280 ac
(113 ha)) ownership.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
,, ,
, , \.,,
Frm 00042
County Boundary
2Miles
(ii) Map of Unit 15 is provided at
paragraph (19)(ii) of this entry.
(21) Unit 16: James Dykes Memorial;
Bleckley and Pulaski Counties, Georgia.
(i) Unit 16 consists of 515 ac (208 ha)
in Bleckley and Pulaski Counties,
Georgia, and is composed of lands in
PO 00000
Critical Habitat
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
State (497 ac (201 ha)) and private (18
ac (7.3 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Units 16 and 17 follows:
Figure 16 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(21)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.014</GPH>
Al
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
86711
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 16, James Dykes Memorial, Bleckley and Pulaski Counites, Georgia
Unit 17, South Shellstone Creek, Bleckley County, Georgia
N
A
AL
0
I
....... Critical Habitat
2 Kl!Ollleters
I
/
..,V ,
County Boundary
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
(ii) Map of Unit 17 is provided at
paragraph (21)(ii) of this entry.
(23) Unit 18: Jordan Creek; Pulaski
County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 18 consists of 250 ac (101 ha)
in Pulaski County, Georgia, and is
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
composed of lands in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 18 follows:
Figure 17 to Scutellaria ocmulgee
(Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(23)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.015</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
(22) Unit 17: South Shellstone Creek;
Bleckley County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 17 consists of 403 ac (163 ha)
in Bleckley County, Georgia, and is
composed of lands in State (4 ac (1.6
ha)) and private (399 ac (161 ha))
ownership.
86712
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
Unit 18, Jordan Creek, Pulaski County, Georgia
N
A
o
liJI..
1 Kilometers
/
l.....J.--l
0
*
*
*
*
,, ,
\/
Critical Habitat
County Boundary
1 MIies
*
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–24897 Filed 10–29–24; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Oct 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\30OCR3.SGM
30OCR3
ER30OC24.016</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86670-86712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24897]
[[Page 86669]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 210
October 30, 2024
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Ocmulgee Skullcap and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 86670]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BE01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Ocmulgee Skullcap and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the
Ocmulgee skullcap (Scutellaria ocmulgee), a plant species from Georgia
and South Carolina as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We also designate critical
habitat. In total, approximately 6,661 acres (2,696 hectares) in Bibb,
Bleckley, Burke, Columbia, Houston, Monroe, Pulaski, Richmond, Screven,
and Twiggs Counties, Georgia, and in Aiken and Edgefield Counties,
South Carolina, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. This rule extends the protections of the Act to this
species and its designated critical habitat.
DATES: This rule is effective November 29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received are available
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2021-0059.
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used
in preparing this rule, such as the species status assessment report,
are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0059. For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or
plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in
the decision file for this critical habitat designation and are
available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-
0059.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Maholland, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Field
Office, 355 East Hancock Avenue, Room 320, Athens, GA 30601; telephone
706-613-9493. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind,
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the
Ocmulgee skullcap meets the Act's definition of an endangered species;
therefore, we are listing it as such and finalizing a designation of
its critical habitat. Both listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designating critical habitat can be completed
only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. This rule lists the Ocmulgee skullcap as
an endangered species and designates critical habitat for the species
in 18 units totaling approximately 6,661 acres (ac) (2,696 hectares
(ha)) within portions of 10 counties in Georgia and 2 counties in South
Carolina.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap is
an endangered species due to the following threats: habitat loss and
fragmentation due to development and urbanization (Factor A);
competition and encroachment from nonnative, invasive species (Factors
A and E); and herbivory from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
(Factor C).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species.
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule (87
FR 37378) for the Ocmulgee skullcap published on June 22, 2022, for a
detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this
species.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Ocmulgee skullcap. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists,
in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting
the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
review of the information contained in the Ocmulgee skullcap SSA
report. As discussed in the June 22, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37378),
we sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and received
one response. The peer review can be found at the docket on https://www.regulations.gov. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated
the results of the review, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which
was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary
of the peer review comments and our responses can be found under
Summary of Comments and Recommendations, below.
[[Page 86671]]
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
This final rule incorporates changes from our June 22, 2022,
proposed rule (87 FR 37378) based on the comments that we received and
respond to in this document as discussed in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations. Based on the comments and new information received (as
described below) and our further consideration of the threats to the
species, we determined the current risk of extinction is higher (see
Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap's Status, below) than we
characterized in the proposal to list the Ocmulgee skullcap as a
threatened species (87 FR 37378; June 22, 2022). We reassessed our
analysis and found that habitat conditions in some areas, along with
the low resiliency condition of most of the known Ocmulgee skullcap
populations, places the species at a currently high risk of extinction
throughout its range. Thus, after evaluating the best available
information and the Act's regulations and policies, we determined that
the Ocmulgee skullcap meets the definition of an endangered species,
and such status is more appropriate than that of a threatened species
as originally proposed. Because we determined that the Ocmulgee
skullcap meets the definition of an endangered species, a 4(d) rule is
inapplicable; consequently, we have removed that portion of the
proposed rule issued under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act
from this final rule.
New information (i.e., updated surveys and habitat condition in
areas considered extirpated or containing no suitable habitat,
including updates regarding the Savannah River Bluffs Natural Heritage
Preserve and Horse Creek sites) was submitted to us during the proposed
rule's comment period. This new information and the comments we
received during the comment period prompted us to reevaluate the best
available information around the inclusion of sites previously
considered extirpated in the SSA report, which is reflected in a new
version of the SSA report (version 1.3) (Service 2023, pp. 21-22; 20-
28). Applying the methodology to designate critical habitat (see
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat, below) to the new
information, we determined that it is appropriate to add an occupied
subunit to the critical habitat designation. The results of this
updated analysis have been incorporated into this final rule and
revises Unit 1 to add a new Subunit 1d, based on the area that we found
to meet the definition of critical habitat, as described in this rule.
The addition of Subunit 1d increases the total critical habitat
designation by 84 ac (34 ha) from the proposed critical habitat
designation. The full descriptions of the designated units and subunits
follow in III. Critical Habitat, below.
We changed the name of critical habitat Unit 9 from Robins Air
Force Base to Adjoins Robins Air Force Base, to clarify the unit does
not extend onto Robins Air Force Base but is immediately adjacent to
the installation. In addition, we erroneously stated that Unit 9
consisted of 455 ac (184 ha) and that it included 231 ac (93 ha) of
privately owned land and 224 ac (91 ha) of Department of Defense owned
lands, even though the Robins Air Force Base was exempted. We changed
the unit description to accurately reflect the exemption of the Robins
Air Force Base, leaving 231 ac (93 ha) of privately owned land in Unit
9.
In the Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we clarified the
significance of silvicultural and agricultural land uses on Ocmulgee
skullcap populations.
Further, we have made minor editorial or stylistic changes and
corrections to the June 22, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37378) in this
final rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on June 22, 2022 (87 FR 37378), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by August 22, 2022. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, scientific experts, organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices
inviting general public comment were published in the Aiken Standard,
Augusta Chronicle, and Macon Telegraph newspapers on June 23, 2022. We
did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive
information we received during comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed
below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from one
peer reviewer on the draft SSA report. We reviewed the comments we
received from the peer reviewer for substantive issues and new
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. Peer reviewer
comments are addressed in the following summary. As discussed above,
because we conducted this peer review prior to the publication of our
proposed rule, we had already incorporated all applicable peer review
comments into version 1.2 of the SSA report, which was the foundation
for the proposed rule and this final rule.
The peer reviewer generally concurred with our methods and
conclusions and provided support for thorough and descriptive
narratives of assessed issues, additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve the final SSA report (version 1.2, Service
2020, entire). No substantive changes to our analysis and conclusions
within the SSA report were deemed necessary, and the peer reviewer
comments are addressed in versions 1.2 (Service 2020, entire) of the
SSA report, which is available for public review at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059.
(1) Comment: The peer reviewer suggested that the threat of land
conversion to industrial silviculture or agriculture should be included
in the future condition scenarios.
Our response: Our SSA report identifies urbanization and deer
herbivory as the primary threats to the species. Although industrial
silviculture or agriculture land uses may occur near the species'
occurrences, the species typically occurs on steep slopes and bluffs
that are less suitable for conversion to silviculture and agriculture.
Thus, silviculture and agriculture activities that do not implement
State-approved best management practices (BMPs) to buffer slopes (i.e.,
Ocmulgee skullcap habitat) from erosion may impact populations. At
least one occurrence, Boggy Gut Creek, has been affected by land use
change associated with silviculture. The Boggy Gut Creek occurrence was
last observed in 1999, but the entire site was clearcut in 2005,
planted in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and subsequently cut in 2014
and 2017. In the most recent rangewide survey, Ocmulgee skullcap was
not observed on the site and is categorized as ``possibly extirpated''
(Bradley 2019, p. 30).
At this time, the best available information is not sufficiently
detailed to determine the level of BMP implementation in sites with
Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences. However, implementation of State-
approved BMPs for forestry activities are reportedly high for
streamside management zones (SMZs) across Georgia and South Carolina,
91 and 99 percent, respectively (South Carolina Forestry Commission
2020, p. 6; Georgia Forestry Commission 2021, p. 3). Further, given the
steep slopes associated with most
[[Page 86672]]
Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences, if BMP implementation is high in these
areas, forestry activities are less likely to impact the species.
Finally, in our future scenarios analysis in the SSA report, we
describe how populations that occur on protected lands would not only
be protected from urbanization but would also be protected from direct
impacts from silviculture and agriculture (Service 2023, pp. 38-41).
Public Comments
(2) Comment: Several commenters stated their view that the Ocmulgee
skullcap warrants listing as an endangered species rather than a
threatened species. In support of this assertion, these commenters
point to: (a) the current low or very low resiliency exhibited by 16 of
19 delineated populations, (b) 11 of 19 populations occurring on lands
not categorized as protected lands, and (c) the effects of climate
change, in addition to the effects of other threats, on the species.
Our response: We further considered our analysis and the impacts of
individual and cumulative threats to the current condition of the
Ocmulgee skullcap. After further consideration of current threats to
the species, the low resiliency condition of most of the known Ocmulgee
skullcap populations, and new information on habitat condition in some
areas, we determined the current risk of extinction for the Ocmulgee
skullcap is higher (see Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap's Status,
below), than we characterized in the proposal to list the species as a
threatened species. Therefore, we have determined the Ocmulgee skullcap
is currently at risk of extinction as a result of the threats of
habitat degradation and loss from development, competition and
encroachment from nonnative and invasive (plant) species, and herbivory
by white-tailed deer.
However, the best available information does not indicate that the
effects of climate change have negatively impacted or are currently
negatively impacting the Ocmulgee skullcap's viability. In the future,
projected changes due to climate change, including the frequency and
severity of drought and changes in rainfall patterns, may negatively
impact the species in the future as the effects of climate change
increase or may exacerbate the effects of other threats.
(3) Comment: One commenter suggested our determination that the
threats are not concentrated in any portion of the Ocmulgee skullcap's
range at a biologically meaningful scale is not appropriate. The
commenter recommended we revise our significant portion of the range
analysis to evaluate the 16 of 19 populations that the commenter notes
are impacted by small population size and isolation, as well as the
threats to 11 populations that do not occur on protected lands.
Our response: Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a
species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. As stated above under Our Response to (2)
Comment, we have determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap meets the
definition of an endangered species (see Determination of Ocmulgee
Skullcap's Status, below), and we accordingly did not undertake or
revise an analysis of any significant portions of its range.
(4) Comment: One commenter recommended we include areas surrounding
existing Ocmulgee skullcap populations in the critical habitat
designation.
Our response: For Ocmulgee skullcap populations to be sufficiently
resilient, life-history requirements must be met, including areas of
suitable habitat large enough to support pollinators needed for
Ocmulgee skullcap reproduction. These areas of suitable habitat include
habitat that acts to prevent or delay encroachment by nonnative,
invasive species. To address this life-history requirement, we:
(a) Address the species' requirement of intact hardwood forest to
provide the appropriate canopy conditions in large enough areas to
prevent or delay encroachment of nonnative, invasive species. We
recognize the life-history requirement for habitat conditions to reduce
encroachment and competition, and we include that habitat as a physical
or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species (see
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features, below) to impede
the invasion of competitors.
(b) Address the need for critical habitat areas to include habitat
surrounding Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences that support the life-history
requirements for pollinators. We delineated populations of Ocmulgee
skullcap using a 2-kilometer (km) (1.24-mile (mi)) radius circle around
species' occurrences, with overlapping areas determined to be within
the same population based on the need for sufficient space and
resources for required pollinators (NatureServe 2020, entire; Service
2023, p. 21). The SSA report contains the best available information
used to identify critical habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap, which
includes existing monitoring data, population status surveys, and maps
using the best available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers
(Service 2023, pp. 21, 37-38, appendix A).
(5) Comment: A commenter requested that we include areas with
historical and current Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences, including the
Horse Creek occurrence and 15 other sites (as described in Morris
1999), in the final critical habitat designation.
Our response: In our delineation of critical habitat for the
Ocmulgee skullcap, we relied on the best available scientific and
commercial information, including Morris (1999). We also incorporated
occurrence data (1961 to present) obtained from peer-reviewed articles,
unpublished survey reports, and survey records contained in agency and
partner databases (i.e., Georgia and South Carolina Natural Heritage
databases), including the most recent rangewide species survey (Bradley
2019, entire; Service 2022, entire).
Of the 16 sites described by the commenter, 13 are included in the
final critical habitat designation (see table 1, below). As noted below
in table 1, two occurrences described by the commenter were
misidentified as Ocmulgee skullcap until 2018, when the sites were
resurveyed and the occurrences correctly identified as the congeneric
Mellichamp's skullcap (Scutellaria mellichampii) (Bradley 2019, pp. 42-
45; Service 2023, pp. 6-7; 87 FR 37378, June 22, 2022, p. 37380). In
table 1, below, we list the 16 sites recommended for inclusion by the
commenter, the county and State where the site is located, the
corresponding site name in Bradley (2019), and the proposed and final
critical habitat unit where the site occurs, or the correct
identification of the species.
Ocmulgee skullcap was last observed in 1961 on the remaining site,
Horse Creek. In a recent survey, some Ocmulgee skullcap habitat
characteristics were documented but no Ocmulgee skullcap were found in
the area of the 1961 Horse Creek occurrence (Service 2022, entire).
Given that Ocmulgee skullcap has not been observed in the Horse Creek
area for more than 60 years and there is limited suitable habitat, it
is unlikely this area would support the conservation of the species.
Therefore, we did not include the Horse Creek occurrence in our
delineation of critical habitat.
[[Page 86673]]
Table 1--Sites Recommended for Inclusion in Critical Habitat Designation by the Commenter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent survey Proposed critical Final critical
Site County, State description habitat unit habitat unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augusta Lock and Dam............ Columbia County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 1: Columbia/ Unit 1: Columbia/
Georgia. 25-27; Site 4. Richmond. Richmond.
Augusta Canal................... Richmond County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 2: Barney Unit 2: Barney
Georgia. 25-27; Site 4. Bluff. Bluff.
Barney Bluff.................... Richmond County, Bradley 2019, p. Unit 2: Barney Unit 2: Barney
Georgia. 29; Site 6. Bluff. Bluff.
McBean Creek-Beazley Property... Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 3: Burke Unit 3: Burke
Georgia. 29-30; Site 7. North. North.
McBean Creek--Miller Property... Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 3: Burke Unit 3: Burke
Georgia. 29-30; Site 7. North. North.
Boggy Gut Creek................. Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 3: Burke Unit 3: Burke
Georgia. 30-31; Site 8. North. North.
Shell Bluff North............... Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 3: Burke Unit 3: Burke
Georgia. 31-32; Site 9. North. North.
Shell Bluff South............... Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 3: Burke Unit 3: Burke
Georgia. 31-32; Site 9. North. North.
Blue Buff....................... Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 4: Burke Unit 4: Burke
Georgia. 33-35; Site 11. South. South.
Hancock Landing North........... Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 4: Burke Unit 4: Burke
Georgia. 32-33; Site 10. South. South.
Griffin Landing North........... Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 4: Burke Unit 4: Burke
Georgia. 35-36; Site 12. South. South.
Griffin Landing South........... Burke County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 4: Burke Unit 4: Burke
Georgia. 35-36; Site 12. South. South.
Prescott Lakes.................. Screven County, Bradley 2019, pp. Unit 5: Prescott Unit 5: Prescott
Georgia. 38-39; Site 14. Lakes. Lakes.
Blue Springs Landing............ Screven County, Scutellaria Not included...... Not included.
Georgia. mellichampii, see
Bradley 2019, pp.
42-43.
Porters Landing................. Effingham County, Scutellaria Not included...... Not included.
Georgia. mellichampii, see
Bradley 2019, pp.
43-45.
Horse Creek..................... Aiken County, Service 2022, Not included...... Not included.
South Carolina. entire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Ocmulgee skullcap is presented in the SSA report (version 1.3; Service
2023, pp. 4-11). Ocmulgee skullcap is a perennial herb in the Lamiaceae
(mint) family with 4-sided stems that grows up to 16 to 32 inches (in)
(40 to 80 centimeters (cm)) tall. It bears blue-violet colored and
faintly fragrant flowers in July. Although taxonomy for Ocmulgee
skullcap has been consistent through time, identification of the
species is difficult; as a result, some occurrences of the congeneric
S. mellichampii were misidentified as Ocmulgee skullcap prior to 2018.
Ocmulgee skullcap is restricted to the moist, calcareous (calcium
rich) north-facing slopes along the Ocmulgee and Savannah River
watersheds in Georgia and South Carolina. In these isolated bluff and
slope areas, the forest structure is composed of a mixed-hardwood
species of trees with a partially open canopy to allow the plants to
reach maturity and produce viable seed. The mature, mixed-level canopy
provides the mottled shade required by Ocmulgee skullcap. The river
bluffs and steep slopes experience localized disturbances including
water runoff that limit the accumulation of leaf litter and limit
competition from other plants in the shaded, steep forest environment.
The lifespan of Ocmulgee skullcap is estimated to be 5 to 8 years,
with 3 to 6 years of potential viable seed production. The species
matures to produce seed in either the first or second year following
spring germination. Ocmulgee skullcap reproduces sexually and is
pollinated by over 35 different pollinator species, including bees,
moths, butterflies, and sometimes flies and wasps (Cruzan 2001, pp.
1577-1578; Adams et al. 2010, p. 53,).
Ocmulgee skullcap seeds release from the plant in response to
disturbance of the stem by wind, rain, animal activity, or other means.
The seeds require this dislodging and bare soil that is rich in
calcium, and under partial shade, in order to germinate. Juvenile
Ocmulgee skullcap individuals require sufficient amounts of sunlight,
moisture, and calcium, as well as the presence of pollinators and
stable soil conditions, to reach maturity and produce seed. In
addition, juvenile plants are sensitive to competition for needed
resources. Mature Ocmulgee skullcap plants require the same resources
as juvenile plants, including sufficient time without herbivory or
other removal of the seed calyx in order disperse seed.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the
regulations in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same
day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections for
endangered species and threatened
[[Page 86674]]
species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919). These final rules are now in effect
and are incorporated into the current regulations. Our analysis for
this final decision applied our current regulations. Given that we
proposed listing and critical habitat for this species under our prior
regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of
whether our decision would be different if we had continued to apply
the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the decision would be the same.
The analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the
2019 regulations are available on https://www.regulations.gov.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
(hereafter, the Services) can reasonably make predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis
that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further
application of standards within the Act and its implementing
regulations and policies.
To assess Ocmulgee skullcap's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events),
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2021-0059 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library.
[[Page 86675]]
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. For Ocmulgee skullcap
populations to be sufficiently resilient, the needs of individuals
(calcium-rich soil, shade or partial shade from canopy cover, adequate
precipitation, reduced competition, pollinators) must be met at a large
scale. Areas of suitable habitat must be large enough to support
pollinators needed for Ocmulgee skullcap reproduction and habitat that
acts to prevent or delay encroachment by nonnative, invasive species.
At the species level, the Ocmulgee skullcap needs a sufficient number
and distribution of healthy populations to withstand environmental
stochasticity (resiliency) and catastrophes (redundancy) and to adapt
to biological and physical changes in its environment (representation).
Influences on Ocmulgee Skullcap's Viability
In the SSA analysis, we reviewed and summarized the factors that
may influence the viability of Ocmulgee skullcap. Threats to Ocmulgee
skullcap's viability include the following factors: (1) Habitat
destruction and modification; (2) competition from other species (e.g.,
Elaeagnus pungens (thorny olive), E. umbellata (autumn olive),
Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet), Lonicera japonica (Japanese
honeysuckle), and Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu)); (3) collection
and harvest; (4) herbivory; (5) climate change; and (6) pollinator
visitation and reproduction (Service 2023, pp. 12-17). The primary
factors driving the species' current and future conditions are habitat
loss and fragmentation due to development and urbanization (Factor A);
competition and encroachment from nonnative, invasive species (Factors
A and E); and herbivory from white-tailed deer (Factor C). Although
medicinal properties of other Scutellaria species have been
investigated (Service 2023, p. 13), there is no evidence that
overutilization (Factor B) has impacted Ocmulgee skullcap. In addition,
conditions across the species' range are likely to be hotter and
subject to variable precipitation including extreme weather events in
the future. Although we do not have specific information regarding the
species' likely response to these effects of climate change, we expect
that the effects of climate change will negatively affect Ocmulgee
skullcap by reducing available resources such as water and limited
competition. We have determined that climate change (Factor E) is not a
primary risk factor for the species at this time; however, the effects
of climate change, including drought and changes in rainfall patterns,
may affect the species in the future as changes become more extreme. We
also reviewed the conservation efforts being undertaken for the habitat
where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs. A brief summary of relevant stressors
is presented below; for a more detailed discussion of our evaluation of
the biological status of Ocmulgee skullcap and the influences that may
affect its continued existence, refer to chapter 3 of the SSA report
(Service 2023, pp. 12-20).
Urbanization and Land Conversion
Population growth and associated urbanization and development has
increased in the Southeast at a rate 40 percent greater than the rest
of the United States over the last 60 years. Much of this growth is in
sprawling low-density, suburban areas encompassing large areas of
single-family housing and infrastructure (Terando et al. 2014, p.
e102261). Land conversion for residential, commercial, and
infrastructure development is associated with an increase in
population. Two Ocmulgee skullcap populations occur near the city of
Macon, Georgia, and another population occurs near the city of Augusta,
Georgia. Urbanization and land conversion can directly and indirectly
impact Ocmulgee skullcap (Morris et al. 2000, pp. 31-32). Urbanization
or land conversion can result in the direct loss of individuals or a
population. For example, two occurrences have experienced altered
conditions, such as erosion on the bluff due to nearby residential
development and a parking lot expansion (Bradley 2019, pp. 27-29).
Further, land use patterns and urbanization near Ocmulgee skullcap
occurrences can impact population resiliency. Urbanization modifies
surrounding and nearby habitat conditions required by Ocmulgee skullcap
by fostering the introduction of nonnative, invasive species and
increasing the amount and velocity of water runoff during precipitation
events due to an increase of impervious surfaces. As further discussed
below, nonnative, invasive species compete with Ocmulgee skullcap for
required resources. Increased runoff reduces the availability of
nutrients and soil conditions required for successful reproduction,
affecting Ocmulgee skullcap recruitment and resiliency. Because
Ocmulgee skullcap grows along steep slopes, when the tops of bluffs are
logged or cleared for other land uses without implementation of BMPs
runoff and erosion are increased.
Silvicultural Activities
Silviculture (timber harvests) has been documented on bluffs above
or adjacent to four extant Ocmulgee skullcap sites: Augusta Canal,
Boggy Gut Creek, Hancock Landing North, and Plant Vogtle (Morris 1999,
pp. 5, 12, 29, 34, 55-56, 65 and Bradley 2019, p. 29). Because
silvicultural activities are primarily occurring upslope or adjacent to
sites, erosion into the Ocmulgee skullcap sites has the potential for
negative, indirect effects. Two sites (Barney Bluff and Plant Vogtle
sites) historically showed signs of erosion from upslope timber
harvests (Morris 1999 pp. 5, 65). One site (Boggy Gut Creek) has been
directly impacted by clear-cut timber harvests and the status of this
population is considered possibly extirpated. However, selective timber
harvests (hardwood thinning) within Ocmulgee sites may be beneficial to
populations when actions create the mottled shade conditions the
species needs (Morris 1999 p. 5, Bradley 2019 pp. 29, 78).
In general, silviculture or timber harvests are not a key driver of
species status across the range but may be a threat to individuals or
populations when BMPs intended to buffer slopes (i.e., Ocmulgee
skullcap habitat) from erosion are not implemented or are implemented
improperly. Although Georgia considers the application of BMPs to be
quasi-regulatory and South Carolina considers the application of BMPs
to be nonregulatory, forest landowners certified under forest
certification standards are required to implement appropriate BMPs to
maintain certification and BMPs are expected to be protective of
habitat conditions in areas where implemented correctly (Englund and
Berndes 2015, pp. 34-37; Demarais et al. 2017, p. 6; National Council
for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) 2022, pp. 2-9). Across all
ownership types (non-industrial private forest, private, and public) in
the Upper Coastal Plain region of Georgia where the Ocmulgee skullcap
occurs, implementation of BMPs associated with streamside management
zone (SMZ), stream assessment, timber harvest and mechanical site prep
outside SMZs range from 89.5 to 100 percent (GFC 2021, entire). At this
time, the best available information is not sufficiently detailed to
determine the level of BMP
[[Page 86676]]
implementation in sites with Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences. However,
given the steep slopes associated with most Ocmulgee skullcap
occurrences, and if BMP implementation is high in these areas,
silvicultural activities are less likely to impact the species.
Herbivory
Over the last century, white-tailed deer abundance has increased
substantially (Horsely et al. 2003, p. 98). White-tailed deer presence
results in herbivory (including preferential browsing of native plants)
and trampling, causing impacts to plant development and species
density, diversity, and composition (Miller et al. 1992, entire;
Horsely et al. 2003, p. 113; Averill et al. 2017, p. 2). For many
Scutellaria species, including Ocmulgee skullcap, immature stems are
often browsed by deer; this herbivory can prevent reproduction of that
stem for the year if the plant does not flower (Bradley 2019, p. 77).
In addition, individual plants may be pulled from the ground during
browsing. In contrast, deer herbivory was found to have a potential
positive influence on the large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria
montana), where deer browsed on all vegetation and large-flowered
skullcap individuals benefited from the reduction in competing
vegetation (Benson and Boyd 2014, p. 89). However, the direct impacts
from white-tailed deer are widely noted across the range of the
Ocmulgee skullcap, with herbivory documented in over 75 percent of
occurrences and herbivory by deer noted as a limiting factor for
Ocmulgee skullcap populations (Cammack and Genachte 1999, entire;
Morris 1999, entire; Snow 1999, entire; Morris et al. 2000, entire;
Snow 2001, entire; Bradley 2019, entire). In 2018, deer herbivory was
observed in every Ocmulgee skullcap population surveyed (n = 6) by
Bradley (2019, entire), with severe impacts on reproduction documented
at some sites. Therefore, we conclude that deer herbivory continues to
be an ongoing threat to Ocmulgee skullcap.
In addition to direct impacts, deer browse affects the vegetative
community through facilitation of browse-resilient species and
potential increases in species that compete with Ocmulgee skullcap for
resources (Horsely et al. 2003, pp. 114-115). Encroaching development
has decreased the amount and quality of forage and habitat for white-
tailed deer, which can increase the probability of herbivory within
Ocmulgee skullcap's suitable habitat. Further, as development
increases, restrictions on deer harvest in proximity to residential
areas may lead to an increase in deer populations and associated
herbivory of Ocmulgee skullcap.
The Ocmulgee skullcap occurrence at the Savannah River Bluffs
Heritage Preserve in Aiken County, South Carolina, has been impacted by
severe deer herbivory (Bradley 2019, p. 24). The preserve is the site
of intense public recreation; therefore, deer harvest is not permitted
within the preserve for public safety reasons. In addition, residents
in housing developments adjacent to the preserve feed the deer and may
maintain large piles of ``deer corn'' (Bradley 2019, p. 24). This
abundance of food and lack of hunting pressure has resulted in an
unnaturally dense deer population surrounding this occurrence. Although
suitable habitat remains at this site; it has previously been described
as depauperate, with an almost barren herbaceous layer.
Nonnative, Invasive Species
Invasive plant species limit the available resources (nutrients,
space, sunlight, pollinators) necessary for Ocmulgee skullcap
germination, growth, and reproduction. The introduction and spread of
nonnative invasive species often occur with development (McKinney 2002,
p. 888). However, nonnative invasive species can also be introduced
from other types of adjacent land uses, such as agriculture and
silviculture. This introduction occurs through the creation of
transitional areas between natural and anthropogenic affected habitat
types and associated edge effects (Brown and Boutin 2009, p. 1654; Honu
et al. 2009, p. 182). Nonnative invasive plant species have been
documented at 8 of the 32 Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences (Bradley 2019,
entire; Morris 1999, entire).
Nonnative, invasive species known to affect multiple Ocmulgee
skullcap populations include: Elaeagnus pungens (thorny olive), E.
umbellata (autumn olive), Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet), Lonicera
japonica (Japanese honeysuckle), and Microstegium vimineum (Japanese
stiltgrass) (Morris et al. 2000, p. 31; Bradley 2019, p. 77). On some
sites, other nonnative, invasive species, including Pueraria montana
var. lobata (kudzu), Vinca minor (periwinkle), Citrus trifoliata (hardy
orange), and Pyrus communis (common pear), pose localized threats to
occurrences or populations (Bradley 2019, p. 77). These nonnative,
invasive species, when present, compete with Ocmulgee skullcap plants
for required resources, including sunlight, water, and space.
Intact forested habitat with a mature canopy and discrete
disturbances provides important habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
populations which limits encroachment of competing nonnative, invasive
plants. Competition with other native species and nonnative, invasive
species can restrict seedlings, vegetative plants, and flowering plants
from obtaining the three key resources (water, sunlight, and soil)
needed to grow and reproduce; therefore, healthy Ocmulgee skullcap
individuals and populations need reduced competition.
Climate Change
In the southeastern United States, several climate change models
have projected more frequent drought, more extreme air temperatures,
increased heavy precipitation events (e.g., flooding), and more intense
storms (e.g., frequency of major hurricanes increases) (Burkett and
Kusler 2000, p. 314; Klos et al. 2009, p. 699; IPCC 2013, pp. 3-29).
When taking into account future climate projections for temperature and
precipitation where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs, warming is expected to be
greatest in the summer, which is predicted to increase drought
frequency. Additionally, annual mean precipitation is expected to
increase, but only slightly, leading to a slight increase in flooding
events (Alder and Hostetler 2013, unpaginated; IPCC 2013, entire; USGS
2020, unpaginated).
To understand how climate change is projected to change where
Ocmulgee skullcap occurs, we used the National Climate Change Viewer
(NCCV), a climate-visualization tool developed by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), to generate future climate projections across the range
of the species. The NCCV is a web-based tool for visualizing projected
changes in climate and water balance at watershed, State, and county
scales (USGS 2020, unpaginated). To evaluate the effects of climate
change in the future, we used projections from representative
concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP8.5 to characterize projected
future changes in climate and water resources, averaged for the State
of Georgia and encompassing the majority of the range of the Ocmulgee
skullcap. The projections estimate change in mean annual values for
maximum air temperature, minimum air temperature, monthly
precipitation, and monthly runoff, among other factors, from historical
(1950-2005) to future (2040-2060) time series.
Within the range of the Ocmulgee skullcap, the NCCV projects that
under the RCP4.5 scenario, maximum air temperature will increase by 3.4
degrees
[[Page 86677]]
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (1.9 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), minimum air
temperature will increase by 3.2 [deg]F (1.8 [deg]C), precipitation
will increase by 0.2 in (5.36 millimeters (mm)) per month, and runoff
will remain the same in the 2040-2060 time period (USGS 2020,
unpaginated). Under the more extreme RCP8.5 emissions scenario, the
NCCV projects that maximum air temperature will increase by 5.0 [deg]F
(2.8 [deg]C), minimum air temperature will increase by 4.9 [deg]F (2.7
[deg]C), precipitation will increase by 0.2 in (5.36 mm) per month, and
runoff will remain the same (USGS 2020, unpaginated). These estimates
indicate that, despite projected minimal increases in annual
precipitation, anticipated increases in maximum and minimum air
temperatures will likely offset those gains. Based on these
projections, Ocmulgee skullcap will, on average, be exposed to
increased air temperatures across its range, despite limited increases
in precipitation in scenarios based on RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The increase
of maximum and minimum temperatures and variability in precipitation
are expected to result in an increased probability of longer and more
severe droughts in the future.
Within the mixed hardwood forests where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs,
drought conditions due to higher temperatures and variable
precipitation could reduce the available resources required for plant
survival, including water and reduced competition. Extreme rainfall
events may increase negative effects associated with erosion on the
steep slopes where the species occurs and with increased mobilization
of pollutants and sedimentation carried in runoff from urbanized areas
near species sites. Increased competition from other species that are
more tolerant of drought and extreme rainfall events may also limit the
ability of Ocmulgee skullcap to produce viable seed and sustain
populations in the wild over time. The species occupies hardwood
forests with mature overstory and midstory canopy cover, and these more
mesic, shaded habitats may provide a buffer to changes induced by
climate change (such as increased temperatures). If precipitation
increases slightly, as predicted in some models, and extreme rainfall
events are infrequent, the effects to Ocmulgee skullcap could be
beneficial, although this scenario is quite uncertain and climate
change is not expected to benefit the species (Alder and Hostetler
2013, unpaginated).
The potential risks associated with long-term climate change as
described above will affect ecosystem processes in Ocmulgee skullcap
habitat, but there is uncertainty in how the ecosystems and species
will respond. Overall, we do not expect the effects of climate change
to be beneficial to the species, but the extent of the negative effects
cannot be estimated with the available information on the species'
responses to increased temperature and variability in precipitation.
Likewise, the threshold or level at which changes in temperature
(prolonged hot weather) and rainfall (drought or extreme rainfall
events) are expected to affect Ocmulgee skullcap is not available for
the species or its congeners. We have determined that climate change is
not a primary risk factor for the species at this time; however, the
effects of climate change, including drought and changes in rainfall
patterns, may affect the species in the future as changes become more
extreme.
Small Population Size
Some plant species, such as Ocmulgee skullcap, are naturally
distributed as small and disjunct populations in heterogeneous
landscapes because of their requirements for specific habitat
conditions. The specific habitat requirement of Ocmulgee skullcap
(i.e., calcium-rich soil on forested bluffs) is disjunct, and,
therefore, populations are generally very small, with 16 of 19
populations having fewer than 60 individuals and 9 populations having
10 or fewer individuals. Only three populations have more than 100
individuals (Service 2023, appendix A). It is unknown whether Ocmulgee
skullcap was historically more abundant but given the magnitude and
scope of past habitat loss and modification, it is likely the species'
numbers are lower than in the past. In addition, small and isolated
populations offer limited nectar and pollen resources available to
pollinators, making visitation to these sites more energetically
expensive. Small, isolated populations of rare plant species often
receive less pollinator visitation in comparison with larger or more
widespread plant species (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, p. 227).
Small populations are vulnerable to habitat impacts and face a
higher risk of extinction (Matthies et al. 2004, p. 481). Small
population size may increase the extinction risk of individual
populations due to stochasticity of demographic (fluctuations in
population size) and genetic (fluctuations in gene expression)
characteristics, environmental stochasticity (spatiotemporal
fluctuations in environmental conditions), or impacts from catastrophic
events (e.g., hurricanes) (Lande 1993, entire). Within each population,
genetic, phenotypic, and demographic structure must have adequate
representation for populations to respond to environmental change over
time.
Genetic stochasticity due to small population size can contribute
to population extirpation, especially when population fragmentation
disrupts gene flow. Two genetic consequences of small population size
are increased genetic drift and inbreeding. Genetic drift is the random
change in allele frequency that occurs because gametes transmitted from
one generation to the next carry only a sample of the alleles present
in the parental generation. In large populations, changes due to chance
in allele frequency from drift are generally small. In contrast, in
small populations (e.g., fewer than 100 individuals), allele
frequencies may undergo large and unpredictable fluctuations due to
drift that can erode genetic variation (diversity) over time and may
decrease the potential for a species to persist in the face of
environmental change (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 219, 224).
Inbreeding, which can be caused by genetic drift, is the mating of
related individuals. Inbreeding can lead to increased homozygosity in a
population above levels expected under random mating (Barrett and Kohn
1991, p. 19). Small population size alone may not necessarily be a
threat to the long-term viability of a given population, as small
populations of some isolated endemic plant species are known to
maintain stable populations for at least 40 years (Abeli 2010, p. 6).
However, the synergistic effect of habitat fragmentation, reduced
population size, and inbreeding may lead to inbreeding depression and
reduced fitness.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Ocmulgee skullcap is listed as threatened in Georgia (Patrick et
al. 1995, pp. 173-174) and is not listed or otherwise protected in
South Carolina. In Georgia, the Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act of
1973 (Georgia Code, title 12, chapter 6, article 3, sections 12-6-170
to 12-6-176) protects Ocmulgee skullcap growing on State lands from
cutting, digging, pulling, or removing unless the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources has authorized such acts. The six populations
occurring on State-owned or State-managed wildlife management areas in
Georgia receive the benefits of protection under the Georgia Wildflower
Preservation Act of 1973.
Throughout the range of the species, portions of eight populations
occur on lands owned and managed by State or
[[Page 86678]]
Federal entities that prioritize conservation as a management
objective. The Robins Air Force Base Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan (INRMP) specifically considers and manages for one
Ocmulgee skullcap population (three occurrences) on the installation
(for more information, see Exemptions, below). The State conservation
lands owned or leased and managed by the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources where six Ocmulgee skullcap populations occur include Yuchi
Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Ocmulgee WMA, and the Oaky Woods
WMA. One Ocmulgee skullcap population occurs on the Savannah River
Heritage Preserve owned and managed by the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources. It is expected that the eight Ocmulgee skullcap
populations are positively affected by protection from development on
these State-owned and State-managed lands. However, State-owned or
managed land and the Georgia Wildflower Protection Act do not require
or ensure species appropriate habitat management (e.g., invasive
species and deer management) that may be needed to conserve the
species. The one population on Federal land (Robins Air Force Base) is
protected and managed via an INRMP. However, the negative impacts
associated with herbivory and the effects of climate change continue to
impact Ocmulgee skullcap populations on all protected lands.
Synergistic and Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
In addition to factors impacting Ocmulgee skullcap individually, it
is likely that several of the threats summarized above are acting
synergistically or cumulatively on the species. The combined impacts of
multiple threats are likely more harmful than a single threat acting
alone. Development and urbanization may remove or degrade habitat where
Ocmulgee skullcap occurs and may also bring an increase in encroaching
nonnative, invasive species and white-tailed deer due to hunting
restrictions near inhabited areas. In addition, herbivory by white-
tailed deer may change the community structure to favor plants more
resistant to deer browse. The impacts of herbivory by white-tailed deer
and competition from nonnative, invasive species were recently noted in
several populations (Bradley 2019, entire).
Methods To Assess Current Condition
To evaluate the biological status of Ocmulgee skullcap both
currently and into the future, we assessed a range of conditions to
consider the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation. For
the purposes of our analysis, representative units (RUs) were
delineated to describe the breadth of known genetic, phenotypic, and
ecological diversity within the species. We divided the Ocmulgee
skullcap range into two noncontiguous RUs, the Ocmulgee and Savannah
River watersheds. We used the 2-km separation distance rule in
NatureServe's habitat-based plant element occurrence delineation
guidance (NatureServe 2020, entire) to delineate populations. We
delineated populations of the Ocmulgee skullcap using occurrence data
obtained from peer-reviewed articles, unpublished survey reports, and
survey records (1961 to present) contained in agency and partner
databases (i.e., Georgia and South Carolina Natural Heritage
databases).
Occurrences are defined as an individual or group of individuals in
close proximity in an area not widely separated from other individuals.
Rangewide, each of the 32 occurrences was buffered by a 2-km (1.24-mi)
radius circle and occurrences with overlapping buffers were considered
within the same population, resulting in 19 Ocmulgee skullcap
populations (13 in the Ocmulgee RU and 6 in Savannah RU) (see table 2,
below). Historical occurrence data are limited, but we assumed that the
current distribution of Ocmulgee skullcap populations represents at
least most of the historical range of the species within the Ocmulgee
and Savannah watersheds in Georgia and South Carolina.
Table 2--Populations Used To Assess Viability of the Ocmulgee Skullcap
in the Ocmulgee and Savannah Representative Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocmulgee representative unit Savannah representative unit
populations populations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Dykes Memorial Burke South
Adjoins Robins Air Force Base Burke North
Savage Branch Columbia Richmond
Bolingbroke Rest Area Barney Bluff
Crooked Creek Horse Creek
Jordan Creek Prescott Lakes
Shellstone Creek
Dry Creek
Oaky Woods Wildlife Management Area
North
Oaky Woods Wildlife Management Area
South
River North Bluff
South Shellstone Creek
Tributary to Richland Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the proposed rule published, we received new information about the
Horse Creek population and now consider it a historical population
(Service 2022, entire).
The Ocmulgee skullcap needs multiple, sufficiently resilient
populations distributed across its range to maintain viability. A
sufficiently resilient population exhibits high or moderate resiliency
and is characterized by 60 or more individuals in stable or increasing
numbers of widespread occurrences with no or few invasive
[[Page 86679]]
species and no or minor change in habitat condition. A number of
factors influence whether Ocmulgee skullcap populations exhibit
resiliency to stochastic events. These factors include: (1) Number of
individuals in all occurrences within a population; (2) number of
flowering individuals (reproductive adults) within a population; (3)
number of occurrences (groups of individuals) within a population; (4)
change in number of occurrences within a population over time; and (5)
condition of habitat, which is directly related to growth, survival,
and reproductive success (Service 2023, p. 24). To capture important
aspects of the habitat condition, we used two factors, both of which
characterize the quality and quantity of native herbaceous ground
cover: (1) Presence of nonnative, invasive plant species (competition);
and (2) presence of deer herbivory (browsing) (Service 2023, p. 24).
We assessed representation for the Ocmulgee skullcap based on the
potential adaptive capacity of the species as expressed in the number
of populations across the range of the species and within
representative units. Finally, we assessed Ocmulgee skullcap's
redundancy (the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events)
by evaluating the number and distribution of sufficiently resilient
populations throughout the species' range.
Current Conditions of Ocmulgee Skullcap
As described above, we delineated the range of Ocmulgee skullcap
into two representative units and 19 populations for our analyses.
Having a greater number of self-sustaining populations distributed
across the known range of the species is associated with an overall
higher viability of the species into the future. We determined four
condition classes for Ocmulgee skullcap resiliency: very low, low,
moderate, and high. A population exhibiting high resiliency is
characterized by: 100 or more individuals, with multiple, widespread
clusters of individuals; an increasing trend in the number of
occurrences; few or no nonnative, invasive plant species; no evident
deer browse impacts; and no substantial change in habitat condition.
Moderate resiliency populations are characterized by: 60-99
individuals, with a few, somewhat widespread clusters of individuals;
stable number of occurrences; few or no nonnative, invasive plant
species; evident deer browse impacts; and only minor changes in habitat
condition. A population in low resiliency is characterized by: 40-59
individuals, with two clusters of individuals; a decreasing trend in
the number of occurrences; presence of nonnative, invasive plant
species and deer browse impacts; and moderate change in habitat
condition. A very low resiliency population is characterized by: fewer
than 40 individuals in a single, isolated site; presence of nonnative,
invasive plant species and deer browse; and substantial change in
habitat condition. Resiliency categories are further described in the
SSA report (Service 2023, p. 24, table 4-1).
Currently, 16 of 19 populations within the species' range exhibit
low or very low resiliency (see table 3, below). One population (James
Dykes Memorial) within the Ocmulgee RU exhibits moderate resiliency,
and two populations (Burke North and Burke South) within the Savannah
RU exhibit moderate or high resiliency (see table 3, below). The
majority of Ocmulgee skullcap populations have low or very low
resilience to stochastic events. One occurrence within an extant
population in the Savannah RU has been extirpated because of land
conversion to pine plantation; currently, there are no known
extirpations at the population level. The Horse Creek population is
considered historical because it has not been found in over twenty
years; however, it has not been surveyed extensively enough since the
1960s to confirm there is no habitat and the plant no longer occurs
there (Service 2022, entire).
The Ocmulgee skullcap is found in two non-contiguous RUs
(watersheds); and currently occupies the known historical range of the
species. One occurrence within a population has been extirpated, but
the population is still extant. Thus, representation may be slightly
reduced from the species' historical condition. Based on available
information, we determined the Ocmulgee skullcap has adaptive capacity
or ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, given that 19
populations occur in two watersheds in two States and no populations
have been lost from the known historical range. Sixteen of 19 known
populations currently exhibit low to very low resiliency across the
range, but these populations are distributed across two watersheds in
two States across the historical range. Overall, the Ocmulgee
skullcap's current condition is characterized by low or reduced
resiliency, moderate representation, and multiple redundant
populations.
Table 3--Current Resiliency Category of Each Ocmulgee Skullcap
Population
[Service 2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Overall resiliency
Population name individuals category *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocmulgee Representative Unit (Ocmulgee River watershed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Dykes Memorial.............. 54 Moderate.
Adjoins Robins Air Force Base..... 3 Low.
Savage Branch..................... 50 Low.
Bolingbroke Rest Area............. 8 Low.
Crooked Creek..................... 31 Low.
Jordan Creek...................... 50 Low.
Shellstone Creek.................. 46 Low.
Dry Creek......................... 10 Very low.
Oaky Woods WMA North.............. 1 Very low.
Oaky Woods WMA South.............. 1 Very low.
River North Bluff................. 1 Very low.
South Shellstone Creek............ 15 Very low.
Tributary to Richland Creek....... 6 Very low.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 86680]]
Savannah Representative Unit (Savannah River watershed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke South....................... 319 High.
Burke North....................... 112 Moderate.
Columbia Richmond................. 450 Low.
Barney Bluff...................... 50 Low.
Horse Creek....................... 0 Very low
(historical).
Prescott Lakes.................... 0 Very low.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Overall resiliency category includes the demographic metrics of the
number of individuals, number of occurrences, and change in number of
occurrences, and the habitat metric assessment of native herbaceous
groundcover/habitat condition.
Future Scenarios
Given the current conditions of Ocmulgee skullcap and the expected
influences on viability, we projected the resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of Ocmulgee skullcap under three plausible future
scenarios. Our projections incorporate the effects of development
(urbanization) and habitat management actions that reduce nonnative,
invasive species and herbivory from white-tailed deer. However, having
determined that the current condition of the Ocmulgee skullcap is
consistent with that of an endangered species (see Determination of
Ocmulgee Skullcap's Status, below), we are not presenting the results
in this final rule. Please refer to the proposed listing and
designation of critical habitat rule for the Ocmulgee skullcap (87 FR
37378; June 22, 2022) and the SSA report, version 1.3 (Service 2023,
entire) for the full analysis of future conditions and descriptions of
the associated scenarios.
Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species
or threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we determined the Ocmulgee skullcap to be an endangered
species throughout all of its range due to current and ongoing threats
across the range. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats, and the cumulative effect of the threats to the
Ocmulgee skullcap. Our review of the best available information
indicates Ocmulgee skullcap occurs in 19 populations in 2
representative units, the Ocmulgee River watershed in Georgia (13
populations) and the Savannah River watershed in Georgia/South Carolina
(6 populations), across the historical range of the species. Recently,
there has been one extirpation of an occurrence within a currently
extant population in the Savannah River watershed resulting from land
use conversion to a pine plantation.
Ocmulgee skullcap populations are generally small. At present, 3
populations contain more than 100 individuals, and 16 populations have
fewer than 60 individuals. Generally, the Ocmulgee skullcap has low
resiliency to stochastic events at the population level. Sixteen of the
known populations have low abundance and exhibit low or very low
resiliency to stochastic events. Of the remaining three (out of 19)
populations, one population in the Savannah RU has high resiliency and
two have moderate resiliency (one in each the Ocmulgee and Savannah
RUs).
As stated previously, Ocmulgee skullcap populations are distributed
in two watersheds across the historical range of the species. We
determined the Ocmulgee skullcap has some adaptive capacity or
representation based on the species occurrences across the known
historical range. The species-level redundancy was determined to be
reduced from historical condition due to the loss of one occurrence.
Although the resiliency of most populations is low or very low,
populations are distributed across the species' range, giving it some
redundancy and ability to withstand catastrophic events.
Ocmulgee skullcap faces threats from habitat degradation or loss as
a result of development and urbanization (Factor A); competition and
encroachment from nonnative, invasive species (Factors A and E); and
herbivory by white-tailed deer (Factor C). These threats are
exacerbated by small population size (Factor E) and existing regulatory
mechanisms that do not adequately address the threats (Factor D).
Overutilization (Factor B) and disease (Factor C) are not currently
affecting Ocmulgee skullcap populations. Climate change (Factor E) is
not a primary risk factor for the species at this time; however, the
effects of climate change, including drought and changes in rainfall
patterns, may affect the species in the future as changes become more
extreme.
While we anticipate that the threats will continue to act on the
species in the future, they are affecting the species such that it is
in danger of extinction now, and therefore, we find that a threatened
species status is not appropriate. We find that the Ocmulgee skullcap's
vulnerability to ongoing stressors is heightened to such a degree that
it is currently in danger of extinction as a result of its low number
of populations, low population size, and response to current and
ongoing threats. Thus, after assessing the best available information,
we determine that Ocmulgee skullcap is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
[[Page 86681]]
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We have determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap is
currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and
accordingly did not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of
its range. Because the Ocmulgee skullcap warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available
indicates that the Ocmulgee skullcap meets the Act's definition of an
endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the Ocmulgee skullcap as
an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies,
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Georgia Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Georgia and South
Carolina will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Ocmulgee
skullcap. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the Ocmulgee skullcap. Additionally, we invite you
to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Ocmulgee skullcap that
may be subject to consultation procedures under section 7 include
management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands
administered by the National Park Service as well as 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
[[Page 86682]]
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, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the
local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with
any specific questions on Section 7 consultation and conference
requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be
committed any of the following with regard to any endangered plant: (1)
import to, or export from, the United States; (2) remove and reduce to
possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or
destroy on any such area; remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on
any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any
State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass
law; (3) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a
commercial activity; or (4) sell or offer for sale in interstate or
foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to
employees or agents of the Service, other Federal land management
agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Service
regulations governing permits for endangered plants are codified at 50
CFR 17.62, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at
50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered plants, a permit may be
issued for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or
survival of the species. The statute also contains certain exemptions
from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known
at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To
the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to
result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as
possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the
range of the species.
At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section
9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of
prohibitions or already excepted through our regulations at 50 CFR
17.61 (e.g., any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal
land management agency, or a State conservation agency, who is
designated by that agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the
course of official duties, remove and reduce to possession endangered
plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction without a permit if such
action is necessary to: (i) care for a damaged or diseased specimen;
(ii) dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) salvage a dead specimen which
may be useful for scientific study). Also, as discussed above, certain
activities that are prohibited under section 9 may be permitted under
section 10 of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Georgia
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
This critical habitat designation was proposed when the regulations
defining ``habitat'' (85 FR 81411; December 16, 2020) and governing the
4(b)(2) exclusion process for the Service (85 FR 82376; December 18,
2020) were in place and in effect. However, those two regulations have
been rescinded (87 FR 37757, June 24, 2022; and 87 FR 43433, July 21,
2022) and no longer apply to any designations of critical habitat.
Therefore, for this final rule designating critical habitat for the
Ocmulgee skullcap, we apply the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the
Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, February 11,
2016).
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 also 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. Rather, designation requires that,
where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for
an action that may
[[Page 86683]]
affect areas designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may
affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied critical
habitat), the Federal action agency would have already been required to
consult with the Service even absent the critical habitat designation
because of the requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Even if the Service
were to conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species;
instead, they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
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.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, 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 from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
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 Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
Our SSA report for the Ocmulgee skullcap provides the scientific
information upon which this critical
[[Page 86684]]
habitat designation is based (Service 2023, entire). A thorough account
of the ecological needs of the Ocmulgee skullcap can be found in the
SSA report (Service 2023, chapter 2, pp. 4-11), and is briefly
summarized here in the context of the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Habitat
As described above under Background, the Ocmulgee skullcap occurs
in moist, calcareous hardwood forests on north- to northeast-facing
slopes of river bluffs and their floodplains in the Ocmulgee and
Savannah River watersheds in Georgia and South Carolina. River bluffs
and steep slopes are subject to localized disturbances that limit the
accumulation of leaf litter and competition. Ocmulgee skullcap
individuals require reduced competition to grow and reproduce within
suitable habitat.
These hardwood forests are characterized by a mature, mixed-level
canopy with spatial heterogeneity that provides mottled shade required
by Ocmulgee skullcap. Intact calcareous forests are characterized by a
diverse species composition ranging from short-lived pioneer species to
long-lived, shade-tolerant species (Edwards et al. 2013, p. 406).
Communal species in these areas may consist of red buckeye (Aesculus
pavia), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), white oak (Quercus alba),
basswood (Tilia americana), American holly (Ilex opaca), and relict
trillium (Trillium reliquum) (Edwards et al. 2013, p. 409; Bradley
2019, pp. 21-28). The herbaceous layer in this forest type includes a
rich diversity of grasses and forbs that support the required
pollinators for the species in adequate numbers to facilitate Ocmulgee
skullcap reproduction. The upper canopy of mixed hardwoods in a forest
with suitable habitat provides the partial shade required for
germination, growth, and reproduction.
Intact forested habitat with a mature canopy and discrete
disturbances provides important habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap
populations to decrease encroachment of competing nonnative, invasive
plants. Competition with other native species and nonnative, invasive
species can restrict seedlings, vegetative plants, and flowering plants
from obtaining the three key resources (water, sunlight, and soil)
needed to grow and reproduce; therefore, healthy Ocmulgee skullcap
individuals and populations need reduced competition.
Soils
The calcareous hardwood forests where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs are
influenced by outcroppings of limestone or marl that provide the
calcium-rich parent material for soils. Ocmulgee skullcap requires
well-drained soils or shallow, calcium-rich soils that are buffered or
circumneutral (pH between 6.5 and 7.5) to germinate. These soils occur
within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by limestone or marl.
Summary of Resource Needs
More detail on the species' habitat and life-history needs is
provided above under Background, and a thorough review is available in
the SSA report (Service 2023, entire; available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059).
A summary of the resource needs of the Ocmulgee skullcap is
provided below in table 5.
Table 5--Ocmulgee Skullcap Individual Resources Needs by Life Stage
[Key resource needs are in bolded text and include precipitation (water), partial sunlight, soil, and reduced
competition (Collins 1976, pp. 1, 70; Chafin 2008, p. 2)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources and circumstances needed for
Life stage individuals to complete life stage Resource function *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seed.................................... Fall/winter precipitation................ N
Bare mineral calcium-rich soil........... H, N, R
Partial sunlight......................... N
Seedling................................ Sufficient summer/fall precipitation..... N
Calcium-rich soil........................ H, N
Reduced competition from invasives/ H
encroaching plants.
Partial sunlight for photosynthesis...... N
Vegetative plant........................ Spring/summer precipitation.............. N
Calcium-rich soil........................ H, N
Reduced competition from invasives/ H
encroaching plants.
Partial sunlight for photosynthesis...... N
Flowering plant......................... Spring/summer precipitation.............. N
Calcium-rich soil........................ H, N
Reduced competition from invasives/ H
encroaching plants.
Pollinators.............................. R
Partial sunlight for photosynthesis...... N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* H = Habitat, N = Nutrition, and R = Reproduction.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of Ocmulgee skullcap from studies of the species'
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional
information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2023, entire;
available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0059). We have determined that the following physical or
biological features are essential to the conservation of Ocmulgee
skullcap:
(1) 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 Upper Gulf Coastal Plain and Piedmont of
Georgia.
(2) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral (pH
between 6.5 and 7.5) generally within regions underlain or otherwise
influenced by limestone or marl (mixed carbonate-clay rock).
(3) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity,
providing mottled shade and often including a rich diversity of grasses
and forbs characterizing the herbaceous layer.
(4) Intact forested habitat that is ecologically functional (i.e.,
with mature canopy and discrete disturbances) and
[[Page 86685]]
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 geographical 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. The features essential to the conservation of Ocmulgee
skullcap may require special management considerations or protection to
reduce the following threats: development; nonnative, invasive species
(plants); and indirect effects on habitat quality due to herbivory by
white-tailed deer and adjacent land uses such as silviculture and
agriculture.
Special management considerations or protection may be required
within critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management
activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not
limited to, local review of proposed county and State projects and
other development projects that may affect Ocmulgee skullcap habitat to
determine whether or not the project will avoid impacts to the species'
habitat; control and reduction of nonnative, invasive species; harvest
of deer to reduce changes in plant community and increase in browse-
resistant plants in affected populations; implementation of BMPs (for
silvicultural and agricultural land uses); and habitat restoration
projects. These management activities would protect the physical or
biological features for the species by promoting intact vegetative
community with mixed heterogeneity, mottled shade, and a diverse
herbaceous layer.
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. The SSA
report, version 1.3 (Service 2023, entire), contains the best available
information used to identify critical habitat for the Ocmulgee
skullcap, which includes existing monitoring data, population status
surveys, and relevant Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers
(Service 2023, pp. 21, 37-38, appendix A). In accordance with the Act
and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the
species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not designating any areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species because we have
not identified any unoccupied areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat. The protection of the current extant populations in
both representative units will sufficiently reduce the risk of
extinction, and improving the resiliency within these currently
occupied units should increase viability to the point that the
protections of the Act are no longer necessary. We have determined that
the areas we are designating as critical habitat are sufficient for the
recovery of the species and align with our conservation strategy for
Ocmulgee skullcap.
To determine and select appropriate occupied areas that contain the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species, we developed a conservation strategy for the species. The goal
of the conservation strategy for the Ocmulgee skullcap is to recover
the species to the point where the protections of the Act are no longer
necessary. The role of critical habitat in achieving this conservation
goal is to identify the specific areas within the species' range that
provide essential physical or biological features, without which
rangewide resiliency, redundancy, and representation could not be
achieved. We anticipate that recovery will require continued protection
of existing populations and habitats that contribute to the viability
of the species: ensuring there are adequate numbers of individual
plants in populations; and ensuring multiple sufficiently resilient
populations in each representative unit and across the current range of
the species. This approach may lead to connectivity among populations
and will help to ensure that catastrophic events cannot simultaneously
affect all known populations of the Ocmulgee skullcap. Recovery
considerations, such as striving for representation of both watersheds
in the species' current range, were considered in formulating this
designation.
Ocmulgee skullcap populations, with the exception of one large
area, are confined to small patches (ranging in size from 0.24 to 24 ac
(0.1 to 9.7 ha)). Ocmulgee skullcap requires areas of intact hardwood
forest to provide the appropriate canopy conditions in large enough
areas to protect the species from encroachment of nonnative, invasive
species. The small patches typically do not provide enough habitat to
support the species or provide connectivity among populations. In
addition, the small populations in these patches experience the
exacerbation of other threats associated with small population size
(see Influences on Ocmulgee Skullcap's Viability, above).
Based on the Act's implementing regulations (see 50 CFR 424.12(d)),
when habitats are in close proximity to one another, an inclusive area
may be designated. We delineated populations of Ocmulgee skullcap using
a 2-km (1.24-mi) radius circle, with overlapping buffers determined to
be within the same population based on the need for sufficient space
and resources for required pollinators (NatureServe 2020, entire;
Service 2023, p. 21). Therefore, the habitat areas surrounding Ocmulgee
skullcap occurrences are also included within these occupied units,
because they have the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, provide space for population expansion
that would increase the resiliency within these units, provide
connectivity between individual patches of occupied habitat, and
support the conditions that Ocmulgee skullcap individuals and
populations require.
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using the following criteria:
We identified areas that are considered to be occupied at
the time of listing within the historical range of the species, and
We determined if those areas contain the physical or
biological features to support life-history functions that are
essential for the conservation of the species.
For the purposes of the critical habitat designation, and for areas
within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing, we determined a unit to be occupied if it contains a recent
observation (i.e., observed since 1999). These areas are consistent
with the identified populations in the SSA report that were derived
using occurrence data and a 2-km separation distance for sufficient
space and resources for required pollinators (NatureServe 2020, entire;
Service 2023, p. 21). Suitable habitat within the identified
populations was determined through site specific surveys and GIS
analyses that identified the areas with appropriate aspect, geomorphons
(landform pattern), temperature, burned area, soil type, vegetation
cover, and land cover, using source data from the National Elevation
Dataset, Landsat,
[[Page 86686]]
WorldClim, NatureServe landcover map, and the GAP/LANDFIRE National
Terrestrial Ecosystems dataset. Information specific to calcium-rich
soils was not available; therefore, we rely on species occurrence data
to represent presence of this identified species need.
Based on this analysis, the following areas meet the critical
habitat criteria for the species at the time of listing: Columbia/
Richmond, Barney Bluff, Burke North, Burke South, Prescott Lakes,
Bolingbroke Rest Area, River North Bluff, Savage Branch, Adjoins Robins
Air Force Base, Tributary (Trib) Richland Creek, Oaky Woods North,
Crooked Creek, Shellstone Creek, Oaky Woods South, Dry Creek, James
Dykes Memorial, South Shellstone Creek, and Jordan Creek. These areas
are known to be occupied by the species, including the element
occurrence at Savannah River Bluffs Natural Heritage Preserve. These
areas meet our conservation strategy and provide the essential physical
or biological features necessary to support and increase resiliency,
redundancy, and representation for the Ocmulgee skullcap. Designating
critical habitat units in these areas will sufficiently lead to the
protection, and eventual reduction in risk of extirpation of the
species.
Sources of data for this designation of critical habitat include
multiple databases maintained by universities and State agencies in
Georgia and South Carolina, as well as numerous reports from surveys
conducted in suitable habitat throughout the species' range. Other
sources of available information on habitat requirements for this
species include studies conducted at occupied sites and published in
peer-reviewed articles, agency reports, and data collected during
monitoring efforts (Cammack and Genachte 1999, entire; Morris 1999,
entire; Snow 1999 and 2001, entire; Bradley 2019, entire; Service 2022,
entire; Service 2023, entire). Occurrence records were compiled and
provided to us by State partners during the SSA analysis.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings,
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or
biological features necessary for Ocmulgee skullcap. 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 rule have been excluded by text in
the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a
Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no
adverse modification unless the specific action will 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 under Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059, and on
our internet site https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 18 units as critical habitat for Ocmulgee
skullcap. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap. The 18 areas we designate as critical
habitat are: (1) Columbia/Richmond; (2) Barney Bluff; (3) Burke North;
(4) Burke South; (5) Prescott Lakes; (6) Bolingbroke Rest Area; (7)
River North Bluff; (8) Savage Branch; (9) Adjoins Robins Air Force
Base; (10) Trib Richland Creek; (11) Oaky Woods North; (12) Crooked
Creek; (13) Shellstone Creek; (14) Oaky Woods South; (15) Dry Creek;
(16) James Dykes Memorial; (17) South Shellstone Creek; and (18) Jordan
Creek. All 18 critical habitat units are currently considered occupied
by Ocmulgee skullcap. Table 6 shows the critical habitat units and the
approximate area of each unit. Approximately 84.2 percent of the
designated critical habitat occurs on private lands, 0.4 percent occurs
on county lands, and the remaining 15.3 percent occurs on State-owned
or State-managed lands. No Federal lands are included in this critical
habitat designation.
Table 6--Final Critical Habitat Units for Ocmulgee Skullcap
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit No. and Land ownership Size of unit in acres
name by type (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a: Columbia/Richmond........ Richmond County; 106 (43)
Private.
1b: Columbia/Richmond........ Private......... 117 (47)
1c: Columbia/Richmond........ Private......... 334 (135)
1d. Columbia/Richmond........ State of South 84 (34)
Carolina.
2: Barney Bluff.............. Private......... 415 (168)
3: Burke North............... Private......... 526 (213)
4: Burke South............... State of 976 (395)
Georgia;
Private.
5: Prescott Lakes............ Private......... 81 (33)
6: Bolingbroke Rest Area..... Private......... 338 (137)
7: River North Bluff......... State of 115 (46)
Georgia;
Private.
8: Savage Branch............. Private......... 115 (46)
9: Adjoins Robins Air Force Private......... 231 (93)
Base.
10: Trib Richland Creek...... State of 340 (138)
Georgia;
Private.
11: Oaky Woods North......... State of 657 (266)
Georgia;
Private.
12: Crooked Creek............ State of 205 (83)
Georgia;
Private.
13: Shellstone Creek......... State of 160 (65)
Georgia;
Private.
14: Oaky Woods South......... State of 363 (147)
Georgia;
Private.
15: Dry Creek................ State of 330 (133)
Georgia;
Private.
16: James Dykes Memorial..... State of 515 (208)
Georgia;
Private.
17: South Shellstone Creek... State of 403 (163)
Georgia;
Private.
18: Jordan Creek............. Private......... 250 (101)
------------------------
[[Page 86687]]
Total.................... ................ 6,661 (2,696)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Ocmulgee skullcap, below.
Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond
Unit 1 consists of four subunits comprising 641 ac (259 ha) in
Columbia and Richmond Counties, Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield
Counties, South Carolina. This unit consists of land owned by Richmond
County (4 percent), the State of South Carolina (13 percent), and
private landowners (83 percent), with 35 percent of Unit 1 held in a
conservation easement. All subunits are located near Interstate 20
along the Savannah River and the South Carolina-Georgia State border.
Subunit 1a consists of 106 ac (43 ha) in Columbia County, Georgia.
This subunit lies on the west side of the Savannah River, just north of
the City of Augusta. Richmond County owns and manages 28 ac (11.3 ha)
in this subunit, and the other 78 ac (31.7 ha) are privately owned. The
essential physical or biological feature concerning intact forested
habitat is degraded in this subunit, which is adjacent to developed
areas. Special management considerations or protection may be required
in Subunit 1a to address and alleviate impacts from stressors that have
led to the loss or degradation of the habitat, including urbanization
and commercial development and nonnative, invasive species (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection, above). Special management
considerations related to developed areas that would benefit the
habitat in this subunit include, but are not limited to, review of
county development plans and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee
skullcap, and control or removal of nonnative, invasive species.
Subunit 1b consists of 117 ac (47 ha) in Richmond County, Georgia,
on lands in private ownership. This subunit lies on the west side of
the Savannah River, just north of the City of Augusta. The essential
physical or biological feature concerning intact forested habitat is
degraded in this subunit, which is adjacent to developed areas. Special
management considerations or protection may be required in Subunit 1b
to address and alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the
loss or degradation of the habitat, including urbanization and
commercial development and nonnative, invasive species (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection, above). Special management
considerations related to developed areas that would benefit the
habitat in this subunit include, but are not limited to, review of
county development plans and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee
skullcap, and control or removal of nonnative, invasive species.
Subunit 1c consists of 334 ac (135 ha) in Aiken and Edgefield
Counties, South Carolina. This subunit lies on the east side of the
Savannah River, just north of the City of Augusta. The Nature
Conservancy owns and manages the 224-ac (90-ha) Greystone Preserve for
conservation in this subunit, and the remaining 110 ac (45 ha) are in
private ownership. Special management considerations or protection may
be required within Subunit 1c to alleviate impacts from stressors that
have led to the loss and degradation of the habitat, including
urbanization and residential and commercial development; nonnative,
invasive species; and herbivory by deer. Special management
considerations related to encroachment of nonnative, invasive species
and herbivory by deer that would benefit the habitat in this subunit
include, but are not limited to, removal of nonnative, invasive species
via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments;
restoration of forest conditions; and increased harvest/hunting or
exclusion of white-tailed deer. In addition, special management
considerations related to developed areas that would benefit the
habitat in this subunit include, but are not limited to, review of
county development plans and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee
skullcap; native vegetation restoration in right-of-way and
transmission line vegetation maintenance areas (edge effect); and
removal of nonnative, invasive species.
Subunit 1d consists of 84 ac (34 ha) in Aiken County, South
Carolina. This subunit lies on the east side of the Savannah River,
just east of the City of Augusta. The South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources owns and manages the 84-ac (34-ha) Savannah River
Bluffs Heritage Preserve for conservation in this subunit. Special
management considerations or protection may be required within Subunit
1d to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the loss and
degradation of the habitat, including nonnative, invasive species and
herbivory by deer. Special management considerations related to
encroachment of nonnative, invasive species and herbivory by deer that
would benefit the habitat in this subunit include, but are not limited
to, removal of nonnative, invasive species via prescribed burning or
mechanical or chemical treatments; restoration of forest conditions;
and increased harvest/hunting or exclusion of white-tailed deer.
Unit 2: Barney Bluff
Unit 2 consists of 415 ac (168 ha) in the southeast portion of
Richmond County, Georgia. This unit lies to the west of the Savannah
River south of the City of Augusta on land in private ownership.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within
Unit 2 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the
degradation of the habitat, including urbanization and development,
erosion due to logging practices that do not properly implement BMPs,
and herbivory by deer. Such special management or protection may
include conservation efforts to reduce deer browsing through hunting/
harvest or exclusion. Special management or protection to reduce
erosion may also include habitat restoration efforts and implementation
of State-approved BMPs for silviculture or logging activities. In
addition, special management considerations related to developed areas
that would benefit the habitat in this unit include, but are not
limited to, review of county development plans and other projects
considering land use changes with recommendations to avoid areas
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap.
[[Page 86688]]
Unit 3: Burke North
Unit 3 consists of 526 ac (213 ha) in the northwestern portion of
Burke County, Georgia. The unit lies to the west of the Savannah River
on land in private ownership. A conservation easement is in place on 9
ac (3.6 ha) of private land within the unit. Special management
considerations or protection may be required within Unit 3 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to the loss or degradation of the
habitat, including the effects of silviculture and logging that do not
properly implement BMPs, as well as herbivory by deer. Such special
management or protection may include conservation efforts to reduce
deer browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special management
or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts and
implementation of State-approved BMPs for silviculture or logging
activities.
Unit 4: Burke South
Unit 4 consists of 976 ac (395 ha) in the western portion of Burke
County, Georgia. This unit lies west of the Savannah River on lands
owned by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (199 ac (80 ha) on
the Yuchi Wildlife Management Area), and on lands in private ownership
(777 ac (314 ha)). Special management considerations or protection may
be required within Unit 4 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have
led to the degradation of the habitat, including urbanization and
development, and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are
being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to
implement needed actions. Such special management or protection may
include conservation efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive
plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and
to reduce deer browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. In
addition, special management considerations related to developed areas
that would benefit the habitat in this unit include, but are not
limited to, review of county development plans and other projects
considering land use changes with recommendations to avoid areas
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special management or protection may
also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 5: Prescott Lakes
Unit 5 consists of 81 ac (33 ha) in the northern portion of Screven
County, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the main stem of the Savannah
River and lies on lands in private ownership. Special management
considerations or protection may be required within Unit 5 to alleviate
impacts from stressors that have led to the loss or degradation of the
habitat, including land conversion to agriculture and herbivory by
deer. Such special management or protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed
burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and to reduce deer
browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special management or
protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 6: Bolingbroke Rest Area
Unit 6 consists of 338 ac (137 ha) in southern Monroe County,
Georgia. This unit falls on lands in private ownership adjacent to the
main stem of the Ocmulgee River, north of the city of Macon. Special
management considerations or protection may be required within Unit 6
to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the loss or
degradation of the habitat, including commercial development,
silviculture and logging activities without properly implemented BMPs,
road maintenance, and herbivory by deer. Such special management or
protection may include conservation efforts to reduce or control
nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or
chemical treatments, and to reduce deer browsing through hunting/
harvest or exclusion. Special management or protection may also include
habitat restoration efforts and implementation of State-approved BMPs
for silviculture and logging activities. In addition, special
management considerations related to developed areas that would benefit
the habitat in this unit include, but are not limited to, review of
county development plans and other projects considering land use
changes with recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee
skullcap.
Unit 7: River North Bluff
Unit 7 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in the northern corner of Bibb
County, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the main stem of the Ocmulgee
River, north of the city of Macon. This unit contains land owned by the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (10 ac (4 ha) on the Echeconnee
Wildlife Management Area), and lands in private ownership (105 ac (42
ha). Special management considerations or protection may be required
within Unit 7 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the
degradation of the habitat, including competition and encroachment by
nonnative, invasive species. In some cases, these threats are being
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement
needed actions. Such special management or protection may include
conservation efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive plants
via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments. Special
management or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 8: Savage Branch
Unit 8 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in the northern portion of Bibb
County, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the main stem of the Ocmulgee
River, north of the city of Macon, and falls on lands in private
ownership. Special management considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 8 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have
led to the loss or degradation of the habitat, including urbanization
and development and nonnative, invasive species. Such special
management or protection may include conservation efforts to reduce or
control nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed burning or mechanical
or chemical treatments. In addition, special management considerations
related to developed areas that would benefit the habitat in this unit
include, but are not limited to, review of county development plans and
other projects considering land use changes with recommendations to
avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special management or
protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 9: Adjoins Robins Air Force Base
Unit 9 consists of 231 ac (93 ha) in western Houston County,
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to Robins Air Force Base and the main
stem of the Ocmulgee River. All lands in this unit are in private
ownership. Special management considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 9 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have
led to the degradation of the habitat, including urbanization and
development and nonnative, invasive species. Such special management or
protection may include conservation efforts to reduce or control
nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or
chemical treatments. In addition, special management considerations
related to developed areas that would benefit the habitat in this unit
include, but are not limited to, review of county development plans and
other projects considering land use changes with recommendations to
avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special management or
protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
[[Page 86689]]
Unit 10: Trib Richland Creek
Unit 10 consists of 340 ac (138 ha) in eastern Twiggs County,
Georgia. This unit lies east of Robins Air Force Base and along a
tributary of the Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands leased by the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (242 ac (98 ha) on the Ocmulgee
Wildlife Management Area), and lands in private ownership (98 ac (40
ha)). Special management considerations or protection may be required
within Unit 10 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the
loss or degradation of the habitat, including land conversion to
agriculture and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are
being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to
implement needed actions. Such special management or protection may
include conservation efforts to reduce deer browsing through hunting/
harvest or exclusion. Special management or protection related to land
conversion may also include consideration of Ocmulgee skullcap in
agriculture conversion plans and habitat restoration efforts in
affected field/forest edges.
Unit 11: Oaky Woods North
Unit 11 consists of 657 ac (266 ha) in western Houston County,
Georgia. This unit lies adjacent to the county line, along a tributary
of the Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands owned by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (228 ac (92 ha) on the Oaky Woods
Wildlife Management Area) and lands in private ownership (429 ac (174
ha)). Special management considerations or protection may be required
within Unit 11 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the
degradation of the habitat, including limited effects of nonnative,
invasive species and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats
are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to
implement needed actions. Such special management or protection may
include conservation efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive
plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and
to reduce deer browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special
management or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 12: Crooked Creek
Unit 12 consists of 205 ac (83 ha) in southeastern Twiggs County,
Georgia. This unit is located south of Highway 96, and along a
tributary of the Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands leased by the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (201 ac (81 ha) on the Ocmulgee
Wildlife Management Area) and on lands in private ownership (4 ac (1.6
ha)). Special management considerations or protection may be required
within Unit 12 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the
degradation of the habitat, including nonnative, invasive species and
herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or protection may include continued
conservation efforts to reduce deer browsing through hunting/harvest or
exclusion. Special management or protection may also include habitat
restoration efforts.
Unit 13: Shellstone Creek
Unit 13 consists of 160 ac (65 ha) in southeastern Twiggs County,
Georgia. This unit lies east of Unit 12, along a tributary of the
Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands leased by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (15 ac (6 ha) on the Ocmulgee Wildlife
Management Area) and on lands in private ownership (145 ac (59 ha)).
Special management considerations or protection may be required within
Unit 13 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the loss
or degradation of the habitat, including forest conversion to
agriculture; residential development; nonnative, invasive species; and
herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed
burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and to reduce deer
browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special management or
protection related to land conversion may also include consideration of
Ocmulgee skullcap in agriculture conversion plans and habitat
restoration efforts in affected field/forest edges. Special management
or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 14: Oaky Woods South
Unit 14 consists of 363 ac (147 ha) in western Houston County,
Georgia. This unit is west of units 15 and 16, and along a tributary of
the Ocmulgee River. This unit falls on lands leased by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (84 ac (34 ha) on the Oaky Woods
Wildlife Management Area), and on lands in private ownership (279 ac
(113 ha)). Special management considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 14 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have
led to the loss or degradation of the habitat, including urbanization
and commercial development. In some cases, these threats are being
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement
needed actions. Such special management or protection may include
considerations related to developed areas that would benefit the
habitat in this unit include, but are not limited to, review of county
development plans and other projects considering land use changes with
recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special
management or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 15: Dry Creek
Unit 15 consists of 330 ac (133 ha) in western Houston and northern
Pulaski Counties, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the county line,
and along a tributary of the Ocmulgee River. This unit falls on lands
leased by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (50 ac (20 ha) on
the Ocmulgee Wildlife Management Area), and lands in private ownership
(280 ac (113 ha)). Special management considerations or protection may
be required within Unit 15 to alleviate impacts from stressors that
have led to the degradation of the habitat, including nonnative,
invasive species and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats
are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to
implement needed actions. Such special management or protection may
include conservation efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive
plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and
to reduce deer browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special
management or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 16: James Dykes Memorial
Unit 16 consists of 515 ac (208 ha) in eastern Bleckley County and
northern Pulaski County, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the main
stem of the Ocmulgee River, west of the City of Cochran. This unit
falls on lands owned by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
(497 ac (201 ha) on the Ocmulgee Wildlife Management Area), and on
lands in private ownership (18 ac (7.3 ha)). Special management
considerations or protection may be required within Unit 16 to
alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the loss or
degradation of the habitat, including land conversion to agriculture;
nonnative, invasive species;
[[Page 86690]]
and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are being addressed
or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed
actions. Such special management or protection may include conservation
efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed
burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and to reduce deer
browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special management or
protection related to land conversion may also include consideration of
Ocmulgee skullcap in agriculture conversion plans and habitat
restoration efforts in affected field/forest edges. Special management
or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 17: South Shellstone Creek
Unit 17 consists of 403 ac (163 ha) in eastern Bleckley County,
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to a tributary of the Ocmulgee River,
north of the City of Cochran. This unit falls on lands owned by the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (4 ac (1.6 ha)) and on lands in
private ownership (399 ac (161 ha)). Special management considerations
or protection may be required within Unit 17 to alleviate impacts from
stressors that have led to the loss or degradation of the habitat,
including land conversion to agriculture. In some cases, these threats
are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to
implement needed actions. Special management or protection related to
land conversion may also include consideration of Ocmulgee skullcap in
agriculture conversion plans and habitat restoration efforts in
affected field/forest edges. Special management or protection may also
include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 18: Jordan Creek
Unit 18 consists of 250 ac (101 ha) in northern Pulaski County,
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to a tributary of the Ocmulgee River,
north of the City of Hawkinsville. The unit falls on lands in private
ownership. Special management considerations or protection may be
required within Unit 18 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have
led to the degradation of the habitat, including limited urbanization
and development. In addition, special management considerations related
to developed areas that would benefit the habitat in this unit include,
but are not limited to, review of county development plans and other
projects considering land use changes with recommendations to avoid
areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special management or protection
may also include habitat restoration efforts.
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 authorize, fund, 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.
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as
a whole for the conservation of a listed species (50 CFR 402.02).
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
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, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of consultation is
required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been
retained or is authorized by law and: (1) if the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written
concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the identified action. As provided
in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new
species listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to
certain agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the
Bureau of Land Management in certain circumstances).
Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that our Federal Register
notices ``shall, to the maximum extent practicable also include a brief
description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or
private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may
adversely modify [critical] habitat, or may be affected by such
designation.'' Activities that may be affected by designation of
critical habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap include those that may
affect the physical or biological features of the Ocmulgee skullcap's
critical habitat (see Physical or Biological Features Essential to the
Conservation of the Species).
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the
[[Page 86691]]
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)) provides that the Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD), or designated
for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of
the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing
that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.
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
critical habitat designation for Ocmulgee skullcap to determine if they
meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under section
4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are DoD lands with completed,
Service-approved INRMPs within the critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
Robins Air Force Base, 224 ac (91 ha)
Robins Air Force Base (AFB) has an approved INRMP. The U.S. Air
Force is committed to working closely with the Service and the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources to continually refine the existing
INRMP as part of the Sike's Act INRMP review process.
Robins AFB completed an INRMP in 2017, which serves as the
principal management plan governing all natural resource activities on
the installation (Robins AFB INRMP 2017, entire). The 2017 INRMP
includes benefits for Ocmulgee skullcap through: (1) control or
elimination of competing, nonnative vegetation (mowing or hand clearing
during winter months when Ocmulgee skullcap is dormant); (2) limiting
recreational and other activities that may impact the species near
Ocmulgee skullcap locations; and (3) promoting natural regeneration of
the dominant plant species in upland hardwood bluff forest communities.
Further, Robins AFB environmental staff review projects and enforce
existing regulations and orders that, through their implementation,
avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources, including Ocmulgee
skullcap and its habitat. In addition, Robins AFB INRMP provides
protection to forested habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap by implementing
forest management activities, designating stream and wetland protection
zones, and engaging in public outreach and education. Robins AFB INRMP
specifies periodic monitoring of the distribution and abundance of the
Ocmulgee skullcap populations on the base.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Robins AFB INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Ocmulgee skullcap.
Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 224 ac (91 ha) of forested habitat on Robins
AFB in this final critical habitat designation because of this
exemption.
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 based on economic
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts.
Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19
and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226,
February 11, 2016)--both of which were developed jointly with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016). We explain each decision to exclude areas, as well as decisions
not to exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is reasonable.
The Secretary may exclude any particular area if she determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including
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 the determination to exclude a particular area, the
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and
how much weight to give to any factor. In this final rule, we are not
excluding any areas from critical habitat.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. 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 economic analysis of the critical habitat designation and related
factors (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2021). The analysis, dated February
12, 2021, was made available for public review from June 22, 2022,
through August 22, 2022 (87 FR 37378). The economic analysis addresses
probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation for Ocmulgee
skullcap. 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. We did not receive any
comments or information related to the economic impacts of the critical
habitat designation. Additional information relevant to the probable
incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the
Ocmulgee skullcap
[[Page 86692]]
is summarized below and available in the screening analysis for the
Ocmulgee skullcap, available at https://www.regulations.gov.
The full description of the findings from the economic analysis are
outlined in the June 22, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37378). The
critical habitat designation for the Ocmulgee skullcap totals
approximately 6,661 ac (2,696 ha) in 10 Georgia counties and 2 South
Carolina counties. All 18 designated critical habitat units are
considered occupied because they contain current (1999-2020)
occurrences of Ocmulgee skullcap. We are not designating any units of
unoccupied habitat. In occupied areas, any actions that may affect the
species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat,
and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be
recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above
those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the Ocmulgee skullcap. Therefore, the potential
incremental economic effects of the critical habitat designation are
expected to be limited to administrative costs and minor costs of
conservation efforts. Administrative costs include the additional
effort from the Service and the Federal action agency to consider
critical habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap in a section 7 consultation that
already considers the presence of Ocmulgee skullcap.
The probable incremental economic impacts of the Ocmulgee skullcap
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional
administrative effort and minor costs of conservation efforts resulting
from a small number of future section 7 consultations (Industrial
Economics, Inc. 2020, entire). The analysis projects that approximately
73 section 7 consultations (approximately 1 formal consultation, 2
informal consultations, and 70 technical assistance efforts including
species lists) will occur annually in the critical habitat areas, based
on the previous consultation history in the area. The annual costs to
the Service and other action agencies are estimated at approximately
$39,700. Units 1, 3, 4, and 7 are projected to have the highest number
of consultations with six or more per unit. At approximately $10,000
per formal programmatic consultation, the burden resulting from the
designation of critical habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap, based on the
anticipated annual number of consultations and associated consultation
costs, is not expected to exceed $39,700 in most years (Industrial
Economics, Inc. 2020, pp. 1-2, 11, 13). The designation is unlikely to
trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations. Thus,
the annual administrative burden is relatively low. As discussed above,
we considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation,
and the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas
from this designation of critical habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap
based on economic impacts.
Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security
In preparing this rule, we determined that there are no lands
within the designated critical habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap that
are owned or managed by the DoD or Department of Homeland Security,
and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or
homeland security. We did not receive any additional information during
the public comment period for the proposed designation regarding
impacts of the designation on national security or homeland security
that would support excluding any specific areas from the final critical
habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as well as the 2016 Policy.
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 as discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that
may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors,
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the
species in the area such as HCPs, conservation benefit agreements, safe
harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with
assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements
and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether
Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or
government-to-government relationships of the United States with Tribal
entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any
State, local, social, or other impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
We are not excluding any areas from critical habitat. In preparing
this final rule, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or
other management plans for Ocmulgee skullcap, and the designation does
not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no
impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or permitted plans from this
final critical habitat designation. We did not receive any additional
information during the public comment period for the proposed rule
regarding other relevant impacts to support excluding any specific
areas from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as
well as the 2016 Policy. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising
her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation based on
other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094)
Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and
E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866 and E.O.
13563. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall
recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by
law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on
the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow
for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have
developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094,
provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant
rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will
[[Page 86693]]
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to
provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly
regulated by this designation. The RFA does not require evaluation of
the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover,
Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small
entities will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that
this critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the
proposed rule (87 FR 37378; June 22, 2022) that may pertain to our
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our
certification that this critical habitat 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
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects ``to the extent
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a
``significant energy action'' as an action that (i) is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; Apr. 11,
2023); and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or 14094. Therefore, this action is
not a significant energy action, and there is no requirement to prepare
a statement of energy effects for this action.
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 finding:
(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 are not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action,
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because, apart from privately owned lands, the
lands designated as critical habitat are owned by Richmond County (in
the State of Georgia) and the States of Georgia and South Carolina.
These governments do not fit the definition of ``small governmental
jurisdiction,'' nor does the designation of critical habitat impose an
obligation on State or local
[[Page 86694]]
governments. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that
any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized
activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the
designated critical habitat. In addition, this rule will not produce a
Federal mandate of $200 million or greater in any year; that is, it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap in a takings implications assessment. The
Act does not authorize us to regulate private actions on private lands
or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat
designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed and
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Ocmulgee
skullcap does not pose significant takings implications for lands
within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A federalism 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. From a federalism perspective, the
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, this final rule does not
have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical
or biological features of the habitat necessary for 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 State and local governments in long-range planning
because they no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act 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
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule will not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 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, this final
rule identifies the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. 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 information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this
position.
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, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the
President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for
Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretaries' Order 3206 of June 5,
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes. We have coordinated with the Catawba Tribe regarding the SSA
that informed this listing determination and critical habitat
designation and provided the Tribe with an opportunity to review the
SSA report. We informed the Catawba Tribe of the proposed rule
publication and opportunity to comment. We have determined that no
Tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation for the Ocmulgee skullcap, so no Tribal lands will be
affected by the designation.
[[Page 86695]]
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Georgia Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Georgia
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
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--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants by adding an entry for ``Scutellaria ocmulgee'' in
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Scutellaria ocmulgee......... Ocmulgee skullcap.. Wherever found..... E 89 [INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
DOCUMENT BEGINS], 10/
30/2024; 50 CFR
17.96(a).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Family
Lamiaceae: Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap)'' following the
entry for ``Family Lamiaceae: Monardella viminea (willowy
monardella)'', to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Lamiaceae: Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bibb, Bleckley, Burke,
Columbia, Houston, Monroe, Pulaski, Richmond, Screven, and Twiggs
Counties in Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield Counties in South
Carolina, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Ocmulgee skullcap consist of the
following components:
(i) 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 Upper Gulf Coastal Plain and Piedmont of
Georgia.
(ii) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral (pH
between 6.5 and 7.5) generally within regions underlain or otherwise
influenced by limestone or marl.
(iii) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity,
providing mottled shade and often including with a rich diversity of
grasses and forbs characterizing the herbaceous layer.
(iv) Intact forested habitat that is ecologically 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
November 29, 2024.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using ArcMap
version 10.6 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a
geographic information systems program on a base of USA Topo Maps.
Critical habitat units were then mapped using North American Datum
(NAD) 1983, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 17N coordinates.
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/office/georgia-ecological-services/library, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 86696]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.000
(6) Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond; Columbia and Richmond Counties,
Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield Counties, South Carolina.
(i) Unit 1 includes four subunits:
(A) Subunit 1a consists of 106 acres (ac) (43 hectares (ha)) in
Columbia County, Georgia. The lands in this subunit are owned and
managed by Richmond County (28 ac (11.3 ha)) and privately owned (78 ac
(31.7 ha)).
(B) Subunit 1b consists of 117 ac (47 ha) in Richmond County,
Georgia. The lands in this subunit are privately owned.
(C) Subunit 1c consists of 334 ac (135 ha) in Aiken and Edgefield
Counties, South Carolina. The lands in this subunit are privately
owned.
(D) Subunit 1d consists of 84 ac (34 ha) in Aiken County, South
Carolina. The lands in this subunit are owned and managed by the State
of South Carolina and include the Savannah River Bluffs Heritage
Preserve.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
Figure 2 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (6)(ii)
[[Page 86697]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.001
(7) Unit 2: Barney Bluff; Richmond County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 2 consists of 415 ac (168 ha) in Richmond County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
Figure 3 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (7)(ii)
[[Page 86698]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.002
(8) Unit 3: Burke North; Burke County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 3 consists of 526 ac (213 ha) in Burke County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
Figure 4 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (8)(ii)
[[Page 86699]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.003
(9) Unit 4: Burke South; Burke County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 4 consists of 976 ac (395 ha) in Burke County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in State (199 ac (80 ha)) and private (777 ac
(314 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
Figure 5 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (9)(ii)
[[Page 86700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.004
(10) Unit 5: Prescott Lakes; Screven County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 5 consists of 81 ac (33 ha) in Screven County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
Figure 6 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (10)(ii)
[[Page 86701]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.005
(11) Unit 6: Bolingbroke Rest Area; Monroe County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 6 consists of 338 ac (137 ha) in Monroe County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
Figure 7 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (11)(ii)
[[Page 86702]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.006
(12) Unit 7: River North Bluff; Bibb County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 7 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in Bibb County, Georgia, and
is composed of lands in State (10 ac (4 ha)) and private (105 ac (42
ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
Figure 8 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (12)(ii)
[[Page 86703]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.007
(13) Unit 8: Savage Branch; Bibb County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 8 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in Bibb County, Georgia, and
is composed of lands in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
Figure 9 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (13)(ii)
[[Page 86704]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.008
(14) Unit 9: Adjoins Robins Air Force Base; Houston County,
Georgia.
(i) Unit 9 consists of 231 ac (93 ha) in Houston County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:
Figure 10 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(14)(ii)
[[Page 86705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.009
(15) Unit 10: Trib Richland Creek; Twiggs County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 10 consists of 340 ac (138 ha) in Twiggs County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in State (242 ac (98 ha)) and private (98 ac
(40 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:
Figure 11 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(15)(ii)
[[Page 86706]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.010
(16) Unit 11: Oaky Woods North; Houston County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 11 consists of 657 ac (266 ha) in Houston County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in State (228 ac (92 ha)) and private (429 ac
(174 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
Figure 12 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(16)(ii)
[[Page 86707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.011
(17) Unit 12: Crooked Creek; Twiggs County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 12 consists of 205 ac (83 ha) in Twiggs County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in State (201 ac (81 ha)) and private (4 ac
(1.6 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:
Figure 13 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(17)(ii)
[[Page 86708]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.012
(18) Unit 13: Shellstone Creek; Twiggs County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 13 consists of 160 ac (65 ha) in Twiggs County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in State (15 ac (6 ha)) and private (145 ac
(59 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:
Figure 14 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(18)(ii)
[[Page 86709]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.013
(19) Unit 14: Oaky Woods South; Houston County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 14 consists of 363 ac (147 ha) in Houston County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in State (84 ac (34 ha)) and private (279 ac
(113 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Units 14 and 15 follows:
Figure 15 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(19)(ii)
[[Page 86710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.014
(20) Unit 15: Dry Creek; Houston and Pulaski Counties, Georgia.
(i) Unit 15 consists of 330 ac (133 ha) in Houston and Pulaski
Counties, Georgia, and is composed of lands in State (50 ac (20 ha))
and private (280 ac (113 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 15 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this
entry.
(21) Unit 16: James Dykes Memorial; Bleckley and Pulaski Counties,
Georgia.
(i) Unit 16 consists of 515 ac (208 ha) in Bleckley and Pulaski
Counties, Georgia, and is composed of lands in State (497 ac (201 ha))
and private (18 ac (7.3 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Units 16 and 17 follows:
Figure 16 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(21)(ii)
[[Page 86711]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.015
(22) Unit 17: South Shellstone Creek; Bleckley County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 17 consists of 403 ac (163 ha) in Bleckley County,
Georgia, and is composed of lands in State (4 ac (1.6 ha)) and private
(399 ac (161 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 17 is provided at paragraph (21)(ii) of this
entry.
(23) Unit 18: Jordan Creek; Pulaski County, Georgia.
(i) Unit 18 consists of 250 ac (101 ha) in Pulaski County, Georgia,
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 18 follows:
Figure 17 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph
(23)(ii)
[[Page 86712]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.016
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-24897 Filed 10-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
