Rule2024-24897
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Ocmulgee Skullcap and Designation of Critical Habitat
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 30, 2024
Effective
November 29, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Comments and materials we received are available
for public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library">https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library</a>.
[[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 (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species">https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species</a>), 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: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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:
<bullet> We identified areas that are considered to be occupied at
the time of listing within the historical range of the species, and
<bullet> 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059, and on
our internet site <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library">https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library">https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library</a>, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 30, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.