[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11080-11103]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS- R4-ES-2010-0003]
[MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
[RIN 1018-AW55]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Carex lutea (Golden Sedge)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate
critical habitat for the Carex lutea (golden sedge) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We propose to designate as
critical habitat approximately 189 acres (76 hectares) in 8 units. The
proposed critical habitat is located in Onslow and Pender Counties in
North Carolina.
DATES: We will consider comments from all interested parties until May
10, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by
April 26, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2010-0003.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0003; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office, P.O. Box
33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726; telephone 919-856-4520; facsimile 919-
856-4556. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of
which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether
the benefit of designation would be outweighed by threats to the
species caused by the designation, such that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or
clarifying the primary constituent elements for Carex lutea.
(3) Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of Carex lutea habitat,
What areas occupied at the time of listing and that contain
features essential to the conservation of the species which may require
special management considerations or protections we should include in
the designation and why, and
What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small
entities (e.g., small businesses or small governments) or families, and
the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing as critical
habitat should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific
area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
(7) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of
the proposed designation of critical habitat.
(8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Carex lutea, and any special management needs or
protections that may be needed in the critical habitat areas we are
proposing.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If your written
comments provide personal identifying information, you may request at
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review.
[[Page 11081]]
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more
information on Carex lutea, refer to the final listing rule published
in the Federal Register on January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3120).
Carex lutea is a perennial member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae).
Fertile culms (stems) may reach 39 in (1 m) or more in height. The
yellowish green leaves are grass-like, with those of the culm mostly
basal and up to 11 in (28 cm) in length, while those of the vegetative
shoots reach a length of 25.6 in (65 cm).
The species is endemic to Onslow and Pender Counties in the Black
River section of the Coastal Plain Province of North Carolina. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) recognizes eight
populations made up of 17 distinct locations or element occurrences.
All of the locations occur within a 16- by 5-mile (26-by-8-kilometer)
area, extending southwest from the community of Maple Hill.
Carex lutea generally occurs on fine sandy loam, loamy fine sands,
and fine sands with a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, and with a mean of 6.7. These
soils are moist to saturated to periodically inundated. Carex lutea
occurs in the Pine Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant) natural community
type (Schafale 1994, p. 136). Community structure is characterized by
an open to sparse canopy dominated by pond pine (Pinus serotina), and
usually with some longleaf pine (P. palustris) and pond cypress
(Taxodium ascendens).
Carex lutea is threatened by fire suppression; habitat alteration
such as land conversion for residential, commercial, or industrial
development; mining, drainage for silviculture and agriculture; highway
expansion; and herbicide use along utility and highway rights-of-way.
Previous Federal Actions
Carex lutea was listed as endangered under the Act on January 23,
2002 (67 FR 3120). Designation of critical habitat had been found to be
not prudent in the proposed listing rule (64 FR 44470, August 16,
1999); however, following a reevaulation of information available for
the proposal and new information that came in through the public
comment period on the proposal, critical habitat designation was
determined to be prudent in the final listing rule (67 FR 3120).
However, the development of a designation was deferred due to budgetary
and workload constraints.
On December 19, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the
Service's continuing failure to timely designate critical habitat for
this species as well as three other plant species (Center for
Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, C-04-3240 JL (N. D. Cal.). In a
settlement agreement dated April 11, 2008, the Service agreed to submit
for publication in the Federal Register a proposed designation of
critical habitat, if prudent and determinable, on or before February
28, 2010, and a final determination by February 28, 2011.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided underuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7(a)(2)of the
Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out,
funding, or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation on Federal
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow the government or public to access private
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a
landowner seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for
an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in
the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal
action agency's and the landowner's obligation is not to restore or
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
To be considered for inclusion in a critical habitat designation,
the habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it was listed must contain the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. Areas supporting the
essential physical or biological features are identified, to the extent
known using the best scientific data available, as the habitat areas
that provide essential life cycle needs of the species. Habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
that contains features essential to the conservation of the species
meets the definition of critical habitat only if these features may
require special management consideration or protection. Under the Act
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate critical habitat in
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed only when we determine that the best available scientific
data demonstrate that the designation of those areas is essential for
the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General
[[Page 11082]]
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554;
H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide
criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our
decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require
our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use
of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate
critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Climate change may lead to increased frequency and
duration of severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504;
McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). According
to the America's Longleaf Regional Working Group (2009, p. 19), the
U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that longleaf pine may extend
its range northward, but will likely lose very little of its southern
range. The Hadley Centre model suggests that savanna and grasslands may
expand and replace southeastern pine forests at some sites in the
coastal plain due to increased moisture stress (America's Longleaf
Regional Working Group 2009, p. 19). While the effects of climate
change on longleaf ecosystem plant communities have not been well
studied, one report concluded that while longleaf pine might perform
well with increased carbon dioxide, the herbaceous species may not
compete as well (America's Longleaf Regional Working Group 2009, p.
19).
The information currently available on the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. Nor are
we currently aware of any climate change information specific to the
habitat of Carex lutea that would indicate what areas may become
important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are unable to
determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate to include
in the proposed critical habitat for this species; however, we
specifically request information from the public on the currently
predicted effects of climate change on Carex lutea and its habitat.
Additionally, we recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated critical habitat area is unimportant or
may not be required for recovery of the species.
Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be
subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), section 7 consultations, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) the designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is no documentation that Carex lutea is threatened by taking
or other human activity such as collection. In the absence of finding
that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to the
species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation,
then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits include:
(1) Triggering consultation, under section 7 of the Act, in new areas
for action in which there may be a Federal nexus where consultation
would not otherwise occur because, for example, an area is or has
become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) identifying the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of Carex
lutea and focusing conservation activities on these essential features
and the areas that support them; (3) providing educational benefits to
State or county governments or private entities engaged in activities
or long-range planning in areas essential to the conservation of the
species; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the
species. Conservation of Carex lutea and the essential features of the
habitat will require habitat protection and restoration, which will be
facilitated by knowledge of habitat locations and the physical and
biological features of those habitats.
Therefore, since we have determined that the designation of
critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the
species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that the
designation of critical habitat for the Carex lutea is prudent.
Critical Habitat Determinability
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(2) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the Carex lutea, the historical distribution of the Carex
lutea, and the habitat characteristics where the species currently
occurs. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the Carex lutea.
[[Page 11083]]
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
contain the features essential to the conservation of the Carex lutea
that may require special management considerations or protections, and
which areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing are essential for the conservation of the species.
We reviewed the available information pertaining to historical and
current distributions, life histories, and habitat requirements of this
species. Our sources included peer-reviewed scientific publications;
unpublished survey reports; unpublished field observations by Service,
State, and other experienced biologists; notes and communications from
qualified biologists or experts; and Service publications such as the
final listing rule for Carex lutea.
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species which may require special
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We consider the physical and biological features to be the primary
constituent elements PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species. We derive the
PCEs from the biological needs of Carex lutea as described in the
Background section of this proposed rule and in the final listing rule
(67 FR 3120). The areas included in this proposed critical habitat rule
for Carex lutea contain the appropriate soils and associated
vegetation, and adjacent areas necessary to maintain associated
physical processes such as a suitable hydrological regime. The areas
provide suitable habitat, water, minerals, and other physiological
needs for reproduction and growth of Carex lutea.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Clonal Growth
Carex lutea is a caespitose, or clumping, perennial. New shoots
develop from a central point, forming a tufted clump of vegetation that
is genetically identical to the parent plant. The full extent to which
a plant can expand has not been determined.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify bare soil
areas immediately adjacent to existing clumps of mature Carex lutea
plants to allow room for expansion of the clump to be a PCE for this
species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Water
Although the specific water needs of the species are unknown, Carex
lutea is found in wet to saturated to periodically inundated soils. The
largest populations are found in the wet to saturated ecotones of
savannas and hardwood forests. At a few sites, the plants are most
abundant in wet to saturated soils adjacent to drainage ditches, and in
the saturated to inundated ditches themselves. The occurrence of
individuals in ditches is likely due to the wetter soils of the
ditches, or the washing of seeds into the ditches from adjacent habitat
or both. Sometimes Carex lutea occurs in very wet soil in areas of
savanna habitat characterized by an open to absent canopy, suggesting
that its abundance in the savanna-wet hardwood ecotone is strongly
influenced by hydrologic conditions as well as by edaphic (influenced
by factors inherent in the soil rather than by climatic factors) or
light conditions or both. The annual average precipitation in
Wilmington, NC, (approximately 25 miles (40 kilometers) south-southwest
of the epicenter of Carex lutea) is 54.3 inches (138 centimeters).
(http://www.weatherpages.com/variety/precip.html).
Light
Most Carex lutea plants occur in the partially tree-shaded ecotone
between savannas and hardwood swamps, with scattered shrubs and a
moderate to dense herb layer. The savanna/hardwood swamp ecotone is
subject to frequent fires, which favor an herbaceous ground layer and
suppress shrub dominance. There is evidence that increased shading and
shrub competition from fire suppression has resulted in the reduction
in the number of individuals observed.
Soil
Carex lutea occurs on a wide variety of mapped soil types,
including fine sands (Baymeade, Mandarin, and Pactolus), loamy sands
(Stallings), loamy fine sands (Foreston and Grifton), fine sandy loams
(Torhunta and Woodington), and loams (Muckalee). The soils are formed
from marine sediments and have a range of permeability (from rapid to
moderately rapid) and drainage class (from well drained to very poorly
drained). Soil tests at the type site (The Neck Savanna) indicate that
microsites not supporting Carex lutea regularly test at lower pH levels
than those supporting Carex lutea, with values at inhabited sites
ranging from a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, with a mean of 6.7 (Glover 1994, p.
7). This finding may indicate a preference to soils with a high base
saturation or low aluminum saturation or both. The extent of the soils
with these chemical characteristics is usually limited within the
Coastal Plain and, therefore, are normally not mapped as separate soil
map units due to the scale of mapping.
Temperature
The outer southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina experiences
hot and humid subtropical summers and cool temperate winters with
subfreezing periods. Persistent snow accumulation is rare. The average
crop growing season (daily minimum temperature higher than 32 degrees
Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius)) for Onslow County is 162 days (Barnhill
1992, p. 99) and for Pender County is 185 days (Barnhill 1990, p. 105).
We have no information about the tolerance of Carex lutea to
temperature extremes.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify wet to
completely saturated loamy fine sands, fine sands, fine sandy loams,
and loamy sands soils with a pH of 5.5 to 7.2, in sunny to partially
tree-shaded areas or ecotones between savannas and hardwood forests to
be a PCE for this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The reproductive biology of Carex lutea is unknown; however, due to
the observation of ample mature seed production, we can confidently
surmise that Carex lutea reproduces both
[[Page 11084]]
sexually, involving gravity and wind-dispersed pollen, as well as
vegetatively (LeBlond 1996, p. 19). Perigynia (a special bract that
encloses the achene of a Carex species) are dispersed when rigid
fertile culms fall to the ground, thereby depositing the fruits on the
substrate adjacent to, but at some distance from, the maternal parent
(LeBlond 1996, p. 19). Seeds have been observed in ditches adjacent to
colonies, indicating dispersal by precipitation sheet flow. Animals may
also be seed dispersers; the perigynia beaks are minutely serrulate
(minutely serrated), perhaps for attachment to fur (LeBlond 1996, p.
19). Survival rates of individual plants are unknown. Based on
observation of the larger known populations, it appears that Carex
lutea is a successful colonizer of suitable newly disturbed areas
(LeBlond 1996, p. 19).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas of
bare soil immediately adjacent [within 12 inches (30 cm)] to mature
Carex lutea plants where seeds may fall and germinate to be a PCE for
this species.
Habitats Protected from Disturbance or Representative of the Historic,
Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
The area supporting the Carex lutea populations is located in the
Black River section of the Coastal Plain Province, and within the
Northeast Cape Fear River watershed. The land surface is characterized
by large areas of broad, level flatlands and shallow stream basins. The
broad flatlands support longleaf pine forests, pond pine woodlands,
shrub swamp pocosins, pine plantations, and cropland. The geology is
characterized by unconsolidated sand overlying layers of clayey sand
and weakly consolidated marine shell deposits (coquina limestone).
These sediments were deposited and reshaped during several cycles of
coastal emergence and submergence from the Cretaceous period to the
present (LeBlond et al. 1994, p. 159).
More specifically, Carex lutea occurs in the Very Wet Clay Variant
of the Pine Savanna community (Schafale 1994, p. 136) or its ecotones.
Community structure is characterized by an open to sparse canopy
dominated by pond pine (Pinus serotina), and usually with some longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens). The shrub
layer typically is sparse to patchy, with wax myrtle (Morella
carolinensis), ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora), Ink berry (Ilex glabra),
myrtle dahoon (Ilex myrtifolia), and black highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium fuscatum) prominent. Juvenile red maple (Acer rubrum var.
trilobum) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) are often present. The herb
layer is dense, and dominated by combinations of Ctenium aromaticum
(toothache grass), Carolina dropseed (Sporobolus pinetorum), and
several Rhynchospora taxa [e.g., globe beaksedge (R. globularis var.
pinetorum), sandswamp whitetop (R. latifolia), and Thorne's beakrush
(R. thornei)]. National vegetation type classification places this
natural community in the Pinus palustris - Pinus serotina / Sporobolus
pinetorum - Ctenium aromaticum - Eriocaulon decangulare var.
decangulare (Tenangle pipewort) Woodland association of the Pinus
palustris - Pinus (P. elliottii, P. serotina) Saturated Woodland
Alliance (NatureServe 2010). This association is equivalent to the Pine
Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant), a natural community type with fewer
than 10 occurrences globally (Schafale 1994, p. 136). The Pine Savanna
Very Wet Clay Variant is known only from the Maple Hill area near the
Onslow/Pender County line and north and west of Holly Shelter Game
Land, and from the Old Dock area of the Waccamaw River watershed along
the Brunswick/Columbus County line.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas
containing the natural plant community that would be identified as the
Pine Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant) according to methodology used in
Schafale (1994, p. 136) to be a PCE for this species. The structure of
this community is characterized by an open to sparse canopy dominated
by pond pine, and usually with some longleaf pine and pond cypress.
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, and ecology of the species and the habitat
requirements for sustaining the essential life history functions of the
species, we have determined that the PCEs for Carex lutea is Pine
Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant) natural plant community or ecotones
that contain:
1. Moist to completely saturated loamy fine sands, fine sands, fine
sandy loams, and loamy sands soils with a pH of 5.5 to 7.2;
2. Open to relatively open canopy that allows full to part sun to
penetrate to the herbaceous layer between savannas and hardwood
forests; and
3. Areas of bare soil immediately adjacent [within 12 inches (30
cm)] to mature Carex lutea plants where seeds may fall and germinate or
existing plants may expand in size.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain physical and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species and whether those features may
require special management considerations or protection.
As stated in the final listing rule, threats to Carex lutea include
habitat alteration; conversion of its limited habitat for residential,
commercial, or industrial development; mining; drainage activities
associated with silviculture and agriculture; suppression of fire;
highway expansion; and herbicide use along utility and highway rights-
of-way (67 FR 3120). Through our review of the existing data on Carex
lutea, we conclude that the threats listed in the final listing rule
continue to impact this species and its essential physical and
biological features.
The destruction of habitat or conversion of habitat for
residential, commercial, or industrial development can change the
topography, soils, and general character of the site, making it
uninhabitable for Carex lutea. These activities can remove the PCEs by
removing soil (by grading) and changing Carex lutea habitat to
developed land, which is unsuitable for the species.
Drainage activities associated with silviculture and agriculture
may alter the hydrology, which can change the groundwater levels and
the amount of moisture in the soil, creating conditions under which
Carex lutea may not be able to survive. Further, removal of existing
vegetation or the planting of trees for silviculture may change the
existing conditions such that Carex lutea plants no longer receive
optimal amounts of sunlight.
The close proximity of roadways and power line corridors to
populations of Carex lutea may affect the species. Herbicide treatment
to maintain vegetation in rights-of-ways has the potential to kill non-
target plant species such as Carex lutea. Highway expansion may change
the local topography and affect water runoff making the site drier or
wetter than is optimal for Carex lutea.
Mining has been documented in close proximity to one Carex lutea
population. Mining activities may alter many aspects of Carex lutea
habitat. Heavy equipment can compact or remove the appropriate soils.
The grading of areas adjacent to Carex lutea habitat can change the
hydrology of those areas and make them more
[[Page 11085]]
susceptible to invasion by nonnative plant species.
Regular fire in areas where Carex lutea occurs helps to maintain
the open savanna habitat that is conducive to Carex lutea growth. Fire
reduces competition and allows seeds to germinate in open, bare soil
areas. Fire suppression in areas where Carex lutea occurs may result in
the growth of shrubs and trees that will eventually shade out
herbaceous species such as Carex lutea.
All of these activities may in turn lead to the disruption of the
growth and reproduction of Carex lutea.
In summary, we find that the areas we are proposing as critical
habitat contain the features essential to the conservation of Carex
lutea, and that these features may require special management
considerations or protection. Special management considerations or
protection may be required to eliminate, or reduce to negligible level,
the threats affecting each unit or subunit and to preserve and maintain
the essential features that the proposed critical habitat units and
subunits provide to Carex lutea. Additional discussions of threats
facing individual sites are provided in the individual unit and subunit
descriptions.
The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands
outside of critical habitat may not play an important role in the
conservation of Carex lutea. In the future, and with changed
circumstances, these lands may become essential to the conservation of
Carex lutea. Activities with a Federal nexus that may affect areas
outside of critical habitat, such as development, agricultural
activities, and road construction, are still subject to review under
section 7 of the Act if they may affect Carex lutea because Federal
agencies must consider both effects to the plant and effects to
critical habitat independently. The prohibitions of section 9 of the
Act applicable to Carex lutea under 50 CFR 17.61 also continue to apply
both inside and outside of designated critical habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available in determining areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of Carex
lutea, and areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time
of listing that are essential for the conservation of Carex lutea. In
order to determine which sites were occupied at the time of listing, we
used the NCNHP database of rare species (NCNHP 2009). If an element
occurrence (EO) record or site was first observed after the species was
listed (effective on February 22, 2002), then we considered that those
sites were unknown at the time of listing. Five subunits had first
observed dates after February 22, 2002. However, given what we know
about the biology of this species and the habitats where it occurs,
those five subunits were likely occupied at the time the species was
listed. The occurrence at Watkins Savannah (O'Berry Tract C) (EO 5.19)
was found during surveys for Carex lutea in 2006. The two sites on
Ashes Creek at the Southwest Ridge Savanna (EO 11) were found during
surveys for Carex lutea in 2002, just 3 months after the species was
listed. In 2007, surveys for Carex lutea at the McLean Savanna yielded
two new subpopulations of Carex lutea (EOs 24.22 and 24.23). Carex
lutea was already known from a site nearby, and all three of these
subpopulations are now considered to be part of one population. To the
best of our knowledge, these areas had not been surveyed for Carex
lutea previously, and we have no reason to believe that the plant was
imported or had dispersed into these areas from other areas after Carex
lutea was listed in 2002. Based on the biology of this species and its
limited ability for the seeds to move and colonize new areas, the
occurrences identified since listing likely were in existence for many
years prior to listing and were only recently detected due to increased
awareness of this species.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
habitat requirements of this species including NCNHP data, the original
species description (LeBlond et al 1994, pp. 159-160), the status
survey (LeBlond 1996, pp. 11-13), the Service's draft Recovery Plan and
the 5-Year Review, regional Geographic Information System (GIS)
coverages, survey reports, and other relevant information.
The only criterion that we used to identify proposed critical
habitat was that the areas are currently occupied by Carex lutea. These
areas occur on rare or unique habitat (the Very Wet Clay Variant of the
Pine Savanna community, remnant savannas, or ecotones thereof) within
the species' range and contain all of the PCEs identified as necessary
for the conservation of the species. Since so few populations are known
to exist, they are all important to the long-term survival and recovery
of the species. Eight units (19 subunits) are proposed for designation
based on sufficient quantity and arrangement of the PCEs being present
to support Carex lutea's life processes.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as lands covered
by buildings, roads, and other structures, because such lands lack PCEs
for Carex lutea. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect
the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently
left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this
proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are
not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical and biological features
in the adjacent critical habitat.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no unoccupied areas that
contain one or more of the PCEs for Carex lutea. All of the areas
proposed as critical habitat for Carex lutea are currently occupied by
the species and contain the PCEs. All of the areas proposed as critical
habitat are also within the known historical range of the species.
Therefore, we are not proposing to designate any areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. We
believe that the occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of
the species.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 8 units (19 subunits) totaling approximately 189
acres (ac) (75.6 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for Carex lutea.
The areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Carex lutea. The
eight areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Unit 1: Watkins
Savanna, (2) Unit 2: Haws Run Mitigation Site, (3) Unit 3: Maple Hill
School Road Savanna, (4) Unit 4: Southwest Ridge Savanna, (5) Unit 5:
Sandy Run Savannas, (6) Unit 6: The Neck Savanna, (7) Unit 7: Shaken
Creek Savanna, and (8) Unit 8: McLean Savanna. All units are now
occupied by Carex lutea, but five subunits in three units were unknown
at the time of listing. However, based on the biology of this species
and its limited ability for the seeds to move and colonize new areas,
the occurrences identified since listing likely were in existence for
many years prior to listing and were only
[[Page 11086]]
recently detected due to increased awareness of this species.
Therefore, we are considering them to be occupied at the time of
listing. Table 1 identifies the occupancy status for each subunit.
TABLE 1. Occupancy of Carex lutea by Proposed Critical Habitat Units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at Time of
Unit Subunit Listing? Currently Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Not applicable (N/A) Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 N/A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 D Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 E Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 A Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 B Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 C Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 includes the name, ownership information, and size of each
unit and subunit we are proposing as critical habitat.
TABLE 2. Ownership of Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Carex lutea.
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Ownership by
Unit Subunit Name Type Size of Unit Acres Size of Unit Hectares
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 A Watkins Savanna, NCDPR 1.2 0.5
O'Berry, Tract A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 B Watkins Savanna, Private, NCDPR 2.0 0.8
Unnamed Tract
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 C Watkins Savanna, NCDPR 0.6 0.2
O'Berry, Tract C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 N/A Haws Run Mitigation NCDOT 27.1 11.0
Site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 N/A Maple Hill School Private 27.7 11.2
Road, Savanna
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 A Southwest Ridge NCWRC with Progress 2.3 0.9
Savanna, Ashes Creek, Energy, ROW
Carex lutea Survey
Site, Southwest of
Ashes Creek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11087]]
4 B Southwest Ridge NCWRC with Progress 1.0 0.4
Savanna, Ashes Creek, Energy, ROW
Carex lutea Survey
Site, Northeast of
Ashes Creek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 A Sandy Run Savannas NCDPR with Progress 2.6 1.1
Energy, ROW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 B Sandy Run Savannas NCDPR 4.3 1.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 C Sandy Run Savannas NCDPR 0.3 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 D Sandy Run Savannas NCDPR 0.3 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 E Sandy Run Swamp NCDPR with Progress 13.1 5.3
Energy, ROW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 A The Neck Savanna NCDPR 3.6 1.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 B The Neck Savanna, Private 0.7 0.3
Thorne's Beaksedge
Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 C The Neck Savanna, Private with 0.1 0.1
former Sandy Run Powerline ROW
Savanna
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 A Shaken Creek Savanna, TNC 6.9 2.8
East Population, East
of Patterson Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 B Shaken Creek Savanna, TNC 24.7 10.0
West Population, East
of Patterson Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 C Shaken Creek Savanna, TNC 26.1 10.6
West Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 A McLean Savanna TNC 42.3 17.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 B McLean Savanna Private 0.5 0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 C McLean Savanna TNC, Private 1.6 0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total* 189.0 76.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of each unit, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Carex lutea, below
Unit 1: Watkins Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 1 consists of 3.8 ac (1.5 ha) and includes three subunits in
Pender County, NC. It contains all of the PCEs for Carex lutea. This
critical habitat unit includes habitat for Carex lutea that is under
private and State ownership. This unit contains three element
occurrences, two of which were known at the time of listing. The
subunits contain all of the PCEs identified for Carex lutea; however,
they are all very fire suppressed and have been altered by timber
management. The NC Division of Parks and Recreation (NCDPR) is
currently negotiating with the NCNHP to designate this site as a
Dedicated Nature Preserve.
Subunit A (EO 5.12) consists of 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) and was known to be
occupied at the time of listing. It is owned by NCDPR and is managed as
part of the Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area.
Subunit B (EO 5.13) consists of 2.0 ac (0.8 ha) and was known to be
occupied at the time of listing. It is owned by private entities and
NCDPR. NCDPR plans to manage their portion of the subunit as part of
the Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area.
Subunit C (EO 5.19) consists of 0.6 ac (0.2 ha) and was not known
to be occupied at the time of listing. This Carex lutea site was
discovered in 2006; however, based on the habitat conditions at this
site and the biology of the species, we believe that this site was
occupied in 2002, when the species was listed. It is in conservation
ownership by NCDPR and is managed as part of the Sandy Run Savannas
State Natural Area.
Unit 2: Haws Run Mitigation Site, Onslow County, North Carolina
Unit 2 (EO 7) consists of 27.1 ac (11.0 ha) in Onslow County, NC.
This critical habitat unit includes habitat for Carex lutea and was
occupied at the time of listing. It is owned by the NC Department of
Transportation and is managed by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
This site was purchased as mitigation for wetland impacts from nearby
transportation projects. Although the site is somewhat fire suppressed
and has been altered by timber management, it contains all of the PCEs
identified for Carex lutea. The land managers conducted a prescribed
fire in the vicinity of the Carex lutea plants during the summer of
2009 and will continue restoration efforts there.
[[Page 11088]]
The population at this site appears to be stable and not vulnerable to
extirpation. Managers are considering designating this site as a
Dedicated Nature Preserve by the NCNHP.
Unit 3: Maple Hill School Road Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 3 (EO 10) consists of 27.7 ac (11.2 ha) in Pender County, NC.
This site is privately owned and has not been revisited since it was
discovered in 1998. It was occupied at the time of listing. Although
three clumps of Carex lutea were discovered here in 1998, the full
extent of the population is unknown and the habitat is vulnerable to
land use changes.
Unit 4: Southwest Ridge Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 4 (EO 11) consists of 3.3 ac (1.3 ha) in two subunits in
Pender County, NC. This unit is owned by NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and is managed for conservation purposes. These two
subpopulations were discovered in May 2002, shortly after the species
was listed as endangered (effective on February 2002). Because the
species is nearly impossible to identify unless it is flowering and
plants less than 3 months old would not be expected to flower in May,
it seems reasonable to assume that the plants discovered in May 2002
were present prior to the 2002 growing season and that the site was
occupied at the time of listing. The Carex lutea plants occur in a
power line right-of-way easement that is managed by Progress Energy.
The utility company entered into a Registry Agreement with the NCNHP
and agreed not to use herbicides or mow during critical Carex lutea
growth periods. This population is relatively small in size compared to
some of the other populations, but appears to be stable. The subunits
contain all of the PCEs identified for Carex lutea.
Subunit A is 2.3 ac (0.9 ha) in size and is located southwest of
Ashes Creek.
Subunit B is 1.0 ac (0.48 ha) in size and is located northeast of
Ashes Creek.
Unit 5: Sandy Run Savannas, Onslow County, North Carolina
Unit 5 consists of 20.6 ac (8.3 ha) in Onslow County, NC, and is
divided into five subunits. This critical habitat unit is owned by
NCDPR and managed as part of the Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area.
All five Carex lutea sites were known at the time of listing. This unit
is a remnant pine savanna, and the subunits contain all of the PCEs
identified for Carex lutea; however, the subunits are all fire
suppressed and have been altered by timber management including bedding
and ditching. The NCDPR is currently negotiating the designation of a
Dedicated Nature Preserve with the NCNHP.
Subunit A (EO 15.3) consists of 2.6 ac (1.1 ha) and occurs on the
east side of NC 50. Progress Energy has a transmission line right-of-
way through this subunit and has entered into a Registry Agreement with
the NCNHP in which they have agreed not to use herbicides or mow during
critical Carex lutea growth periods.
Subunit B (EO 15.4) consists of 4.3 ac (1.7 ha) and occurs
contiguous to and along the north side of a private sand road through
the property.
Subunit C (EO 15.4) consists of 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) and occurs along
the south side of a private sand road through the property and on the
west side of a small stream swamp. The plants are growing in an old,
wet road bed.
Subunit D (EO 15.4) consists of 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) and occurs along
the south side of a private sand road through the property and on the
east side of a small stream swamp. The Carex lutea plants are growing
in a roadside ditch.
Subunit E (EO 15.14) consists of 13.1 ac (5.3 ha) and occurs
contiguous to and on the west side of NC 50. Progress Energy has a
transmission line right-of-way through this subunit and has entered
into a Registry Agreement with the NCNHP in which they have agreed not
to use herbicides or mow during critical Carex lutea growth periods.
Unit 6: The Neck Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 6 consists of 4.4 ac (1.8 ha) in Pender County, NC, and is
divided into three subunits. This critical habitat unit includes
habitat for Carex lutea that is under private and State ownership. This
unit contains three element occurrences, two of which were known at the
time of listing. The subunits contain all of the PCEs identified for
Carex lutea; however, they are all very fire suppressed and have been
altered by timber management. The NCDPR is currently negotiating the
designation of a Dedicated Nature Preserve with the NCNHP. Privately
owned portions of this property are threatened by fire suppression,
timber harvesting, and herbicide use. Drainage ditches impact the
hydrology of the soils in this area.
Subunit A (EO 18.1) consists of 3.6 ac (1.5 ha) and was known to be
occupied at the time of listing. It is owned by NCDPR and private
entities, some of which will become part of the Sandy Run Savannas
State Natural Area.
Subunit B (EO 18.16) consists of 0.7 ac (0.3 ha) and is privately
owned. It is currently threatened by fire suppression, but the managers
are hopeful that they will be able to burn this tract within the next
year or two.
Subunit C (EO 18.17) consists of 0.1 ac (0.1 ha), is privately
owned, and occurs in a small power-line corridor along a roadside. It
is vulnerable to woody growth and herbicide use in the power line.
There has been little management of the site with prescribed fire due
to difficult land ownership patterns.
Unit 7: Shaken Creek Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 7 consists of 57.7 ac (23.4 ha) in Pender County, NC, and is
divided into three subunits. This critical habitat unit includes
habitat for Carex lutea that is under private ownership. This area is
owned by TNC and managed by a private hunt club. This unit contains
three element occurrences, all of which were known at the time of
listing. This savanna complex contains the highest quality natural
habitat and the largest population of Carex lutea known. With continued
fire management, this site should remain stable. It contains all of the
PCEs identified for Carex lutea.
Subunit A (EO 21.8) consists of 6.9 ac (2.8 ha) and is east of
Patterson Road.
Subunit B (EO 21.8) consists of 24.7 ac (10.0 ha) and is west of
Patterson Road.
Subunit C (EO 21.20) consists of 26.1 ac (10.6 ha) and lies south
of Bear Garden Road.
Unit 8: McLean Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 8 consists of 44.4 ac (17.7 ha) and includes three subunits in
Pender County, NC. This site is known as McLean Savanna or McLean
Family Farms and has been kept open for hunting through the use of
prescribed burning. Carex lutea occurs over an extensive area, and it
is one of the larger populations known. Each of the three subunits
contains all of the PCEs identified for Carex lutea.
Subunit A (EO 24.9) is 42.3 ac (17.1 ha) in size and is owned by
TNC. Carex lutea occupied this area at the time of listing.
Subunit B (EO 24.22) is 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) in size and is privately
owned. This Carex lutea population was discovered in June 2007, after
the species was listed; however, based on what we know about the
biology of the species, we believe that this site was occupied at the
time of listing.
Subunit C (EO 24.23) is 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) in size and is owned by
both private
[[Page 11089]]
entities and TNC. This Carex lutea population was also discovered in
June 2007, after the species was listed; based on what we know about
the biology of the species, we believe that this site was occupied at
the time of listing.
Because the savannas on the McLean Family Farms have been managed
by fire for many years to facilitate hunting, and one subpopulation
(Subunit A) has been known on this property since 1997, it is
reasonable to believe that these other subpopulations (Subunits B and
C) have also occurred there for many years and were just undetected
because those areas had not been surveyed specifically for Carex lutea
until 2007.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions
by the Fifth and Ninth Circuits Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378
F.3d 1059 (9\th\ Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5\th\ Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on
this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely
to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the statutory
provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification
on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or
retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally established)
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports
provide conservation recommendations to assist the agency in
eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. We may
issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal agency.
Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain an
opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The conservation recommendations
in a conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
If we list a species or designate critical habitat, section 7(a)(2)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation,
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable. We define ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
Are economically and technologically feasible, and
Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiating of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect Carex lutea or its designated
critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the Act.
Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands requiring a
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a
permit under section 10 of the Act or involving some other Federal
action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management
Agency)) are subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not Federally
funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 7
consultations.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species, or would retain its current ability
for the essential features to be functionally established. Activities
that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that
alter the essential features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Carex lutea.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result
in consultation for Carex lutea include, but are not limited to:
Actions that would alter the hydrology associated with Carex
lutea habitat or the savannas where this species occurs. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to,
[[Page 11090]]
water impoundment, stream channelization, water diversion, water
withdrawal and development activities. These activities could alter the
biological and physical features that provide the appropriate habitat
for Carex lutea by altering or eliminating moisture regimes that this
species may rely on for seed dispersal and germination and for control
of competing species; by reducing or increasing the availability of
groundwater, which may result in a shift of habitat type to a community
unsuitable for Carex lutea (shrub- or tree-dominated habitat, which
would inhibit exposure to needed sunlight); or by causing increased
erosion that could remove soils appropriate for Carex lutea growth.
Activities that remove soils appropriate for Carex lutea
growth, such as plowing, grading, or ditch cleaning, or activities that
change the characteristics of soils so that Carex lutea growth is
impeded, such as soil compaction due to silvicultural practices,
vehicular access along power line rights-of-ways or roadway expansion
or maintenance. These activities may adversely affect critical habitat.
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 conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
A statement of goals and priorities;
A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
within the proposed critical habitat designation. As such, we are not
exempting any lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense from
this designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
or make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
In making that determination, the legislative history is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how
much weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation,
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. If based on this analysis, we determine that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, we can exclude the area
only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the
species.
Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the probable
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and
related factors.
We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the Internet at the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Raleigh Fish
and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section). During the development of a final designation, we will
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information,
and as an outcome of our analysis of this information, we may exclude
areas from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Carex lutea are not owned or managed by the Department of
Defense, and therefore, we anticipate no impact to national security.
There are no areas proposed for exclusion based on impacts on national
security.
Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the
landowners have developed any conservation plans or other management
plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that
would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical
habitat. In addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the
government-to-government relationship of the United States with Tribal
entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
[[Page 11091]]
In preparing this proposed rule, we have determined that there are
currently no conservation plans or other management plans for Carex
lutea, and the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands
or trust resources. We anticipate no impact to Tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs or other management plans from this proposed
critical habitat designation. There are no areas proposed for exclusion
from this proposed designation based on other relevant impacts.
Notwithstanding these decisions, as stated under the Public
Comments section above, we request specific comments on whether any
specific areas proposed for designation for Carex lutea should be
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure
that our proposed actions are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions
and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing
within 45 days of the publication of this proposal (see DATES and
ADDRESSES sections). We will schedule public hearings on this proposal,
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15
days before the first hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon
the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
At this time, we lack the specific information necessary to provide
an adequate factual basis for determining the potential incremental
regulatory effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Carex
lutea to either develop the required RFA finding or provide the
necessary certification statement that the designation will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
On the basis of the development of our proposal, we have identified
certain sectors and activities that may potentially be affected by a
designation of critical habitat for the Carex lutea. These sectors
include industrial development, mining, drainage for silviculture and
agriculture, highway expansion and herbicide use along utility and
highway rights-of-way. We recognize that not all of these sectors may
qualify as small business entities. However, while recognizing that
these sectors and activities may be affected by this designation, we
are collecting information and initiating our analysis to determine (1)
which of these sectors or activities are or involve small business
entities, and (2) what extent the effects are related to the Carex
lutea being listed as an endangered species under the Act (baseline
effects) or whether the effects are attributable to the designation of
critical habitat (incremental). We believe that the potential
incremental effects resulting from a designation will be small. As a
consequence, following an initial evaluation of the information
available to us, we do not believe that there will be a significant
impact on a substantial number of small business entities resulting
from this designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea. However, we
will be conducting a thorough analysis to determine if this may in fact
be the case. As such, we are requesting any specific economic
information related to small business entities that may be affected by
this designation and how the designation may impact their business.
Therefore, we defer our RFA finding on this proposal designation until
completion of the draft economic analysis prepared under section
4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 12866.
As discussed above, this draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. We
have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the
draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for
public comment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose
[[Page 11092]]
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the
private sector, and includes both ``Federal intergovernmental
mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' These terms are
defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal intergovernmental mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two exceptions. It excludes
``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the
regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal program under which
$500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal
governments under entitlement authority,'' if the provision would
``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to
provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent
Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of
the species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under
section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The lands being proposed for
critical habitat designation are owned by private individuals, The
Nature Conservancy and the State of North Carolina (Division of Parks
and Recreation, Department of Transportation and Wildlife Resources
Commission). None of these government entities fit the definition of
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment as warranted.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for Carex lutea in a takings implications assessment. The
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for Carex lutea does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in North Carolina. The critical
habitat designation may have some benefit to these governments because
the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined, and the essential features
themselves are specifically identified. While making this definition
and identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist local governments in long-range
planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where state and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the Carex lutea.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was
upheld by the U.S. court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
[[Page 11093]]
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 ``American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species
Act,'' we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to
make information available to Tribes.
We have determined that there are no tribal lands occupied at the
time of listing that contain the features essential for the
conservation, and no tribal lands that are essential for the
conservation, of Carex lutea. Therefore, we have not proposed
designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
A total of 19.1 ac (7.8 ha) of critical habitat occur in electrical
distribution lines. It is believed that the regular disturbance
prevents the natural succession of woody species and serves to keep the
habitat open, similar to the role that fire plays in the species' more
natural savanna habitat. Critical habitat will include approximately
2,500 linear feet (762 meters) of power lines. However, we do not
expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required. We will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment as warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Field Supervisor, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Carex lutea'' under
``Flowering Plants'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
------------------------------------------------ Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special rules
Scientific name Common name habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carex lutea Golden Sedge NC Cyperacea E 721 17.96(a) NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.96(a), add an entry for ``Carex lutea (golden
sedge),'' in alphabetical order under the family Cyperacea, to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a)Flowering plants
* * * * *
Family Cyperacea: Carex lutea (golden sedge)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Onslow and Pender
Counties, NC, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat for
the Carex lutea is Pine Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant) natural plant
community or ecotones that contain:
(i) Moist to completely saturated loamy fine sands, fine sands,
fine sandy loams, and loamy sands soils with a pH between 5.5 and 7.2.
(ii) Open to relatively open canopy that allows full to part sun to
penetrate to the herbaceous layer between savannas and hardwood
forests.
(iii) Areas of bare soil immediately adjacent (within 12 inches (30
centimeters)) to mature Carex lutea
[[Page 11094]]
plants where seeds may fall and germinate or existing plants may expand
in size.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a base of aerial photographs (USDA National Agriculture
Imagery Program; NAIP 2008). Critical habitat units were then mapped
using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 18 North American Datum
(NAD) 1983 coordinates. These coordinates establish the vertices and
endpoints of the boundaries of the units and subunits.
(5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[[Page 11095]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.017
[[Page 11096]]
(6) Unit 1: Watkins Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) Subunit 1A
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 1A]
(ii) Subunit 1B
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 1B]
(iii) Subunit 1C
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 1C]
(iv) Map of Unit 1 (Watkins Savanna) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.018
[[Page 11097]]
(7) Unit 2: Haws Run Mitigation Site, Onslow County, NC.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2]
(ii) Map of Unit 2 (Haws Run Mitigation Site) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.019
[[Page 11098]]
(8) Unit 3: Maple Hill School Road Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 3]
(ii) Map of Unit 3 (Maple Hill School Road Savanna) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.020
[[Page 11099]]
(9) Unit 4: Southwest Ridge Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) Subunit 4A
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 4A]
(ii) Subunit 4B
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 4B]
(iii) Map of Unit 4 (Southwest Ridge Savanna) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.021
[[Page 11100]]
(10) Unit 5: Sandy Run Savannas, Onslow County, NC.
(i) Subunit 5A
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 5A]
(ii) Subunit 5B
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 5B]
(iii) Subunit 5C
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 5C]
(iv) Subunit 5D
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 5D]
(v) Subunit 5E
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 5E]
(vi) Map of Unit 5 (Sandy Run Savannas) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.022
[[Page 11101]]
(11) Unit 6: The Neck Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) Subunit 6A
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 6A]
(ii) Subunit 6B
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 6B]
(iii) Subunit 6C
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 6C]
(iv) Map of Unit 6 (The Neck Savannas) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.023
[[Page 11102]]
(12) Unit 7: Shaken Creek Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) Subunit 7A
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 7A]
(ii) Subunit 7B
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 7B]
(iii) Subunit 7C
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 7C]
(iv) Map of Unit 7 (Shaken Creek Savanna) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.024
[[Page 11103]]
(13) Unit 8: McLean Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) Subunit 8A
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 8A]
(ii) Subunit 8B
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 8B]
(iii) Subunit 8C
[Reserved for textual description of Subunit 8C]
(iv) Map of Unit 8 (McLean Savanna) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR10.025
* * * * *
Dated: February 24, 2010.
Will Shafroth,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-4653 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C