[Federal Register: August 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 148)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45592-45599]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03au10-27]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. 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: Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the comment period on our March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11080),
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Carex lutea (golden
sedge) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We
also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA)
associated with the proposed rule. In addition, in this document, we
propose to enlarge two previously proposed subunits of critical habitat
because we discovered that Carex lutea occupies an area at these two
subunits that is greater than what we believed when we were preparing
the March 10, 2010 proposed rule. We are reopening the comment period
on the proposal for an additional 30 days to allow interested parties
an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed
critical habitat designation, the associated DEA, and our amended
required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not
be resubmitted and will be fully considered in preparation of the final
rule.
DATES: We will consider public comments received or postmarked on or
before September 2, 2010. Please note that if you are using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) the deadline for
submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings
Time on this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to 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 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; by telephone 919-856-4520; or by
facsimile 919-856-4556. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat
for Carex lutea that we published in the Federal Register on March 10,
2010 (75 FR 11080), the two expanded subunits proposed as critical
habitat and our amended required determinations section provided in
this document, and the draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea. We will consider
information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are
particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate areas as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to Carex lutea from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether the benefit of designation would outweigh
threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the
designation of critical habitat is prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of Carex lutea;
What areas containing features essential to the
conservation of the species should be included in the designation and
why;
Special management considerations or protections for the
physical and biological features essential to Carex lutea conservation
that have been identified in the proposed rule that may be needed,
including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
What areas not currently occupied by the species are
essential to the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Specific information on Carex lutea and the habitat components
(physical and biological features) essential to the conservation of
this species.
(4) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
this species.
(5) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in
areas occupied by the species, and their possible impacts on the
species and the proposed critical habitat.
(6) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities and the benefits of including or excluding
areas that are subject to these impacts.
(7) Whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area as
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering
the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed critical habitat
designation.
(8) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments.
(9) Information on the extent to which the description of potential
economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule, this document, or the DEA by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed critical
habitat rule for Carex lutea that we
[[Page 45593]]
published on March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11080), you do not have to resubmit
them. Your comments are included in the public record for this
rulemaking, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our
final determination.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including your personal identifying information--will be
posted on the website. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://
www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top
of your document that we withhold this information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Please
include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify
any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, 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's Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and
the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number:
FWS-R4-ES-2010-0003, or by mail from the Raleigh Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Species Information
Carex lutea is a perennial member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae).
The species is endemic to the Black River section of the Coastal Plain
Province of North Carolina. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) recognizes eight populations, all within a 16-by-5-mile (26-by-
8-kilometer) area, extending southwest from the community of Maple
Hill.
Carex lutea occurs in the Pine Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant)
natural community type 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
We listed Carex lutea as an endangered species on January 23, 2002
(67 FR 3120). We found that the designation of critical habitat was not
prudent in the proposed listing rule (64 FR 44470, August 16, 1999).
Upon reconsideration, we found that a critical habitat designation was
prudent in the final listing rule (67 FR 3120, January 23, 2002);
however, at that time, we deferred proposal of critical habitat 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. The Service
determined that critical habitat was prudent for Carex lutea and
published a proposed critical habitat designation on March 10, 2010 (75
FR 11080).
In total, approximately 189 acres (ac) (76 hectares (ha)) of land
in Onslow and Pender Counties, North Carolina, fall within the areas
that we proposed as critical habitat for this species on March 10,
2010.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation--Amended
Additional field surveys at two extant Carex lutea subpopulations
indicate that the extent of the golden sedge at those sites is actually
greater than what was originally believed (Suiter 2010, pers. obs.).
These two areas contain all of the primary consitutent elements that
were identified in our previously published critical habitat
designation for Carex lutea. Therefore, we propose the following
changes to units 5 and 8.
Proposed Changes to Unit 5, Onslow County, North Carolina
Additional Carex lutea plants were found on the north side of the
private sand road immediately adjacent to the area previously defined
as subunit 5D (Sandy Run Savannas) in Onslow County, North Carolina.
Due to their close proximity to each other, these plants are considered
an extension of the subpopulation at subunit 5D. Although not
discovered until 2010, it is extremely likely that this subpopulation
was present at the time of listing. The area where the additional
plants were found has been fire suppressed for several years, and it is
believed that recent prescribed fires in the winter of 2010 opened this
area to sunlight, allowing the Carex lutea plants to flourish. The fire
also removed some thick, woody vegetation and allowed easy access for
Service biologists to conduct surveys. This remnant pine savanna
contains all of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) identified for
Carex lutea.
Excluding the roadbed, subunit 5D, which was 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) in our
March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11080), would increase by 4.6 ac
(1.9 ha) to a total of 4.9 ac (2.0 ha) in size. Based on this new
information and the adjustment to our previously proposed critical
habitat areas, Unit 5, all of which is owned by the N.C. Division of
Parks and Recreation and managed as the Sandy Run Savannas State
Natural Area, would increase from 20.6 ac (8.3 ha) to 25.2 ac (10.2 ha)
of proposed critical habitat.
Proposed Changes to Unit 8, Pender County, North Carolina
The area we identified in our March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR
11080), as subunit 8C (McLean Savanna) in Pender County, North
Carolina, is owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and a private
company; however, TNC anticipates acquiring the privately owned section
in the next 12 months. The Carex lutea plants in subunit 8C occupy an
area larger than what was originally known (Suiter 2010, pers. obs.).
Based on what we know about the biology of the species, we believe that
the additional plants have been present for many years, but they were
not discovered until May 2010, when the Service first thoroughly
surveyed the site. Accordingly, the Service has expanded the area of
proposed subunit 8C from 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) to 9.8 ac (4.0 ha), for an
increase of 8.2 ac (3.3 ha). The revised proposed critical habitat area
contains all of the PCEs identified for Carex lutea. Unit 8 would
increase from 44.4 ac (17.9 ha) to 52.6 ac (21.3 ha) of proposed
critical habitat.
With the inclusion of these additional areas, the Service is now
proposing 8 units (21 subunits) totaling approximately 201.8 ac (81.7
ha) in Onslow and Pender Counties, North Carolina, as critical habitat
for Carex lutea.
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is
listed in accordance
[[Page 45594]]
with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection, and specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final,
section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out
by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting
critical habitat are required to consult with us on the effects of
their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Possible Exclusions from Critical Habitat and Draft Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking
into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or
any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine
that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of
including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will
not result in the extinction of the species. We have not proposed to
exclude any areas from critical habitat for Carex lutea. However, the
final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the
best scientific data available at the time of the final designation,
including information obtained during the comment period and
information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we
have prepared a DEA concerning the proposed critical habitat
designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
The intent of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential
economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat
designation for Carex lutea that we published in the Federal Register
on March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11080) and the two additional areas proposed
in this document. The DEA quantifies the economic impacts of all
potential conservation efforts for Carex lutea, some of which will
likely be incurred whether or not we designate critical habitat. The
economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is
analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and
``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore,
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether we designate
critical habitat. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the
incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of
critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the
costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when
evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis forecasts both baseline and
incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed
designation of critical habitat.
The DEA describes economic impacts of Carex lutea conservation
efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1)
Residential development, (2) silviculture activities, and (3)
transportation and utilities projects. The DEA estimates that no
economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical
habitat for Carex lutea. This determination is based on the fact that
more than 80 percent of the proposed critical habitat is already
subject to conservation measures that benefit the plant. Economic
impacts are unlikely in the remaining 20 percent, given the limited
potential for future economic activity and the low probability of a
Federal nexus that would require consultation with the Service.
The DEA also discusses the potential benefits associated with the
designation of critical habitat. The primary intended benefit of
critical habitat is to support the conservation of endangered and
threatened species, such as Carex lutea. Quantification and
monetization of species conservation benefits requires information on
the incremental change in the probability of Carex lutea conservation
that is expected to result from the designation. As described in the
DEA, modifications to future projects are unlikely given the extensive
baseline protections already provided to Carex lutea habitat and the
lack of anticipated economic activity and a Federal nexus on privately-
owned, unprotected parcels.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11080), we indicated
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several
statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now
made use of the DEA data in making this determination. In this
document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning:
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866), E.O. 12630 (Takings),
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform), the Paperwork Reduction Act, the National Environmental Policy
Act, and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-
Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR
22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are updating our required
determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and
E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions),
as described below. However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on the DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis
for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on
comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of a
final rulemaking.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
[[Page 45595]]
with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less
than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction
businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special
trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To
determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are
significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger
regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term significant
economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Carex lutea would affect a substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities, such as residential and commercial
development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our
agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each
industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation
will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement;
designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies.
If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, Federal
agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their
activities may affect designated critical habitat. In areas where Carex
lutea is present, Federal agencies would also be required to consult
with us under section 7 of the Act, due to the endangered status of the
species. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat would be incorporated into the same consultation
process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea. The
DEA estimates that no economic impacts are likely to result from the
designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea. This determination is
based on the fact that more than 80 percent of the proposed critical
habitat is already subject to conservation measures that benefit the
plant. Economic impacts are unlikely in the remaining 20 percent, given
the limited potential for future economic activity and the low
probability of a Federal nexus that would require consultation with the
Service. Based on that analysis, no impacts to small entities are
expected as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation.
Please refer to Appendix A of the DEA of the proposed critical habitat
designation for a more detailed discussion of our analysis.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the
reasons discussed above, and based on currently available information,
we certify that if promulgated, the proposed designation would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This revised rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not 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) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Carex lutea, we do not believe that this rule would
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not
produce a federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that
is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded
Mandates Refrom Act . 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.'' The DEA also identified no cost resulting from the
critical habitat designation. Because no incremental costs are
anticipated, no small entities are expected to be affected by the rule.
Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
[[Page 45596]]
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.
The OMB's guidance for implementing this Executive Order outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when
compared to no regulatory action. As discussed in Appendix A, the DEA
finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. The
DEA concludes that since no modifications are anticipated to result
from the designation of critical habitat, energy-related impacts are
not expected. Since no incremental impacts are forecast associated
specifically with this rulemaking on the production, distribution, or
use of energy, designation of critical habitat for Carex lueta is not
expected to lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in
electricity production or an increase in the cost of energy production
or distribution). A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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 further amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
be amended at 75 FR 11080 (March 10, 2010), as follows:
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. Critical habitat for Carex lutea (golden sedge) in Sec. 17.96,
which was proposed to be added to paragraph (a) on March 10, 2010, at
75 FR 11080, is proposed to be amended by revising the maps in
paragraphs (5), (10)(vi), and (13)(iv), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Cyperaceae: Carex lutea (golden sedge)
* * * * *
(5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows:
[[Page 45597]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU10.956
* * * * *
(10) * * *
* * * * *
(vi) Map of Unit 5 (Sandy Run Savannas) follows:
[[Page 45598]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU10.957
* * * * *
(13) * * *
* * * * *
(iv) Map of Unit 8 (McLean Savanna) follows:
[[Page 45599]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU10.958
* * * * *
Dated: July 20, 2010
Thomas L. Strickland
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
[FR Doc. 2010-18760 Filed 8-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S