[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11086-11111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4036]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for the Carex lutea (golden sedge) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. In total, approximately 202
acres (82 hectares) in 8 units located in Onslow and Pender Counties,
North Carolina fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective on March 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and the associated final economic analysis
are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments
and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office, 551-F Pylon Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27636; telephone 919-856-4520; facsimile 919-856-4556.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the development and designation of critical
habitat for Carex lutea under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For
more information on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of Carex lutea,
refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on
January 23, 2002 (67 FR 3120). Information on the associated draft
economic analysis (DEA) for the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2010 (75 FR
45592).
Species Description, Life History, Distribution, Ecology and Habitat
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.
[[Page 11087]]
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 reevaluation 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.
We affirmed that designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea is
prudent and determinable, and we published a proposal to designate
critical habitat for this species in the Federal Register on March 10,
2010 (75 FR 11080). We accepted public comments on this proposal for 60
days, ending May 10, 2010. On August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45592), we
announced the reopening of the public comment period for an additional
30 days (ending September 2, 2010); the availability of a DEA; our
proposal 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; and an amended required
determinations section of the proposal (75 FR 45592).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea during two comment
periods. The first comment period, following publication of the
proposed rule, opened March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11080), and closed May 10,
2010. The second comment period, associated with the availability of
the DEA and our revised proposal, opened August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45592),
and closed September 2, 2010. We contacted appropriate Federal, State,
County, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other
interested parties, and invited them to comment on the proposed rule
and the associated DEA.
During the first comment period (March 10 through May 10, 2010), we
received two comment letters directly addressing the proposed critical
habitat designation. During the second comment period (August 3 through
September 2, 2010), we received one comment letter addressing the
proposed critical habitat designation and the DEA. We did not receive
any requests for a public hearing, so no public hearing was held.
Comments we received, including comments from peer reviewers (see
below), are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into
the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions
from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise
including familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which
the species occur, and conservation biology principles pertinent to the
species. We received responses from all three peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments we received from peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
Carex lutea. With a few exceptions, the peer reviewers generally
concurred with our methods and conclusions, indicating the Service had
used the most current scientific information available; had accurately
described the species, their habitat requirements, the primary
constituent elements (PCEs) for the species, the reasons for their
decline, and threats to their habitat; and had done a thorough job of
delineating critical habitat using the best available scientific
information.
Peer Reviewer Comments
Comment 1: One reviewer pointed out that, for those sites that
occur on land currently owned by the North Carolina Division of Parks
and Recreation (NCDPR) or lands expected to be transferred to it in the
near future (Sandy Run Savannas and Haws Run), the savanna restoration
plans are unclear because of funding and on-site personnel
uncertainties; however prescribed burning has been initiated on the
parcels.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the work that the NCDPR has
done to protect and enhance Carex lutea and its habitat, such as the
prescribed burns. NCDPR will continue to manage the habitat as
resources allow. Additionally, the Service will continue to work with
NCDPR to help protect, manage, and enhance Carex lutea and its habitat
that occurs on the lands as funding becomes available.
Comment 2: One reviewer stated that sea level rise, as a
consequence of climate change, could have significant long-term impacts
on these populations because the elevation range is only 6.0 ft (1.83
m) to 14.0 ft (4.27 m) for all Sandy Run and Haws Run properties.
Additionally, rising water tables may result in shifts of savanna
species to higher landscape positions within the natural area.
Our Response: The Service is concerned about global climate change
and how sea level rise will affect federally listed species. We will
continue to monitor rising water tables and consider actions to protect
Carex lutea.
Comment 3: Another reviewer summarized that the greatest threats
are inadequate fire and the consequences thereof to Carex lutea habitat
at protected sites. The reviewer further stated that climate change may
exacerbate some of the problems associated with this threat.
Our Response: The Service will continue to monitor threats to Carex
lutea and its habitat and will work with land owners, as appropriate,
to encourage prescribed fires and other beneficial management
activities. We are not aware of any populations that have been affected
by or may be affected by climate change in the future. We will also
monitor and work to address potential effects if they occur.
Comment 4: One reviewer commented that fire suppression allows
critical habitat to be invaded by nonindigenous plants and animals that
are not fire-adapted.
Our Response: The Service agrees with the reviewer's statement, and
we included a sentence stating this in the Special Management
Considerations or Protections section of this rule.
Comment 5: One reviewer pointed out that Baymeade and possibly
Mandarin soils are too dry for Carex lutea and indicated that if Carex
lutea is known from an area mapped as Baymeade that it likely occurs on
a wetter soil type that is too small to map.
Our Response: The Service reviewed the characteristics for Baymeade
and Mandarin soils. Baymeade soil is considered a well-drained soil
with rapid permeability, and Mandarin soil is considered somewhat
poorly drained. We agree with the commenter and have
[[Page 11088]]
made changes in the Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other
Nutritional or Physiological Requirements (Soil) section. We removed
Baymeade from the list of soil types where Carex lutea may occur.
Because Mandarin soils are somewhat poorly drained, we made no changes
to this soil type in this final rule.
Comment 6: One reviewer clarified that perigynia frequently detach
individually or a few together from the spikes and rarely, if ever,
reach the ground while still attached to the spike and culm.
Our Response: The Service agrees with the reviewer's statement, and
we made the appropriate changes in the Sites for Breeding,
Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring section.
Comment 7: One reviewer commented that while drainage ditches may
have suitable wetland soils and are able to support Carex lutea, their
hydrologic regimes are not natural and it is likely that seeds produced
from ditch populations are transported off site to unsuitable habitat
during precipitation events.
Our Response: The Service agrees with this statement, and we
included a sentence clarifying this in the Food, Water, Air, Light,
Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements (Water)
section.
Comment 8: One reviewer asked if it was possible for the final rule
to refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National
Agriculture Imagery Program aerial photos that would show the critical
habitat as it existed on the date the photos were taken in order to
resolve any conflicts regarding the beginning date of any development
within the critical habitat area's boundaries.
Our Response: Our regulations require us to provide textual
descriptions of the boundaries of critical habitat for a species. These
descriptions are most commonly provided using latitude-longitude or
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate pairs. The USDA National
Agriculture Imagery Program maps do not satisfy this requirement.
However, the USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program aerial photos
will be made available for viewing at the office listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this rule.
Comment 9: One reviewer noted that Unit 6, subunit A, The Neck
Savanna has the additional significance of being the type locality for
Carex lutea.
Our Response: The Service agrees with this statement, and we have
added language in the unit description to acknowledge this.
Comment 10: One reviewer pointed out that the locations of subunits
within Unit 7 were not adequately described.
Our Response: We agree and have amended the location description in
the Final Critical Habitat Designation section of this final rule.
Comment 11: One reviewer mentioned that the map for Unit 7 is
unclear as subunits 7A and 7B appear as only one polygon.
Our Response: The Service agrees with this comment; however, it is
difficult to show subunits 7A and 7B as separate polygons at the
resolution required for Federal Register publication. Subunits 7A and
7B are only separated by approximately 25 feet (7.6 meters), the width
of a gravel road through the site. The boundaries are properly
identified in the Final Critical Habitat Designation and Regulation
Promulgation sections of this rule. More detailed maps that show the
separation of subunits 7A and 7B are available from the Raleigh Fish
and Wildlife Office. See the ADDRESSES section of this final rule for
contact information.
Public Comments
Comment 12: One commenter asked that his family property not be
considered a part of the critical habitat area because the family's
intent is to continue farming and provide the family's dependent
children the opportunity to develop the property as desired.
Our Response: We carefully inspected updated aerial imagery of the
proposed critical habitat area. We also conducted a site visit to the
commenter's property to determine if the area in question provides the
essential physical and biological features for Carex lutea. We
determined that a small area along the edge of the commenter's property
does contain the essential physical and biological features for Carex
lutea and a small population occurs in the critical habitat area. We
are not able to exclude areas that currently provide the essential
physical and biological features for the species from critical habitat
designation on the basis of anticipated future development, nor do such
development plans form the basis for an exclusion from critical habitat
under the provisions of the Act. The total amount of designated
critical habitat in this subunit is 0.1 acre (ac) (0.04 hectare (ha)).
The designation of critical habitat, in and of itself, has no legal
effect on property rights or constitutes a physical or regulatory
``taking'' of real estate property. See the ``Takings--Executive Order
12630'' discussion below.
Comment 13: One commenter mentioned that Muhlenbergia expansa
(cutover muhly) is the most abundant grass in relatively undisturbed,
specific locations of Carex lutea.
Our Response: The Service agrees with this statement, and we
incorporated this species in the habitat description in the Habitats
Protected from Disturbance or Representative of the Historic,
Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species section.
Comment 14: One commenter noted that Shaken Creek Savanna is owned
and managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and that hunting rights are
separately owned by private individuals and are tied to a hunt club.
Our Response: We made the appropriate clarification in the Final
Critical Habitat Designation section.
Comment 15: One commenter noted that he is aware of populations of
Carex lutea at subunits 7A and 7B, but that he is not aware of any
Carex lutea population at subunit 7C.
Our Response: We contacted the species expert at North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program and confirmed that Carex lutea and the
necessary physical and biological features for this species do occur in
subunit 7C. Therefore, we did not make any changes to this part of the
critical habitat designation.
Comment 16: One commenter noted that subunit 8C appears to have
many acres (hectares) of suitable habitat for Carex lutea and suggested
that this subunit should be greatly expanded.
Our Response: We conducted a site visit to the property to
determine if the area in question provides the essential physical and
biological features for Carex lutea. Our findings concur with the
commenter's suggestions. The actual extent of Carex lutea at this site
was greater than we previously believed. Based on this new information,
we expanded the critical habitat area to incorporate a larger area that
contains the essential physical and biological features for Carex
lutea. On August 3, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR
45592) our proposal to increase the area of subunit 8C, as well as the
area of subunit 5D. The total amount of proposed critical habitat in
subunit 8C increased by 8.2 ac (3.3 ha), from 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) in our
March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11080) to 9.8 ac (4.0 ha) in our
August 3, 2010, revised proposed rule (75 FR 45592).
Comment 17: One commenter expressed concern over the potential
negative impacts of listing the Maple Hill School Road Savanna (Unit 3)
as critical habitat. He mentioned that the site consists of several
small parcels
[[Page 11089]]
owned by approximately 12 private individuals. He is concerned that the
critical habitat designation may result in reactive actions by these
landowners that may destroy good habitat and the small population that
was known to occur there at the time of listing.
Our Response: The Service respects the commenter's opinions on this
matter because of his extensive involvement with the protection of many
of the conservation lands associated with Carex lutea. However, we are
not able to exclude areas that currently provide the essential physical
and biological features for the species from critical habitat
designation on this basis. Further, when we published the proposed rule
in March 2010, we contacted all of the property owners that might be
affected by the designation. In our correspondence we included a letter
that explained the proposed rule and provided a copy of the Federal
Register notice along with information about how to provide public
comments. We did not receive any public comments from any property
owner in the vicinity of Unit 3.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
We thoroughly evaluated all comments received on the proposed
designation of critical habitat. As a result of the comments we
received on the proposed rules, as well as additional field
observations during the 2010 field season, we have made the following
changes to our proposed designation.
We adjusted the boundary of Unit 5, subunit D (Sandy Run
Savannas), in Onslow County. We expanded the critical habitat area from
0.3 ac (0.1 ha) to 4.9 ac (2.0 ha), an increase of 4.6 ac (1.9 ha).
Unit 5 is in conservation ownership by the NCDPR and managed as the
Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area. The proposed expansion of Unit
5, subunit D (Sandy Run Savannas), was described in our August 3, 2010,
revised proposed rule (75 FR 45592).
We adjusted the boundary of Unit 8, subunit C (McLean
Savanna) in Pender County. We expanded the critical habitat area from
1.6 ac (0.6 ha) to 9.8 ac (4.0 ha), for an increase of 8.2 ac (3.3 ha).
Subunit 8C is owned by TNC and a private company; however, TNC
anticipates acquiring the privately owned section in the next 12 months
and managing the entire site as a nature preserve. The proposed
expansion of Unit 8, subunit C (McLean Savanna), was described in our
August 3, 2010, revised proposed rule (75 FR 45592).
All of the additional areas included within the critical habitat
boundaries contain all of the PCEs that were identified in the March
10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11080) to designate critical habitat for
Carex lutea. Because the areas where we increased the size of the
critical habitat units are in current or impending conservation
ownership, we determined that including these areas within the critical
habitat designation will not impact any development, silviculture, or
other activities of economic importance; therefore, this decision will
not alter the economic analysis of the designation.
With the inclusion of these additional areas, the Service is
designating 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.
We are finalizing the following critical habitat designation in
accordance with section 4 of the Act.
Table 1--Critical Habitat Unit Changes in Acres (Hectares) for Carex lutea
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule ac Final rule ac
Unit Subunit (ha) (ha) Change ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. A 1.2 (0.5) 1.2 (0.5)
1.................................. B 2.0 (0.8) 2.0 (0.8)
1.................................. C 0.6 (0.2) 0.6 (0.2)
2.................................. N/A 27.1 (11.0) 27.1 (11.0)
3.................................. N/A 27.7 (11.2) 27.7 (11.2)
4.................................. A 2.3 (0.9) 2.3 (0.9)
4.................................. B 1.0 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4)
5.................................. A 2.6 (1.1) 2.6 (1.1)
5.................................. B 4.3 (1.7) 4.3 (1.7)
5.................................. C 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1)
5.................................. D 0.3 (0.1) 4.9 (2.0) + 4.6 (1.9)
5.................................. E 13.1 (5.3) 13.1 (5.3)
6.................................. A 3.6 (1.5) 3.6 (1.5)
6.................................. B 0.7 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3)
6.................................. C 0.1 (0.04) 0.1 (0.04)
7.................................. A 6.9 (2.8) 6.9 (2.8)
7.................................. B 24.7 (10.0) 24.7 (10.0)
7.................................. C 26.1 (10.6) 26.1 (10.6)
8.................................. A 42.3 (17.1) 42.3 (17.1)
8.................................. B 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)
8.................................. C 1.6 (0.6) 9.8 (4.0) + 8.2 (3.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total *........................ .................. 189.0 (76.5) 201.8 (81.7) + 12.8 (5.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
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 a
species at the time it is listed, upon a
[[Page 11090]]
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 under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies insure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner 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) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction
or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
To be included 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 or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features
may require special management considerations or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat), focusing on the principal
biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent
elements) within an area that are essential to the conservation of the
species (such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water
quality, tide, soil type). Primary constituent elements are the
elements of physical and biological features that, when laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species'
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed
only upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. We designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its range would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species. When the best available scientific data do
not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require such
additional areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species. An area
currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time
of listing may, however, be essential to the conservation of the
species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al.
2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas
in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
1181). 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, as explained in our
March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11080), we are unable to determine
what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate to include in the
final
[[Page 11091]]
critical habitat for this species to address the effects of climate
change.
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derived the specific physical and biological features required
for Carex lutea from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and
life history as described in the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2010 (75 FR
11080), the Background section of this final rule, and the information
presented below. Additional information can also be found in the final
listing rule published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2002 (67
FR 3120).
We have determined that Carex lutea requires the following physical
and biological features.
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 physical and
biological feature required 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. It should be noted that seeds produced from populations
located in ditches may be transported to unsuitable habitat during
precipitation events.
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,
(which is approximately 25 mi (40 km) south-southwest of the epicenter
of Carex lutea) is 54.3 inches (138 cm) (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 (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, is 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
[[Page 11092]]
tolerance of Carex lutea to temperature extremes.
In summary, 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 physical and biological feature required 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 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 they detach individually or a few at a time
from the spikes, thereby depositing the fruits on the substrate
adjacent to the maternal parent (LeBlond 1996, p. 19; LeBlond pers.
comm. 2010). 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).
In summary, 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 physical
and biological feature required 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 toothache grass
(Ctenium aromaticum), cutover muhly (Muhlenbergia expansa), 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.
In summary, 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 essential 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.
Primary Constituent Element for Carex lutea
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of Carex lutea in areas occupied at the time of listing,
focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We consider
primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical and
biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement to provide for a species' vital life-history
functions, are essential to the conservation of the species. Areas
designated as critical habitat for Carex lutea contain only occupied
areas within the species' historical geographic range, and contain the
primary constituent element which supports the species' life-history
functions.
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 single primary constituent element
for Carex lutea is a 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 partial
sunlight to penetrate to the herbaceous layer between savannas and
hardwood forests; and
(3) Areas of bare soil immediately adjacent (within 12 inches (30
centimeters)) to mature Carex lutea plants where seeds may fall and
germinate or existing plants may expand in size.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of this species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well
as those occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species.
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
[[Page 11093]]
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 were first
observed 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) (Element Occurrence
(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.
Subunits 5D and 8C were expanded after field work in 2010 indicated
that the populations were larger than previously believed. 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.
We identified critical habitat based on areas that 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. Because so few populations are known to exist, they
are all important to the long-term survival and recovery of the
species. We are designating eight units (21 subunits) based on
sufficient quantity and arrangement of the PCEs being present to
support Carex lutea's life processes.
When determining 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 the physical and
biological features 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 rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are
not designated. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized, 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 areas that were not
occupied by the species at the time it was listed that are essential to
the conservation of Carex lutea. All of the areas designated as
critical habitat for Carex lutea are currently occupied by the species
and contain the essential physical and biological features. All of the
areas designated as critical habitat are also within the known
historical range of the species. Therefore, we are not designating 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.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
The major threats to the features in the areas identified as
critical habitat for 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. Through our
review of the existing data on Carex lutea, we conclude that these
threats, which were also listed in the final listing rule (67 FR 3120,
January 23, 2002), 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 primary
constituent element 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 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. Fire suppression also allows
the invasion of nonindigenous plants and animals that are not fire-
adapted.
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 designating as critical
habitat contain the features essential to the conservation of Carex
lutea, and that these features may require special management
considerations or
[[Page 11094]]
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 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.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 8 units (21 subunits) totaling approximately 202
ac (82 ha) as critical habitat for Carex lutea. They constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for Carex lutea. The eight areas designated as critical
habitat, which are described below, 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 were occupied at the
time of listing and are currently occupied.
The name, ownership information, and approximate size of each
designated critical habitat unit and subunit are shown in Table 2. As
described above, we assessed all areas we are designating as critical
habitat to ensure that they provide the requisite primary constituent
element as defined in this final rule.
Table 2--Designated Critical Habitat Units for Carex lutea--Area Estimates Reflect All Land Within Critical
Habitat Unit Boundaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of unit acres
Unit Subunit Land ownership by type (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... A NCDPR......................... 1.2 (0.5)
1..................................... B Private, NCDPR................ 2.0 (0.8)
1..................................... C NCDPR......................... 0.6 (0.2)
2..................................... N/A NCDOT......................... 27.1 (11.0)
3..................................... N/A Private....................... 27.7 (11.2)
4..................................... A NCWRC with Progress Energy, 2.3 (0.9)
Right-of-way (ROW).
4..................................... B NCWRC with Progress Energy, 1.0 (0.4)
ROW.
5..................................... A NCDPR with Progress Energy, 2.6 (1.1)
ROW.
5..................................... B NCDPR......................... 4.3 (1.7)
5..................................... C NCDPR......................... 0.3 (0.1)
5..................................... D NCDPR......................... 4.9 (2.0)
5..................................... E NCDPR with Progress Energy, 13.1 (5.3)
ROW.
6..................................... A NCDPR......................... 3.6 (1.5)
6..................................... B Private....................... 0.7 (0.3)
6..................................... C Private with Powerline ROW.... 0.1 (0.04)
7..................................... A Private (TNC)................. 6.9 (2.8)
7..................................... B Private (TNC)................. 24.7 (10.0)
7..................................... C Private (TNC)................. 26.1 (10.6)
8..................................... A Private (TNC)................. 42.3 (17.1)
8..................................... B Private....................... 0.5 (0.2)
8..................................... C Private (TNC), Private........ 9.8 (4.0)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total *........................... .................. .............................. 201.8 (81.7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 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. 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. All three subunits contain the primary constituent element
identified for Carex lutea; however, they are all very fire-suppressed
and have been altered by timber management. The 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 the primary
constituent element 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.
The population at this site appears to be stable and not vulnerable to
extirpation. Managers are
[[Page 11095]]
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. This site contains the primary constituent element
identified for Carex lutea.
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 February 22, 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 the primary constituent element 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 (0.4 ha) in size and is located northeast of
Ashes Creek.
Unit 5: Sandy Run Savannas, Onslow County, North Carolina
Unit 5 consists of 25.2 ac (10.2 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 the primary
constituent element 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 4.9 ac (2.0 ha) and occurs along
the south and north sides 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 and along a fire break and in
associated low, moist areas. The private sand road is not considered
part of this critical habitat designation.
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 the primary constituent element
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), is the type
locality for Carex lutea, and was known to be occupied at the time of
listing. It is owned by NCDPR and 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 (0.04 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 and managed by TNC. The hunting rights are separately owned by
private individuals and are tied to a 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. The subunits all
contain the primary constituent element identified for Carex lutea.
Subunit A (EO 21.8) consists of 6.9 ac (2.8 ha) immediately south
of Flo Road and east of Alligator Lake Road.
Subunit B (EO 21.8) consists of 24.7 ac (10.0 ha) immediately south
of Flo Road and west of Alligator Lake Road.
Subunit C (EO 21.20) consists of 26.1 ac (10.6 ha) immediately
south of Flo Road and approximately 1,800 feet (549 meters) west of
Alligator Lake Road.
Unit 8: McLean Savanna, Pender County, North Carolina
Unit 8 consists of 52.6 ac (21.3 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 the primary constituent element identified for Carex lutea.
Subunit A (EO 24.9) is 42.3 ac (17.1 ha) in size and is owned by
TNC. Carex
[[Page 11096]]
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 9.8 ac (4.0 ha) in size and is owned by
both private entities and TNC. This Carex lutea population was also
discovered in June 2007, after the species was listed. In 2010, we
discovered that the extent of the population was much greater than we
originally thought. 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.
The Service believes that all critical habitat units and subunits
are currently occupied by Carex lutea. In addition, based on our
knowledge of the species and our best professional judgment, we believe
that these critical habitat units and subunits were occupied at the
time the species was listed.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to insure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions
by the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits 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 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not
rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the
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 primary constituent
elements to be functionally established) to serve its intended
conservation role for the species.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to insure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a 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:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, but
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, to
avoid these outcomes. We define ``reasonable and prudent alternatives''
at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation
that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid 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 a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (such discretionary involvement
or control over the action is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on
actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those
actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
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 from us 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(a)(2)
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
In making the adverse modification determination, the key factor is
whether, with implementation of the Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat are those that alter the physical and biological
features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value
of critical habitat for Carex lutea. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat units is to support life-history needs of the species
and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for Carex lutea. These activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would result in ground disturbance to sunny to
partially tree-shaded areas or ecotones between savannas and hardwood
forests. Such activities could include, but are not
[[Page 11097]]
limited to: Residential, commercial, or recreational development; ORV
activity; dispersed recreation; silviculture practices (including
timber harvest); new road construction or widening; existing road and
utility maintenance; and mining. These activities could cause direct
loss of Carex lutea occupied areas, and affect ecotones by damaging or
eliminating habitat, altering soil composition due to increased
erosion, and increasing densities of nonnative plant species.
In addition, changes in soil composition may lead to changes in the
vegetation composition, such as growth of shrub cover resulting in
decreased density or vigor of individual Carex lutea plants. These
activities may also lead to changes in water flows and inundation
periods that would degrade, reduce, or eliminate the habitat necessary
for the growth and reproduction of Carex lutea.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrological regime
of sunny to partially tree-shaded areas or ecotones between savannas
and hardwood forests. Such activities could include residential or
recreational development adjacent to savanna and hardwood forest
ecotones, timber harvest and other silviculture practices, ORV
activity, dispersed recreation, new road construction or widening,
existing road and utility line maintenance, and mining. These
activities could alter surface soil layers and hydrological regimes in
a manner that promotes loss of soil matrix components and moisture
necessary to support the growth and reproduction of Carex lutea.
(3) Actions that would significantly reduce pollination or seed set
(reproduction). Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
residential or recreational development, and mowing or herbiciding
prior to seed set. These activities could prevent reproduction by
reducing the numbers of pollinators, or by removal or destruction of
reproductive plant parts.
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.
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 were no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
within our proposed critical habitat designation. Therefore, we are not
exempting any lands from this final designation of critical habitat for
Carex lutea under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if 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 statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary 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 make this determination, then
the Secretary can exert his discretion to 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 prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA),
which we made available for public review on August 3, 2010 (75 FR
45592), based on the March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11080). We
opened a comment period on the DEA until September 2, 2010; however, we
received no comments on the DEA. Following the close of the comment
period, a final analysis of the potential economic effects of the
designation was developed, taking into consideration any new
information.
The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Carex lutea.
Some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we
designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact of the final
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 critical habitat is designated. 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 consider in
the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks
retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was
listed (2002), and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts
likely to occur with the designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
[[Page 11098]]
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at costs
that were incurred since January 23, 2002, when we listed Carex lutea
under the Act (67 FR 3120) and considers those costs that may occur in
the 20 years following the designation of critical habitat, which was
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited
planning information was available for most activities to forecast
activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA did
not identify any economic impacts of Carex lutea conservation efforts
associated with development activities.
The FEA estimates that no economic impacts are likely to result
from the designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea. This
determination is based primarily on the fact that more than 80 percent
of the lands we are designating as 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.
Consequently, the Secretary has determined not to exercise his
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical
habitat for Carex lutea based on economic impacts. A copy of the FEA
with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Raleigh
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or for downloading from the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
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 rule, we have determined
that the lands within the designation of critical habitat for Carex
lutea are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and
therefore, there are no impacts to national security. Consequently, the
Secretary has determined not to exercise his discretion to exclude any
areas from this designation based on impacts on national security.
Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in addition to economic impacts
and impacts on national security, we consider any other relevant
impacts. In determining what other impacts may be relevant, we consider
a number of factors including whether the landowners have developed any
habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this rule, we have determined that there are currently
no HCPs or other management plans for Carex lutea. Additionally, the
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 critical habitat designation. Consequently,
the Secretary has determined not to exercise his discretion to exclude
any areas from this designation based on other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB
bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) 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.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) 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 is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
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. In this final rule,
we are certifying that the critical habitat designation for Carex lutea
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
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; as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the 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 critical habitat designation for Carex lutea
could significantly affect a substantial number of small entities, we
consider the number of small entities affected within particular types
of economic activities, such as residential and commercial development.
We apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry
to determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does
not explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess
[[Page 11099]]
whether a ``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this
designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small
entities likely to be impacted in an area. In some circumstances,
especially with critical habitat designations of limited extent, we may
aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number
of small entities affected is substantial. In estimating the number of
small entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their
activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect Carex lutea. Federal agencies also must consult with us
if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic
impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application of the
``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
In our FEA of the critical habitat designation, we evaluated the
potential economic effects on small entities resulting from
conservation actions related to the designation of critical habitat for
Carex lutea. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated
with the rulemaking as described in Chapters 4 through 6 of the FEA,
and evaluated the potential for economic impacts related to development
and silvicultural activities. The economic analysis additionally
considered the potential economic impacts of the designation on
transportation and utilities projects, but concluded that these
activities were not likely to incur measurable economic impacts.
As discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, the FEA did not identify
any incremental costs resulting from the critical habitat designation.
This determination is based on the fact that more than 80 percent of
the critical habitat we are designating in this rule 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. Therefore, based on
this analysis, we do not expect this regulation to have a significant
impact on any small businesses.
In summary, we considered whether this designation will result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and we determined that we do not expect this regulation to have a
significant impact on any small entities. Therefore, we are certifying
that the designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. The OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to no regulatory action
under consideration. As discussed in Appendix A, the FEA finds that
none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. The economic
analysis concludes that because no modifications are anticipated to
result from the designation of critical habitat, energy-related impacts
are not expected. Because no incremental impacts associated
specifically with this rulemaking on the production, distribution, or
use of energy are forecast, designation of critical habitat for Carex
lutea 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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not 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.
(2) As discussed in the FEA of the designation of critical habitat
for Carex lutea, we do not believe that this rule will significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a federal
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it
[[Page 11100]]
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The lands we are designating as critical habitat 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 economic analysis 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.
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. Critical
habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. 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 critical habitat designation with, appropriate
State resource agencies in North Carolina. The designation of critical
habitat for Carex lutea will impose no additional restrictions to those
currently in place and, therefore, will have little incremental impact
on State and local governments and their activities. The designation of
critical habitat 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) of the Act will be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that this 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 are designating critical habitat in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of Carex lutea within the designated
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species.
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
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 National Environmental Policy Act
(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)).
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 are not designating
critical habitat for Carex lutea on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
upon request from the Field Supervisor, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES) or from http://www.regulations.gov.
Authors
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.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
[[Page 11101]]
0
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
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Carex lutea...................... Golden sedge........ U.S.A. (NC)........ Cyperaceae......... E 721 17.96(a) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.96(a), amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for
``Carex lutea (golden sedge),'' in alphabetical order under the family
Cyperaceae, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Cyperaceae: Carex lutea (golden sedge)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Onslow and Pender
Counties, NC, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent element of the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of 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 partial
sunlight to penetrate to the herbaceous layer between savannas and
hardwood forests; and
(iii) Areas of bare soil immediately adjacent (within 12 inches (30
centimeters)) to mature Carex lutea plants where seeds may fall and
germinate or existing plants may expand in size.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing the primary
constituent element, such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and
other paved areas, and the land on which such structures are located.
(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) for critical habitat for Carex lutea in
Onslow and Pender Counties, NC, follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 11102]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.000
(6) Unit 1, subunits A, B, and C, for Carex lutea: Watkins Savanna,
Pender County, NC.
(i) Unit 1, subunits A, B, and C, for Carex lutea comprises 3.8
acres (ac) (1.5 hectares (ha)) of somewhat overgrown Pine Savanna
habitat. Unit 1 is located approximately 5.1 miles (mi) (8.2 kilometers
(km)) southeast of the intersection of NC 50 and NC 53, and all three
subunits are on the north side of NC 50.
(ii) Subunit 1A. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 732264, 99984; 732203, 99954; 732184, 100016;
732234, 100065; 732264, 99984.
(iii) Subunit 1B. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 733143, 99288; 733053, 99268; 733055, 99291; 733065,
99309; 733055, 99320; 733048, 99344; 733053, 99364; 733090, 99377;
733140, 99370; 733143, 99288.
(iv) Subunit 1C. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 732155, 99677; 732128, 99667; 732093, 99716; 732109,
99732; 732166, 99692; 732155, 99677.
(v) Map of Unit 1 (Watkins Savanna) follows:
[[Page 11103]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.001
(7) Unit 2 for Carex lutea: Haws Run Mitigation Site, Onslow
County, NC.
(i) Unit 2 for Carex lutea comprises 27.1 ac (11.0 ha) of Pine
Savanna. Unit 2 is located approximately 7.6 mi (12.2 km) southeast of
the intersection of NC 50 and NC 53, on the south side of NC 50.
(ii) Unit 2. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 735078, 96823; 735188, 96794; 735282, 96812; 735423,
96489; 735296, 96437; 735329, 96364; 735233, 96324; 735132, 96601;
735053, 96564; 734996, 96686; 735049, 96740; 735078, 96823.
(iii) Map of Unit 2 (Haws Run Mitigation Site) follows:
[[Page 11104]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.002
(8) Unit 3 for Carex lutea: Maple Hill School Road Savanna, Pender
County, NC.
(i) Unit 3 for Carex lutea comprises 27.7 ac (11.2 ha) of Pine
Savanna. Unit 3 is located approximately 3.7 mi (6.0 km) southeast of
the intersection of NC 50 and NC 53, east of SR 1580 and north of NC
50.
(ii) Unit 3. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 731509, 101826; 731333, 101675; 731094, 101706;
731187, 101962; 731239, 101964; 731253, 101975; 731264, 102030; 731435,
102129; 731509, 101826.
(iii) Map of Unit 3 (Maple Hill School Road Savanna) follows:
[[Page 11105]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.003
(9) Unit 4, subunits A and B, for Carex lutea: Southwest Ridge
Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) Unit 4, subunits A and B, for Carex lutea comprises 3.3 ac (1.3
ha) of maintained power line on the edge of Pine Savanna. Unit 4 is
located approximately 9.1 mi (14.7 km) southwest of the intersection of
NC 50 and NC 53.
(ii) Subunit 4A. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 723852, 89908; 723720, 89734; 723688, 89761; 723756,
89851; 723820, 89935; 723852, 89908.
(iii) Subunit 4B. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 724036, 90152; 723975, 90075; 723946, 90104; 724004,
90177; 724036, 90152.
(iv) Map of Unit 4 (Southwest Ridge Savanna) follows:
[[Page 11106]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.004
(10) Unit 5, subunits A, B, C, D and E, for Carex lutea: Sandy Run
Savannas, Onslow County, NC.
(i) Unit 5, subunits A, B, C, D and E, for Carex lutea comprises
25.2 ac (10.2 ha) of power line right-of-way, ecotone and Pine Savanna
habitat. Unit 5 is located approximately 7.1 mi (11.4 km) southeast of
the intersection of NC 50 and NC 53. Subunit A is located in a power
line corridor east of NC 50, and subunits B, C, D, and E are west of NC
50.
(ii) Subunit 5A. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 736771, 99308; 736625, 99178; 736587, 99216; 736737,
99350; 736771, 99308.
(iii) Subunit 5B. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 735365, 98631; 735349, 98617; 735348, 98651; 735379,
98706; 735452, 98755; 735543, 98767; 735619, 98723; 735502, 98683;
735365, 98631.
(iv) Subunit 5C. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 735711, 98665; 735692, 98664; 735692, 98680; 735687,
98688; 735664, 98688; 735650, 98706; 735666, 98715; 735673, 98706;
735697, 98704; 735711, 98689; 735711, 98670; 735711, 98665.
[[Page 11107]]
(v) Subunit 5D. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 735817, 98757; 735769, 98743; 735761, 98762; 735812,
98776; 735817, 98757; and, 735756, 98767; 735745, 98774; 735722, 98827;
735720, 98863; 735761, 98907; 735787, 98905; 735795, 98859; 735810,
98821; 735864, 98838; 735899, 98854; 735928, 98871; 735958, 98894;
735983, 98894; 735990, 98820; 735850, 98795; 735756, 98767.
(vi) Subunit 5E. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 736501, 99084; 736411, 99048; 736382, 99079; 736375,
99137; 736318, 99202; 736292, 99251; 736374, 99312; 736476, 99354;
736532, 99252; 736610, 99159; 736559, 99115; 736501, 99084.
(vii) Map of Unit 5 (Sandy Run Savannas) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.005
(11) Unit 6, subunits A, B, and C, for Carex lutea: The Neck
Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) Unit 6, subunits A, B, and C, for Carex lutea comprises 4.4 ac
(1.8 ha) of power line right-of-way, Pine Savanna habitat. Unit 6 is
located approximately 5.3 mi (8.5 km) southeast of the intersection of
NC 50 and NC 53. All three subunits are located south of NC 50.
Subunits 6A and 6B are located in
[[Page 11108]]
remnant Pine Savanna ecotones southeast of SR 1532, and Subunit 6C is
located along a power line right-of-way adjacent to Williams Road.
(ii) Subunit 6A. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 731077, 98383; 731055, 98378; 731023, 98410; 731008,
98465; 731036, 98516; 731078, 98542; 731132, 98546; 731132, 98531;
731117, 98465; 731114, 98417; 731112, 98391; 731077, 98383.
(iii) Subunit 6B. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 731177, 97874; 731139, 97824; 731093, 97810; 731042,
97830; 731047, 97843; 731094, 97828; 731130, 97839; 731168, 97888;
731198, 97895; 731200, 97879; 731177, 97874.
(iv) Subunit 6C. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 731691, 98462; 731678, 98456; 731668, 98491; 731680,
98496; 731691, 98462.
(v) Map of Unit 6 (The Neck Savanna) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.006
(12) Unit 7, subunits A, B, and C, for Carex lutea: Shaken Creek
Savanna, Pender County, NC.
(i) Unit 7, subunits A, B, and C, for Carex lutea comprises 57.7 ac
(23.4 ha) of Pine Savanna habitat. Unit 7 is located approximately 8.6
mi (13.8 km) southeast of the intersection of NC 50 and NC 53. All
three subunits are
[[Page 11109]]
located west of NC 50. Subunit 7A is immediately south side of Flo Road
and east of Alligator Lake Road. Subunit 7B is immediately south of Flo
Road and west of Alligator Lake Road. Subunit 7C is immediately south
of Flo Road and approximately 1,800 feet (549 meters) west of Alligator
Lake Road.
(ii) Subunit 7A. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 734066, 92945; 734015, 92941; 733993, 92959; 733995,
92973; 733987, 92987; 733976, 93018; 733972, 93074; 733967, 93130;
733970, 93156; 733983, 93185; 734006, 93222; 734060, 93204; 734057,
93140; 734080, 93088; 734114, 93044; 734096, 92963; 734066, 92945.
(iii) Subunit 7B. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 733868, 92812; 733817, 92804; 733727, 92937; 733704,
93040; 733648, 93073; 733640, 93213; 733823, 93232; 733964, 93244;
733997, 93225; 733955, 93155; 733966, 93022; 733985, 92968; 733959,
92949; 733926, 92936; 733886, 92909; 733862, 92857; 733868, 92812.
(iv) Subunit 7C. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 733556, 93081; 733560, 92976; 733522, 92933; 733449,
92943; 733393, 92985; 733351, 93010; 733327, 93048; 733280, 93055;
733217, 93035; 733165, 92990; 733106, 92968; 733059, 92992; 733030,
93034; 732976, 93056; 732902, 93101; 732883, 93132; 733202, 93163;
733318, 93178; 733549, 93206; 733556, 93081.
(v) Map of Unit 7 (Shaken Creek Savanna) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.007
[[Page 11110]]
(13) Unit 8, subunits A, B, and C, for Carex lutea: McLean Savanna,
Pender County, NC.
(i) Unit 8, subunits A, B, and C, for Carex lutea comprises 52.6 ac
(21.3 ha) of Pine Savanna and ecotone habitat. Unit 8 is located
approximately 16.4 mi (26.4 km) south of the intersection of NC 50 and
NC 53 and approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) east of NC 210.
(ii) Subunit 8A. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 722520, 77995; 722417, 77935; 722283, 78037; 722146,
78244; 722013, 78436; 722019, 78444; 722433, 78542; 722540, 78390;
722492, 78276; 722398, 78205; 722520, 77995.
(iii) Subunit 8B. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 722780, 77840; 722846, 77820; 722907, 77802; 722903,
77787; 722842, 77806; 722774, 77825; 722780, 77840; 722780, 77840;
722779, 77841; 722780, 77840; 722780, 77840.
(iv) Subunit 8C. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 18, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 723268, 78269; 723209, 78309; 723166, 78305; 723179,
78361; 723313, 78465; 723446, 78537; 723408, 78370; 723395, 78307;
723335, 78264; 723268, 78269.
(v) Map of Unit 8 (McLean Savanna) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01MR11.008
[[Page 11111]]
* * * * *
Dated: February 10, 2011.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-4036 Filed 2-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C