[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54635-54667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21380]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ55
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Georgia Rockcress
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical
habitat for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, we are designating
approximately 297 hectares (732 acres) of riparian, river bluff habitat
in Georgia, including parts of Gordon, Floyd, Harris, Muscogee, and
Clay Counties, and in Alabama, including parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore,
Monroe, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties, as critical habitat for this
species.
DATES: This rule is effective October 14, 2014.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/athens/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we used
in preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and
documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are available by
appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office, 105 Westpark Dr., Suite D,
Athens, GA 30606; telephone 706-613-9493; facsimile 706-613-6059.
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record
for this rulemaking and are available at http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030, at http://www.fws.gov/athens/, and at
the Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia, (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we may develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the
Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and
may also be included in the preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 54636]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 105 Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA 30606;
telephone 706-613-9493; facsimile 706-613-6059. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will refer to Arabis georgiana by its
common name, Georgia rockcress, in this final rule.
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, when we determine
that any species is an endangered or threatened species, we must
designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule in the Federal Register.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate 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.
In total, we are designating 17 critical habitat units with
approximately 297 hectares (732 acres) of riparian, river bluff habitat
for the species. Five critical habitat units are located in Georgia,
including parts of Gordon, Floyd, Harris, Muscogee, and Clay Counties,
and 12 critical habitat units in Alabama, including parts of Bibb,
Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, if we intend to list a
species as endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in
the Federal Register to list the species as endangered or threatened
and make a determination on our proposal within 1 year. We are required
under the Act to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an
endangered or threatened species under the Act concurrently with
listing.
Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we publish a final rule listing
the species as a threatened species under the Act.
We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts
of the critical habitat designation and related factors. We announced
the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal
Register on May 9, 2014 (79 FR 26679), allowing the public to provide
comments on our analysis. We address the comments in this final
designation.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. Specifically, we obtained opinions from three
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
technical assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we used the best
available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred with
our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information
we received from peer review is incorporated into this final
designation. We also considered all comments and information received
from the public during the comment period, and we held a public hearing
on May 28, 2014.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Georgia rockcress
(78 FR 56192, September 12, 2013) for a detailed description of
previous Federal actions concerning this species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress during two
comment periods. The first comment period opened with the publication
of the proposed rule (78 FR 56506) on September 12, 2013, and closed on
November 12, 2013. The second comment period, during which we requested
(79 FR 26679) comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and
associated draft economic analysis (DEA), opened May 9, 2014, and
closed on June 9, 2014. We received no comments during a public hearing
in Columbus, Georgia, on May 28, 2014. We also contacted appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and
DEA.
During the first comment period, we received one comment letter
from the public addressing the proposed critical habitat designation.
During the second comment period, we received one comment letter from
the public addressing the proposed critical habitat designation.
Comments received from the public stated opinions that were not focused
on the issue. No substantive comments were received on this rule from
the public in either of the comment periods. We also received a letter
of support from the State of Georgia.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from all three
of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the Georgia rockcress. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions. They provided only editorial comments, which
are incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In August 2014, Fort Benning, in which proposed critical habitat
units 14A and 14B are located, completed a revision to its integrated
natural resources management plan (INRMP), which includes specific
measures for the Georgia rockcress and its habitat. We determine that
the revised INRMP provides a benefit to the species. Pursuant to
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), lands covered by
the revised INRMP are exempt from the final designation. We have
exempted Units 14A Fort Benning (GA) and 14B Fort Benning (AL) from
this final designation of critical habitat.
Additionally, we have made corrections to acreages and unit numbers
in the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, we listed Unit 7A as having
12 hectares (ha) (29 acres (ac)) and Unit 9B as having 13 ha (21 ac),
and the total area of designated critical habitat was 323 ha (786 ac).
The corrected numbers are 11 ha (26 ac) for Unit 7A and 13 ha (32 ac)
for Unit 9B; with the exemption of Units 14A and 14B (25 ha (61 ac)),
the total area of critical habitat is 297 ha (732 ac). Furthermore, due
to the exemption of the Fort Benning units from the critical habitat
designation, the remaining units have been renumbered in the final rule
as Units 1 through 17 by shifting some of them up one number (i.e., 15A
became 14A, 15B became 14B, and so forth). The revised unit numbers and
their descriptions can be found in the Final Critical Habitat
Designation section later in this rule.
[[Page 54637]]
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation 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 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.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those
specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. 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.
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, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
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
[[Page 54638]]
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical
or 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 derive the specific physical or biological features required for
Georgia rockcress from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and
life history, as described below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Georgia rockcress is known from the Lower Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper
Gulf Coastal Plain, Red Hills, Black Belt, Piedmont, and the Ridge and
Valley Physiographic Provinces (Schotz 2010, p. 6; Allison 1995, p. 6),
generally occurring within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by
sandstone, granite, and limestone (Moffett 2007, p. 1; Schotz 2010, p.
6). This species occurs on soils that are circumneutral to slightly
basic (or buffered) and is primarily associated with high bluffs along
major river courses, with dry-mesic to mesic soils of open, rocky,
woodland and forested slopes, including shallow soil accumulations on
rocky bluffs, ecotones of sloping rock outcrops, and sandy loam along
eroding riverbanks (Moffett 2007, p. 1; Schotz 2010, p. 6). The habitat
supports a relatively closed to open canopy of deciduous trees with a
rich diversity of grasses and forbs characterizing the herb layer
(Schotz 2010, p. iii). Therefore, we identify well-drained soils that
are buffered or circumneutral to be a physical or biological feature
for this species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Georgia rockcress generally occurs on steep river bluffs often with
shallow soils overlaying rock or with exposed rock outcroppings. These
specialized soil conditions result in micro-disturbances, such as
sloughing soils with limited accumulation of leaf litter or canopy gap
dynamics, possibly with wind-thrown trees, which provide small patches
of exposed mineral soil in a patchy distribution across the river bluff
(Schotz 2010, p. 6). Georgia rockcress is a poor competitor (Allison
1995, p. 8; Moffett 2007, p. 4; Schotz 2010 p. 9); therefore, small-
scale disturbances are critical for this species. Exposed mineral soil
provides for seed to soil contact for good germination and allows
Georgia rockcress to occupy habitat with limited competition for light,
mineral, and water resources. Therefore, we identify large river bluffs
with steep slopes and/or shallow soils that are subject to localized
disturbances to be a physical or biological feature for this species.
Cover, Shelter, and Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or
Development) of Offspring
Georgia rockcress generally occurs at sites with a substantial,
mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity, which provides for mixed
sunlight and shade throughout the day and impedes invasive species. The
habitat supports a relatively closed to open canopy of Juniperus
virginiana (eastern red cedar), Ostrya virginiana (American
hophornbeam), Quercus muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak), Fraxinus
americana (white ash), Acer barbatum (southern sugar maple), and Cercis
canadensis (eastern redbud) with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs
characterizing the herb layer (Schotz 2010, p. iii). Georgia rockcress
generally occurs on sites with a mature canopy providing partial
shading (Moffett 2007, p. 4). Although Georgia rockcress can survive
deep shade primarily as a vegetative rosette without flowering or
fruiting (Allison 1995, p. 7; Moffett 2007, p. 4; Schotz 2010, p. 10),
it cannot reproduce in heavily shaded conditions. It is often the
mature trees grown on shallow soils that are subject to wind throw.
Therefore, we identify a mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial
heterogeneity to be a physical or biological feature for this species.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
While Georgia rockcress needs small-scale disturbances to exploit,
the species is a poor competitor and is easily outcompeted by
aggressive competitors. Natural large-scale disturbances, such as fire
and catastrophic flooding, are unlikely to occur on the steep river
bluffs occupied by Georgia rockcress. Edge effects may penetrate as far
as 175 meters (m) (574 feet (ft)), resulting in changes in community
composition (Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 21). Aspect is an important
factor in determining how forest microclimate and vegetation are
influenced by the external environment (Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 30)
and likely plays an important role on bluff habitat inhabited by
Georgia rockcress. Edge effects are reduced by a protective vegetative
border with buffers eliminating most microhabitat edge effects (Honu
and Gibson 2006, p. 255; Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 32). Management
strategies for the control of invasive plants should encourage canopy
closure of greater than 85 percent for forested stands (Honu and Gibson
2006, p. 255). Therefore, we identify the intact habitat that is
buffered to impede the invasion of nonnatives to be a physical or
biological feature for this species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Georgia rockcress
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Georgia rockcress in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements.
Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the
physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
The critical habitat is designed to provide sufficient habitat to
maintain self-sustaining populations of Georgia rockcress. We believe
the conservation of Georgia rockcress is dependent upon the protection
and management of sites where existing populations grow, and the
maintenance of normal ecological functions within these sites. Based on
our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and
habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history
processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific
to Georgia rockcress are:
(1) Large river bluffs with steep and/or shallow soils that are
subject to localized disturbances that limit the accumulation of leaf
litter and competition within the Lower Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper Gulf
Coastal Plain, Red Hills, Black Belt, Piedmont, and Ridge and Valley
Physiographic Provinces of Georgia and Alabama.
(2) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral generally
within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by granite, sandstone,
or limestone.
[[Page 54639]]
(3) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity,
providing mottled shade and often including species such as eastern red
cedar, America hophornbeam, chinquapin oak, white ash, southern sugar
maple, and redbud with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs
characterizing the herb layer.
(4) Intact habitat that is fully functional (i.e., with mature
canopy and discrete disturbances) and buffered by surrounding habitat
to impede the invasion of competitors.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. A fully functioning bluff habitat (i.e., with mature canopy
and discrete disturbances) is required to provide the features
essential to the conservation of this species and may require special
management considerations or protection to reduce the following
threats: Land-clearing activities that alter the canopy, including
silvicultural management, building of utility lines, structures, roads,
or bridges; construction of reservoirs that inundate habitat; mining
activities; or introduction of invasive species that compete directly
with Georgia rockcress. Large-scale disturbances, such as fire or soil-
disturbing activities, should be minimized. A mature canopy with
spatial heterogeneity should be maintained to impede invasive species
while providing an opportunity for localized disturbances as canopy-gap
dynamics develop. Invasive species should be eliminated from the
critical habitat units. A mature canopy on the bluffs and a surrounding
buffer area will help to exclude nonnatives.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If
after identifying currently occupied areas, a determination is made
that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species,
in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(e) we then consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied--are essential for the conservation of
the species.
For the Georgia rockcress, we are not designating any areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the species because occupied areas
are sufficient for the conservation of the species. The 17 critical
habitat units capture populations across the known range of the
species, providing conservation in six different physiographic
provinces in three different river drainages. This effectively protects
against the loss of one of the three genetic groups and provides for
the expansion of all known genetic groups in each physiographic
province.
In preparing this rule, we reviewed and summarized the current
information available on Georgia rockcress; the information used
includes known locations, our own site-specific species and habitat
information, Statewide Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages
(e.g., soils, geologic formations, and elevation contours), the Natural
Resources Conservation Service's soil surveys, recent biological
surveys and reports, peer-reviewed literature, and discussions and
recommendations from Georgia rockcress experts.
As discussed below, when determining critical habitat boundaries we
made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands
covered by water, buildings, pavement, and other structures because
such lands lack physical or biological features for Georgia rockcress.
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 final rule have been
excluded by text in the final rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, 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 or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this rule. We will make the coordinates
or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the
public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030,
on our Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/athens/, and at the field
office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above).
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 17 units as critical habitat for Georgia
rockcress. As described below, the critical habitat areas constitute
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. All of the designated areas are
occupied. Except as noted, all of the units contain all of the PCEs and
require special management consideration or protection to address the
threats (see discussion above) and to ensure their contribution to the
conservation of Georgia rockcress. Unit names were derived from reports
generated from previous survey efforts (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Moffett
2007, pp. 5-8; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8; Allison 1995, pp. 18-28), to
promote continuity with monitoring efforts. Goat Rock Dam (Unit 14 A/B)
provides the highest conservation value to the overall designation,
having the largest population outside of Ft. Benning. The other units
provide the representation and redundancy needed to support viability
of the species across six physiographic provinces and multiple river
basins.
Table 1--Final Critical Habitat Units for Georgia Rockcress
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Unit name County/State Ownership Hectares Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................... Fort Tombecbee...... Sumter/AL........... State.............. 6 14
2.................... Marshalls Bluff..... Monroe/AL........... Private............ 11 27
3.................... Prairie Bluff....... Wilcox/AL........... Private............ 13 32
[[Page 54640]]
4.................... Portland Landing Dallas/AL........... Private............ 12 31
River Slopes.
5.................... Durant Bend......... Dallas/AL........... Private............ 12 28
6.................... Murphys Bluff Bridge Bibb/AL............. Private............ 11 26
Cahaba River.
7A................... Creekside Glades.... Bibb/AL............. Private............ 11 26
7B................... Little Schulz Creek. Bibb/AL............. Private............ 12 28
8A................... Cottingham Creek Bibb/AL............. Private............ 22 55
Bluff.
8B................... Pratts Ferry........ Bibb/AL............. Private............ 11 28
9A................... Fern Glade.......... Bibb/AL............. Federal............ 14 34
9B................... Sixmile Creek....... Bibb/AL............. Private............ 13 31
10A.................. Browns Dam Glade Bibb/AL............. Private............ 14 35
North.
10B.................. Browns Dam Glade Bibb/AL............. Private............ 15 37
South.
11................... McGuire Ford Bibb/AL............. Private............ 6 15
Limestone
Park.
12................... Fort Toulouse State Elmore/AL........... State.............. 7 17
Park.
13................... Fort Gaines Bluff... Clay/GA............. Private............ 17 42
14A.................. Goat Rock North..... Harris/GA........... Private............ 7 19
14B.................. Goat Rock South..... Harris, Muscogee/GA. Private............ 24 59
15................... Blacks Bluff Floyd/GA............ Private............ 37 92
Preserve.
16................... Whitmore Bluff...... Floyd/GA............ Private............ 17 43
17................... Resaca Bluffs....... Gordon/GA........... Private............ 5 13
-------------------------
Total............ .................... .................... ................... 297 732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress, below.
Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions
We are designating a total of 17 critical habitat units for Georgia
rockcress located in Georgia, including parts of Clay, Floyd, Gordon,
Harris, and Muscogee Counties, and in Alabama, including parts of Bibb,
Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Wilcox, and Sumter Counties. In order to
provide definite legal descriptions of the critical habitat boundaries,
we drew polygons around these units, using as criteria the plant's
primary constituent elements, the known extent of the populations, and
the elevation contours on the map. We made an effort to avoid developed
areas that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of Georgia
rockcress. However, some areas within the boundaries of the mapped
units, such as buildings, roads, clearings, lawns, and other urban
landscaped areas, do not contain one or more of the primary constituent
elements. Accordingly, Federal actions limited to these areas would not
trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act, unless they otherwise
affect the species or its primary constituent elements in the critical
habitat.
Unit 1. Fort Tombecbee, Sumter County, Alabama
The 6-ha (14-ac) Fort Tombecbee unit is approximately 0.5
kilometers (km) (0.3 miles (mi)) northeast of the city of Epes,
Alabama, and is owned by the University of West Alabama. This Georgia
rockcress occurrence inhabits the crest and steep slopes of a deeply
incised stream bank overlooking a small intermittent creek
approximately 91 m (300 ft) upstream from its confluence with the
Tombigbee River. Livestock grazing was observed during a visit made in
May 2010, in a portion of the site where the species was previously
observed; it is conceivable that livestock may have further impacted
the occurrence. Only four plants were found in 2010 (Schotz 2010, p.
51). The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats associated with road
crossings, development and potentially grazing.
Unit 2. Marshalls Bluff, Monroe County, Alabama
The 11-ha (27-ac) Marshall Bluff unit is a privately owned tract
9.6 km (6 mi) southwest of Perdue Hill, Alabama, on the eastern bank of
the Alabama River on a high bluff (Marshalls Bluff) overlooking the
Alabama River. An abandoned quarry exists approximately 150 m (500 ft)
distant to the east, and while the quarry may have destroyed bluff
habitat, the quarry currently poses no threat to the occurrence, and
there are no plans to expand the quarry (Schotz 2010, p. 22). More than
400 plants were found in 2010. The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats
associated with mining.
Unit 3. Prairie Bluff, Wilcox County, Alabama
Privately owned, the 13-ha (32-ac) Prairie Bluff unit is located
along the banks of the Millers Ferry (William ``Bill'' Dannelly)
Reservoir, approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) north of the Lee Long Bridge on
State Route 28. Georgia rockcress is scattered along the bluffs and
ravines associated with the Alabama River. Nonnative species, most
notably Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) and Lonicera japonica
(Japanese honeysuckle), threaten this site (Allison 1999, p. 2; Schotz
2010, pp. 54-55). More than 500 plants were found in this unit in 2010;
however, some habitat was likely inundated by the reservoir. This site
is slated for residential development with lakeside lots, and the
infestation of nonnatives will likely become worse. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this unit may require special management considerations or protection
to address threats associated with roads, development, hydropower, and
nonnative species.
Unit 4. Portland Landing River Slopes, Dallas County, Alabama
Privately owned, the 12-ha (31-ac) Portland Landing River Slopes
unit is located 18 km (11.5 mi) south of Orrville, Alabama, on the
south side of the Alabama River at Portland Landing. This occurrence of
Georgia rockcress is restricted to the unstable, highly
[[Page 54641]]
erodible, sandy soils along the bank of the Alabama River. Nonnatives,
most notably Melia azedarach (Chinaberry or bead-tree), Japanese
honeysuckle, and Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu), are present, and
although not severe, these nonnatives will persist without active
management (Schotz 2010, p. 40). In 2010, 498 Georgia rockcress plants
were recorded (Schotz 2010, p. 40). The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats
associated with timber harvest, hydropower, and nonnative species.
Unit 5. Durant Bend, Dallas County, Alabama
Privately owned, the 12-ha (28-ac) Durant Bend unit occurs 16 km
(10 mi.) east of Selma in a sharp bend on the Alabama River. Fewer than
50 plants were reported in sandy alluvium along the Alabama River under
a partially open to filtered canopy in 2010 (Schotz 2010, p. 37). While
the majority of plants occur in forested conditions, a small number of
plants were observed in relatively open and exposed soils of actively
eroding sections of the riverbank. Nonnatives, including Chinese privet
and Japanese honeysuckle, are present but not severe. Timber harvesting
has recently taken place approximately 46 m (150 ft) north of the site,
but it currently has not impacted species' viability or habitat
integrity (Schotz 2010, p. 37). The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats
associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.
Unit 6. Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba River, Bibb County, Alabama
Privately owned, the 11-ha (26-ac) Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba
River unit is 11.4 km (7 mi) southwest of Centreville, Alabama, and
located along the west bank of the Cahaba River downstream (southwest)
of the Murphy Road Bridge. Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and
other nonnatives are present, but are relatively sparse. Infestation of
nonnative plants could worsen. Timber harvesting has been observed
nearby and may pose a potential concern (Schotz 2010, p. 22). Sixteen
Georgia rockcress plants were found at this location during the 2010
survey. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats associated with road
crossings and nonnative species.
Unit 7A. Creekside Glades, Bibb County, Alabama
Privately owned, the 11-ha (26-ac) Creekside Glades subunit is
located 9.6 km (6 mi) north-northeast of Centreville, Alabama, along
the banks of Little Schultz Creek. Georgia rockcress occurs in
association with a small dolomite glades complex on either side of
Little Schultz Creek. The plants (mostly rosettes, i.e., non-
reproductive) predominantly occur in the ecotone of the glades and the
encompassing woodland, in association with a mix of shrubs and low-
growing trees. A smaller number of individuals (mostly mature) can be
found in the glades and surrounding woodlands (Allison 1999, p. 2;
Schotz 2010, p. 30). This subunit contained 42 plants in 2010. A
utility line right-of-way passes through this subunit, and while there
is no canopy on the right-of-way, it provides essential supporting
habitat such that the right-of-way has not been excluded from critical
habitat. The physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats associated
with development and utility right-of-way maintenance.
Unit 7B. Little Schulz Creek, Bibb County, Alabama
Privately owned, the 12-ha (28-ac) Little Schulz Creek subunit is
located 8.9 km (5.5 mi) north-northeast of Centreville, Alabama. In
2010, 29 plants occurred on limestone outcrops along the west bank of
the Cahaba River. The site is characterized as a bouldery limestone
woodland situated along a low bluff overlooking the Cahaba River.
Georgia rockcress inhabits shallow soils associated with the bluff,
occurring under an open to lightly shaded canopy (Schotz 2010, p. 32).
This subunit consisted of 29 plants in 2010. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats associated with development and utility right-of-way
maintenance.
Unit 8A. Cottingham Creek Bluff and Unit 8B. Pratts Ferry, Bibb County,
Alabama
Privately owned, the Cottingham Creek Bluff subunit is located on
the east side of the Cahaba River, upstream of Pratts Ferry Bridge, 10
km (6.2 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. The Pratts Ferry subunit
is located on the west side of the Cahaba River, downstream of Pratts
Ferry Bridge, 10 km (6.2 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. A small
portion (26 percent (5.88 ha (14.5 ac)) of the Cottingham Creek Bluff
subunit is owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). A small number of
plants are confined to an abandoned limestone quarry several hundred
feet back from the southeastern side of the river's edge. Chinese
privet and Japanese honeysuckle impact this site, particularly in the
vicinity of the abandoned quarry. Nonnatives could become worse. Timber
harvesting is of potential concern in an area adjacent to the
population on the west side of the Cahaba River, which was selectively
logged in the 1990s (Allison 1999, p. 3; Schotz 2010, pp. 34-35).
Subunit 8A is 22 ha (55 ac), and subunit 8B is 11 ha (28 ac). In 2010,
these two subunits together contained 299 Georgia rockcress plants. The
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species in these subunits may require special management considerations
or protection to address threats associated with road crossings, timber
harvest, and nonnative species.
Unit 9A. Fern Glade, Bibb County Alabama
The 14-ha (34-ac) Fern Glade subunit is centered near the
confluence of the Little Cahaba River and Sixmile Creek approximately
14.2 km (8.9 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. Twelve percent of
the Fern Glade subunit (4.2 ha (1.7 ac)) is owned by TNC, and 79
percent (10.9 ha (27 ac)) of this subunit is part of the Cahaba
National Wildlife Refuge. A moderate incursion of invasive Chinese
privet and Japanese honeysuckle occurs at this site. Nonnatives will
likely become worse (Allison 1999, p. 3; Schotz 2010, p. 26). A small
glade on the north side of the Little Cahaba River had 81 Georgia
rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats associated
with timber harvest and nonnative species.
Unit 9B. Sixmile Creek, Bibb County, Alabama
Privately owned, the Sixmile Creek subunit is located 13.7 km (8.5
mi) northeast of Centreville, 0.8 km (0.5 mi) upstream on Sixmile Creek
from its confluence with the Little Cahaba River. The majority of this
subunit (96.6 percent or 8.2 ha (20.3 ac)) was acquired by TNC in 2013.
This population of
[[Page 54642]]
Georgia rockcress is on the west side of Sixmile Creek. In a relatively
isolated site, Georgia rockcress occupies the upper slope and summit of
a steep forested bluff overlooking Sixmile Creek. This 13-ha (31-ac)
subunit had 59 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats associated with timber harvest and
nonnative species.
Unit 10A. Browns Dam Glade North and Unit 10B. Browns Dam Glade South,
Bibb County, Alabama
Privately owned, the Browns Dam Glade subunits are located 15.8 km
(9.8 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama, on both sides of the Little
Cahaba River. Subunit 10A is on the north side of the river, and
subunit 10B is in a sharp bend on the south side of the River. More
than 96 percent of subunit 10A (13.7 ha (33.8 ac)) and all of subunit
10B are owned by TNC. A combination of open woodland and dolomitic
glades characterize the site. An infestation of nonnatives, most
notably Chinese privet, occurs at this unit. This site serves as a
primitive recreation area for local residents, resulting in some trash
disposal and the construction of fire pits (Allison 1999, p. 5; Schotz
2010, pp. 24-25). Subunits 10A and 10B are 14 ha (35 ac) and 15 ha (37
ac), respectively. A complex of dolomitic glades and associated
woodlands along both sides of the Little Cahaba River contained 71
Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in these subunits may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats associated with nonnative species.
Unit 11. McGuire Ford/Limestone Park, Bibb County, Alabama
Privately owned, the McGuire Ford/Limestone Park unit is located
18.7 km (11.6 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama, on the southeast
side of the Little Cahaba River. A small number of plants occupy
shallow soils of low, rocky limestone outcrops along the Little Cahaba
River under a lightly shaded canopy of eastern red cedar, chinquapin
oak, white ash, Southern sugar maple, and redbud, among others (Allison
1999, p. 5; Schotz 2010, p. 20). This 6-ha (15-ac) unit contained 50
Georgia rockcress plants during the 2010 survey. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this unit may require special management considerations or protection
to address threats associated with roads, development, and maintenance
of a pasture.
Unit 12. Fort Toulouse State Park, Elmore County, Alabama
State-owned, the Fort Toulouse State Park unit is located 16 km (10
mi) north of Montgomery, Alabama, on the south side of the Coosa River.
Georgia rockcress is widely scattered along the bluffs overlooking the
Coosa River, primarily occupying mesic, sandy soils of upper slopes and
crest. Japanese honeysuckle is beginning to severely impact many areas
of the site (Allison 1999, p. 2; Schotz 2010, p. 42). This 7-ha (17-ac)
unit contained 47 Georgia rockcress plants during the 2010 survey. The
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats associated with maintenance of a
recreational field and nonnative species.
Unit 13. Fort Gaines Bluff, Clay County, Georgia
Privately owned, the Fort Gaines Bluff unit is located 1.5 km (0.9
mi) south of Fort Gaines, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River. This
high, steep, eroding river bank has sandy loam soils and an intact
hardwood overstory. Japanese honeysuckle has become severe over much of
area (Allison 1995, pp. 18-29; Moffett 2007, p. 9). This 17-ha (43-ac)
unit contained 84 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this unit may require special management considerations or protection
to address threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative
species.
Unit 14A. Goat Rock North and Unit 14B. Goat Rock South, Harris and
Muscogee Counties, Georgia
Privately owned, the Goat Rock Dam is 18.5 km (11.5 mi) north of
Columbus Georgia. The Goat Rock North subunit is immediately north of
Goat Rock Dam on the banks of Goat Rock impoundment, while the Goat
Rock South subunit is immediately downstream of Goat Rock Dam along the
high bluffs overlooking the Chattahoochee River. All of Goat Rock North
subunit and the majority of the Goat Rock South subunit are owned by a
corporation that supports conservation efforts for Georgia rockcress.
The corporately owned property is provided modest protection in the
shoreline management plan, which was developed during Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing (FERC 2004, pp. 29-30). However,
the southernmost portion of the Goat Rock South subunit is privately
owned. This high rocky bluff is mostly covered by a mature canopy of
trees. A narrow portion of this habitat has a transmission line passing
over the top where all woody species have been removed; however,
Georgia rockcress plants are scattered in the transmission line right-
of-way. This area contains PCEs 1 and 2; therefore, it is included in
the final designation. Nonnative species, including Chinese privet and
Japanese honeysuckle, have severely impacted this site (Allison 1995,
pp. 24-27; Moffett 2007, pp. 6-9). Conservation actions here have
included invasive species/woody competition removal (both manually and
chemically) to benefit existing Georgia rockcress plants, and
prescribed burning to open up new adjacent sites for outplanting
enhancement. The Chattahoochee Nature Center (CNC) outplanted
approximately 300 Georgia rockcress plants of the Goat Rock genotype at
this site in 2008. The local office of TNC has also expressed interest
in possibly including this site in their long-range ecosystem planning
(Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). Subunits 14A and 14B are 7 ha (19 ac) and 24 ha
(59 ac), respectively, and contain two or more of the PCEs throughout
the subunits. In 2007, approximately 1,000 Georgia rockcress plants
were found scattered across these subunits. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species in these subunits
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats associated with hydropower, utility line maintenance, and
nonnative species.
Unit 15. Blacks Bluff Preserve, Floyd County, Georgia
Privately owned, the 37-ha (92-ac) Blacks Bluff Preserve unit is
located 6.5 km (4.0 mi) southwest of Rome, Georgia, on the Coosa River.
Blacks Bluff is in private ownership with a conservation easement on
the property. There were 27 Georgia rockcress plants reported on this
site in 1995; however, the presence of nonnative species has since
extirpated all Georgia rockcress from this site. The Georgia Plant
Conservation Alliance (GPCA) and TNC agreed to bolster the existing
population with plants grown from seed collected at the two nearby
(Ridge and Valley physiographic province) populations, Whitmore Bluff,
and Resaca Bluffs. The CNC collected seed and grew 35 plants from
Whitmore Bluff and 65 plants from Resaca Bluffs. In 2008, 100 Georgia
rockcress plants were planted in this unit, with 84 Georgia rockcress
[[Page 54643]]
surveyed on this site in 2011 (Goldstrohm 2011, p. 1). This steep bluff
with limestone ledges and boulders has a mature deciduous canopy.
Multiple sources of disturbance, including an abandoned quarry, have
impacted this site and resulted in the establishment of many nonnative
species, including Japanese honeysuckle and Nepalese browntop (Allison
1995, pp. 19-20; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9; Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). The
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats associated with roads, mining, and
nonnative species.
Unit 16. Whitmore Bluff, Floyd County, Georgia
Privately owned, the Whitmore Bluff unit is located 6.5 km (4 mi)
northeast of Rome, Georgia, on the east bank of the Oostanaula River.
This steep bluff with limestone boulders has a mature canopy with Ulmus
alata (winged elm), Quercus montana (chestnut oak), and Fraxinus
americana (white ash), and an understory including Hydrangea
arborescens (wild hydrangea), Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy), and
Sedum ternatum (woodland stonecrop). Japanese honeysuckle has severely
impacted this site (Allison 1995, p. 21; Moffett 2007, pp. 6-9; Elmore
2010, pp. 1-3). This 17-ha (43-ac) unit contained 63 Georgia rockcress
plants in 1995, but only 12 in 2010. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.
Unit 17. Resaca Bluffs, Gordon County, Georgia
Privately owned, the Resaca Bluffs unit is located 0.8 km (0.5 mi)
southwest of Resaca, Georgia, immediately east of I-75 along the
northern bank of the Oostanaula River. This unit includes a rocky
limestone bluff with a mature canopy, including eastern red cedar,
Quercus nigra (water oak), Quercus velutina (black oak), winged elm,
white ash, southern sugar maple, and redbud. Nonnative species,
including Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle, have severely
impacted this site (Allison 1995, pp. 22-23; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9;
Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). This 5-ha (13-ac) unit contained 51 plants in
1995, and 42 in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species in this unit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats associated
with road crossings, development, and nonnative species.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory 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 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 continue
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
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. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally-funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 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 or are
likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes 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.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether,
[[Page 54644]]
with implementation of the proposed 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 or biological
features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value
of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. As discussed above, the role
of critical habitat 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 the Georgia rockcress. These activities include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the canopy. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, silvicultural
management, construction of utility lines, creation of pasture or
maintained lawn, construction of buildings, and construction of roads
or bridges. Invasive species should be precluded from the critical
habitat units. A mature canopy on the bluffs and a surrounding buffer
area will help to preclude nonnative and invasive species. Activities
that alter the canopy could alter the natural canopy gap dynamic that
provides Georgia rockcress a competitive advantage and result in direct
or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life
cycles.
(2) Actions that would inundate habitat. Construction of a dam
downstream of a critical habitat unit could result in the loss of
habitat. These activities could alter the functioning bluff habitat and
result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and
their life cycles.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter the soil. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, construction of roads
or bridges, construction of buildings (e.g., dams, residential housing,
or commercial buildings), and mining activities. These activities would
permanently alter the soil that Georgia rockcress is dependent on to
complete its life cycle.
Exemptions
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
requires each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic 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.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for Georgia rockcress to
determine if the lands are exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
In 2001, Fort Benning completed its Service-approved INRMP. The
installation has revised its INRMP to include specific measures for the
Georgia rockcress and its habitat, including monitoring and management
for the Georgia rockcress including: Management of feral swine,
limiting timber harvest within 200 feet of Georgia rockcress
populations, monitoring of known Georgia rockcress populations and
surveys for new populations, and monitoring and control of invasive
species. The revised INRMP became effective August 2014. In accordance
with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the
lands within Fort Benning that were originally proposed for critical
habitat are subject to the Fort Benning INRMP and that conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Georgia
rockcress. Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from
critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are
not including approximately 25 ha (61 ac) of habitat in this final
critical habitat designation because of this exemption. As described in
the proposed critical habitat rule, these lands are located in
Chattahoochee County, Georgia, and Russell County, Alabama, south of
Columbus, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River near its confluence with
Oswichee Creek and across from its confluence with Red Mill Creek.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making 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.
Consideration of 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 an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which together with our
narrative and interpretation of effects we consider our draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013; Industrial Economics,
Inc. 2014). The analysis, dated April 8, 2014, was made available for
public review from May 29,
[[Page 54645]]
2014, through June 9, 2014, and a summary of the findings were provided
on http://www.regulations.gov from May 9, 2014, to June 9, 2014 (79 FR
26679). The DEA addressed potential economic impacts of critical
habitat designation for Georgia rockcress. Following the close of the
comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted
during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the
probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat
designation. Additional information relevant to the probable
incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the
Georgia rockcress is summarized below and available in the screening
analysis for the Georgia rockcress, available at http://www.regulations.gov.
In our DEA, we concluded that section 7-related costs of
designating critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress are likely to be
limited to additional administrative effort to consider possible
adverse effects to critical habitat during consultation. This finding
is based on several factors, including:
1. Project modifications requested to avoid adverse modification
are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid jeopardy in occupied
habitat; and
2. All units are considered occupied by the plant, providing
significant baseline protection.
The number of future consultations is expected to be at most five
in a given year. Unit costs of the administrative effort necessary to
address adverse modification of critical habitat during section 7
consultation is estimated to range from approximately $400 to $9,000
(2014 dollars, total incremental costs for all parties participating in
a single consultation). Thus, the annual administrative burden due
solely to the critical habitat designation is unlikely to reach $100
million. Given the estimates in the screening analysis for the Georgia
rockcress, predictions are that costs are unlikely to exceed $45,000 in
a given year (2014 dollars). This is essentially the upper end of the
cost for section 7 consultations and is the cost attributable to just
the critical habitat.
In other words, the incremental administrative burden resulting
from the designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress is
unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on the small
number of anticipated consultations and per-consultation costs.
Furthermore, the designation is unlikely to trigger additional
requirements under State or local regulations.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from
this designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress based on
economic impacts.
A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting documents
may be obtained by contacting the Georgia Ecological Services Office
(see ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland 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 final rule, we have
exempted from the designation of critical habitat those Department of
Defense lands with completed INRMPs determined to provide a benefit to
the Georgia rockcress. We have also determined that the remaining lands
within the designation of critical habitat for the species are not
owned or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security
or homeland security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on
impacts on national security or homeland security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. 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 final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Georgia rockcress,
and the final designation does not include any tribal lands or trust
resources, and so we anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this critical habitat designation.
Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude
any areas from this final designation based on other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
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 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is
required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule
on small entities (i.e. small businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to
provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as
[[Page 54646]]
independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer
than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation, as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firms' business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We did not receive any substantive comments pertaining to our
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. Therefore, we affirm our certification
that this designation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 (E.O.
13211; ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing
this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute
``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the
regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that
none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on
information in the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts
associated with Georgia rockcress conservation activities within
critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical
habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
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 destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The government-owned lands being designated
as critical habitat are owned by the State of Alabama and the
Department of the Interior. None of these government entities meets the
definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical
[[Page 54647]]
habitat for Georgia rockcress in a takings implications assessment. The
economic cost of implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act
will most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to
consider adverse modification during consultations. According to a
review of consultation records and discussions with multiple Service
field offices, the additional administrative cost of addressing adverse
modification during the section 7 consultation process ranges from
approximately $400 to $9,000 per consultation (2014 dollars). Based on
the project activity identified by relevant action agencies, the number
of future consultations is likely to be less than five consultations
per year. Thus, the incremental administrative burden resulting from
the rule is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year, and given
the economic analysis we have determined that there are no additional
takings implications. The takings implications assessment concludes
that this designation of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress does
not pose significant takings implications.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary
impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Alabama and Georgia. We are
not designating any unoccupied areas. The designation of critical
habitat in areas currently occupied by the Georgia rockcress will
impose no additional restrictions to those that will be put in place by
listing the species and, therefore, will have little incremental impact
on State and local governments and their activities. The designation
may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it
may assist 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) 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
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this
rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. We
are designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the Georgia rockcress. The
designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the
rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
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 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act, 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), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), 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 determined that there are no tribal lands that are occupied by
Georgia rockcress at the time of listing that contain the features
essential for conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not
designating critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2013-0030 and upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services Office in Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rulemaking are the staff members
of the Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia.
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; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
[[Page 54648]]
0
2. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Arabis
georgiana (Georgia rockcress)'' in alphabetical order under Family
Brassicaceae, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Brassicaceae: Arabis georgiana (Georgia Rockcress)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted in Georgia, including Clay,
Gordon, Floyd, Harris, and Muscogee Counties, and in Alabama, including
Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties, on the maps
in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Arabis
georgiana (Georgia rockcress) consist of four components:
(i) Large river bluffs with steep and/or shallow soils that are
subject to localized disturbances that limit the accumulation of leaf
litter and competition within the Lower Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper Gulf
Coastal Plain, Red Hills, Black Belt, Piedmont, and Ridge and Valley
Physiographic Provinces of Georgia and Alabama.
(ii) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral
generally within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by granite,
sandstone, or limestone.
(iii) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity,
providing mottled shade and often including species such as Juniperus
virginiana (eastern red cedar), Ostrya virginiana (American
hophornbeam), Quercus muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak), Fraxinus
americana (white ash), Acer barbatum (southern sugar maple), and Cercis
canadensis (eastern redbud) with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs
characterizing the herb layer.
(iv) Intact habitat that is fully functional (i.e., with mature
canopy and discrete disturbances) and buffered by surrounding habitat
to impede the invasion of competitors.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
October 14, 2014.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining critical
habitat map units were created using GIS shapefiles of Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence (EO) data for Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
locations that were provided by the Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
and 1-meter resolution National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP)
images from 2009. Each EO feature was buffered by 76 meters (m) (250
feet (ft)) up and down slope and 304.8 m (1,000 ft) laterally. The 76-m
(250-ft) buffer was used as a guideline for delineating critical
habitat upslope and downslope of the EO feature, with the downslope
direction extending 76 m (250 ft) or to the edge of the water,
whichever was shorter. The 304.8-m (1,000-ft) buffer was used a
guideline for delineating critical habitat adjacent to the EO features
along the length of the river. The critical habitat polygons were
manually drawn using a mouse on a computer screen by visually checking
for PCEs within the buffer areas against 2009 NAIP imagery. The
critical habitat polygons were then viewed over the ArcGIS basemap Bing
Aerial Imagery as an additional assessment tool for the placement of
the critical habitat polygon boundaries. Critical habitat units were
mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), zone 16N. The maps in
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the
public at the Service's Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/athens/, at
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030, and at
the Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia. You may obtain field
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
[[Page 54649]]
(5) Index maps of critical habitat units for Arabis georgiana
(Georgia rockcress) follow:
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.008
[[Page 54650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.009
[[Page 54651]]
(6) Unit 1: Fort Tombecbee, Sumter County, Alabama. Map of Unit 1
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.010
[[Page 54652]]
(7) Unit 2: Marshalls Bluff, Monroe County, Alabama. Map of Unit 2
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.011
[[Page 54653]]
(8) Unit 3: Prairie Bluff, Wilcox County, Alabama. Map of Unit 3
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.012
[[Page 54654]]
(9) Unit 4: Portland Landing River Slopes, Dallas County, Alabama.
Map of Unit 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.013
[[Page 54655]]
(10) Unit 5: Durant Bend, Dallas County, Alabama. Map of Unit 5
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.014
[[Page 54656]]
(11) Unit 6: Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba River, Bibb County,
Alabama. Map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.015
[[Page 54657]]
(12) Unit 7: Bibb County, Alabama.
(i) Subunit 7A: Creekside Glades.
(ii) Subunit 7B: Little Schultz Creek.
(iii) Map of Subunits 7A and 7B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.016
[[Page 54658]]
(13) Unit 8: Bibb County, Alabama.
(i) Subunit 8A: Cottingham Creek Bluff.
(ii) Subunit 8B: Pratts Ferry.
(iii) Map of Subunits 8A and 8B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.017
[[Page 54659]]
(14) Unit 9: Bibb County, Alabama.
(i) Subunit 9A: Fern Glade.
(ii) Subunit 9B: Sixmile Creek.
(iii) Map of Subunits 9A and 9B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.018
[[Page 54660]]
(15) Unit 10: Bibb County, Alabama.
(i) Subunit 10A: Browns Dam Glade North.
(ii) Subunit 10B: Browns Dam Glade South.
(iii) Map of Subunits 10A and 10B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.019
[[Page 54661]]
(16) Unit 11: McGuire Ford/Limestone Park, Bibb County, Alabama.
Map of Unit 11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.020
[[Page 54662]]
(17) Unit 12: Fort Toulouse State Park, Elmore County, Alabama. Map
of Unit 12 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.021
[[Page 54663]]
(18) Unit 13: Fort Gaines Bluff, Clay County, Georgia. Map of Unit
13 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.022
[[Page 54664]]
(19) Unit 14: Harris and Muscogee Counties, Georgia.
(i) Subunit 14A: Goat Rock North.
(ii) Subunit 14B: Goat Rock South.
(iii) Map of Subunits 14A and 14B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.023
[[Page 54665]]
(20) Unit 15: Blacks Bluff Preserve, Floyd County, Georgia. Map of
Unit 15 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.024
[[Page 54666]]
(21) Unit 16: Whitmore Bluff, Floyd County, Georgia. Map of Unit 16
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.025
[[Page 54667]]
(22) Unit 17: Resaca Bluffs, Gordon County, Georgia. Map of Unit 17
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE14.026
* * * * *
Dated: September 2, 2014.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-21380 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C