[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86670-86712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24897]



[[Page 86669]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 210

October 30, 2024

Part III





 Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Ocmulgee Skullcap and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 86670]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BE01


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Ocmulgee Skullcap and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the 
Ocmulgee skullcap (Scutellaria ocmulgee), a plant species from Georgia 
and South Carolina as an endangered species under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We also designate critical 
habitat. In total, approximately 6,661 acres (2,696 hectares) in Bibb, 
Bleckley, Burke, Columbia, Houston, Monroe, Pulaski, Richmond, Screven, 
and Twiggs Counties, Georgia, and in Aiken and Edgefield Counties, 
South Carolina, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. This rule extends the protections of the Act to this 
species and its designated critical habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective November 29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received are available 
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2021-0059.
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used 
in preparing this rule, such as the species status assessment report, 
are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0059. For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or 
plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in 
the decision file for this critical habitat designation and are 
available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-
0059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Maholland, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Field 
Office, 355 East Hancock Avenue, Room 320, Athens, GA 30601; telephone 
706-613-9493. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, 
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list 
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the 
Ocmulgee skullcap meets the Act's definition of an endangered species; 
therefore, we are listing it as such and finalizing a designation of 
its critical habitat. Both listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species and designating critical habitat can be completed 
only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act 
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule lists the Ocmulgee skullcap as 
an endangered species and designates critical habitat for the species 
in 18 units totaling approximately 6,661 acres (ac) (2,696 hectares 
(ha)) within portions of 10 counties in Georgia and 2 counties in South 
Carolina.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap is 
an endangered species due to the following threats: habitat loss and 
fragmentation due to development and urbanization (Factor A); 
competition and encroachment from nonnative, invasive species (Factors 
A and E); and herbivory from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 
(Factor C).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary) to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species. 
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time 
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features 
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may 
require special management considerations or protections; and (ii) 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation 
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national 
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule (87 
FR 37378) for the Ocmulgee skullcap published on June 22, 2022, for a 
detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this 
species.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Ocmulgee skullcap. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, 
in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a 
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, 
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting 
the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific 
review of the information contained in the Ocmulgee skullcap SSA 
report. As discussed in the June 22, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37378), 
we sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and received 
one response. The peer review can be found at the docket on https://www.regulations.gov. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated 
the results of the review, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which 
was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary 
of the peer review comments and our responses can be found under 
Summary of Comments and Recommendations, below.

[[Page 86671]]

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This final rule incorporates changes from our June 22, 2022, 
proposed rule (87 FR 37378) based on the comments that we received and 
respond to in this document as discussed in the Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations. Based on the comments and new information received (as 
described below) and our further consideration of the threats to the 
species, we determined the current risk of extinction is higher (see 
Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap's Status, below) than we 
characterized in the proposal to list the Ocmulgee skullcap as a 
threatened species (87 FR 37378; June 22, 2022). We reassessed our 
analysis and found that habitat conditions in some areas, along with 
the low resiliency condition of most of the known Ocmulgee skullcap 
populations, places the species at a currently high risk of extinction 
throughout its range. Thus, after evaluating the best available 
information and the Act's regulations and policies, we determined that 
the Ocmulgee skullcap meets the definition of an endangered species, 
and such status is more appropriate than that of a threatened species 
as originally proposed. Because we determined that the Ocmulgee 
skullcap meets the definition of an endangered species, a 4(d) rule is 
inapplicable; consequently, we have removed that portion of the 
proposed rule issued under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act 
from this final rule.
    New information (i.e., updated surveys and habitat condition in 
areas considered extirpated or containing no suitable habitat, 
including updates regarding the Savannah River Bluffs Natural Heritage 
Preserve and Horse Creek sites) was submitted to us during the proposed 
rule's comment period. This new information and the comments we 
received during the comment period prompted us to reevaluate the best 
available information around the inclusion of sites previously 
considered extirpated in the SSA report, which is reflected in a new 
version of the SSA report (version 1.3) (Service 2023, pp. 21-22; 20-
28). Applying the methodology to designate critical habitat (see 
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat, below) to the new 
information, we determined that it is appropriate to add an occupied 
subunit to the critical habitat designation. The results of this 
updated analysis have been incorporated into this final rule and 
revises Unit 1 to add a new Subunit 1d, based on the area that we found 
to meet the definition of critical habitat, as described in this rule. 
The addition of Subunit 1d increases the total critical habitat 
designation by 84 ac (34 ha) from the proposed critical habitat 
designation. The full descriptions of the designated units and subunits 
follow in III. Critical Habitat, below.
    We changed the name of critical habitat Unit 9 from Robins Air 
Force Base to Adjoins Robins Air Force Base, to clarify the unit does 
not extend onto Robins Air Force Base but is immediately adjacent to 
the installation. In addition, we erroneously stated that Unit 9 
consisted of 455 ac (184 ha) and that it included 231 ac (93 ha) of 
privately owned land and 224 ac (91 ha) of Department of Defense owned 
lands, even though the Robins Air Force Base was exempted. We changed 
the unit description to accurately reflect the exemption of the Robins 
Air Force Base, leaving 231 ac (93 ha) of privately owned land in Unit 
9.
    In the Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we clarified the 
significance of silvicultural and agricultural land uses on Ocmulgee 
skullcap populations.
    Further, we have made minor editorial or stylistic changes and 
corrections to the June 22, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37378) in this 
final rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on June 22, 2022 (87 FR 37378), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by August 22, 2022. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts, organizations, and other interested 
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices 
inviting general public comment were published in the Aiken Standard, 
Augusta Chronicle, and Macon Telegraph newspapers on June 23, 2022. We 
did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive 
information we received during comment periods has either been 
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed 
below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from one 
peer reviewer on the draft SSA report. We reviewed the comments we 
received from the peer reviewer for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. Peer reviewer 
comments are addressed in the following summary. As discussed above, 
because we conducted this peer review prior to the publication of our 
proposed rule, we had already incorporated all applicable peer review 
comments into version 1.2 of the SSA report, which was the foundation 
for the proposed rule and this final rule.
    The peer reviewer generally concurred with our methods and 
conclusions and provided support for thorough and descriptive 
narratives of assessed issues, additional information, clarifications, 
and suggestions to improve the final SSA report (version 1.2, Service 
2020, entire). No substantive changes to our analysis and conclusions 
within the SSA report were deemed necessary, and the peer reviewer 
comments are addressed in versions 1.2 (Service 2020, entire) of the 
SSA report, which is available for public review at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059.
    (1) Comment: The peer reviewer suggested that the threat of land 
conversion to industrial silviculture or agriculture should be included 
in the future condition scenarios.
    Our response: Our SSA report identifies urbanization and deer 
herbivory as the primary threats to the species. Although industrial 
silviculture or agriculture land uses may occur near the species' 
occurrences, the species typically occurs on steep slopes and bluffs 
that are less suitable for conversion to silviculture and agriculture. 
Thus, silviculture and agriculture activities that do not implement 
State-approved best management practices (BMPs) to buffer slopes (i.e., 
Ocmulgee skullcap habitat) from erosion may impact populations. At 
least one occurrence, Boggy Gut Creek, has been affected by land use 
change associated with silviculture. The Boggy Gut Creek occurrence was 
last observed in 1999, but the entire site was clearcut in 2005, 
planted in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and subsequently cut in 2014 
and 2017. In the most recent rangewide survey, Ocmulgee skullcap was 
not observed on the site and is categorized as ``possibly extirpated'' 
(Bradley 2019, p. 30).
    At this time, the best available information is not sufficiently 
detailed to determine the level of BMP implementation in sites with 
Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences. However, implementation of State-
approved BMPs for forestry activities are reportedly high for 
streamside management zones (SMZs) across Georgia and South Carolina, 
91 and 99 percent, respectively (South Carolina Forestry Commission 
2020, p. 6; Georgia Forestry Commission 2021, p. 3). Further, given the 
steep slopes associated with most

[[Page 86672]]

Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences, if BMP implementation is high in these 
areas, forestry activities are less likely to impact the species. 
Finally, in our future scenarios analysis in the SSA report, we 
describe how populations that occur on protected lands would not only 
be protected from urbanization but would also be protected from direct 
impacts from silviculture and agriculture (Service 2023, pp. 38-41).

Public Comments

    (2) Comment: Several commenters stated their view that the Ocmulgee 
skullcap warrants listing as an endangered species rather than a 
threatened species. In support of this assertion, these commenters 
point to: (a) the current low or very low resiliency exhibited by 16 of 
19 delineated populations, (b) 11 of 19 populations occurring on lands 
not categorized as protected lands, and (c) the effects of climate 
change, in addition to the effects of other threats, on the species.
    Our response: We further considered our analysis and the impacts of 
individual and cumulative threats to the current condition of the 
Ocmulgee skullcap. After further consideration of current threats to 
the species, the low resiliency condition of most of the known Ocmulgee 
skullcap populations, and new information on habitat condition in some 
areas, we determined the current risk of extinction for the Ocmulgee 
skullcap is higher (see Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap's Status, 
below), than we characterized in the proposal to list the species as a 
threatened species. Therefore, we have determined the Ocmulgee skullcap 
is currently at risk of extinction as a result of the threats of 
habitat degradation and loss from development, competition and 
encroachment from nonnative and invasive (plant) species, and herbivory 
by white-tailed deer.
    However, the best available information does not indicate that the 
effects of climate change have negatively impacted or are currently 
negatively impacting the Ocmulgee skullcap's viability. In the future, 
projected changes due to climate change, including the frequency and 
severity of drought and changes in rainfall patterns, may negatively 
impact the species in the future as the effects of climate change 
increase or may exacerbate the effects of other threats.
    (3) Comment: One commenter suggested our determination that the 
threats are not concentrated in any portion of the Ocmulgee skullcap's 
range at a biologically meaningful scale is not appropriate. The 
commenter recommended we revise our significant portion of the range 
analysis to evaluate the 16 of 19 populations that the commenter notes 
are impacted by small population size and isolation, as well as the 
threats to 11 populations that do not occur on protected lands.
    Our response: Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a 
species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. As stated above under Our Response to (2) 
Comment, we have determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap meets the 
definition of an endangered species (see Determination of Ocmulgee 
Skullcap's Status, below), and we accordingly did not undertake or 
revise an analysis of any significant portions of its range.
    (4) Comment: One commenter recommended we include areas surrounding 
existing Ocmulgee skullcap populations in the critical habitat 
designation.
    Our response: For Ocmulgee skullcap populations to be sufficiently 
resilient, life-history requirements must be met, including areas of 
suitable habitat large enough to support pollinators needed for 
Ocmulgee skullcap reproduction. These areas of suitable habitat include 
habitat that acts to prevent or delay encroachment by nonnative, 
invasive species. To address this life-history requirement, we:
    (a) Address the species' requirement of intact hardwood forest to 
provide the appropriate canopy conditions in large enough areas to 
prevent or delay encroachment of nonnative, invasive species. We 
recognize the life-history requirement for habitat conditions to reduce 
encroachment and competition, and we include that habitat as a physical 
or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species (see 
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features, below) to impede 
the invasion of competitors.
    (b) Address the need for critical habitat areas to include habitat 
surrounding Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences that support the life-history 
requirements for pollinators. We delineated populations of Ocmulgee 
skullcap using a 2-kilometer (km) (1.24-mile (mi)) radius circle around 
species' occurrences, with overlapping areas determined to be within 
the same population based on the need for sufficient space and 
resources for required pollinators (NatureServe 2020, entire; Service 
2023, p. 21). The SSA report contains the best available information 
used to identify critical habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap, which 
includes existing monitoring data, population status surveys, and maps 
using the best available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers 
(Service 2023, pp. 21, 37-38, appendix A).
    (5) Comment: A commenter requested that we include areas with 
historical and current Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences, including the 
Horse Creek occurrence and 15 other sites (as described in Morris 
1999), in the final critical habitat designation.
    Our response: In our delineation of critical habitat for the 
Ocmulgee skullcap, we relied on the best available scientific and 
commercial information, including Morris (1999). We also incorporated 
occurrence data (1961 to present) obtained from peer-reviewed articles, 
unpublished survey reports, and survey records contained in agency and 
partner databases (i.e., Georgia and South Carolina Natural Heritage 
databases), including the most recent rangewide species survey (Bradley 
2019, entire; Service 2022, entire).
    Of the 16 sites described by the commenter, 13 are included in the 
final critical habitat designation (see table 1, below). As noted below 
in table 1, two occurrences described by the commenter were 
misidentified as Ocmulgee skullcap until 2018, when the sites were 
resurveyed and the occurrences correctly identified as the congeneric 
Mellichamp's skullcap (Scutellaria mellichampii) (Bradley 2019, pp. 42-
45; Service 2023, pp. 6-7; 87 FR 37378, June 22, 2022, p. 37380). In 
table 1, below, we list the 16 sites recommended for inclusion by the 
commenter, the county and State where the site is located, the 
corresponding site name in Bradley (2019), and the proposed and final 
critical habitat unit where the site occurs, or the correct 
identification of the species.
    Ocmulgee skullcap was last observed in 1961 on the remaining site, 
Horse Creek. In a recent survey, some Ocmulgee skullcap habitat 
characteristics were documented but no Ocmulgee skullcap were found in 
the area of the 1961 Horse Creek occurrence (Service 2022, entire). 
Given that Ocmulgee skullcap has not been observed in the Horse Creek 
area for more than 60 years and there is limited suitable habitat, it 
is unlikely this area would support the conservation of the species. 
Therefore, we did not include the Horse Creek occurrence in our 
delineation of critical habitat.

[[Page 86673]]



            Table 1--Sites Recommended for Inclusion in Critical Habitat Designation by the Commenter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Recent survey     Proposed critical    Final critical
              Site                   County, State        description        habitat unit        habitat unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augusta Lock and Dam............  Columbia County,    Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 1: Columbia/   Unit 1: Columbia/
                                   Georgia.            25-27; Site 4.      Richmond.           Richmond.
Augusta Canal...................  Richmond County,    Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 2: Barney      Unit 2: Barney
                                   Georgia.            25-27; Site 4.      Bluff.              Bluff.
Barney Bluff....................  Richmond County,    Bradley 2019, p.    Unit 2: Barney      Unit 2: Barney
                                   Georgia.            29; Site 6.         Bluff.              Bluff.
McBean Creek-Beazley Property...  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 3: Burke       Unit 3: Burke
                                   Georgia.            29-30; Site 7.      North.              North.
McBean Creek--Miller Property...  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 3: Burke       Unit 3: Burke
                                   Georgia.            29-30; Site 7.      North.              North.
Boggy Gut Creek.................  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 3: Burke       Unit 3: Burke
                                   Georgia.            30-31; Site 8.      North.              North.
Shell Bluff North...............  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 3: Burke       Unit 3: Burke
                                   Georgia.            31-32; Site 9.      North.              North.
Shell Bluff South...............  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 3: Burke       Unit 3: Burke
                                   Georgia.            31-32; Site 9.      North.              North.
Blue Buff.......................  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 4: Burke       Unit 4: Burke
                                   Georgia.            33-35; Site 11.     South.              South.
Hancock Landing North...........  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 4: Burke       Unit 4: Burke
                                   Georgia.            32-33; Site 10.     South.              South.
Griffin Landing North...........  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 4: Burke       Unit 4: Burke
                                   Georgia.            35-36; Site 12.     South.              South.
Griffin Landing South...........  Burke County,       Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 4: Burke       Unit 4: Burke
                                   Georgia.            35-36; Site 12.     South.              South.
Prescott Lakes..................  Screven County,     Bradley 2019, pp.   Unit 5: Prescott    Unit 5: Prescott
                                   Georgia.            38-39; Site 14.     Lakes.              Lakes.
Blue Springs Landing............  Screven County,     Scutellaria         Not included......  Not included.
                                   Georgia.            mellichampii, see
                                                       Bradley 2019, pp.
                                                       42-43.
Porters Landing.................  Effingham County,   Scutellaria         Not included......  Not included.
                                   Georgia.            mellichampii, see
                                                       Bradley 2019, pp.
                                                       43-45.
Horse Creek.....................  Aiken County,       Service 2022,       Not included......  Not included.
                                   South Carolina.     entire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Ocmulgee skullcap is presented in the SSA report (version 1.3; Service 
2023, pp. 4-11). Ocmulgee skullcap is a perennial herb in the Lamiaceae 
(mint) family with 4-sided stems that grows up to 16 to 32 inches (in) 
(40 to 80 centimeters (cm)) tall. It bears blue-violet colored and 
faintly fragrant flowers in July. Although taxonomy for Ocmulgee 
skullcap has been consistent through time, identification of the 
species is difficult; as a result, some occurrences of the congeneric 
S. mellichampii were misidentified as Ocmulgee skullcap prior to 2018.
    Ocmulgee skullcap is restricted to the moist, calcareous (calcium 
rich) north-facing slopes along the Ocmulgee and Savannah River 
watersheds in Georgia and South Carolina. In these isolated bluff and 
slope areas, the forest structure is composed of a mixed-hardwood 
species of trees with a partially open canopy to allow the plants to 
reach maturity and produce viable seed. The mature, mixed-level canopy 
provides the mottled shade required by Ocmulgee skullcap. The river 
bluffs and steep slopes experience localized disturbances including 
water runoff that limit the accumulation of leaf litter and limit 
competition from other plants in the shaded, steep forest environment.
    The lifespan of Ocmulgee skullcap is estimated to be 5 to 8 years, 
with 3 to 6 years of potential viable seed production. The species 
matures to produce seed in either the first or second year following 
spring germination. Ocmulgee skullcap reproduces sexually and is 
pollinated by over 35 different pollinator species, including bees, 
moths, butterflies, and sometimes flies and wasps (Cruzan 2001, pp. 
1577-1578; Adams et al. 2010, p. 53,).
    Ocmulgee skullcap seeds release from the plant in response to 
disturbance of the stem by wind, rain, animal activity, or other means. 
The seeds require this dislodging and bare soil that is rich in 
calcium, and under partial shade, in order to germinate. Juvenile 
Ocmulgee skullcap individuals require sufficient amounts of sunlight, 
moisture, and calcium, as well as the presence of pollinators and 
stable soil conditions, to reach maturity and produce seed. In 
addition, juvenile plants are sensitive to competition for needed 
resources. Mature Ocmulgee skullcap plants require the same resources 
as juvenile plants, including sufficient time without herbivory or 
other removal of the seed calyx in order disperse seed.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework
    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the 
regulations in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when 
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same 
day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections for 
endangered species and threatened

[[Page 86674]]

species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919). These final rules are now in effect 
and are incorporated into the current regulations. Our analysis for 
this final decision applied our current regulations. Given that we 
proposed listing and critical habitat for this species under our prior 
regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of 
whether our decision would be different if we had continued to apply 
the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the decision would be the same. 
The analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the 
2019 regulations are available on https://www.regulations.gov.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or 
a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 
(hereafter, the Services) can reasonably make predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.
Analytical Framework
    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis 
that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further 
application of standards within the Act and its implementing 
regulations and policies.
    To assess Ocmulgee skullcap's viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2021-0059 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library.

[[Page 86675]]

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability. For Ocmulgee skullcap 
populations to be sufficiently resilient, the needs of individuals 
(calcium-rich soil, shade or partial shade from canopy cover, adequate 
precipitation, reduced competition, pollinators) must be met at a large 
scale. Areas of suitable habitat must be large enough to support 
pollinators needed for Ocmulgee skullcap reproduction and habitat that 
acts to prevent or delay encroachment by nonnative, invasive species. 
At the species level, the Ocmulgee skullcap needs a sufficient number 
and distribution of healthy populations to withstand environmental 
stochasticity (resiliency) and catastrophes (redundancy) and to adapt 
to biological and physical changes in its environment (representation).
Influences on Ocmulgee Skullcap's Viability
    In the SSA analysis, we reviewed and summarized the factors that 
may influence the viability of Ocmulgee skullcap. Threats to Ocmulgee 
skullcap's viability include the following factors: (1) Habitat 
destruction and modification; (2) competition from other species (e.g., 
Elaeagnus pungens (thorny olive), E. umbellata (autumn olive), 
Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet), Lonicera japonica (Japanese 
honeysuckle), and Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu)); (3) collection 
and harvest; (4) herbivory; (5) climate change; and (6) pollinator 
visitation and reproduction (Service 2023, pp. 12-17). The primary 
factors driving the species' current and future conditions are habitat 
loss and fragmentation due to development and urbanization (Factor A); 
competition and encroachment from nonnative, invasive species (Factors 
A and E); and herbivory from white-tailed deer (Factor C). Although 
medicinal properties of other Scutellaria species have been 
investigated (Service 2023, p. 13), there is no evidence that 
overutilization (Factor B) has impacted Ocmulgee skullcap. In addition, 
conditions across the species' range are likely to be hotter and 
subject to variable precipitation including extreme weather events in 
the future. Although we do not have specific information regarding the 
species' likely response to these effects of climate change, we expect 
that the effects of climate change will negatively affect Ocmulgee 
skullcap by reducing available resources such as water and limited 
competition. We have determined that climate change (Factor E) is not a 
primary risk factor for the species at this time; however, the effects 
of climate change, including drought and changes in rainfall patterns, 
may affect the species in the future as changes become more extreme. We 
also reviewed the conservation efforts being undertaken for the habitat 
where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs. A brief summary of relevant stressors 
is presented below; for a more detailed discussion of our evaluation of 
the biological status of Ocmulgee skullcap and the influences that may 
affect its continued existence, refer to chapter 3 of the SSA report 
(Service 2023, pp. 12-20).
Urbanization and Land Conversion
    Population growth and associated urbanization and development has 
increased in the Southeast at a rate 40 percent greater than the rest 
of the United States over the last 60 years. Much of this growth is in 
sprawling low-density, suburban areas encompassing large areas of 
single-family housing and infrastructure (Terando et al. 2014, p. 
e102261). Land conversion for residential, commercial, and 
infrastructure development is associated with an increase in 
population. Two Ocmulgee skullcap populations occur near the city of 
Macon, Georgia, and another population occurs near the city of Augusta, 
Georgia. Urbanization and land conversion can directly and indirectly 
impact Ocmulgee skullcap (Morris et al. 2000, pp. 31-32). Urbanization 
or land conversion can result in the direct loss of individuals or a 
population. For example, two occurrences have experienced altered 
conditions, such as erosion on the bluff due to nearby residential 
development and a parking lot expansion (Bradley 2019, pp. 27-29).
    Further, land use patterns and urbanization near Ocmulgee skullcap 
occurrences can impact population resiliency. Urbanization modifies 
surrounding and nearby habitat conditions required by Ocmulgee skullcap 
by fostering the introduction of nonnative, invasive species and 
increasing the amount and velocity of water runoff during precipitation 
events due to an increase of impervious surfaces. As further discussed 
below, nonnative, invasive species compete with Ocmulgee skullcap for 
required resources. Increased runoff reduces the availability of 
nutrients and soil conditions required for successful reproduction, 
affecting Ocmulgee skullcap recruitment and resiliency. Because 
Ocmulgee skullcap grows along steep slopes, when the tops of bluffs are 
logged or cleared for other land uses without implementation of BMPs 
runoff and erosion are increased.
Silvicultural Activities
    Silviculture (timber harvests) has been documented on bluffs above 
or adjacent to four extant Ocmulgee skullcap sites: Augusta Canal, 
Boggy Gut Creek, Hancock Landing North, and Plant Vogtle (Morris 1999, 
pp. 5, 12, 29, 34, 55-56, 65 and Bradley 2019, p. 29). Because 
silvicultural activities are primarily occurring upslope or adjacent to 
sites, erosion into the Ocmulgee skullcap sites has the potential for 
negative, indirect effects. Two sites (Barney Bluff and Plant Vogtle 
sites) historically showed signs of erosion from upslope timber 
harvests (Morris 1999 pp. 5, 65). One site (Boggy Gut Creek) has been 
directly impacted by clear-cut timber harvests and the status of this 
population is considered possibly extirpated. However, selective timber 
harvests (hardwood thinning) within Ocmulgee sites may be beneficial to 
populations when actions create the mottled shade conditions the 
species needs (Morris 1999 p. 5, Bradley 2019 pp. 29, 78).
    In general, silviculture or timber harvests are not a key driver of 
species status across the range but may be a threat to individuals or 
populations when BMPs intended to buffer slopes (i.e., Ocmulgee 
skullcap habitat) from erosion are not implemented or are implemented 
improperly. Although Georgia considers the application of BMPs to be 
quasi-regulatory and South Carolina considers the application of BMPs 
to be nonregulatory, forest landowners certified under forest 
certification standards are required to implement appropriate BMPs to 
maintain certification and BMPs are expected to be protective of 
habitat conditions in areas where implemented correctly (Englund and 
Berndes 2015, pp. 34-37; Demarais et al. 2017, p. 6; National Council 
for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) 2022, pp. 2-9). Across all 
ownership types (non-industrial private forest, private, and public) in 
the Upper Coastal Plain region of Georgia where the Ocmulgee skullcap 
occurs, implementation of BMPs associated with streamside management 
zone (SMZ), stream assessment, timber harvest and mechanical site prep 
outside SMZs range from 89.5 to 100 percent (GFC 2021, entire). At this 
time, the best available information is not sufficiently detailed to 
determine the level of BMP

[[Page 86676]]

implementation in sites with Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences. However, 
given the steep slopes associated with most Ocmulgee skullcap 
occurrences, and if BMP implementation is high in these areas, 
silvicultural activities are less likely to impact the species.
Herbivory
    Over the last century, white-tailed deer abundance has increased 
substantially (Horsely et al. 2003, p. 98). White-tailed deer presence 
results in herbivory (including preferential browsing of native plants) 
and trampling, causing impacts to plant development and species 
density, diversity, and composition (Miller et al. 1992, entire; 
Horsely et al. 2003, p. 113; Averill et al. 2017, p. 2). For many 
Scutellaria species, including Ocmulgee skullcap, immature stems are 
often browsed by deer; this herbivory can prevent reproduction of that 
stem for the year if the plant does not flower (Bradley 2019, p. 77). 
In addition, individual plants may be pulled from the ground during 
browsing. In contrast, deer herbivory was found to have a potential 
positive influence on the large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria 
montana), where deer browsed on all vegetation and large-flowered 
skullcap individuals benefited from the reduction in competing 
vegetation (Benson and Boyd 2014, p. 89). However, the direct impacts 
from white-tailed deer are widely noted across the range of the 
Ocmulgee skullcap, with herbivory documented in over 75 percent of 
occurrences and herbivory by deer noted as a limiting factor for 
Ocmulgee skullcap populations (Cammack and Genachte 1999, entire; 
Morris 1999, entire; Snow 1999, entire; Morris et al. 2000, entire; 
Snow 2001, entire; Bradley 2019, entire). In 2018, deer herbivory was 
observed in every Ocmulgee skullcap population surveyed (n = 6) by 
Bradley (2019, entire), with severe impacts on reproduction documented 
at some sites. Therefore, we conclude that deer herbivory continues to 
be an ongoing threat to Ocmulgee skullcap.
    In addition to direct impacts, deer browse affects the vegetative 
community through facilitation of browse-resilient species and 
potential increases in species that compete with Ocmulgee skullcap for 
resources (Horsely et al. 2003, pp. 114-115). Encroaching development 
has decreased the amount and quality of forage and habitat for white-
tailed deer, which can increase the probability of herbivory within 
Ocmulgee skullcap's suitable habitat. Further, as development 
increases, restrictions on deer harvest in proximity to residential 
areas may lead to an increase in deer populations and associated 
herbivory of Ocmulgee skullcap.
    The Ocmulgee skullcap occurrence at the Savannah River Bluffs 
Heritage Preserve in Aiken County, South Carolina, has been impacted by 
severe deer herbivory (Bradley 2019, p. 24). The preserve is the site 
of intense public recreation; therefore, deer harvest is not permitted 
within the preserve for public safety reasons. In addition, residents 
in housing developments adjacent to the preserve feed the deer and may 
maintain large piles of ``deer corn'' (Bradley 2019, p. 24). This 
abundance of food and lack of hunting pressure has resulted in an 
unnaturally dense deer population surrounding this occurrence. Although 
suitable habitat remains at this site; it has previously been described 
as depauperate, with an almost barren herbaceous layer.
Nonnative, Invasive Species
    Invasive plant species limit the available resources (nutrients, 
space, sunlight, pollinators) necessary for Ocmulgee skullcap 
germination, growth, and reproduction. The introduction and spread of 
nonnative invasive species often occur with development (McKinney 2002, 
p. 888). However, nonnative invasive species can also be introduced 
from other types of adjacent land uses, such as agriculture and 
silviculture. This introduction occurs through the creation of 
transitional areas between natural and anthropogenic affected habitat 
types and associated edge effects (Brown and Boutin 2009, p. 1654; Honu 
et al. 2009, p. 182). Nonnative invasive plant species have been 
documented at 8 of the 32 Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences (Bradley 2019, 
entire; Morris 1999, entire).
    Nonnative, invasive species known to affect multiple Ocmulgee 
skullcap populations include: Elaeagnus pungens (thorny olive), E. 
umbellata (autumn olive), Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet), Lonicera 
japonica (Japanese honeysuckle), and Microstegium vimineum (Japanese 
stiltgrass) (Morris et al. 2000, p. 31; Bradley 2019, p. 77). On some 
sites, other nonnative, invasive species, including Pueraria montana 
var. lobata (kudzu), Vinca minor (periwinkle), Citrus trifoliata (hardy 
orange), and Pyrus communis (common pear), pose localized threats to 
occurrences or populations (Bradley 2019, p. 77). These nonnative, 
invasive species, when present, compete with Ocmulgee skullcap plants 
for required resources, including sunlight, water, and space.
    Intact forested habitat with a mature canopy and discrete 
disturbances provides important habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap 
populations which limits encroachment of competing nonnative, invasive 
plants. Competition with other native species and nonnative, invasive 
species can restrict seedlings, vegetative plants, and flowering plants 
from obtaining the three key resources (water, sunlight, and soil) 
needed to grow and reproduce; therefore, healthy Ocmulgee skullcap 
individuals and populations need reduced competition.
Climate Change
    In the southeastern United States, several climate change models 
have projected more frequent drought, more extreme air temperatures, 
increased heavy precipitation events (e.g., flooding), and more intense 
storms (e.g., frequency of major hurricanes increases) (Burkett and 
Kusler 2000, p. 314; Klos et al. 2009, p. 699; IPCC 2013, pp. 3-29). 
When taking into account future climate projections for temperature and 
precipitation where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs, warming is expected to be 
greatest in the summer, which is predicted to increase drought 
frequency. Additionally, annual mean precipitation is expected to 
increase, but only slightly, leading to a slight increase in flooding 
events (Alder and Hostetler 2013, unpaginated; IPCC 2013, entire; USGS 
2020, unpaginated).
    To understand how climate change is projected to change where 
Ocmulgee skullcap occurs, we used the National Climate Change Viewer 
(NCCV), a climate-visualization tool developed by the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS), to generate future climate projections across the range 
of the species. The NCCV is a web-based tool for visualizing projected 
changes in climate and water balance at watershed, State, and county 
scales (USGS 2020, unpaginated). To evaluate the effects of climate 
change in the future, we used projections from representative 
concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP8.5 to characterize projected 
future changes in climate and water resources, averaged for the State 
of Georgia and encompassing the majority of the range of the Ocmulgee 
skullcap. The projections estimate change in mean annual values for 
maximum air temperature, minimum air temperature, monthly 
precipitation, and monthly runoff, among other factors, from historical 
(1950-2005) to future (2040-2060) time series.
    Within the range of the Ocmulgee skullcap, the NCCV projects that 
under the RCP4.5 scenario, maximum air temperature will increase by 3.4 
degrees

[[Page 86677]]

Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (1.9 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), minimum air 
temperature will increase by 3.2 [deg]F (1.8 [deg]C), precipitation 
will increase by 0.2 in (5.36 millimeters (mm)) per month, and runoff 
will remain the same in the 2040-2060 time period (USGS 2020, 
unpaginated). Under the more extreme RCP8.5 emissions scenario, the 
NCCV projects that maximum air temperature will increase by 5.0 [deg]F 
(2.8 [deg]C), minimum air temperature will increase by 4.9 [deg]F (2.7 
[deg]C), precipitation will increase by 0.2 in (5.36 mm) per month, and 
runoff will remain the same (USGS 2020, unpaginated). These estimates 
indicate that, despite projected minimal increases in annual 
precipitation, anticipated increases in maximum and minimum air 
temperatures will likely offset those gains. Based on these 
projections, Ocmulgee skullcap will, on average, be exposed to 
increased air temperatures across its range, despite limited increases 
in precipitation in scenarios based on RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The increase 
of maximum and minimum temperatures and variability in precipitation 
are expected to result in an increased probability of longer and more 
severe droughts in the future.
    Within the mixed hardwood forests where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs, 
drought conditions due to higher temperatures and variable 
precipitation could reduce the available resources required for plant 
survival, including water and reduced competition. Extreme rainfall 
events may increase negative effects associated with erosion on the 
steep slopes where the species occurs and with increased mobilization 
of pollutants and sedimentation carried in runoff from urbanized areas 
near species sites. Increased competition from other species that are 
more tolerant of drought and extreme rainfall events may also limit the 
ability of Ocmulgee skullcap to produce viable seed and sustain 
populations in the wild over time. The species occupies hardwood 
forests with mature overstory and midstory canopy cover, and these more 
mesic, shaded habitats may provide a buffer to changes induced by 
climate change (such as increased temperatures). If precipitation 
increases slightly, as predicted in some models, and extreme rainfall 
events are infrequent, the effects to Ocmulgee skullcap could be 
beneficial, although this scenario is quite uncertain and climate 
change is not expected to benefit the species (Alder and Hostetler 
2013, unpaginated).
    The potential risks associated with long-term climate change as 
described above will affect ecosystem processes in Ocmulgee skullcap 
habitat, but there is uncertainty in how the ecosystems and species 
will respond. Overall, we do not expect the effects of climate change 
to be beneficial to the species, but the extent of the negative effects 
cannot be estimated with the available information on the species' 
responses to increased temperature and variability in precipitation. 
Likewise, the threshold or level at which changes in temperature 
(prolonged hot weather) and rainfall (drought or extreme rainfall 
events) are expected to affect Ocmulgee skullcap is not available for 
the species or its congeners. We have determined that climate change is 
not a primary risk factor for the species at this time; however, the 
effects of climate change, including drought and changes in rainfall 
patterns, may affect the species in the future as changes become more 
extreme.
Small Population Size
    Some plant species, such as Ocmulgee skullcap, are naturally 
distributed as small and disjunct populations in heterogeneous 
landscapes because of their requirements for specific habitat 
conditions. The specific habitat requirement of Ocmulgee skullcap 
(i.e., calcium-rich soil on forested bluffs) is disjunct, and, 
therefore, populations are generally very small, with 16 of 19 
populations having fewer than 60 individuals and 9 populations having 
10 or fewer individuals. Only three populations have more than 100 
individuals (Service 2023, appendix A). It is unknown whether Ocmulgee 
skullcap was historically more abundant but given the magnitude and 
scope of past habitat loss and modification, it is likely the species' 
numbers are lower than in the past. In addition, small and isolated 
populations offer limited nectar and pollen resources available to 
pollinators, making visitation to these sites more energetically 
expensive. Small, isolated populations of rare plant species often 
receive less pollinator visitation in comparison with larger or more 
widespread plant species (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, p. 227).
    Small populations are vulnerable to habitat impacts and face a 
higher risk of extinction (Matthies et al. 2004, p. 481). Small 
population size may increase the extinction risk of individual 
populations due to stochasticity of demographic (fluctuations in 
population size) and genetic (fluctuations in gene expression) 
characteristics, environmental stochasticity (spatiotemporal 
fluctuations in environmental conditions), or impacts from catastrophic 
events (e.g., hurricanes) (Lande 1993, entire). Within each population, 
genetic, phenotypic, and demographic structure must have adequate 
representation for populations to respond to environmental change over 
time.
    Genetic stochasticity due to small population size can contribute 
to population extirpation, especially when population fragmentation 
disrupts gene flow. Two genetic consequences of small population size 
are increased genetic drift and inbreeding. Genetic drift is the random 
change in allele frequency that occurs because gametes transmitted from 
one generation to the next carry only a sample of the alleles present 
in the parental generation. In large populations, changes due to chance 
in allele frequency from drift are generally small. In contrast, in 
small populations (e.g., fewer than 100 individuals), allele 
frequencies may undergo large and unpredictable fluctuations due to 
drift that can erode genetic variation (diversity) over time and may 
decrease the potential for a species to persist in the face of 
environmental change (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 219, 224). 
Inbreeding, which can be caused by genetic drift, is the mating of 
related individuals. Inbreeding can lead to increased homozygosity in a 
population above levels expected under random mating (Barrett and Kohn 
1991, p. 19). Small population size alone may not necessarily be a 
threat to the long-term viability of a given population, as small 
populations of some isolated endemic plant species are known to 
maintain stable populations for at least 40 years (Abeli 2010, p. 6). 
However, the synergistic effect of habitat fragmentation, reduced 
population size, and inbreeding may lead to inbreeding depression and 
reduced fitness.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
    Ocmulgee skullcap is listed as threatened in Georgia (Patrick et 
al. 1995, pp. 173-174) and is not listed or otherwise protected in 
South Carolina. In Georgia, the Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act of 
1973 (Georgia Code, title 12, chapter 6, article 3, sections 12-6-170 
to 12-6-176) protects Ocmulgee skullcap growing on State lands from 
cutting, digging, pulling, or removing unless the Georgia Department of 
Natural Resources has authorized such acts. The six populations 
occurring on State-owned or State-managed wildlife management areas in 
Georgia receive the benefits of protection under the Georgia Wildflower 
Preservation Act of 1973.
    Throughout the range of the species, portions of eight populations 
occur on lands owned and managed by State or

[[Page 86678]]

Federal entities that prioritize conservation as a management 
objective. The Robins Air Force Base Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plan (INRMP) specifically considers and manages for one 
Ocmulgee skullcap population (three occurrences) on the installation 
(for more information, see Exemptions, below). The State conservation 
lands owned or leased and managed by the Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources where six Ocmulgee skullcap populations occur include Yuchi 
Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Ocmulgee WMA, and the Oaky Woods 
WMA. One Ocmulgee skullcap population occurs on the Savannah River 
Heritage Preserve owned and managed by the South Carolina Department of 
Natural Resources. It is expected that the eight Ocmulgee skullcap 
populations are positively affected by protection from development on 
these State-owned and State-managed lands. However, State-owned or 
managed land and the Georgia Wildflower Protection Act do not require 
or ensure species appropriate habitat management (e.g., invasive 
species and deer management) that may be needed to conserve the 
species. The one population on Federal land (Robins Air Force Base) is 
protected and managed via an INRMP. However, the negative impacts 
associated with herbivory and the effects of climate change continue to 
impact Ocmulgee skullcap populations on all protected lands.
Synergistic and Cumulative Effects
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
    In addition to factors impacting Ocmulgee skullcap individually, it 
is likely that several of the threats summarized above are acting 
synergistically or cumulatively on the species. The combined impacts of 
multiple threats are likely more harmful than a single threat acting 
alone. Development and urbanization may remove or degrade habitat where 
Ocmulgee skullcap occurs and may also bring an increase in encroaching 
nonnative, invasive species and white-tailed deer due to hunting 
restrictions near inhabited areas. In addition, herbivory by white-
tailed deer may change the community structure to favor plants more 
resistant to deer browse. The impacts of herbivory by white-tailed deer 
and competition from nonnative, invasive species were recently noted in 
several populations (Bradley 2019, entire).
Methods To Assess Current Condition
    To evaluate the biological status of Ocmulgee skullcap both 
currently and into the future, we assessed a range of conditions to 
consider the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation. For 
the purposes of our analysis, representative units (RUs) were 
delineated to describe the breadth of known genetic, phenotypic, and 
ecological diversity within the species. We divided the Ocmulgee 
skullcap range into two noncontiguous RUs, the Ocmulgee and Savannah 
River watersheds. We used the 2-km separation distance rule in 
NatureServe's habitat-based plant element occurrence delineation 
guidance (NatureServe 2020, entire) to delineate populations. We 
delineated populations of the Ocmulgee skullcap using occurrence data 
obtained from peer-reviewed articles, unpublished survey reports, and 
survey records (1961 to present) contained in agency and partner 
databases (i.e., Georgia and South Carolina Natural Heritage 
databases).
    Occurrences are defined as an individual or group of individuals in 
close proximity in an area not widely separated from other individuals. 
Rangewide, each of the 32 occurrences was buffered by a 2-km (1.24-mi) 
radius circle and occurrences with overlapping buffers were considered 
within the same population, resulting in 19 Ocmulgee skullcap 
populations (13 in the Ocmulgee RU and 6 in Savannah RU) (see table 2, 
below). Historical occurrence data are limited, but we assumed that the 
current distribution of Ocmulgee skullcap populations represents at 
least most of the historical range of the species within the Ocmulgee 
and Savannah watersheds in Georgia and South Carolina.

 Table 2--Populations Used To Assess Viability of the Ocmulgee Skullcap
            in the Ocmulgee and Savannah Representative Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ocmulgee representative unit         Savannah representative unit
            populations                          populations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Dykes Memorial                 Burke South
Adjoins Robins Air Force Base        Burke North
Savage Branch                        Columbia Richmond
Bolingbroke Rest Area                Barney Bluff
Crooked Creek                        Horse Creek
Jordan Creek                         Prescott Lakes
Shellstone Creek
Dry Creek
Oaky Woods Wildlife Management Area
 North
Oaky Woods Wildlife Management Area
 South
River North Bluff
South Shellstone Creek
Tributary to Richland Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the proposed rule published, we received new information about the
  Horse Creek population and now consider it a historical population
  (Service 2022, entire).

    The Ocmulgee skullcap needs multiple, sufficiently resilient 
populations distributed across its range to maintain viability. A 
sufficiently resilient population exhibits high or moderate resiliency 
and is characterized by 60 or more individuals in stable or increasing 
numbers of widespread occurrences with no or few invasive

[[Page 86679]]

species and no or minor change in habitat condition. A number of 
factors influence whether Ocmulgee skullcap populations exhibit 
resiliency to stochastic events. These factors include: (1) Number of 
individuals in all occurrences within a population; (2) number of 
flowering individuals (reproductive adults) within a population; (3) 
number of occurrences (groups of individuals) within a population; (4) 
change in number of occurrences within a population over time; and (5) 
condition of habitat, which is directly related to growth, survival, 
and reproductive success (Service 2023, p. 24). To capture important 
aspects of the habitat condition, we used two factors, both of which 
characterize the quality and quantity of native herbaceous ground 
cover: (1) Presence of nonnative, invasive plant species (competition); 
and (2) presence of deer herbivory (browsing) (Service 2023, p. 24).
    We assessed representation for the Ocmulgee skullcap based on the 
potential adaptive capacity of the species as expressed in the number 
of populations across the range of the species and within 
representative units. Finally, we assessed Ocmulgee skullcap's 
redundancy (the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events) 
by evaluating the number and distribution of sufficiently resilient 
populations throughout the species' range.
Current Conditions of Ocmulgee Skullcap
    As described above, we delineated the range of Ocmulgee skullcap 
into two representative units and 19 populations for our analyses. 
Having a greater number of self-sustaining populations distributed 
across the known range of the species is associated with an overall 
higher viability of the species into the future. We determined four 
condition classes for Ocmulgee skullcap resiliency: very low, low, 
moderate, and high. A population exhibiting high resiliency is 
characterized by: 100 or more individuals, with multiple, widespread 
clusters of individuals; an increasing trend in the number of 
occurrences; few or no nonnative, invasive plant species; no evident 
deer browse impacts; and no substantial change in habitat condition. 
Moderate resiliency populations are characterized by: 60-99 
individuals, with a few, somewhat widespread clusters of individuals; 
stable number of occurrences; few or no nonnative, invasive plant 
species; evident deer browse impacts; and only minor changes in habitat 
condition. A population in low resiliency is characterized by: 40-59 
individuals, with two clusters of individuals; a decreasing trend in 
the number of occurrences; presence of nonnative, invasive plant 
species and deer browse impacts; and moderate change in habitat 
condition. A very low resiliency population is characterized by: fewer 
than 40 individuals in a single, isolated site; presence of nonnative, 
invasive plant species and deer browse; and substantial change in 
habitat condition. Resiliency categories are further described in the 
SSA report (Service 2023, p. 24, table 4-1).
    Currently, 16 of 19 populations within the species' range exhibit 
low or very low resiliency (see table 3, below). One population (James 
Dykes Memorial) within the Ocmulgee RU exhibits moderate resiliency, 
and two populations (Burke North and Burke South) within the Savannah 
RU exhibit moderate or high resiliency (see table 3, below). The 
majority of Ocmulgee skullcap populations have low or very low 
resilience to stochastic events. One occurrence within an extant 
population in the Savannah RU has been extirpated because of land 
conversion to pine plantation; currently, there are no known 
extirpations at the population level. The Horse Creek population is 
considered historical because it has not been found in over twenty 
years; however, it has not been surveyed extensively enough since the 
1960s to confirm there is no habitat and the plant no longer occurs 
there (Service 2022, entire).
    The Ocmulgee skullcap is found in two non-contiguous RUs 
(watersheds); and currently occupies the known historical range of the 
species. One occurrence within a population has been extirpated, but 
the population is still extant. Thus, representation may be slightly 
reduced from the species' historical condition. Based on available 
information, we determined the Ocmulgee skullcap has adaptive capacity 
or ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, given that 19 
populations occur in two watersheds in two States and no populations 
have been lost from the known historical range. Sixteen of 19 known 
populations currently exhibit low to very low resiliency across the 
range, but these populations are distributed across two watersheds in 
two States across the historical range. Overall, the Ocmulgee 
skullcap's current condition is characterized by low or reduced 
resiliency, moderate representation, and multiple redundant 
populations.

     Table 3--Current Resiliency Category of Each Ocmulgee Skullcap
                               Population
                             [Service 2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of     Overall resiliency
          Population name             individuals        category *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Ocmulgee Representative Unit (Ocmulgee River watershed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Dykes Memorial..............              54  Moderate.
Adjoins Robins Air Force Base.....               3  Low.
Savage Branch.....................              50  Low.
Bolingbroke Rest Area.............               8  Low.
Crooked Creek.....................              31  Low.
Jordan Creek......................              50  Low.
Shellstone Creek..................              46  Low.
Dry Creek.........................              10  Very low.
Oaky Woods WMA North..............               1  Very low.
Oaky Woods WMA South..............               1  Very low.
River North Bluff.................               1  Very low.
South Shellstone Creek............              15  Very low.
Tributary to Richland Creek.......               6  Very low.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 86680]]

 
         Savannah Representative Unit (Savannah River watershed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke South.......................             319  High.
Burke North.......................             112  Moderate.
Columbia Richmond.................             450  Low.
Barney Bluff......................              50  Low.
Horse Creek.......................               0  Very low
                                                     (historical).
Prescott Lakes....................               0  Very low.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Overall resiliency category includes the demographic metrics of the
  number of individuals, number of occurrences, and change in number of
  occurrences, and the habitat metric assessment of native herbaceous
  groundcover/habitat condition.

Future Scenarios
    Given the current conditions of Ocmulgee skullcap and the expected 
influences on viability, we projected the resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation of Ocmulgee skullcap under three plausible future 
scenarios. Our projections incorporate the effects of development 
(urbanization) and habitat management actions that reduce nonnative, 
invasive species and herbivory from white-tailed deer. However, having 
determined that the current condition of the Ocmulgee skullcap is 
consistent with that of an endangered species (see Determination of 
Ocmulgee Skullcap's Status, below), we are not presenting the results 
in this final rule. Please refer to the proposed listing and 
designation of critical habitat rule for the Ocmulgee skullcap (87 FR 
37378; June 22, 2022) and the SSA report, version 1.3 (Service 2023, 
entire) for the full analysis of future conditions and descriptions of 
the associated scenarios.

Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species 
or threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we determined the Ocmulgee skullcap to be an endangered 
species throughout all of its range due to current and ongoing threats 
across the range. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats, and the cumulative effect of the threats to the 
Ocmulgee skullcap. Our review of the best available information 
indicates Ocmulgee skullcap occurs in 19 populations in 2 
representative units, the Ocmulgee River watershed in Georgia (13 
populations) and the Savannah River watershed in Georgia/South Carolina 
(6 populations), across the historical range of the species. Recently, 
there has been one extirpation of an occurrence within a currently 
extant population in the Savannah River watershed resulting from land 
use conversion to a pine plantation.
    Ocmulgee skullcap populations are generally small. At present, 3 
populations contain more than 100 individuals, and 16 populations have 
fewer than 60 individuals. Generally, the Ocmulgee skullcap has low 
resiliency to stochastic events at the population level. Sixteen of the 
known populations have low abundance and exhibit low or very low 
resiliency to stochastic events. Of the remaining three (out of 19) 
populations, one population in the Savannah RU has high resiliency and 
two have moderate resiliency (one in each the Ocmulgee and Savannah 
RUs).
    As stated previously, Ocmulgee skullcap populations are distributed 
in two watersheds across the historical range of the species. We 
determined the Ocmulgee skullcap has some adaptive capacity or 
representation based on the species occurrences across the known 
historical range. The species-level redundancy was determined to be 
reduced from historical condition due to the loss of one occurrence. 
Although the resiliency of most populations is low or very low, 
populations are distributed across the species' range, giving it some 
redundancy and ability to withstand catastrophic events.
    Ocmulgee skullcap faces threats from habitat degradation or loss as 
a result of development and urbanization (Factor A); competition and 
encroachment from nonnative, invasive species (Factors A and E); and 
herbivory by white-tailed deer (Factor C). These threats are 
exacerbated by small population size (Factor E) and existing regulatory 
mechanisms that do not adequately address the threats (Factor D). 
Overutilization (Factor B) and disease (Factor C) are not currently 
affecting Ocmulgee skullcap populations. Climate change (Factor E) is 
not a primary risk factor for the species at this time; however, the 
effects of climate change, including drought and changes in rainfall 
patterns, may affect the species in the future as changes become more 
extreme.
    While we anticipate that the threats will continue to act on the 
species in the future, they are affecting the species such that it is 
in danger of extinction now, and therefore, we find that a threatened 
species status is not appropriate. We find that the Ocmulgee skullcap's 
vulnerability to ongoing stressors is heightened to such a degree that 
it is currently in danger of extinction as a result of its low number 
of populations, low population size, and response to current and 
ongoing threats. Thus, after assessing the best available information, 
we determine that Ocmulgee skullcap is in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range.

[[Page 86681]]

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. We have determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap is 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and 
accordingly did not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of 
its range. Because the Ocmulgee skullcap warrants listing as endangered 
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with 
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. 
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant 
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as 
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
    Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available 
indicates that the Ocmulgee skullcap meets the Act's definition of an 
endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the Ocmulgee skullcap as 
an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of 
the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, 
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities 
are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Georgia Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Georgia and South 
Carolina will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management 
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Ocmulgee 
skullcap. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid 
species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Ocmulgee skullcap. Additionally, we invite you 
to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes 
available and any information you may have for recovery planning 
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it 
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities 
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    Examples of discretionary actions for the Ocmulgee skullcap that 
may be subject to consultation procedures under section 7 include 
management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands 
administered by the National Park Service as well as actions on State, 
Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as 
a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service 
under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action 
(such as

[[Page 86682]]

funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions 
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require 
section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the 
local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with 
any specific questions on Section 7 consultation and conference 
requirements.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the Service's 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be 
committed any of the following with regard to any endangered plant: (1) 
import to, or export from, the United States; (2) remove and reduce to 
possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or 
destroy on any such area; remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on 
any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any 
State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass 
law; (3) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or 
foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a 
commercial activity; or (4) sell or offer for sale in interstate or 
foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to 
employees or agents of the Service, other Federal land management 
agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Service 
regulations governing permits for endangered plants are codified at 50 
CFR 17.62, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 
50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered plants, a permit may be 
issued for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or 
survival of the species. The statute also contains certain exemptions 
from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known 
at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be 
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To 
the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to 
result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as 
possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of 
the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the 
range of the species.
    At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that 
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 
9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of 
prohibitions or already excepted through our regulations at 50 CFR 
17.61 (e.g., any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal 
land management agency, or a State conservation agency, who is 
designated by that agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the 
course of official duties, remove and reduce to possession endangered 
plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction without a permit if such 
action is necessary to: (i) care for a damaged or diseased specimen; 
(ii) dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) salvage a dead specimen which 
may be useful for scientific study). Also, as discussed above, certain 
activities that are prohibited under section 9 may be permitted under 
section 10 of the Act.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Georgia 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in 
section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    This critical habitat designation was proposed when the regulations 
defining ``habitat'' (85 FR 81411; December 16, 2020) and governing the 
4(b)(2) exclusion process for the Service (85 FR 82376; December 18, 
2020) were in place and in effect. However, those two regulations have 
been rescinded (87 FR 37757, June 24, 2022; and 87 FR 43433, July 21, 
2022) and no longer apply to any designations of critical habitat. 
Therefore, for this final rule designating critical habitat for the 
Ocmulgee skullcap, we apply the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 
Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 
Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 
2016).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the 
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not 
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Rather, designation requires that, 
where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for 
an action that may

[[Page 86683]]

affect areas designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 
affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied critical 
habitat), the Federal action agency would have already been required to 
consult with the Service even absent the critical habitat designation 
because of the requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Even if the Service 
were to conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is 
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required 
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; 
instead, they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, use primary and original sources of 
information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report and information developed during the 
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline 
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or 
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include 
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for 
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level 
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed 
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the 
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or 
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance.
    Our SSA report for the Ocmulgee skullcap provides the scientific 
information upon which this critical

[[Page 86684]]

habitat designation is based (Service 2023, entire). A thorough account 
of the ecological needs of the Ocmulgee skullcap can be found in the 
SSA report (Service 2023, chapter 2, pp. 4-11), and is briefly 
summarized here in the context of the physical or biological features 
that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Habitat
    As described above under Background, the Ocmulgee skullcap occurs 
in moist, calcareous hardwood forests on north- to northeast-facing 
slopes of river bluffs and their floodplains in the Ocmulgee and 
Savannah River watersheds in Georgia and South Carolina. River bluffs 
and steep slopes are subject to localized disturbances that limit the 
accumulation of leaf litter and competition. Ocmulgee skullcap 
individuals require reduced competition to grow and reproduce within 
suitable habitat.
    These hardwood forests are characterized by a mature, mixed-level 
canopy with spatial heterogeneity that provides mottled shade required 
by Ocmulgee skullcap. Intact calcareous forests are characterized by a 
diverse species composition ranging from short-lived pioneer species to 
long-lived, shade-tolerant species (Edwards et al. 2013, p. 406). 
Communal species in these areas may consist of red buckeye (Aesculus 
pavia), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), white oak (Quercus alba), 
basswood (Tilia americana), American holly (Ilex opaca), and relict 
trillium (Trillium reliquum) (Edwards et al. 2013, p. 409; Bradley 
2019, pp. 21-28). The herbaceous layer in this forest type includes a 
rich diversity of grasses and forbs that support the required 
pollinators for the species in adequate numbers to facilitate Ocmulgee 
skullcap reproduction. The upper canopy of mixed hardwoods in a forest 
with suitable habitat provides the partial shade required for 
germination, growth, and reproduction.
    Intact forested habitat with a mature canopy and discrete 
disturbances provides important habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap 
populations to decrease encroachment of competing nonnative, invasive 
plants. Competition with other native species and nonnative, invasive 
species can restrict seedlings, vegetative plants, and flowering plants 
from obtaining the three key resources (water, sunlight, and soil) 
needed to grow and reproduce; therefore, healthy Ocmulgee skullcap 
individuals and populations need reduced competition.
Soils
    The calcareous hardwood forests where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs are 
influenced by outcroppings of limestone or marl that provide the 
calcium-rich parent material for soils. Ocmulgee skullcap requires 
well-drained soils or shallow, calcium-rich soils that are buffered or 
circumneutral (pH between 6.5 and 7.5) to germinate. These soils occur 
within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by limestone or marl.
Summary of Resource Needs
    More detail on the species' habitat and life-history needs is 
provided above under Background, and a thorough review is available in 
the SSA report (Service 2023, entire; available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059).
    A summary of the resource needs of the Ocmulgee skullcap is 
provided below in table 5.

                       Table 5--Ocmulgee Skullcap Individual Resources Needs by Life Stage
  [Key resource needs are in bolded text and include precipitation (water), partial sunlight, soil, and reduced
                            competition (Collins 1976, pp. 1, 70; Chafin 2008, p. 2)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Resources and circumstances needed for
               Life stage                     individuals to complete life stage         Resource function *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seed....................................  Fall/winter precipitation................  N
                                          Bare mineral calcium-rich soil...........  H, N, R
                                          Partial sunlight.........................  N
Seedling................................  Sufficient summer/fall precipitation.....  N
                                          Calcium-rich soil........................  H, N
                                          Reduced competition from invasives/        H
                                           encroaching plants.
                                          Partial sunlight for photosynthesis......  N
Vegetative plant........................  Spring/summer precipitation..............  N
                                          Calcium-rich soil........................  H, N
                                          Reduced competition from invasives/        H
                                           encroaching plants.
                                          Partial sunlight for photosynthesis......  N
Flowering plant.........................  Spring/summer precipitation..............  N
                                          Calcium-rich soil........................  H, N
                                          Reduced competition from invasives/        H
                                           encroaching plants.
                                          Pollinators..............................  R
                                          Partial sunlight for photosynthesis......  N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* H = Habitat, N = Nutrition, and R = Reproduction.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of Ocmulgee skullcap from studies of the species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional 
information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2023, entire; 
available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0059). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of Ocmulgee 
skullcap:
    (1) River bluffs with steep and/or shallow soils that are subject 
to localized disturbances that limit the accumulation of leaf litter 
and competition within the Upper Gulf Coastal Plain and Piedmont of 
Georgia.
    (2) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral (pH 
between 6.5 and 7.5) generally within regions underlain or otherwise 
influenced by limestone or marl (mixed carbonate-clay rock).
    (3) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity, 
providing mottled shade and often including a rich diversity of grasses 
and forbs characterizing the herbaceous layer.
    (4) Intact forested habitat that is ecologically functional (i.e., 
with mature canopy and discrete disturbances) and

[[Page 86685]]

buffered by surrounding habitat to impede the invasion of competitors.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of Ocmulgee 
skullcap may require special management considerations or protection to 
reduce the following threats: development; nonnative, invasive species 
(plants); and indirect effects on habitat quality due to herbivory by 
white-tailed deer and adjacent land uses such as silviculture and 
agriculture.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management 
activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not 
limited to, local review of proposed county and State projects and 
other development projects that may affect Ocmulgee skullcap habitat to 
determine whether or not the project will avoid impacts to the species' 
habitat; control and reduction of nonnative, invasive species; harvest 
of deer to reduce changes in plant community and increase in browse-
resistant plants in affected populations; implementation of BMPs (for 
silvicultural and agricultural land uses); and habitat restoration 
projects. These management activities would protect the physical or 
biological features for the species by promoting intact vegetative 
community with mixed heterogeneity, mottled shade, and a diverse 
herbaceous layer.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. The SSA 
report, version 1.3 (Service 2023, entire), contains the best available 
information used to identify critical habitat for the Ocmulgee 
skullcap, which includes existing monitoring data, population status 
surveys, and relevant Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers 
(Service 2023, pp. 21, 37-38, appendix A). In accordance with the Act 
and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review 
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the 
species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not designating any areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species because we have 
not identified any unoccupied areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat. The protection of the current extant populations in 
both representative units will sufficiently reduce the risk of 
extinction, and improving the resiliency within these currently 
occupied units should increase viability to the point that the 
protections of the Act are no longer necessary. We have determined that 
the areas we are designating as critical habitat are sufficient for the 
recovery of the species and align with our conservation strategy for 
Ocmulgee skullcap.
    To determine and select appropriate occupied areas that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species, we developed a conservation strategy for the species. The goal 
of the conservation strategy for the Ocmulgee skullcap is to recover 
the species to the point where the protections of the Act are no longer 
necessary. The role of critical habitat in achieving this conservation 
goal is to identify the specific areas within the species' range that 
provide essential physical or biological features, without which 
rangewide resiliency, redundancy, and representation could not be 
achieved. We anticipate that recovery will require continued protection 
of existing populations and habitats that contribute to the viability 
of the species: ensuring there are adequate numbers of individual 
plants in populations; and ensuring multiple sufficiently resilient 
populations in each representative unit and across the current range of 
the species. This approach may lead to connectivity among populations 
and will help to ensure that catastrophic events cannot simultaneously 
affect all known populations of the Ocmulgee skullcap. Recovery 
considerations, such as striving for representation of both watersheds 
in the species' current range, were considered in formulating this 
designation.
    Ocmulgee skullcap populations, with the exception of one large 
area, are confined to small patches (ranging in size from 0.24 to 24 ac 
(0.1 to 9.7 ha)). Ocmulgee skullcap requires areas of intact hardwood 
forest to provide the appropriate canopy conditions in large enough 
areas to protect the species from encroachment of nonnative, invasive 
species. The small patches typically do not provide enough habitat to 
support the species or provide connectivity among populations. In 
addition, the small populations in these patches experience the 
exacerbation of other threats associated with small population size 
(see Influences on Ocmulgee Skullcap's Viability, above).
    Based on the Act's implementing regulations (see 50 CFR 424.12(d)), 
when habitats are in close proximity to one another, an inclusive area 
may be designated. We delineated populations of Ocmulgee skullcap using 
a 2-km (1.24-mi) radius circle, with overlapping buffers determined to 
be within the same population based on the need for sufficient space 
and resources for required pollinators (NatureServe 2020, entire; 
Service 2023, p. 21). Therefore, the habitat areas surrounding Ocmulgee 
skullcap occurrences are also included within these occupied units, 
because they have the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, provide space for population expansion 
that would increase the resiliency within these units, provide 
connectivity between individual patches of occupied habitat, and 
support the conditions that Ocmulgee skullcap individuals and 
populations require.
    In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following criteria:
    <bullet> We identified areas that are considered to be occupied at 
the time of listing within the historical range of the species, and
    <bullet> We determined if those areas contain the physical or 
biological features to support life-history functions that are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    For the purposes of the critical habitat designation, and for areas 
within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, we determined a unit to be occupied if it contains a recent 
observation (i.e., observed since 1999). These areas are consistent 
with the identified populations in the SSA report that were derived 
using occurrence data and a 2-km separation distance for sufficient 
space and resources for required pollinators (NatureServe 2020, entire; 
Service 2023, p. 21). Suitable habitat within the identified 
populations was determined through site specific surveys and GIS 
analyses that identified the areas with appropriate aspect, geomorphons 
(landform pattern), temperature, burned area, soil type, vegetation 
cover, and land cover, using source data from the National Elevation 
Dataset, Landsat,

[[Page 86686]]

WorldClim, NatureServe landcover map, and the GAP/LANDFIRE National 
Terrestrial Ecosystems dataset. Information specific to calcium-rich 
soils was not available; therefore, we rely on species occurrence data 
to represent presence of this identified species need.
    Based on this analysis, the following areas meet the critical 
habitat criteria for the species at the time of listing: Columbia/
Richmond, Barney Bluff, Burke North, Burke South, Prescott Lakes, 
Bolingbroke Rest Area, River North Bluff, Savage Branch, Adjoins Robins 
Air Force Base, Tributary (Trib) Richland Creek, Oaky Woods North, 
Crooked Creek, Shellstone Creek, Oaky Woods South, Dry Creek, James 
Dykes Memorial, South Shellstone Creek, and Jordan Creek. These areas 
are known to be occupied by the species, including the element 
occurrence at Savannah River Bluffs Natural Heritage Preserve. These 
areas meet our conservation strategy and provide the essential physical 
or biological features necessary to support and increase resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation for the Ocmulgee skullcap. Designating 
critical habitat units in these areas will sufficiently lead to the 
protection, and eventual reduction in risk of extirpation of the 
species.
    Sources of data for this designation of critical habitat include 
multiple databases maintained by universities and State agencies in 
Georgia and South Carolina, as well as numerous reports from surveys 
conducted in suitable habitat throughout the species' range. Other 
sources of available information on habitat requirements for this 
species include studies conducted at occupied sites and published in 
peer-reviewed articles, agency reports, and data collected during 
monitoring efforts (Cammack and Genachte 1999, entire; Morris 1999, 
entire; Snow 1999 and 2001, entire; Bradley 2019, entire; Service 2022, 
entire; Service 2023, entire). Occurrence records were compiled and 
provided to us by State partners during the SSA analysis.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, 
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or 
biological features necessary for Ocmulgee skullcap. The scale of the 
maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code 
of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed 
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat 
boundaries shown on the maps of this rule have been excluded by text in 
the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a 
Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7 
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no 
adverse modification unless the specific action will affect the 
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot 
points or both on which each map is based available to the public on 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059, and on 
our internet site https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating 18 units as critical habitat for Ocmulgee 
skullcap. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our 
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap. The 18 areas we designate as critical 
habitat are: (1) Columbia/Richmond; (2) Barney Bluff; (3) Burke North; 
(4) Burke South; (5) Prescott Lakes; (6) Bolingbroke Rest Area; (7) 
River North Bluff; (8) Savage Branch; (9) Adjoins Robins Air Force 
Base; (10) Trib Richland Creek; (11) Oaky Woods North; (12) Crooked 
Creek; (13) Shellstone Creek; (14) Oaky Woods South; (15) Dry Creek; 
(16) James Dykes Memorial; (17) South Shellstone Creek; and (18) Jordan 
Creek. All 18 critical habitat units are currently considered occupied 
by Ocmulgee skullcap. Table 6 shows the critical habitat units and the 
approximate area of each unit. Approximately 84.2 percent of the 
designated critical habitat occurs on private lands, 0.4 percent occurs 
on county lands, and the remaining 15.3 percent occurs on State-owned 
or State-managed lands. No Federal lands are included in this critical 
habitat designation.

       Table 6--Final Critical Habitat Units for Ocmulgee Skullcap
      [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
                               boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit No. and   Land ownership    Size of unit in acres
             name                   by type             (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a: Columbia/Richmond........  Richmond County;                 106 (43)
                                Private.
1b: Columbia/Richmond........  Private.........                 117 (47)
1c: Columbia/Richmond........  Private.........                334 (135)
1d. Columbia/Richmond........  State of South                    84 (34)
                                Carolina.
2: Barney Bluff..............  Private.........                415 (168)
3: Burke North...............  Private.........                526 (213)
4: Burke South...............  State of                        976 (395)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
5: Prescott Lakes............  Private.........                  81 (33)
6: Bolingbroke Rest Area.....  Private.........                338 (137)
7: River North Bluff.........  State of                         115 (46)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
8: Savage Branch.............  Private.........                 115 (46)
9: Adjoins Robins Air Force    Private.........                 231 (93)
 Base.
10: Trib Richland Creek......  State of                        340 (138)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
11: Oaky Woods North.........  State of                        657 (266)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
12: Crooked Creek............  State of                         205 (83)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
13: Shellstone Creek.........  State of                         160 (65)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
14: Oaky Woods South.........  State of                        363 (147)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
15: Dry Creek................  State of                        330 (133)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
16: James Dykes Memorial.....  State of                        515 (208)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
17: South Shellstone Creek...  State of                        403 (163)
                                Georgia;
                                Private.
18: Jordan Creek.............  Private.........                250 (101)
                                                ------------------------

[[Page 86687]]

 
    Total....................  ................            6,661 (2,696)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap, below.
Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond
    Unit 1 consists of four subunits comprising 641 ac (259 ha) in 
Columbia and Richmond Counties, Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield 
Counties, South Carolina. This unit consists of land owned by Richmond 
County (4 percent), the State of South Carolina (13 percent), and 
private landowners (83 percent), with 35 percent of Unit 1 held in a 
conservation easement. All subunits are located near Interstate 20 
along the Savannah River and the South Carolina-Georgia State border.
    Subunit 1a consists of 106 ac (43 ha) in Columbia County, Georgia. 
This subunit lies on the west side of the Savannah River, just north of 
the City of Augusta. Richmond County owns and manages 28 ac (11.3 ha) 
in this subunit, and the other 78 ac (31.7 ha) are privately owned. The 
essential physical or biological feature concerning intact forested 
habitat is degraded in this subunit, which is adjacent to developed 
areas. Special management considerations or protection may be required 
in Subunit 1a to address and alleviate impacts from stressors that have 
led to the loss or degradation of the habitat, including urbanization 
and commercial development and nonnative, invasive species (see Special 
Management Considerations or Protection, above). Special management 
considerations related to developed areas that would benefit the 
habitat in this subunit include, but are not limited to, review of 
county development plans and other projects considering land use 
changes with recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee 
skullcap, and control or removal of nonnative, invasive species.
    Subunit 1b consists of 117 ac (47 ha) in Richmond County, Georgia, 
on lands in private ownership. This subunit lies on the west side of 
the Savannah River, just north of the City of Augusta. The essential 
physical or biological feature concerning intact forested habitat is 
degraded in this subunit, which is adjacent to developed areas. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required in Subunit 1b 
to address and alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the 
loss or degradation of the habitat, including urbanization and 
commercial development and nonnative, invasive species (see Special 
Management Considerations or Protection, above). Special management 
considerations related to developed areas that would benefit the 
habitat in this subunit include, but are not limited to, review of 
county development plans and other projects considering land use 
changes with recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee 
skullcap, and control or removal of nonnative, invasive species.
    Subunit 1c consists of 334 ac (135 ha) in Aiken and Edgefield 
Counties, South Carolina. This subunit lies on the east side of the 
Savannah River, just north of the City of Augusta. The Nature 
Conservancy owns and manages the 224-ac (90-ha) Greystone Preserve for 
conservation in this subunit, and the remaining 110 ac (45 ha) are in 
private ownership. Special management considerations or protection may 
be required within Subunit 1c to alleviate impacts from stressors that 
have led to the loss and degradation of the habitat, including 
urbanization and residential and commercial development; nonnative, 
invasive species; and herbivory by deer. Special management 
considerations related to encroachment of nonnative, invasive species 
and herbivory by deer that would benefit the habitat in this subunit 
include, but are not limited to, removal of nonnative, invasive species 
via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments; 
restoration of forest conditions; and increased harvest/hunting or 
exclusion of white-tailed deer. In addition, special management 
considerations related to developed areas that would benefit the 
habitat in this subunit include, but are not limited to, review of 
county development plans and other projects considering land use 
changes with recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee 
skullcap; native vegetation restoration in right-of-way and 
transmission line vegetation maintenance areas (edge effect); and 
removal of nonnative, invasive species.
    Subunit 1d consists of 84 ac (34 ha) in Aiken County, South 
Carolina. This subunit lies on the east side of the Savannah River, 
just east of the City of Augusta. The South Carolina Department of 
Natural Resources owns and manages the 84-ac (34-ha) Savannah River 
Bluffs Heritage Preserve for conservation in this subunit. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required within Subunit 
1d to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the loss and 
degradation of the habitat, including nonnative, invasive species and 
herbivory by deer. Special management considerations related to 
encroachment of nonnative, invasive species and herbivory by deer that 
would benefit the habitat in this subunit include, but are not limited 
to, removal of nonnative, invasive species via prescribed burning or 
mechanical or chemical treatments; restoration of forest conditions; 
and increased harvest/hunting or exclusion of white-tailed deer.
Unit 2: Barney Bluff
    Unit 2 consists of 415 ac (168 ha) in the southeast portion of 
Richmond County, Georgia. This unit lies to the west of the Savannah 
River south of the City of Augusta on land in private ownership. 
Special management considerations or protection may be required within 
Unit 2 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the 
degradation of the habitat, including urbanization and development, 
erosion due to logging practices that do not properly implement BMPs, 
and herbivory by deer. Such special management or protection may 
include conservation efforts to reduce deer browsing through hunting/
harvest or exclusion. Special management or protection to reduce 
erosion may also include habitat restoration efforts and implementation 
of State-approved BMPs for silviculture or logging activities. In 
addition, special management considerations related to developed areas 
that would benefit the habitat in this unit include, but are not 
limited to, review of county development plans and other projects 
considering land use changes with recommendations to avoid areas 
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap.

[[Page 86688]]

Unit 3: Burke North
    Unit 3 consists of 526 ac (213 ha) in the northwestern portion of 
Burke County, Georgia. The unit lies to the west of the Savannah River 
on land in private ownership. A conservation easement is in place on 9 
ac (3.6 ha) of private land within the unit. Special management 
considerations or protection may be required within Unit 3 to alleviate 
impacts from stressors that have led to the loss or degradation of the 
habitat, including the effects of silviculture and logging that do not 
properly implement BMPs, as well as herbivory by deer. Such special 
management or protection may include conservation efforts to reduce 
deer browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special management 
or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts and 
implementation of State-approved BMPs for silviculture or logging 
activities.
Unit 4: Burke South
    Unit 4 consists of 976 ac (395 ha) in the western portion of Burke 
County, Georgia. This unit lies west of the Savannah River on lands 
owned by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (199 ac (80 ha) on 
the Yuchi Wildlife Management Area), and on lands in private ownership 
(777 ac (314 ha)). Special management considerations or protection may 
be required within Unit 4 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have 
led to the degradation of the habitat, including urbanization and 
development, and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are 
being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to 
implement needed actions. Such special management or protection may 
include conservation efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive 
plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and 
to reduce deer browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. In 
addition, special management considerations related to developed areas 
that would benefit the habitat in this unit include, but are not 
limited to, review of county development plans and other projects 
considering land use changes with recommendations to avoid areas 
occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special management or protection may 
also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 5: Prescott Lakes
    Unit 5 consists of 81 ac (33 ha) in the northern portion of Screven 
County, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the main stem of the Savannah 
River and lies on lands in private ownership. Special management 
considerations or protection may be required within Unit 5 to alleviate 
impacts from stressors that have led to the loss or degradation of the 
habitat, including land conversion to agriculture and herbivory by 
deer. Such special management or protection may include conservation 
efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed 
burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and to reduce deer 
browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special management or 
protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 6: Bolingbroke Rest Area
    Unit 6 consists of 338 ac (137 ha) in southern Monroe County, 
Georgia. This unit falls on lands in private ownership adjacent to the 
main stem of the Ocmulgee River, north of the city of Macon. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required within Unit 6 
to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the loss or 
degradation of the habitat, including commercial development, 
silviculture and logging activities without properly implemented BMPs, 
road maintenance, and herbivory by deer. Such special management or 
protection may include conservation efforts to reduce or control 
nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or 
chemical treatments, and to reduce deer browsing through hunting/
harvest or exclusion. Special management or protection may also include 
habitat restoration efforts and implementation of State-approved BMPs 
for silviculture and logging activities. In addition, special 
management considerations related to developed areas that would benefit 
the habitat in this unit include, but are not limited to, review of 
county development plans and other projects considering land use 
changes with recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee 
skullcap.
Unit 7: River North Bluff
    Unit 7 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in the northern corner of Bibb 
County, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the main stem of the Ocmulgee 
River, north of the city of Macon. This unit contains land owned by the 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (10 ac (4 ha) on the Echeconnee 
Wildlife Management Area), and lands in private ownership (105 ac (42 
ha). Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within Unit 7 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the 
degradation of the habitat, including competition and encroachment by 
nonnative, invasive species. In some cases, these threats are being 
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement 
needed actions. Such special management or protection may include 
conservation efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive plants 
via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments. Special 
management or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 8: Savage Branch
    Unit 8 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in the northern portion of Bibb 
County, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the main stem of the Ocmulgee 
River, north of the city of Macon, and falls on lands in private 
ownership. Special management considerations or protection may be 
required within Unit 8 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have 
led to the loss or degradation of the habitat, including urbanization 
and development and nonnative, invasive species. Such special 
management or protection may include conservation efforts to reduce or 
control nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed burning or mechanical 
or chemical treatments. In addition, special management considerations 
related to developed areas that would benefit the habitat in this unit 
include, but are not limited to, review of county development plans and 
other projects considering land use changes with recommendations to 
avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special management or 
protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 9: Adjoins Robins Air Force Base
    Unit 9 consists of 231 ac (93 ha) in western Houston County, 
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to Robins Air Force Base and the main 
stem of the Ocmulgee River. All lands in this unit are in private 
ownership. Special management considerations or protection may be 
required within Unit 9 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have 
led to the degradation of the habitat, including urbanization and 
development and nonnative, invasive species. Such special management or 
protection may include conservation efforts to reduce or control 
nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or 
chemical treatments. In addition, special management considerations 
related to developed areas that would benefit the habitat in this unit 
include, but are not limited to, review of county development plans and 
other projects considering land use changes with recommendations to 
avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special management or 
protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.

[[Page 86689]]

Unit 10: Trib Richland Creek
    Unit 10 consists of 340 ac (138 ha) in eastern Twiggs County, 
Georgia. This unit lies east of Robins Air Force Base and along a 
tributary of the Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands leased by the 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (242 ac (98 ha) on the Ocmulgee 
Wildlife Management Area), and lands in private ownership (98 ac (40 
ha)). Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within Unit 10 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the 
loss or degradation of the habitat, including land conversion to 
agriculture and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are 
being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to 
implement needed actions. Such special management or protection may 
include conservation efforts to reduce deer browsing through hunting/
harvest or exclusion. Special management or protection related to land 
conversion may also include consideration of Ocmulgee skullcap in 
agriculture conversion plans and habitat restoration efforts in 
affected field/forest edges.
Unit 11: Oaky Woods North
    Unit 11 consists of 657 ac (266 ha) in western Houston County, 
Georgia. This unit lies adjacent to the county line, along a tributary 
of the Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands owned by the Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources (228 ac (92 ha) on the Oaky Woods 
Wildlife Management Area) and lands in private ownership (429 ac (174 
ha)). Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within Unit 11 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the 
degradation of the habitat, including limited effects of nonnative, 
invasive species and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats 
are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to 
implement needed actions. Such special management or protection may 
include conservation efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive 
plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and 
to reduce deer browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special 
management or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 12: Crooked Creek
    Unit 12 consists of 205 ac (83 ha) in southeastern Twiggs County, 
Georgia. This unit is located south of Highway 96, and along a 
tributary of the Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands leased by the 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (201 ac (81 ha) on the Ocmulgee 
Wildlife Management Area) and on lands in private ownership (4 ac (1.6 
ha)). Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within Unit 12 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the 
degradation of the habitat, including nonnative, invasive species and 
herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or 
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed 
actions. Such special management or protection may include continued 
conservation efforts to reduce deer browsing through hunting/harvest or 
exclusion. Special management or protection may also include habitat 
restoration efforts.
Unit 13: Shellstone Creek
    Unit 13 consists of 160 ac (65 ha) in southeastern Twiggs County, 
Georgia. This unit lies east of Unit 12, along a tributary of the 
Ocmulgee River. The unit falls on lands leased by the Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources (15 ac (6 ha) on the Ocmulgee Wildlife 
Management Area) and on lands in private ownership (145 ac (59 ha)). 
Special management considerations or protection may be required within 
Unit 13 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the loss 
or degradation of the habitat, including forest conversion to 
agriculture; residential development; nonnative, invasive species; and 
herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or 
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed 
actions. Such special management or protection may include conservation 
efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed 
burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and to reduce deer 
browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special management or 
protection related to land conversion may also include consideration of 
Ocmulgee skullcap in agriculture conversion plans and habitat 
restoration efforts in affected field/forest edges. Special management 
or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 14: Oaky Woods South
    Unit 14 consists of 363 ac (147 ha) in western Houston County, 
Georgia. This unit is west of units 15 and 16, and along a tributary of 
the Ocmulgee River. This unit falls on lands leased by the Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources (84 ac (34 ha) on the Oaky Woods 
Wildlife Management Area), and on lands in private ownership (279 ac 
(113 ha)). Special management considerations or protection may be 
required within Unit 14 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have 
led to the loss or degradation of the habitat, including urbanization 
and commercial development. In some cases, these threats are being 
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement 
needed actions. Such special management or protection may include 
considerations related to developed areas that would benefit the 
habitat in this unit include, but are not limited to, review of county 
development plans and other projects considering land use changes with 
recommendations to avoid areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special 
management or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 15: Dry Creek
    Unit 15 consists of 330 ac (133 ha) in western Houston and northern 
Pulaski Counties, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the county line, 
and along a tributary of the Ocmulgee River. This unit falls on lands 
leased by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (50 ac (20 ha) on 
the Ocmulgee Wildlife Management Area), and lands in private ownership 
(280 ac (113 ha)). Special management considerations or protection may 
be required within Unit 15 to alleviate impacts from stressors that 
have led to the degradation of the habitat, including nonnative, 
invasive species and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats 
are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to 
implement needed actions. Such special management or protection may 
include conservation efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive 
plants via prescribed burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and 
to reduce deer browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special 
management or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 16: James Dykes Memorial
    Unit 16 consists of 515 ac (208 ha) in eastern Bleckley County and 
northern Pulaski County, Georgia. This unit is adjacent to the main 
stem of the Ocmulgee River, west of the City of Cochran. This unit 
falls on lands owned by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources 
(497 ac (201 ha) on the Ocmulgee Wildlife Management Area), and on 
lands in private ownership (18 ac (7.3 ha)). Special management 
considerations or protection may be required within Unit 16 to 
alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the loss or 
degradation of the habitat, including land conversion to agriculture; 
nonnative, invasive species;

[[Page 86690]]

and herbivory by deer. In some cases, these threats are being addressed 
or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed 
actions. Such special management or protection may include conservation 
efforts to reduce or control nonnative, invasive plants via prescribed 
burning or mechanical or chemical treatments, and to reduce deer 
browsing through hunting/harvest or exclusion. Special management or 
protection related to land conversion may also include consideration of 
Ocmulgee skullcap in agriculture conversion plans and habitat 
restoration efforts in affected field/forest edges. Special management 
or protection may also include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 17: South Shellstone Creek
    Unit 17 consists of 403 ac (163 ha) in eastern Bleckley County, 
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to a tributary of the Ocmulgee River, 
north of the City of Cochran. This unit falls on lands owned by the 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (4 ac (1.6 ha)) and on lands in 
private ownership (399 ac (161 ha)). Special management considerations 
or protection may be required within Unit 17 to alleviate impacts from 
stressors that have led to the loss or degradation of the habitat, 
including land conversion to agriculture. In some cases, these threats 
are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to 
implement needed actions. Special management or protection related to 
land conversion may also include consideration of Ocmulgee skullcap in 
agriculture conversion plans and habitat restoration efforts in 
affected field/forest edges. Special management or protection may also 
include habitat restoration efforts.
Unit 18: Jordan Creek
    Unit 18 consists of 250 ac (101 ha) in northern Pulaski County, 
Georgia. This unit is adjacent to a tributary of the Ocmulgee River, 
north of the City of Hawkinsville. The unit falls on lands in private 
ownership. Special management considerations or protection may be 
required within Unit 18 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have 
led to the degradation of the habitat, including limited urbanization 
and development. In addition, special management considerations related 
to developed areas that would benefit the habitat in this unit include, 
but are not limited to, review of county development plans and other 
projects considering land use changes with recommendations to avoid 
areas occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Special management or protection 
may also include habitat restoration efforts.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
    Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as 
a whole for the conservation of a listed species (50 CFR 402.02).
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate consultation. Reinitiation of consultation is 
required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where 
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been 
retained or is authorized by law and: (1) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written 
concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. As provided 
in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new 
species listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to 
certain agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the 
Bureau of Land Management in certain circumstances).
Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat
    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires that our Federal Register 
notices ``shall, to the maximum extent practicable also include a brief 
description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or 
private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may 
adversely modify [critical] habitat, or may be affected by such 
designation.'' Activities that may be affected by designation of 
critical habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap include those that may 
affect the physical or biological features of the Ocmulgee skullcap's 
critical habitat (see Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of the Species).

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the

[[Page 86691]]

conservation and management of natural resources to complete an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by November 17, 
2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the 
installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the 
base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD), or designated 
for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of 
the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing 
that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical 
habitat is proposed for designation.
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
critical habitat designation for Ocmulgee skullcap to determine if they 
meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are DoD lands with completed, 
Service-approved INRMPs within the critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
Robins Air Force Base, 224 ac (91 ha)
    Robins Air Force Base (AFB) has an approved INRMP. The U.S. Air 
Force is committed to working closely with the Service and the Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources to continually refine the existing 
INRMP as part of the Sike's Act INRMP review process.
    Robins AFB completed an INRMP in 2017, which serves as the 
principal management plan governing all natural resource activities on 
the installation (Robins AFB INRMP 2017, entire). The 2017 INRMP 
includes benefits for Ocmulgee skullcap through: (1) control or 
elimination of competing, nonnative vegetation (mowing or hand clearing 
during winter months when Ocmulgee skullcap is dormant); (2) limiting 
recreational and other activities that may impact the species near 
Ocmulgee skullcap locations; and (3) promoting natural regeneration of 
the dominant plant species in upland hardwood bluff forest communities. 
Further, Robins AFB environmental staff review projects and enforce 
existing regulations and orders that, through their implementation, 
avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources, including Ocmulgee 
skullcap and its habitat. In addition, Robins AFB INRMP provides 
protection to forested habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap by implementing 
forest management activities, designating stream and wetland protection 
zones, and engaging in public outreach and education. Robins AFB INRMP 
specifies periodic monitoring of the distribution and abundance of the 
Ocmulgee skullcap populations on the base.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the Robins AFB INRMP and that conservation efforts 
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Ocmulgee skullcap. 
Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical 
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not 
including approximately 224 ac (91 ha) of forested habitat on Robins 
AFB in this final critical habitat designation because of this 
exemption.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat based on economic 
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. 
Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 
and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, 
February 11, 2016)--both of which were developed jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The 
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat 
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016). We explain each decision to exclude areas, as well as decisions 
not to exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is reasonable.
    The Secretary may exclude any particular area if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the 
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that 
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and 
how much weight to give to any factor. In this final rule, we are not 
excluding any areas from critical habitat.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider 
our economic analysis of the critical habitat designation and related 
factors (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2021). The analysis, dated February 
12, 2021, was made available for public review from June 22, 2022, 
through August 22, 2022 (87 FR 37378). The economic analysis addresses 
probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation for Ocmulgee 
skullcap. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may 
pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic 
impacts of this critical habitat designation. We did not receive any 
comments or information related to the economic impacts of the critical 
habitat designation. Additional information relevant to the probable 
incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the 
Ocmulgee skullcap

[[Page 86692]]

is summarized below and available in the screening analysis for the 
Ocmulgee skullcap, available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    The full description of the findings from the economic analysis are 
outlined in the June 22, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 37378). The 
critical habitat designation for the Ocmulgee skullcap totals 
approximately 6,661 ac (2,696 ha) in 10 Georgia counties and 2 South 
Carolina counties. All 18 designated critical habitat units are 
considered occupied because they contain current (1999-2020) 
occurrences of Ocmulgee skullcap. We are not designating any units of 
unoccupied habitat. In occupied areas, any actions that may affect the 
species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat, 
and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be 
recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above 
those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued 
existence of the Ocmulgee skullcap. Therefore, the potential 
incremental economic effects of the critical habitat designation are 
expected to be limited to administrative costs and minor costs of 
conservation efforts. Administrative costs include the additional 
effort from the Service and the Federal action agency to consider 
critical habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap in a section 7 consultation that 
already considers the presence of Ocmulgee skullcap.
    The probable incremental economic impacts of the Ocmulgee skullcap 
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional 
administrative effort and minor costs of conservation efforts resulting 
from a small number of future section 7 consultations (Industrial 
Economics, Inc. 2020, entire). The analysis projects that approximately 
73 section 7 consultations (approximately 1 formal consultation, 2 
informal consultations, and 70 technical assistance efforts including 
species lists) will occur annually in the critical habitat areas, based 
on the previous consultation history in the area. The annual costs to 
the Service and other action agencies are estimated at approximately 
$39,700. Units 1, 3, 4, and 7 are projected to have the highest number 
of consultations with six or more per unit. At approximately $10,000 
per formal programmatic consultation, the burden resulting from the 
designation of critical habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap, based on the 
anticipated annual number of consultations and associated consultation 
costs, is not expected to exceed $39,700 in most years (Industrial 
Economics, Inc. 2020, pp. 1-2, 11, 13). The designation is unlikely to 
trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations. Thus, 
the annual administrative burden is relatively low. As discussed above, 
we considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation, 
and the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas 
from this designation of critical habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap 
based on economic impacts.
Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security
    In preparing this rule, we determined that there are no lands 
within the designated critical habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap that 
are owned or managed by the DoD or Department of Homeland Security, 
and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or 
homeland security. We did not receive any additional information during 
the public comment period for the proposed designation regarding 
impacts of the designation on national security or homeland security 
that would support excluding any specific areas from the final critical 
habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as well as the 2016 Policy.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security as discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that 
may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors, 
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the 
species in the area such as HCPs, conservation benefit agreements, safe 
harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with 
assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements 
and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or 
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether 
Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or 
government-to-government relationships of the United States with Tribal 
entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any 
State, local, social, or other impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
    We are not excluding any areas from critical habitat. In preparing 
this final rule, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or 
other management plans for Ocmulgee skullcap, and the designation does 
not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no 
impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or permitted plans from this 
final critical habitat designation. We did not receive any additional 
information during the public comment period for the proposed rule 
regarding other relevant impacts to support excluding any specific 
areas from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as 
well as the 2016 Policy. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising 
her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation based on 
other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094)
    Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and 
E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency 
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance 
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 
13563. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall 
recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by 
law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on 
the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow 
for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have 
developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
    Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, 
provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 
in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant 
rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will

[[Page 86693]]

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to 
provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly 
regulated by this designation. The RFA does not require evaluation of 
the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, 
Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small 
entities will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that 
this critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the 
proposed rule (87 FR 37378; June 22, 2022) that may pertain to our 
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our 
certification that this critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects ``to the extent 
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant 
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 
``significant energy action'' as an action that (i) is a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; Apr. 11, 
2023); and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or 14094. Therefore, this action is 
not a significant energy action, and there is no requirement to prepare 
a statement of energy effects for this action.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following finding:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that 
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to 
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because 
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal 
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor 
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement 
programs listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because, apart from privately owned lands, the 
lands designated as critical habitat are owned by Richmond County (in 
the State of Georgia) and the States of Georgia and South Carolina. 
These governments do not fit the definition of ``small governmental 
jurisdiction,'' nor does the designation of critical habitat impose an 
obligation on State or local

[[Page 86694]]

governments. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that 
any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized 
activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the 
designated critical habitat. In addition, this rule will not produce a 
Federal mandate of $200 million or greater in any year; that is, it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap in a takings implications assessment. The 
Act does not authorize us to regulate private actions on private lands 
or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat 
designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land 
ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of 
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed and 
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Ocmulgee 
skullcap does not pose significant takings implications for lands 
within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the 
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties 
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, this final rule does not 
have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments 
because the areas that contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical 
or biological features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of 
the species are specifically identified. This information does not 
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, 
it may assist State and local governments in long-range planning 
because they no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act will be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule will not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this final 
rule identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical habitat 
are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the 
interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if 
desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County 
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this 
position.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175 
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the 
President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for 
Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretaries' Order 3206 of June 5, 
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes. We have coordinated with the Catawba Tribe regarding the SSA 
that informed this listing determination and critical habitat 
designation and provided the Tribe with an opportunity to review the 
SSA report. We informed the Catawba Tribe of the proposed rule 
publication and opportunity to comment. We have determined that no 
Tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation for the Ocmulgee skullcap, so no Tribal lands will be 
affected by the designation.

[[Page 86695]]

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Georgia Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Georgia 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants by adding an entry for ``Scutellaria ocmulgee'' in 
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
       Scientific name             Common name          Where listed         Status          applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Flowering Plants
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Scutellaria ocmulgee.........  Ocmulgee skullcap..  Wherever found.....  E               89 [INSERT FEDERAL
                                                                                          REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          DOCUMENT BEGINS], 10/
                                                                                          30/2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Family 
Lamiaceae: Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap)'' following the 
entry for ``Family Lamiaceae: Monardella viminea (willowy 
monardella)'', to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *

Family Lamiaceae: Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bibb, Bleckley, Burke, 
Columbia, Houston, Monroe, Pulaski, Richmond, Screven, and Twiggs 
Counties in Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield Counties in South 
Carolina, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Ocmulgee skullcap consist of the 
following components:
    (i) River bluffs with steep and/or shallow soils that are subject 
to localized disturbances that limit the accumulation of leaf litter 
and competition within the Upper Gulf Coastal Plain and Piedmont of 
Georgia.
    (ii) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral (pH 
between 6.5 and 7.5) generally within regions underlain or otherwise 
influenced by limestone or marl.
    (iii) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity, 
providing mottled shade and often including with a rich diversity of 
grasses and forbs characterizing the herbaceous layer.
    (iv) Intact forested habitat that is ecologically functional (i.e., 
with mature canopy and discrete disturbances) and buffered by 
surrounding habitat to impede the invasion of competitors.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
November 29, 2024.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using ArcMap 
version 10.6 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a 
geographic information systems program on a base of USA Topo Maps. 
Critical habitat units were then mapped using North American Datum 
(NAD) 1983, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 17N coordinates. 
The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory 
text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are 
available to the public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/georgia-ecological-services/library, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0059, and at the field 
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office 
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices, 
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 86696]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.000

    (6) Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond; Columbia and Richmond Counties, 
Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield Counties, South Carolina.
    (i) Unit 1 includes four subunits:
    (A) Subunit 1a consists of 106 acres (ac) (43 hectares (ha)) in 
Columbia County, Georgia. The lands in this subunit are owned and 
managed by Richmond County (28 ac (11.3 ha)) and privately owned (78 ac 
(31.7 ha)).
    (B) Subunit 1b consists of 117 ac (47 ha) in Richmond County, 
Georgia. The lands in this subunit are privately owned.
    (C) Subunit 1c consists of 334 ac (135 ha) in Aiken and Edgefield 
Counties, South Carolina. The lands in this subunit are privately 
owned.
    (D) Subunit 1d consists of 84 ac (34 ha) in Aiken County, South 
Carolina. The lands in this subunit are owned and managed by the State 
of South Carolina and include the Savannah River Bluffs Heritage 
Preserve.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 86697]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.001

    (7) Unit 2: Barney Bluff; Richmond County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of 415 ac (168 ha) in Richmond County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 86698]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.002

    (8) Unit 3: Burke North; Burke County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 3 consists of 526 ac (213 ha) in Burke County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 86699]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.003

    (9) Unit 4: Burke South; Burke County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 4 consists of 976 ac (395 ha) in Burke County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in State (199 ac (80 ha)) and private (777 ac 
(314 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 86700]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.004

    (10) Unit 5: Prescott Lakes; Screven County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 5 consists of 81 ac (33 ha) in Screven County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 6 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (10)(ii)

[[Page 86701]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.005

    (11) Unit 6: Bolingbroke Rest Area; Monroe County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 6 consists of 338 ac (137 ha) in Monroe County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (11)(ii)

[[Page 86702]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.006

    (12) Unit 7: River North Bluff; Bibb County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 7 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in Bibb County, Georgia, and 
is composed of lands in State (10 ac (4 ha)) and private (105 ac (42 
ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:

Figure 8 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (12)(ii)

[[Page 86703]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.007

    (13) Unit 8: Savage Branch; Bibb County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 8 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in Bibb County, Georgia, and 
is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:

Figure 9 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph (13)(ii)

[[Page 86704]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.008

    (14) Unit 9: Adjoins Robins Air Force Base; Houston County, 
Georgia.
    (i) Unit 9 consists of 231 ac (93 ha) in Houston County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:

Figure 10 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph 
(14)(ii)

[[Page 86705]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.009

    (15) Unit 10: Trib Richland Creek; Twiggs County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 10 consists of 340 ac (138 ha) in Twiggs County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in State (242 ac (98 ha)) and private (98 ac 
(40 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:

Figure 11 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph 
(15)(ii)

[[Page 86706]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.010

    (16) Unit 11: Oaky Woods North; Houston County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 11 consists of 657 ac (266 ha) in Houston County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in State (228 ac (92 ha)) and private (429 ac 
(174 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:

Figure 12 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph 
(16)(ii)

[[Page 86707]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.011

    (17) Unit 12: Crooked Creek; Twiggs County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 12 consists of 205 ac (83 ha) in Twiggs County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in State (201 ac (81 ha)) and private (4 ac 
(1.6 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:

Figure 13 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph 
(17)(ii)

[[Page 86708]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.012

    (18) Unit 13: Shellstone Creek; Twiggs County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 13 consists of 160 ac (65 ha) in Twiggs County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in State (15 ac (6 ha)) and private (145 ac 
(59 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:

Figure 14 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph 
(18)(ii)

[[Page 86709]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.013

    (19) Unit 14: Oaky Woods South; Houston County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 14 consists of 363 ac (147 ha) in Houston County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in State (84 ac (34 ha)) and private (279 ac 
(113 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Units 14 and 15 follows:

Figure 15 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph 
(19)(ii)

[[Page 86710]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.014

    (20) Unit 15: Dry Creek; Houston and Pulaski Counties, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 15 consists of 330 ac (133 ha) in Houston and Pulaski 
Counties, Georgia, and is composed of lands in State (50 ac (20 ha)) 
and private (280 ac (113 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 15 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (21) Unit 16: James Dykes Memorial; Bleckley and Pulaski Counties, 
Georgia.
    (i) Unit 16 consists of 515 ac (208 ha) in Bleckley and Pulaski 
Counties, Georgia, and is composed of lands in State (497 ac (201 ha)) 
and private (18 ac (7.3 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Units 16 and 17 follows:

Figure 16 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph 
(21)(ii)

[[Page 86711]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.015

    (22) Unit 17: South Shellstone Creek; Bleckley County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 17 consists of 403 ac (163 ha) in Bleckley County, 
Georgia, and is composed of lands in State (4 ac (1.6 ha)) and private 
(399 ac (161 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 17 is provided at paragraph (21)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (23) Unit 18: Jordan Creek; Pulaski County, Georgia.
    (i) Unit 18 consists of 250 ac (101 ha) in Pulaski County, Georgia, 
and is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 18 follows:

Figure 17 to Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap) paragraph 
(23)(ii)

[[Page 86712]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC24.016

* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-24897 Filed 10-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C