37378 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BE01 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

With a Section 4(d) Rule for Ocmulgee 

Skullcap and Designation of Critical 

Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Ocmulgee skullcap (Scutellaria 

ocmulgee), a plant species from Georgia 

and South Carolina, as a threatened 

species and designate critical habitat 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). This 

determination also serves as our 12- 

month finding on a petition to list the 

Ocmulgee skullcap. After a review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing the species is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list the 

Ocmulgee skullcap as a threatened 

species with a rule issued under section 

4(d) of the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’). If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, it will add 

this species to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants and extend the 

Act’s protections to the species. We also 

propose to designate critical habitat for 

the Ocmulgee skullcap under the Act. In 

total, approximately 6,577 acres (ac) 

(2,662 hectares (ha)) in Bibb, Bleckley, 

Burke, Columbia, Houston, Monroe, 

Pulaski, Richmond, Screven, and 

Twiggs counties, Georgia, and Aiken 

and Edgefield counties, South Carolina, 

fall within the boundaries of the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

We also announce the availability of a 

draft economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Ocmulgee skullcap. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

August 22, 2022. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by August 8, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking (presented above in the 

document headings). For best results, do 

not copy and paste either number; 

instead, type the docket number or RIN 

into the Search box using hyphens. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

For the critical habitat designation, the 

coordinates or plot points or both from 

which the maps are generated are 

included in the decision file and are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2021– 

0059 and on the Service’s website, at 

https://www.fws.gov/office/georgiaecological-services/library. Additional 

supporting information that we 

developed for this critical habitat 

designation will also be available on the 

Service’s website, at https://

www.regulations.gov, or both. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Maholland, Acting Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Georgia Ecological Services 

Field Office, 355 East Hancock Avenue, 

Room 320, Athens, Georgia 30601; 

telephone 706–613–6059. 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-ofcontact 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 in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range). We have 

determined that the Ocmulgee skullcap 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species; therefore, we are proposing to 

list it as such and proposing 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. 

What this document does. We 

propose to list the Ocmulgee skullcap as 

a threatened species, provide measures 

under section 4(d) of the Act that are 

tailored to our current understanding of 

the conservation needs of the species, 

and propose the designation of critical 

habitat for the species. 

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 primary 

threats to the Ocmulgee skullcap’s 

current and future condition are habitat 

loss and fragmentation due to 

development and urbanization (Factor 

A), competition and encroachment from 

nonnative invasive species (Factor A 

and E), and herbivory from white-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Factor C). 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37379 

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. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) Ocmulgee skullcap’s biology, 

range, and population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for growing and 

reproducing; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

(5) Information on regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the Ocmulgee 

skullcap and that we can consider in 

developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In 

particular, information concerning the 

extent to which we should include any 

of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) 

rule or whether we should consider any 

additional exceptions from the 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. 

(6) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including 

information to inform the following 

factors that the regulations identify as 

reasons why designation of critical 

habitat may be not prudent: 

(a) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species; 

(b) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or threats 

to the species’ habitat stem solely from 

causes that cannot be addressed through 

management actions resulting from 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act; 

(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the 

United States provide no more than 

negligible conservation value, if any, for 

a species occurring primarily outside 

the jurisdiction of the United States; or 

(d) No areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat. 

(7) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Ocmulgee skullcap habitat; 

(b) What areas, that were occupied at 

the time of listing and that contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species, 

should be included in the designation 

and why; 

(c) Any additional areas occurring 

within the range of the species, (i.e., 

Georgia and South Carolina), that 

should be included in the designation 

because they (1) are occupied at the 

time of listing and contain the physical 

or biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of the species and 

that may require special management 

considerations, or (2) are unoccupied at 

the time of listing and are essential for 

the conservation of the species; 

(d) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; and 

(e) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the species. We 

particularly seek comments: 

(i) Regarding whether occupied areas 

are adequate for the conservation of the 

species; and 

(ii) Providing specific information 

regarding whether or not unoccupied 

areas would, with reasonable certainty, 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species and contain at least one physical 

or biological feature essential to the 

conservation of the species, particularly 

areas in the Savannah River watershed 

(Unit 1); and 

(iii) Explaining whether or not 

unoccupied areas fall within the 

definition of ‘‘habitat’’ at 50 CFR 424.02 

and why. 

(8) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(9) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation, and 

the related benefits of including or 

excluding specific areas. 

(10) Information on the extent to 

which the description of probable 

economic impacts in the draft economic 

analysis is a reasonable estimate of the 

likely economic impacts. 

(11) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any specific area 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If 

you think we should exclude any 

additional areas, please provide credible 

information regarding the existence of a 

meaningful economic or other relevant 

impact supporting a benefit of 

exclusion. 

(12) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37380 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the species is endangered instead of 

threatened, or we may conclude that the 

species does not warrant listing as either 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species. For critical habitat, our final 

designation may not include all areas 

proposed, may include some additional 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat, and may exclude some areas if 

we find the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion. In 

addition, we may change the parameters 

of the prohibitions or the exceptions to 

those prohibitions in the 4(d) rule if we 

conclude it is appropriate in light of 

comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the prohibitions to include prohibiting 

additional activities if we conclude that 

those additional activities are not 

compatible with conservation of the 

species. Conversely, we may establish 

additional exceptions to the 

prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. For 

the immediate future, we will provide 

these public hearings using webinars 

that will be announced on the Service’s 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of these virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, we were petitioned 

by the Center for Biological Diversity 

and others to list 404 riparian and 

wetland species in the southeastern 

United States, including Ocmulgee 

skullcap, under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531–1543; Act) and designate critical 

habitat (CBD 2010, entire). In response 

to the petition, we completed a partial 

90-day finding on September 27, 2011, 

in which we announced our finding that 

the petition contained substantial 

information indicating the Ocmulgee 

skullcap may warrant listing (76 FR 

59836). 

Supporting Documents 

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 sought the expert opinions of 3 

appropriate specialists regarding the 

SSA. We received 1 response. We also 

sent the SSA report to 2 partners, 

including scientists with expertise in 

biology, habitat, and threats to the 

species, for review. We received review 

from 2 partners (State agencies). The 

SSA report and other materials relating 

to this proposal can be found at https:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2021–0059. 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the 

Ocmulgee skullcap (Scutellaria 

ocmulgee) is presented in the SSA 

report (version 1.2; Service 2020, 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) northfacing 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 mixedhardwood 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 5–8 years with 3–6 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 (Adams et al. 

2010, p. 53, Cruzan 2001, pp. 1577– 

1578). 

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 rich in calcium 

under partial shade in order to 

germinate. Juvenile Ocmulgee skullcap 

individuals require sufficient amounts 

of sunlight, moisture, and calcium, 

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 its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37381 

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 

expected response by the species, 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 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 definition 

of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or a 

‘‘threatened species’’ only after 

conducting this cumulative analysis and 

describing the expected effect on the 

species now and in the foreseeable 

future. 

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. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

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 a decision by the 

Service on whether the species should 

be proposed for listing 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. 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. 

To assess Ocmulgee skullcap 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency supports the ability of the 

species to withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. 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 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. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

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 must include 

a spatial buffer 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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37382 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Influences on Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Viability 

In the SSA analysis, we reviewed and 

summarized the factors that may 

influence the viability of Ocmulgee 

skullcap. Potential threats to Ocmulgee 

skullcap’s viability include the 

following factors: (1) habitat destruction 

and modification; (2) competition from 

other species (e.g., Chinese privet, 

autumn and thorny olive, Japanese 

honeysuckle, kudzu, etc.); (3) collection 

and harvest; (4) herbivory; (5) climate 

change, and (6) pollinator visitation and 

reproduction (Service 2020, pp. 12–17). 

We found 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 2020, 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. 

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 do not consider 

climate change (Factor E) to be 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 

2020, pp. 12–20). 

Urbanization and Land Conversion 

Population growth and associated 

urbanization and development has 

increased in the Southeast at a rate 40% 

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 and commercial 

development, infrastructure, and pine 

plantation 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 can result in the direct 

loss of individuals or a population. For 

example, one occurrence in the 

Savannah River watershed has been 

extirpated due to land conversion to 

pine plantation (Bradley 2019, p. 30), 

resulting in the loss of the species and 

its habitat from this location. In 

addition, urbanization of surrounding or 

adjacent areas can indirectly impact 

Ocmulgee skullcap, and two other 

known occurrences have experienced 

altered conditions, such as parking lot 

expansion and erosion on the bluff due 

to nearby residential development, due 

to surrounding areas being developed 

(i.e., urbanization) (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, 

runoff and erosion are increased. 

Increased water flows containing 

sediments or other pollutants wash 

downslope and negatively affect the 

species’ habitat by depositing sediments 

or pollutants in low gradient areas. In 

addition, erosion caused by logging and 

timber harvest activities as well as 

clearing of forested areas for 

development increases water runoff 

along the steep slopes where the species 

occurs and may remove or damage 

Ocmulgee skullcap plants (Morris 1999, 

p. 3). Historical and recent (since 1999) 

logging on bluffs and resulting erosion 

occur near five Ocmulgee skullcap 

occurrences (Morris 1999, entire; 

Bradley 2019, p. 1–40, 73–78). 

Herbivory 

Over the last century, white-tailed 

deer abundance has increased 

substantially (Horsely et al. 2003, p. 1). 

White-tailed deer result in herbivory 

(including preferential browsing of 

native plants) and trampling, resulting 

in 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 Scutellaria montana 

(large-flowered skullcap), where deer 

browsed on all vegetation and largeflowered skullcap individuals benefited 

from the reduction in competing 

vegetation (Benson and Boyd 2014, p. 

89). However, in 2018, deer herbivory 

was observed in every Ocmulgee 

skullcap population surveyed, with 

severe impacts on reproduction 

documented at some sites (Bradley 

2019, entire). In previous surveys for the 

species, deer herbivory was documented 

(Morris 1999, p. 3; Snow 1999, p. 8); 

therefore, we conclude that deer 

herbivory continues to be an ongoing 

threat to Ocmulgee skullcap. 

The direct impacts from white-tailed 

deer are widely noted across the range 

of the Ocmulgee skullcap with 

herbivory documented at various levels 

at numerous sites (Bradley 2019, entire). 

Survey reports note the presence of 

herbivory in over 75 percent of 

occurrences and point to herbivory by 

deer as a limiting factor for Ocmulgee 

skullcap populations (Cammack and 

Genachte 1999, entire; Morris 1999, 

entire; Snow 1999, entire; Morris et al. 

2000; Snow 2001, entire; Bradley 2019, 

entire). When immature stems of 

Ocmulgee skullcap are browsed by deer, 

the plant cannot flower and set seed, 

thus preventing reproduction of that 

stem for the year (Bradley 2019, p. 77). 

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, p. 114–115). Encroaching 

development has decreased the amount 

and quality of forage and habitat for 

white-tailed deer, which can increase 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37383 

the probability of herbivory within 

Ocmulgee skullcap 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. 

Extirpation of the Ocmulgee skullcap 

occurrence at the Savannah River Bluffs 

Heritage Preserve in Aiken County, 

South Carolina, is attributed to severe 

herbivory by deer (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. 

The habitat at this site is now a 

depauperate, 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 areas of 

transition 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 current 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. umbellate 

(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. lobate 

(kudzu), Vinca minor (periwinkle), 

Citrus trifoliata (hardy orange), and 

Pyrus communis (common pear) pose 

localized threats to occurrences and/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 an important buffer of suitable 

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. 

Climate Change 

In the southeast 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, and thus, 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 

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 °F (°F) 

(1.9 °Celsius (°C), minimum air 

temperature will increase by 3.2 °F (1.8 

°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 °F (2.8 °C), 

minimum air temperature will increase 

by 4.9 °F (2.7 °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 8.5. The 

increase of maximum and minimum 

temperatures and variability in 

precipitation is expected to result in an 

increased probability of longer and more 

severe droughts in the future. 

Within 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 from flooding 

(pollutants) and erosion on the steep 

slopes where the species occurs. 

Increased competition from other 

species more tolerant of drought and 

extreme rainfall events will 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 (increased 

temperature). If precipitation increases 

slightly, as predicted in some models, 

and extreme rainfall events are 

infrequent, the effects to Ocmulgee 

skullcap could even 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37384 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 do not consider climate 

change to be 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) are 

disjunct and therefore populations are 

generally very small with 15 of 19 

population occurrences having 50 or 

fewer individuals and 9 populations 

having 10 or fewer. Only three 

populations have more than 100 

individuals (Service 2020, 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 threaten 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 

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 protects 

Ocmulgee skullcap growing on State 

lands from cutting, digging, pulling, or 

removing unless the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources has 

authorized such acts (Georgia Code 

2015). The six populations occurring on 

State owned or managed Wildlife 

Management Areas receive the benefits 

of this Wildflower Preservation Act 

protection. 

Throughout the range of the species, 

portions of populations occur on lands 

owned and managed by State and 

Federal entities that prioritize 

conservation as a management objective. 

The Robins Air Force Base Integrated 

Natural Resource Management Plan 

specifically considers and manages for 

two Ocmulgee skullcap occurrences in 

hardwood bluff areas on the installation 

and a third occurrence also on the base 

(see Exemptions, below). The State 

conservation lands owned or leased and 

managed by Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources where Ocmulgee 

skullcap occurs include Yuchi Creek 

Wildlife Management Area (WMA), 

Echeconnee Natural Area, Ocmulgee 

WMA, and the Oaky Woods WMA. It is 

expected that the six Ocmulgee skullcap 

populations are positively affected by 

protection from development on these 

State-owned and managed lands and 

may also benefit when speciesappropriate habitat management occurs 

on Federal 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 not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the 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 above 

summarized threats 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 also 

bring an increase in encroaching 

nonnative invasive species and whitetailed 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 whitetailed deer and competition from 

nonnative invasive species were 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37385 

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 current Ocmulgee 

skullcap range into two noncontiguous 

RUs, the Ocmulgee and Savannah River 

watersheds. We used NatureServe’s 

Habitat-based Plant Element Occurrence 

Delineation Guidance (NatureServe 

2020, entire) 2-km separation distance 

rule 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 26 

occurrences was buffered by a 2 

kilometer (km) (1.24 mile (mi)) radius 

circle and occurrences with overlapping 

buffers were considered within the same 

population, resulting in 19 current 

Ocmulgee skullcap populations (13 in 

the Ocmulgee RU and 6 in Savannah 

RU) (Table 1). 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 1—POPULATIONS USED TO ASSESS VIABILITY OF THE OCMULGEE

SKULLCAP IN THE OCMULGEE AND

SAVANNAH REPRESENTATIVE UNITS

Ocmulgee representative 

unit populations 

Savannah representative 

unit populations 

James Dykes Memorial .. Burke South. 

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.

TABLE 1—POPULATIONS USED TO ASSESS VIABILITY OF THE OCMULGEE

SKULLCAP IN THE OCMULGEE AND

SAVANNAH REPRESENTATIVE

UNITS—Continued 

Ocmulgee representative 

unit populations 

Savannah representative 

unit populations 

River North Bluff .............

South Shellstone Creek ..

Tributary to Richland 

Creek.

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 

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 2020, 

p. 23). 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 2020, p. 

23). 

We assessed representation for the 

Ocmulgee skullcap based on the 

potential adaptive capacity of the 

species as expressed in the number of 

current populations across the historical 

range of the species and within 

representative units. Finally, we 

assessed Ocmulgee skullcap 

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 60–100 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 <40 

individuals in a single, isolated site 

with evidence of nonnative invasive 

plant species and deer browse, and 

substantial change in habitat condition. 

Resiliency categories are further 

described in the SSA report (Service 

2020, p. 24. Table 4–1). 

Currently, 16 of 19 populations 

within the species’ range exhibit low or 

very low resiliency (see Table 2, below). 

One population within the Ocmulgee 

RU exhibits moderate resiliency, and 

two populations within the Savannah 

RU exhibit moderate or high resiliency 

(Table 2). The majority of Ocmulgee 

skullcap populations of the Ocmulgee 

skullcap have generally low resilience 

to stochastic events. Two occurrences 

within extant populations in the 

Savannah RU have been extirpated 

because of deer browsing and land 

conversion to pine plantation; currently, 

there are no known extirpated 

populations. 

The Ocmulgee skullcap is found in 

two non-contiguous RUs (watersheds); 

and currently occupies the known 

historical range of the species. Only two 

occurrences within two populations 

have been extirpated, but those 

populations are 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37386 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 current 

condition is characterized by low or 

reduced resiliency, moderate 

representation and multiple redundant 

populations. 

TABLE 2—CURRENT RESILIENCY CATEGORY OF EACH OCMULGEE SKULLCAP POPULATION

[Service 2020] 

Population name Number of 

individuals Overall resiliency category * 

Ocmulgee Representative Unit (Ocmulgee River watershed) 

James Dykes Memorial .............................................................. 54 Moderate. 

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. 

Savannah Representative Unit (Savannah River watershed) 

Burke South ................................................................................ 319 High. 

Burke North ................................................................................. 112 Moderate. 

Columbia Richmond .................................................................... 450 Low. 

Barney Bluff ................................................................................ 50 Low. 

Horse Creek ................................................................................ 1 Very low. 

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. We 

developed three plausible scenarios to 

assess the future viability of Ocmulgee 

skullcap populations and predicted how 

those scenarios affect to future 

populations’ resiliency, representation, 

and redundancy. Future fluctuations in 

precipitation and increased annual 

average temperatures as a result from 

climate change may also impact the 

species, but these were not included in 

our future predictions due to 

uncertainty surrounding the effects to 

the species (Service 2020, pp. 15–17). 

We evaluated each of the scenarios in 

terms of how it would be expected to 

affect Ocmulgee skullcap resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

species in 2040 and 2060. We chose a 

predictive time horizon of 2040 and 

2060 based on the average lifespan of 

the species (5–8 years), confidence in 

projections and models of factors 

influencing the species’ viability, and 

certainty in predictions of the species’ 

response to those factors. We assessed 

the projected urbanization under two 

development scenarios using the 

SLEUTH model—a low development 

projection that includes areas with a 

greater than 90 percent probability of 

being urbanized and a high 

development projection that includes 

areas with a greater than 10 percent 

probability of being urbanized. We then 

categorized the predicted loss of 

suitable habitat within the population 

area extent due to urbanization as high 

(67–100%), medium (34–67%), or low 

(0–33%). The habitat loss projections 

fell into one of two result patterns; one 

pattern represents the low development 

projection in 2040, the second 

represents the low development 

projection in 2060, the high 

development projection in 2040, and the 

high development projection in 2060. 

Thus, the low development projection 

results encompass both the upper and 

lower plausible bounds for the 

urbanization and development 

scenarios. To avoid redundancy in our 

analysis, we used the low development 

projection in all three future condition 

scenarios and note that the low 

development scenario projections for 

2060 also represent the high 

urbanization probability for 2040 and 

2060. All three scenarios incorporate the 

risk level of urbanization and 

development predicted by the low 

development probability model in both 

timesteps, but differ in the level of 

habitat management (nonnative invasive 

species control and white-tailed deer 

harvest) implemented. The scenarios we 

evaluated for Ocmulgee skullcap are as 

follows (scenarios are discussed in 

greater detail in the SSA report (Service 

2020, p. 36–42)): 

• Scenario 1 (Decreased Management 

and Conservation): the current level of 

habitat management decreases over 

time; no additional populations are 

protected; and there is no augmentation 

and/or reintroduction of populations; 

• Scenario 2 (Status Quo 

Management): the existing level of 

habitat management remains constant 

over time; no additional populations are 

protected; propagation and seed storage 

efforts remain intact, but no populations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37387 

are augmented or reintroduced in the 

historical range; and 

• Scenario 3 (Increased Management 

and Conservation): additional 

management efforts (increased removal 

of nonnative invasive species; increased 

white-tailed deer harvest); additional 

populations and suitable habitats are 

protected; and populations are 

augmented and/or reintroduced on 

protected lands within the historical 

range. 

Projected urbanization and three 

plausible future management scenarios 

(decreased, status quo, and increased 

levels of management) were evaluated to 

predict future Ocmulgee skullcap 

viability. Under Scenario 1 (decreased 

management), resiliency is decreased for 

all populations, 10 populations are 

predicted to be extirpated by 2040, and 

an additional population is predicted to 

be extirpated by 2060 (Table 3). All 

populations experience a decline in 

resiliency with one moderately resilient 

population remaining in both time 

steps. No highly resilient populations 

will remain in 2040 and 2060. Overall, 

redundancy is expected to decline in 

Scenario 1 with fewer, less resilient 

Ocmulgee skullcap populations with a 

narrower distribution across the species’ 

range. Ten populations are projected to 

be extirpated in the Ocmulgee RU and 

three are expected to be extirpated in 

the Savannah RU, with all populations 

losing resiliency and affecting 

redundancy. With over half of all 

populations predicted to be extirpated, 

representation is expected to decline. 

Under Scenario 2 (status quo 

management), six populations 

experience declines in resiliency in 

2040 and eight populations experience 

declines in resiliency in 2060 (Table 3). 

No populations are expected to increase 

in resiliency under Scenario 2. Five 

populations are predicted to be 

extirpated by 2040 and six populations 

are predicted to be extirpated by 2060. 

Three populations with high or 

moderate resiliency remain under 

Scenario 2, with the remaining extant 

populations exhibiting low or very low 

resiliency at 2040 and 2060, 

respectively. The populations predicted 

to be extirpated occur across the 

distribution in the Ocmulgee RU (five 

populations) and in the upstream 

portion of the Savannah RU (one 

population). Given reduced species 

resiliency and extirpation of 

populations in both RUs, species 

redundancy is predicted to be reduced 

from current levels under Scenario 2 

with status quo management and 

conservation efforts. Five populations in 

the Ocmulgee RU and one population in 

the Savannah RU are predicted to be 

extirpated under Scenario 3, with most 

populations declining in resiliency and 

affecting species redundancy. With 

fewer populations in both RUs and 

reduced abundance in remaining 

populations, species’ representation is 

expected to decline from the current 

moderate level. 

Under Scenario 3 (increased 

management), resiliency changes are 

mixed, but overall, there is an increase 

in population resiliency. However, one 

population is predicted to be extirpated 

by 2040 and three populations are 

predicted to be extirpated by 2060 in 

this scenario. One population is 

projected to the extirpated in 2040 and 

three populations are projected to be 

extirpated in 2060 in the Ocmulgee RU, 

with no extirpations projected in the 

Savannah RU. In addition, the increased 

management and conservation efforts 

scenario includes augmentation, 

establishment, or reintroduction of 

additional populations within the 

species’ historical range, providing 

increased redundancy for the species. 

Representation for the species is 

expected to remain at the moderate level 

in Scenario 3, with population 

extirpations countered by 

reintroduction and establishment of 

new populations. 

In all scenarios, the loss of sufficiently 

resilient populations within both RUs 

indicates a future decline in the species’ 

adaptive capacity (representation). In 

addition, when populations are 

extirpated, connectivity between 

populations is reduced, further limiting 

potential genetic exchange between 

populations. Under all three plausible 

future scenarios, the number of 

populations is decreased and the 

distribution of populations across the 

species’ range is reduced. However, 

extant populations remain in both RUs 

under the conditions assessed, although 

most populations exhibit low resiliency. 

The predicted declines in resiliency and 

extirpation of populations within both 

representative units indicates a future 

decline in the species’ redundancy. 

Therefore, Ocmulgee skullcap is at an 

increased risk of extirpation from a 

catastrophic event. 

TABLE 3—FUTURE RESILIENCY OF 19 OCMULGEE SKULLCAP POPULATIONS WITH LOW FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RISK AND

UNDER THREE FUTURE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS AT 2040 AND 2060. CHANGES BETWEEN POPULATION RESILIENCY

AT 2040 AND 2060 ARE SHOWN IN BOLD

Population name Current 

resiliency 

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 

2040/2060 2040/2060 2040/2060 

Ocmulgee RU 

James Dykes Memorial ..... Moderate ........................... Low/Low ............................ Moderate/Moderate ........... High/High. 

Robins Air Force Base ...... Low .................................... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low ............................ Moderate/Moderate. 

Savage Branch .................. Low .................................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Extirpated/Extirpated. 

Bolingbroke Rest Area ...... Low .................................... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low ............................ Moderate/Moderate. 

Crooked Creek .................. Low .................................... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low ............................ Moderate/Moderate. 

Jordan Creek ..................... Low .................................... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low ............................ Moderate. 

Shellstone Creek ............... Low .................................... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low ............................ Moderate/Moderate. 

Dry Creek .......................... Very Low ........................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Low/Extirpated. 

Oaky Woods WMA North .. Very Low ........................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Moderate/Moderate. 

Oaky Woods WMA South Very Low ........................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Low/Extirpated. 

River North Bluff ................ Very Low ........................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Very Low/Very Low. 

South Shellstone Creek .... Very Low ........................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low.

Tributary to Richland 

Creek.

Very Low ........................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low. 

Savannah RU 

Burke South ....................... High ................................... Moderate/Moderate ........... High/High .......................... High/High. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37388 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—FUTURE RESILIENCY OF 19 OCMULGEE SKULLCAP POPULATIONS WITH LOW FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RISK AND

UNDER THREE FUTURE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS AT 2040 AND 2060. CHANGES BETWEEN POPULATION RESILIENCY

AT 2040 AND 2060 ARE SHOWN IN BOLD—Continued 

Population name Current 

resiliency 

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 

2040/2060 2040/2060 2040/2060 

Burke North ....................... Moderate ........................... Low/Low ............................ Moderate/Moderate ........... High/High. 

Columbia Richmond .......... Low .................................... Very Low/Extirpated .......... Low/Very Low ................... Moderate/Low. 

Barney Bluff ....................... Low .................................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low. 

Horse Creek ...................... Very Low ........................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Very Low/Extirpated .......... Low/Very Low. 

Prescott Lakes ................... Very Low ........................... Extirpated/Extirpated ......... Very Low/Very Low ........... Low/Low. 

Determination of Ocmulgee Skullcap 

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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.000</GPH>

f 

II 

...I 

~ 0 

t. 

V, 

z 

0 

5 

::::> 

a. 

0 

a. 

LI. 

0 

Di: 

LU 

llCII 

:iE 

::::> 

z 

■ High 111111 Moderate □ Low 8 Very Low ■ Extirpated 

:=:=l:=:= 

CURRENT SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 

1 2 

2040 

3 1 2 

2060 

3 

Figure 1. Future resiliency for 19 Ocmulgee skullcap populations at 2040 and 2060 under 

three future scenarios. Scenario 1 is decreased management; Scenario 2 is status quo 

management; and Scenario 3 is increased management. Current population resiliency is 

shown for comparison. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37389 

available information indicates 

Ocmulgee skullcap occurs in 19 extant 

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 have been two 

extirpations of occurrences within 

currently extant populations in the 

Savannah River watershed. One 

occurrence extirpation resulted from 

land use conversion to a pine plantation 

and the other from severe deer 

herbivory. Ocmulgee skullcap 

populations are generally small. At 

present, 3 extant populations contain 

>100 individuals and 15 extant 

populations have 50 or fewer than 50 

individuals. Generally, the Ocmulgee 

skullcap has low resilience 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) extant 

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 sufficient 

representation based on the species 

occurrences across the range and the 

lack of population extirpations. The 

species-level redundancy was 

determined to be reduced from 

historical condition due to the loss of 

two occurrences. Although populations 

are distributed across the species’ range, 

the resiliency of most populations is 

low or very low. Overall, the species has 

sufficient redundancy and the 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 (Factor A 

and E) and from herbivory by whitetailed deer (Factor C). These threats, 

which are expected to be exacerbated by 

the small population size and existing 

regulatory mechanisms that do not 

adequately addressing the threats, were 

important factors in our assessment of 

the future viability of Ocmulgee 

skullcap. The existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) are not 

adequately addressing these threats to 

the extent that listing is not warranted. 

Overutilization (Factor B), disease 

(Factor C), or climate change (Factor E) 

are not currently affecting Ocmulgee 

skullcap populations or are projected to 

do so in the future. 

While threats are currently acting on 

most of the Ocmulgee skullcap 

populations throughout its range, we 

find that the Ocmulgee skullcap is not 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout its range, because the 

species current representation and 

redundancy is only slightly reduced 

from historical conditions (two 

occurrences extirpated), and currently 

includes one highly resilient population 

and two moderately resilient 

populations. Further, an additional 16 

extant populations, albeit with low to 

very low resiliency, occur across the 

historical range of the species. In 

addition, given that the species occurs 

in two different watersheds (two 

representative units), a single 

catastrophic event is not likely to 

impact both units at the same time. The 

current condition still provides for 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation such that it is not 

currently at risk of extinction 

throughout its range. Therefore, we did 

not find that Ocmulgee skullcap is 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range, based on the 

current condition of the species; thus, 

an endangered status is not appropriate. 

However, we expect that resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation for the 

Ocmulgee skullcap will be reduced from 

its current condition in the foreseeable 

future. In the future, an increase in 

urbanization, competition from 

nonnative plants, and herbivory by 

white-tailed deer in and near the habitat 

where Ocmulgee skullcap occurs is 

expected. Given current and projected 

decreases in resiliency, populations 

would become more vulnerable to 

extirpation from stochastic events, in 

turn, resulting in concurrent losses in 

representation and redundancy. The 

three plausible future scenarios, which 

projected urbanization and changes in 

management of the species’ habitat 

conditions and population factors, 

suggest potential extirpation of as many 

as 11 of the 19 currently extant 

populations and a further loss of 

resiliency in all populations. The future 

scenario expected to be most beneficial 

to the species (through increased 

management) projected the loss of three 

populations by 2060 with some 

populations exhibiting increased 

resiliency. 

The current threats to Ocmulgee 

skullcap are expected to continue into 

the future. To assess future conditions, 

we used a 40-year timeframe to account 

for reasonable predictions of threats 

continuing into the future based on our 

examination of empirical data in the 

recent past and takes into consideration 

the biology of the species (multiple 

generations of a plant with a 5–8-year 

lifespan). Based on the average lifespan 

of the species, confidence in projections 

and models of factors influencing the 

species’ viability, and certainty in 

predictions of the species’ response to 

those factors, we assessed the future 

condition of Ocmulgee skullcap at the 

predictive time horizon of 2060. By 

using the 40-year time step for future 

scenarios, we represented a minimum of 

six generations to account for normal 

variation in plant reproduction and 

annual variation in climate conditions. 

Our analysis of the best available 

information determined the threats 

currently acting upon the Ocmulgee 

skullcap are expected to continue into 

the foreseeable future, some of which 

(urbanization) are reasonably expected 

to worsen over time, thus reducing the 

species’ resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. Overall, the current 

threats acting on the Ocmulgee skullcap 

and its habitat are expected to continue, 

and there are no indications that these 

threats would lessen or that declining 

population trends would be reversed. 

These threats and the effects to 

Ocmulgee skullcap put the species at 

risk of extinction in the foreseeable 

future due to its limited resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy. Based 

on our assessment, the Ocmulgee 

skullcap is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we conclude that the risk factors 

acting on the Ocmulgee skullcap and its 

habitat, either singly or in combination, 

are not of sufficient imminence, scope, 

or magnitude to indicate the species is 

in danger of extinction now. Thus, after 

assessing the best available information, 

we conclude that Ocmulgee skullcap is 

not currently in danger of extinction but 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

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 in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 

(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated 

the aspect of the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37390 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (Final Policy) (79 FR 37578; 

July 1, 2014) that provided that the 

Service does not undertake an analysis 

of significant portions of a species’ 

range if the species warrants listing as 

threatened throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating 

whether the species is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction in that 

portion. Depending on the case, it might 

be more efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Center for Biological Diversity, we now 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for Ocmulgee 

skullcap, we choose to address the 

status question first—we consider 

information pertaining to the geographic 

distribution of both the species and the 

threats that the species faces to identify 

any portions of the range where the 

species is endangered. 

For Ocmulgee skullcap, we 

considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: habitat 

loss and fragmentation due to 

development and urbanization (Factor 

A); nonnative invasive plants (Factor A 

and E); and herbivory (Factor C), 

including cumulative effects. We found 

no concentration of threats in any 

portion of the Ocmulgee skullcap’s 

range at a biologically meaningful scale. 

Ocmulgee skullcap populations affected 

by invasive plants and herbivory are 

broadly and evenly distributed across 

both representative units and the 

species’ range. Populations on protected 

lands are considered less at risk from 

stressors associated with current and 

future development due to long-term 

management plans, conservation 

easements in perpetuity, or other 

protective mechanisms. Nonetheless, 

Ocmulgee skullcap populations on 

protected lands (8 of 19 populations) 

occur throughout the range of the 

species and have comparable resiliency 

to populations on non-protected lands, 

with the exception of one population 

that exhibits high current resiliency on 

protected lands. 

Thus, there are no portions of the 

species’ range where the species has a 

different status from its rangewide 

status. Therefore, no portion of the 

species’ range provides a basis for 

determining that the species is in danger 

of extinction in a significant portion of 

its range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. This does not 

conflict with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 

1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not need to consider whether any 

portions are significant and, therefore, 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy’s definition of ‘‘significant’’ that 

those court decisions held were invalid. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Ocmulgee skullcap 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species. Therefore, we propose to list 

the Ocmulgee skullcap as a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 

3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided for 

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 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, selfsustaining, 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/endangered), 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. 

If 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37391 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the State(s) of Georgia and South 

Carolina would 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/grants. 

Although the Ocmulgee skullcap is 

only proposed for listing under the Act 

at this time, please let us know if you 

are interested in participating in 

recovery efforts for this species. 

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(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the issuance of a 

permit under section 404 Clean Water 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, and 

construction and maintenance of roads 

or highways by the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. The Act allows the Secretary to 

promulgate protective regulations for 

threatened species pursuant to section 

4(d) of the Act. The discussion below 

regarding protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act complies with 

our policy. 

II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 

4(d) of the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as she deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language similar to 

the language in section 4(d) of the Act 

authorizing the Secretary to take action 

that she ‘‘deems necessary and 

advisable’’ affords a large degree of 

deference to the agency (see Webster v. 

Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600 (1988)). 

Conservation is defined in the Act to 

mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants. Thus, the combination of the 

two sentences of section 4(d) provides 

the Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

the Service when adopting one or more 

of the prohibitions under section 9. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld, as a valid exercise of agency 

authority, rules developed under section 

4(d) that included limited prohibitions 

against takings (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 

2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 

Environmental Council v. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 

511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have 

also upheld 4(d) rules that do not 

address all of the threats a species faces 

(see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 

F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in 

the legislative history when the Act was 

initially enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on 

the threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to [her] with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. 

[She] may, for example, permit taking, 

but not importation of such species, or 

[she] may choose to forbid both taking 

and importation but allow the 

transportation of such species’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 

1973). 

The provisions of this proposed 4(d) 

rule would promote conservation of the 

Ocmulgee skullcap by encouraging 

management of the landscape in ways 

that meet both land management 

considerations and the conservation 

needs of the Ocmulgee skullcap, 

specifically by providing exceptions for 

incidental take for State agency 

conservation actions, scientific permits 

for research, and use of cultivated-origin 

seeds for education. The provisions of 

this proposed rule are one of many tools 

that we would use to promote the 

conservation of the Ocmulgee skullcap. 

This proposed 4(d) rule would apply 

only if and when we make final the 

listing of the Ocmulgee skullcap as a 

threatened species. 

As mentioned previously in Available 

Conservation Measures, section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act requires Federal agencies, 

including the Service, to ensure that any 

action they fund, authorize, or carry out 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat of such 

species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

confer with the Service on any agency 

action that is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any species 

proposed to be listed under the Act or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of proposed critical 

habitat. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of Federal actions 

that are subject to the section 7 

consultation process are actions on 

State, Tribal, local, or private lands that 

require a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

or a permit from the Service under 

section 10 of the Act) or that involve 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37392 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

These requirements are the same for 

a threatened species with a speciesspecific 4(d) rule. For example, a 

Federal agency’s determination that an 

action is ‘‘not likely to adversely affect’’ 

a threatened species will require the 

Service’s written concurrence. 

Similarly, a Federal agency’s 

determination that an action is ‘‘likely 

to adversely affect’’ a threatened species 

will require formal consultation and the 

formulation of a biological opinion. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule 

Exercising the Secretary’s authority 

under section 4(d) of the Act, we have 

developed a proposed rule that is 

designed to address the Ocmulgee 

skullcap’s conservation needs. As 

discussed previously in the Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, we have 

concluded that the Ocmulgee skullcap 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

primarily due to development and 

urbanization, increasing prevalence of 

nonnative invasive plants, herbivory, 

and the interaction between these 

elements. Specifically, a number of 

activities have the potential to affect the 

Ocmulgee skullcap, including land 

clearing for development, agriculture 

and silviculture, and actions related to 

urbanization and development. Section 

4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such 

regulations as she deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of each threatened species 

and authorizes the Secretary to include 

among those protective regulations any 

of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(2) of 

the Act prescribes for endangered 

species. We find that, if finalized, the 

protections, prohibitions, and 

exceptions in this proposed rule as a 

whole satisfy the requirement in section 

4(d) of the Act to issue regulations 

deemed necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

Ocmulgee skullcap. 

The protective regulations we are 

proposing for the Ocmulgee skullcap 

incorporate prohibitions from section 

9(a)(2) to address the threats to the 

species. Section 9(a)(2) prohibits the 

following activities for endangered 

plants: importing or exporting; certain 

acts related to removing, damaging, and 

destroying; delivering, receiving, 

transporting, or shipping in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; or selling or 

offering for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. These proposed protective 

regulations include all of these 

prohibitions for the Ocmulgee skullcap 

because the Ocmulgee skullcap is at risk 

of extinction in the foreseeable future 

and putting these prohibitions in place 

will help to preserve remaining 

populations, slowing their rate of 

potential decline, and decreasing 

synergistic, negative effects from other 

stressors. Prohibiting import and export, 

transportation, and commerce of the 

species limits unauthorized propagation 

and distribution. As a whole, the 

proposed 4(d) rule would help in the 

efforts to recover the species. 

In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule 

would provide for the conservation of 

the Ocmulgee skullcap by prohibiting 

the following activities, unless they fall 

within specific exceptions or are 

otherwise authorized or permitted: 

remove and reduce to possession the 

species from areas under Federal 

jurisdiction; maliciously damage or 

destroy the species on any such area; 

remove, cut, dig up, or damage or 

destroy the species 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; importing or exporting; 

certain acts related to interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; or selling or 

offering for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. 

The exceptions to the prohibitions 

would include all the general 

exceptions to the prohibition against 

removing and reducing to possession 

endangered plants, as set forth in 50 

CFR 17.61. 

Despite these prohibitions regarding 

threatened species, we may under 

certain circumstances issue permits to 

carry out one or more otherwiseprohibited activities, including those 

described above. The regulations that 

govern permits for threatened plants 

state that the Director may issue a 

permit authorizing any activity 

otherwise prohibited with regard to 

threatened species (50 CFR 17.72). 

Those regulations also state that the 

permit shall be governed by the 

provisions of § 17.72 unless a special 

rule applicable to the plant is provided 

in §§ 17.73 to 17.78. Therefore, permits 

for threatened species are governed by 

the provisions of § 17.72 unless a 

species-specific 4(d) rule provides 

otherwise. However, under our recent 

revisions to § 17.71, the prohibitions in 

§ 17.71(a) will not apply to any plant 

listed as a threatened species after 

September 26, 2019. As a result, for 

threatened plant species listed after that 

date, any protections must be contained 

in a species-specific 4(d) rule. We did 

not intend for those revisions to limit or 

alter the applicability of the permitting 

provisions in § 17.72, or to require that 

every species-specific 4(d) rule spell out 

any permitting provisions that apply to 

that species and species-specific 4(d) 

rule. To the contrary, we anticipate that 

permitting provisions would generally 

be similar or identical for most species, 

so applying the provisions of § 17.72 

unless a species-specific 4(d) rule 

provides otherwise would likely avoid 

substantial duplication. Moreover, this 

interpretation brings § 17.72 in line with 

the comparable provision for wildlife at 

50 CFR 17.32, in which the second 

sentence states that the permit shall be 

governed by the provisions of § 17.32 

unless a special rule applicable to the 

wildlife, appearing in 50 CFR 17.40 to 

17.48, provides otherwise. Under 50 

CFR 17.72 with regard to threatened 

plants, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: for scientific 

purposes, to enhance propagation or 

survival, for economic hardship, for 

botanical or horticultural exhibition, for 

educational purposes, or for other 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

and policy of the Act. Additional 

statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 

10 of the Act. 

We recognize the beneficial and 

educational aspects of activities with 

seeds of cultivated plants, which 

generally enhance the propagation of 

the species and, therefore, would satisfy 

permit requirements under the Act. We 

intend to monitor the interstate and 

foreign commerce and import and 

export of these specimens in a manner 

that will not inhibit such activities, 

providing the activities do not represent 

a threat to the survival of the species in 

the wild. In this regard, seeds of 

cultivated specimens would not be 

subject to the prohibitions above, 

provided that a statement that the seeds 

are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ accompanies 

the seeds or their container (e.g., the 

seeds could be moved across State lines 

or between territories for purposes of 

seed banking or to use for outplanting 

without additional regulations) (50 CFR 

17.71(a)). 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37393 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist the Service in 

implementing all aspects of the Act. In 

this regard, section 6 of the Act provides 

that the Service shall cooperate to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

States in carrying out programs 

authorized by the Act. Therefore, any 

qualified employee or agent of a State 

conservation agency that is a party to a 

cooperative agreement with the Service 

in accordance with section 6(c) of the 

Act, who is designated by his or her 

agency for such purposes, would be able 

to conduct activities designed to 

conserve the Ocmulgee skullcap, which 

may result in otherwise prohibited 

activities without additional 

authorization. 

Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or our ability 

to enter into partnerships for the 

management and protection of the 

Ocmulgee skullcap. However, 

interagency cooperation may be further 

streamlined through planned 

programmatic consultations for the 

species between us and other Federal 

agencies, where appropriate. We ask the 

public, particularly State agencies and 

other interested stakeholders that may 

be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to 

provide comments and suggestions 

regarding additional guidance and 

methods that we could provide or use, 

respectively, to streamline the 

implementation of this proposed 4(d) 

rule (see Information Requested, above). 

III. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species; and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

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). 

Additionally, our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.02 define the word ‘‘habitat,’’ for 

the purposes of designating critical 

habitat only, as the abiotic and biotic 

setting that currently or periodically 

contains the resources and conditions 

necessary to support one or more life 

processes of a species. We proposed to 

rescind this definition on October 27, 

2021 (86 FR 59353); however, for 

purposes of this rule, we have 

determined the proposed critical habitat 

designation meets this definition. 

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 nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would 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 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). 

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. The implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further delineate 

unoccupied critical habitat by setting 

out three specific parameters: (1) when 

designating critical habitat, the 

Secretary will first evaluate areas 

occupied by the species; (2) the 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species; and (3) 

for an unoccupied area to be considered 

essential, the Secretary must determine 

that there is a reasonable certainty both 

that the area will contribute to the 

conservation of the species and that the 

area contains one or more of those 

physical or biological features essential 

to 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37394 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information 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. 

As the regulatory definition of 

‘‘habitat’’ reflects (50 CFR 424.02), 

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 

the 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 those planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state 

that the Secretary may, but is not 

required to, determine that a 

designation would not be prudent in the 

following circumstances: 

(i) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species; 

(ii) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or threats 

to the species’ habitat stem solely from 

causes that cannot be addressed through 

management actions resulting from 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act; 

(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of 

the United States provide no more than 

negligible conservation value, if any, for 

a species occurring primarily outside 

the jurisdiction of the United States; 

(iv) No areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat; or 

(v) The Secretary otherwise 

determines that designation of critical 

habitat would not be prudent based on 

the best scientific data available. 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

there is currently no imminent threat of 

collection or vandalism identified under 

Factor B for this species, and 

identification and mapping of critical 

habitat is not expected to initiate any 

such threat. In our SSA report and 

proposed listing determination for the 

Ocmulgee skullcap, we determined that 

the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range is a threat to Ocmulgee 

skullcap and that those threats in some 

way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) 

consultation measures. The species 

occurs wholly in the jurisdiction of the 

United States, and we are able to 

identify areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat. Therefore, because none 

of the circumstances enumerated in our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have 

been met and because the Secretary has 

not identified other circumstances for 

which this designation of critical habitat 

would be not prudent, we have 

determined that the designation of 

critical habitat is prudent for the 

Ocmulgee skullcap. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the Ocmulgee skullcap is determinable. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) 

state that critical habitat is not 

determinable when one or both of the 

following situations exist: 

(i) Data sufficient to perform required 

analyses are lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

identify any area that meets the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

When critical habitat is not 

determinable, the Act allows the Service 

an additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where this species is 

located. This and other information 

represent the best scientific data 

available and led us to conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat is 

determinable for the Ocmulgee skullcap. 

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 that 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 lifehistory 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37395 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or 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, the Service 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 proposed 

critical habitat designation is based 

(Service 2020, entire). A thorough 

account of the ecological needs of the 

Ocmulgee skullcap can be found in the 

SSA report (Service 2020, 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 in the 

Background section, 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. The herbaceous 

layer in this forest type includes a rich 

diversity of grasses and forbs. These 

grasses and forbs in the herbaceous 

layer of an intact forest 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 

calcareous forests are characterized by a 

diverse species composition ranging 

from short-lived pioneer species to longlived 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). 

Intact forested habitat with a mature 

canopy and discrete disturbances 

provides an important buffer of suitable 

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 (i.e., 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. 

More detail on the habitat and life 

history needs are summarized above 

under Background, and a thorough 

review is available in the SSA report 

(Service 2020, entire; available on 

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 4. 

TABLE 4—OCMULGEE SKULLCAP INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES NEEDS BY LIFE STAGE. H = HABITAT, N = NUTRITION, R = REPRODUCTION. KEY RESOURCE NEEDS ARE IN BOLDED TEXT AND INCLUDE PRECIPITATION (WATER), PARTIAL SUNLIGHT, SOIL, AND REDUCED COMPETITION

[Collins 1976; Chafin 2008] 

Life stage Resource and/or circumstances needed for individuals to complete life stage 

Resource 

function 

(HNR) 

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/encroaching plants ....................................................................... H 

Partial sunlight for photosynthesis .......................................................................................................... N 

Vegetative plant ............. Spring/summer precipitation ................................................................................................................... N 

Calcium-rich soil ...................................................................................................................................... H, N 

Reduced competition from invasives/encroaching plants ....................................................................... H 

Partial sunlight for photosynthesis .......................................................................................................... N 

Flowering plant ............... Spring/summer precipitation ................................................................................................................... N 

Calcium-rich soil ...................................................................................................................................... H, N 

Reduced competition from invasives/encroaching plants ....................................................................... H 

Pollinators required ................................................................................................................................. R 

Partial sunlight for photosynthesis .......................................................................................................... N 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37396 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 2020, 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 herb layer. 

(4) Intact forested habitat that is fully 

functional (i.e., with mature canopy and 

discrete disturbances) and buffered by 

surrounding habitat to impede the 

invasion of competitors. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the 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 herbivory 

by white-tailed deer. 

Special management considerations 

or protection are required within critical 

habitat areas to address these threats. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include, but are 

not limited to, review of proposed 

County and State projects and other 

development projects for effects to 

Ocmulgee skullcap and its habitat and 

avoidance of impacts to the species, 

control and reduction of nonnative 

invasive species, harvest of deer to 

reduce herbivory in affected 

populations, 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. 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. To determine and 

select appropriate occupied areas that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species or areas otherwise essential 

for the conservation of the Ocmulgee 

skullcap, 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 

range-wide 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, as well as 

ensuring there are adequate numbers of 

individual plants in populations and 

that there are multiple sufficiently 

resilient populations in each 

representative unit and across the 

current range of the species. This 

approach will help to ensure that 

catastrophic events cannot 

simultaneously affect all known 

populations of the Ocmulgee skullcap as 

well as lead to connectivity among 

populations. Recovery considerations, 

such as striving for representation of 

both watersheds in the species’ current 

range, were considered in formulating 

this proposal. 

Current extant 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)). We defined 

current extant populations as those with 

occurrences since 1999. Most 

populations have occurrence data from 

2007–2019, but we included element 

occurrence data from the 1999 

comprehensive species survey in for 

those few sites that have not been 

revisited but contain suitable habitat 

with the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. The areas surrounding these 

patches contain similar habitat, with the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species, 

although occurrences have not been 

recorded, and in some instances, no 

surveys conducted there. Ocmulgee 

skullcap requires areas of intact 

hardwood forest to provide the 

appropriate canopy conditions in large 

enough areas to buffer the species from 

encroachment of nonnative invasive 

species. The small patches do not, by 

themselves, 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 Viability). Based on 

the Act’s implementing regulations (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 2020, p. 21). Therefore, 

the habitat areas surrounding Ocmulgee 

skullcap occurrences are also included 

within these proposed 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 the 

Ocmulgee skullcap individuals and 

populations require. 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 relevant Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) layers 

(Service 2020, pp. 26, 36–39, Appendix 

A). 

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: areas that are 

considered to be occupied at the time of 

listing within the historical range of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37397 

species, and that contain physical or 

biological features to support lifehistory functions that are essential for 

the conservation of the species. For the 

purposes of the proposed 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 2020, 

p. 21). Suitable habitat within the 

buffered occurrences was determined 

through GIS analyses that identified the 

areas with appropriate aspect, 

geomorphons (landform pattern), 

temperature, burned area, soil type, 

vegetation cover and landcover, using 

source data from the National Elevation 

Dataset, Landsat, WorldClim, 

NatureServe landcover map, and the 

GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial 

Ecosystems dataset. Information specific 

to calcium-rich soils was not available; 

therefore, we consider species 

occurrence to represent presence of this 

identified species need. 

Based on this analysis, the following 

areas meet the criteria for areas 

occupied by 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, 

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, known to be 

occupied by the species historically, 

include the extant populations. These 

areas meet our conservation strategy and 

provide essential physical or biological 

features necessary to support and 

increase resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation for the Ocmulgee 

skullcap, and designating critical habitat 

in these areas, which occur in both 

watersheds (representative units) and 

currently contribute to, or are units in 

which resiliency can be improved to 

contribute to, the species’ viability, will 

sufficiently lead to the protection, and 

eventual reduction in risk of extirpation, 

of the species. 

We are not currently proposing to 

designate any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species because we have not identified 

any unoccupied areas that are essential 

for the conservation of the species. The 

protection of the current extant 

populations in both representative units 

would sufficiently reduce the risk of 

extinction, and improving the resiliency 

within these currently occupied units 

would increase viability to the point 

that the protections of the Act are no 

longer necessary. We have determined 

that the areas we are proposing are 

sufficient for the recovery of the species 

and align with our conservation strategy 

for Ocmulgee skullcap. 

Sources of data for this proposed 

designation of critical habitat include 

multiple databases maintained by 

universities and State agencies in 

Georgia and South Carolina, as well as 

numerous survey reports 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 2020, entire). Observation and 

collection records were compiled and 

provided to us by State partners during 

the SSA analysis. 

When determining proposed 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 nor 

all lands covered under the Robins Air 

Force Base integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP), which are 

exempted from the proposed critical 

habitat designation (see Application of 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act under 

Exemptions, below). Any such lands 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

proposed rule have been excluded by 

text in the proposed rule and are not 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat 

is finalized as proposed, a Federal 

action involving these lands would not 

trigger section 7 consultation with 

respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We propose to designate as critical 

habitat lands that we have determined 

are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., 

currently occupied) and that contain 

one or more of the physical or biological 

features that are essential to support 

life-history processes of the species. 

Units are proposed for designation 

based on one or more of the physical or 

biological features being present to 

support Ocmulgee skullcap’s life-history 

processes. All units contain all of the 

identified physical or biological features 

and support multiple life-history 

processes. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation is defined by the map or 

maps, as modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Proposed 

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. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing to designate 6,577 

ac (2,662 ha) in 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 propose 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) 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 proposed 

units are currently occupied by 

Ocmulgee skullcap. Table 5 shows the 

proposed critical habitat units and the 

approximate area of each unit. 

Approximately 76 percent of the 

proposed critical habitat occurs on 

private lands, 0.4 percent occurs on 

county lands, and the remaining 23 

percent occurs on State owned or 

managed lands. No Federal lands are 

included in this proposed critical 

habitat designation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37398 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR OCMULGEE SKULLCAP

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Critical habitat unit number and name Land ownership by type 

Size of unit in 

acres 

(hectares) 

1a: Columbia/Richmond .............................................................. Richmond County; Private ......................................................... 106 (43) 

1b: Columbia/Richmond .............................................................. Private ........................................................................................ 117 (47) 

1c: Columbia/Richmond .............................................................. Private ........................................................................................ 334 (135) 

2: Barney Bluff ............................................................................ Private ........................................................................................ 415 (168) 

3: Burke North ............................................................................. Private ........................................................................................ 526 (213) 

4: Burke South ............................................................................ State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 976 (395) 

5: Prescott Lakes ........................................................................ Private ........................................................................................ 81 (33) 

6: Bolingbroke Rest Area ............................................................ Private ........................................................................................ 338 (137) 

7: River North Bluff ..................................................................... State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 115 (46) 

8: Savage Branch ....................................................................... Private ........................................................................................ 115 (46) 

9: Robins Air Force Base ........................................................... Private ........................................................................................ 231 (93) 

10: Trib Richland Creek .............................................................. State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 340 (138) 

11: Oaky Woods North ............................................................... State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 657 (266) 

12: Crooked Creek ...................................................................... State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 205 (83) 

13: Shellstone Creek .................................................................. State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 160 (65) 

14: Oaky Woods South ............................................................... State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 363 (147) 

15: Dry Creek .............................................................................. State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 330 (133) 

16: James Dykes Memorial ........................................................ State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 515 (208) 

17: South Shellstone Creek ........................................................ State of Georgia; Private ........................................................... 403 (163) 

18: Jordan Creek ........................................................................ Private ........................................................................................ 250 (101) 

Total ..................................................................................... .................................................................................................... 6,577 (2,662) 

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 three subunits 

comprising 557 ac (225 ha) in Columbia 

and Richmond Counties, Georgia, and 

Aiken and Edgefield Counties, South 

Carolina. This unit consists of land 

owned by Richmond County (five 

percent) and private landowners (95 

percent), with 40 percent of Unit 1 held 

in a conservation easement. Unit 1 is 

considered occupied by Ocmulgee 

skullcap. All subunits are located north 

of Interstate 20 along the Savannah 

River and the 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 subunit contains 

all of the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, as described above under 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features. Essential physical 

or biological feature (4) 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 

subunit contains all of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, as described 

above under Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features. 

Essential physical or biological feature 

(4) 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) 

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. The subunit contains all of 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

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, mechanical, or 

chemical treatments, restoration of 

forest conditions, and increased harvest/ 

hunting or exclusion of white-tailed 

deer. In addition, special management 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37399 

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-ofway and transmission line vegetation 

maintenance areas (edge effect), and 

removal of nonnative invasive species. 

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. Unit 2 is considered 

occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. The 

unit contains all of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

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, 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 

implementation of best management 

practices during silviculture and logging 

and habitat restoration efforts. 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 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. Unit 3 is 

considered occupied by Ocmulgee 

skullcap. Unit 3 contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

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 

effects of silviculture and logging 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 may also include 

implementation of best management 

practices in silviculture and logging 

activities and habitat restoration efforts. 

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)). Unit 4 is considered occupied by 

Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 4 contains all 

of the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

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, 

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. Unit 

5 is considered occupied Ocmulgee 

skullcap. Unit 5 contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

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, 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. Unit 6 is considered occupied 

by Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 6 contains 

all of the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

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, 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, mechanical, or chemical 

treatments, and to reduce deer browsing 

through hunting/harvest or exclusion. 

Special management or protection may 

also include implementation of best 

management practices in silviculture 

and logging activities and habitat 

restoration efforts. 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 development plans 

and other projects considering land use 

changes. 

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 

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). This unit is adjacent to 

the main stem of the Ocmulgee River, 

north of the city of Macon. Unit 7 is 

considered occupied by Ocmulgee 

skullcap. Unit 7 contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37400 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

landowners to implement needed 

actions. Such special management or 

protection may include conservation 

efforts to reduce or control nonnative 

invasive plants via prescribed burning, 

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. Unit 8 is 

considered occupied by Ocmulgee 

skullcap. Unit 8 contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

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, 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: Robins Air Force Base 

Unit 9 consists of 455 ac (184 ha) in 

western Houston County, Georgia. This 

unit is adjacent to the main stem of the 

Ocmulgee River. This unit contains 231 

ac (93 ha) in private ownership and 224 

ac (91 ha) of Department of Defense 

(DoD)-owned lands that are covered 

under the Robins Air Force Base 

INRMP, which are exempted from 

proposed critical habitat designation 

(see Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act under Exemptions, below), and, 

therefore, the total area proposed for 

designation is 231 ac (93 ha). Unit 9 is 

considered occupied by Ocmulgee 

skullcap. Unit 9 contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

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, 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 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 

acres (40 ha)). Unit 10 is considered 

occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 10 

contains all of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

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 acres 

(174 ha)). Unit 11 is considered 

occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 11 

contains all of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

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, 

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)). Unit 12 is considered occupied 

by Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 12 contains 

all of the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

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)). Unit 

13 is considered occupied by Ocmulgee 

skullcap. Unit 13 contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required within 

Unit 13 to alleviate impacts from 

stressors that have led to the loss or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37401 

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, 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 (145 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)). Unit 14 is considered 

occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 14 

contains all of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

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)). Unit 15 is considered 

occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 15 

contains all of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

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, 

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 ha)). Unit 16 is considered 

occupied by Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 16 

contains all of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

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, 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, 

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)). 

Unit 17 is considered occupied by 

Ocmulgee skullcap. Unit 17 contains all 

of the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

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 and other 

nonnative habitat. 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. Unit 18 is 

considered occupied by Ocmulgee 

skullcap. Unit 18 contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

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 fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37402 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action which 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

We published a final rule revising the 

definition of destruction or adverse 

modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 

44976). 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. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. 

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 formal consultation on 

previously reviewed actions. These 

requirements apply when the Federal 

agency has retained discretionary 

involvement or control over the action 

(or the agency’s discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law) and, subsequent to the previous 

consultation: (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 (4) if a new 

species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the 

identified action. 

In such situations, Federal agencies 

sometimes may need to request 

reinitiation of consultation with us, but 

the regulations also specify some 

exceptions to the requirement to 

reinitiate consultation on specific land 

management plans after subsequently 

listing a new species or designating new 

critical habitat. See the regulations for a 

description of those exceptions. 

Application of the ‘‘Destruction or 

Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

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 us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by 

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that the Service may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would alter native 

vegetation structure or composition 

within the hardwood forest habitat and 

diminish the availability of shade or 

partial shade. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, land 

conversion or clearing related to 

residential, commercial, agricultural or 

recreational development, including 

associated infrastructure, logging or 

removal of overstory and midstory trees 

in the forest canopy, or introduction of 

nonnative plant species. These activities 

could lead to loss, modification, or 

fragmentation of the forest habitat and 

required canopy cover, thereby 

eliminating or reducing the habitat 

necessary for the growth and 

reproduction of the species. 

(2) Actions that would alter the pH of 

the soil. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, timber harvest 

activities, particularly burning as site 

preparation or slash pile disposal, oil 

and gas development and mining. These 

activities could result in significant 

ground disturbance that could alter the 

chemical and physical properties of the 

soil. 

(3) Actions that would decrease the 

diversity and abundance of floral 

resources and pollinators. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, the use of pesticides and 

herbicides, livestock grazing, and 

conversion of habitat to agricultural or 

silvicultural land use. These activities 

could lead to direct mortality of 

pollinators and diminish the floral 

resources available to pollinators. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37403 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 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, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

We consult with the military on the 

development and implementation of 

INRMPs for installations with listed 

species. We analyzed INRMPs 

developed by military installations 

located within the range of the proposed 

critical habitat designation for 

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 

Department of Defense (DoD) lands with 

completed, Service-approved INRMPs 

within the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Approved INRMP 

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)(B) of the Act. We are not 

including approximately 224 ac (91 ha) 

of forested habitat on Robins AFB in 

this proposed 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 

designated critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, impacts on national 

security, or any other relevant impacts. 

In considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not 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. We describe below the process 

that we undertook for taking into 

consideration each category of impacts 

and our analyses of the relevant 

impacts. 

Consideration of 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. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). Therefore, the baseline 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37404 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct a discretionary 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat. The 

information contained in our IEM was 

then used to develop a screening 

analysis of the probable effects of the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Ocmulgee skullcap (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2020). We began by 

conducting a screening analysis of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

in order to focus our analysis on the key 

factors that are likely to result in 

incremental economic impacts. The 

purpose of the screening analysis is to 

filter out particular geographic areas of 

critical habitat that are already subject 

to such protections and are, therefore, 

unlikely to incur incremental economic 

impacts. In particular, the screening 

analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., 

absent critical habitat designation) and 

includes any probable incremental 

economic impacts where land and water 

use may already be subject to 

conservation plans, land management 

plans, best management practices, or 

regulations that protect the habitat area 

as a result of the Federal listing status 

of the species. Ultimately, the screening 

analysis allows us to focus our analysis 

on evaluating the specific areas or 

sectors that may incur probable 

incremental economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. If the proposed 

critical habitat designation contains any 

unoccupied units, the screening 

analysis assesses whether those units 

require additional management or 

conservation efforts that may incur 

incremental economic impacts. This 

screening analysis, combined with the 

information contained in our IEM, 

constitute what we consider to be our 

draft economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the Ocmulgee skullcap; our DEA is 

summarized in the narrative below. 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 

the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives in quantitative 

(to the extent feasible) and qualitative 

terms. Consistent with the E.O. 

regulatory analysis requirements, our 

effects analysis under the Act may take 

into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly affected entities, 

where practicable and reasonable. If 

sufficient data are available, we assess, 

to the extent practicable, the probable 

impacts to both directly and indirectly 

affected entities. As part of our 

screening analysis, we considered the 

types of economic activities that are 

likely to occur within the areas likely 

affected by the critical habitat 

designation. In our evaluation of the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Ocmulgee skullcap, first we identified, 

in the IEM dated February 12, 2021, 

probable incremental economic impacts 

associated with the following categories 

of activities: (1) roadway and bridge 

maintenance, repair, and construction; 

(2) agriculture; (3) recreation; (4) 

commercial or residential development; 

and (5) State lands management 

(Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources Wildlife Management Areas). 

We considered each industry or 

category individually. Additionally, we 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation generally will not 

affect activities that do not have any 

Federal involvement; under the Act, 

designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. If we list the species, in areas 

where the Ocmulgee skullcap is present, 

Federal agencies would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7 of the Act on activities they fund, 

permit, or implement that may affect the 

species. If, when we list the species, we 

also finalize this proposed critical 

habitat designation, our consultations 

would include an evaluation of 

measures to avoid the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

would result from the species being 

listed and those attributable to the 

critical habitat designation (i.e., 

difference between the jeopardy and 

adverse modification standards) for the 

Ocmulgee skullcap’s critical habitat. 

Because the designation of critical 

habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap was 

proposed concurrently with the listing, 

it has been our experience that it is 

more difficult to discern which 

conservation efforts are attributable to 

the species being listed and those which 

will result solely from the designation of 

critical habitat. However, the following 

specific circumstances in this case help 

to inform our evaluation: (1) The 

essential physical or biological features 

identified for critical habitat are the 

same features essential for the life 

requisites of the species, and (2) any 

actions that would result in sufficient 

harm or harassment to constitute 

jeopardy to the Ocmulgee skullcap 

would also likely adversely affect the 

essential physical or biological features 

of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our 

rationale concerning this limited 

distinction between baseline 

conservation efforts and incremental 

impacts of the designation of critical 

habitat for this species. This evaluation 

of the incremental effects has been used 

as the basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Ocmulgee skullcap 

totals approximately 6,577 ac (2,662 ha) 

in 10 Georgia counties and 2 South 

Carolina counties. We have divided the 

proposed critical habitat into 18 units, 

with 1 unit divided into 3 subunits. All 

eighteen units are considered occupied 

because they contain current (1999– 

2020) occurrences of Ocmulgee 

skullcap. We are not proposing to 

designate any units of unoccupied 

habitat. Approximately 15 percent of the 

proposed designation is located on 

State-owned lands and 9 percent of the 

proposed designation is located on State 

owned or managed lands (leased lands 

in private ownership). Eighty-five 

percent of proposed lands are privately 

owned (includes the nine percent with 

State management) and no Federal lands 

are included in the proposed 

designation. 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 entities most likely to incur 

incremental costs are parties to section 

7 consultations, including Federal 

action agencies and, in some cases, third 

parties, most frequently State agencies 

or municipalities. Activities we expect 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37405 

would be subject to consultations that 

may involve private entities as third 

parties are residential and commercial 

development that may occur on private 

lands. Our analysis of economic impacts 

makes the following assumptions about 

consultation activity, most of which are 

more than likely to overstate than 

understate potential impacts due to the 

history of biological assessments and 

implementation of project conservation 

measures by the Federal action agencies. 

The analysis assumes that 

approximately 73 section 7 

consultations (approximately one formal 

consultation, two informal 

consultations, and 70 technical 

assistance efforts including species lists) 

will occur annually in the proposed 

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. 

The probable incremental economic 

impacts of the Ocmulgee skullcap 

proposed 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). This is due to two factors: (1) 

All proposed critical habitat areas are 

considered to be occupied by the 

species, and incremental economic 

impacts of critical habitat designation, 

other than administrative costs and 

minor costs of conservation efforts, are 

unlikely; and (2) few actions are 

anticipated that would result in section 

7 consultation or associated project 

modifications. 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). The designation 

is unlikely to trigger additional 

requirements under State or local 

regulations. Thus, the annual 

administrative burden is relatively low. 

In our DEA, we did not identify any 

ongoing or future actions that would 

warrant additional recommendations or 

project modifications to avoid adversely 

modifying critical habitat above those 

we would recommend for avoiding 

jeopardy to the species, and we 

anticipate minimal change in 

management at Georgia Department of 

Natural Resource wildlife management 

areas due to the designation of critical 

habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap. 

We are soliciting data and comments 

from the public on the DEA discussed 

above, as well as all aspects of this 

proposed rule and our required 

determinations. During the development 

of a final designation, we will consider 

the information presented in the DEA 

and any additional information on 

economic impacts we receive during the 

public comment period to determine 

whether any specific areas should be 

excluded from the final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 

4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we 

receive credible information regarding 

the existence of a meaningful economic 

or other relevant impact supporting a 

benefit of exclusion, we will conduct an 

exclusion analysis for the relevant area 

or areas. We may also exercise the 

discretion to evaluate any other 

particular areas for possible exclusion. 

Furthermore, when we conduct an 

exclusion analysis based on impacts 

identified by experts in, or sources with 

firsthand knowledge about, impacts that 

are outside the scope of the Service’s 

expertise, we will give weight to those 

impacts consistent with the expert or 

firsthand information unless we have 

rebutting information. We may exclude 

an area from critical habitat if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

the area outweigh the benefits of 

including the area, provided the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of this species. 

Consideration of National Security 

Impacts 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may 

not cover all DoD lands or areas that 

pose potential national-security 

concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is 

in the process of revising its INRMP for 

a newly listed species or a species 

previously not covered). If a particular 

area is not covered under section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security or 

homeland-security concerns are not a 

factor in the process of determining 

what areas meet the definition of 

‘‘critical habitat.’’ However, the Service 

must still consider impacts on national 

security, including homeland security, 

on those lands or areas not covered by 

section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 

4(b)(2) requires the Service to consider 

those impacts whenever it designates 

critical habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or another Federal agency has 

requested exclusion based on an 

assertion of national-security or 

homeland-security concerns, or we have 

otherwise identified national-security or 

homeland-security impacts from 

designating particular areas as critical 

habitat, we generally have reason to 

consider excluding those areas. 

However, we cannot automatically 

exclude requested areas. When DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency requests 

exclusion from critical habitat on the 

basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, we must conduct an 

exclusion analysis if the Federal 

requester provides credible information, 

including a reasonably specific 

justification of an incremental impact 

on national security that would result 

from the designation of that specific 

area as critical habitat. That justification 

could include demonstration of 

probable impacts, such as impacts to 

ongoing border-security patrols and 

surveillance activities, or a delay in 

training or facility construction, as a 

result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act. If the agency requesting the 

exclusion does not provide us with a 

reasonably specific justification, we will 

contact the agency to recommend that it 

provide a specific justification or 

clarification of its concerns relative to 

the probable incremental impact that 

could result from the designation. If we 

conduct an exclusion analysis because 

the agency provides a reasonably 

specific justification or because we 

decide to exercise the discretion to 

conduct an exclusion analysis, we will 

defer to the expert judgment of DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency as to: 

(1) Whether activities on its lands or 

waters, or its activities on other lands or 

waters, have national-security or 

homeland-security implications; (2) the 

importance of those implications; and 

(3) the degree to which the cited 

implications would be adversely 

affected in the absence of an exclusion. 

In that circumstance, in conducting a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis, we will give great weight to 

national-security and homeland-security 

concerns in analyzing the benefits of 

exclusion. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

also consider whether a national 

security or homeland security impact 

might exist on lands owned or managed 

by DoD or DHS. In preparing this 

proposal, we have determined that, 

other than the land exempted under 

section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act based 

upon the existence of an approved 

INRMP (see Exemptions, above), the 

lands within the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap 

are not owned or managed by DoD or 

DHS. Therefore, we anticipate no 

impact on national security or 

homeland security. However, if through 

the public comment period we receive 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37406 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

credible information regarding impacts 

on national security or homeland 

security from designating particular 

areas as critical habitat, then as part of 

developing the final designation of 

critical habitat, we will conduct a 

discretionary exclusion analysis to 

determine whether to exclude those 

areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) 

and our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 17.90. 

Consideration of 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 discussed 

above. Other relevant impacts may 

include, but are not limited to, impacts 

to Tribes, States, local governments, 

public health and safety, community 

interests, the environment (such as 

increased risk of wildfire or pest and 

invasive species management), Federal 

lands, and conservation plans, 

agreements, or partnerships. 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, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), 

or candidate conservation agreements 

with assurances (CCAAs)—or whether 

there are non-permitted conservation 

agreements and partnerships that may 

be impaired by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at whether Tribal 

conservation plans or partnerships, 

Tribal resources, or government-togovernment relationships of the United 

States with Tribal entities may be 

affected by the designation. We also 

consider any State, local, public-health, 

community-interest, environmental, or 

social impacts that might occur because 

of the designation. 

We have not identified any areas to 

consider for exclusion from critical 

habitat based on other relevant impacts. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that there are currently no 

permitted conservation plans or other 

management plans for Ocmulgee 

skullcap. We are not aware of any 

partnerships, management, or protection 

afforded by cooperative management 

efforts that provide for the conservation 

of the species. We have determined that 

no Tribal lands fall within the 

boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat for the Ocmulgee skullcap. 

There are no areas for which exclusion 

would result in conservation, or in the 

continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships. 

However, during the development of 

a final designation, we will consider all 

information currently available or 

received during the public comment 

period. If we receive credible 

information regarding the existence of a 

meaningful impact supporting a benefit 

of excluding any areas, we will 

undertake an exclusion analysis and 

determine whether those areas should 

be excluded from the final critical 

habitat designation under the authority 

of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. We may 

also exercise the discretion to undertake 

exclusion analyses for other areas as 

well, and we will describe all of our 

exclusion analyses as part of a final 

critical habitat determination. 

Summary of Exclusions Considered 

Under 4(b)(2) of the Act 

At this time, we are not considering 

any exclusions from the proposed 

designation based on economic impacts, 

national security impacts, or other 

relevant impacts—such as partnerships, 

management, or protection afforded by 

cooperative management efforts—under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In this 

proposed rule, we are seeking credible 

information from the public regarding 

the existence of a meaningful impact 

supporting a benefit of excluding any 

areas that would be used in an 

exclusion analysis that may result in the 

exclusion of areas from the final critical 

habitat designation. (Please see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for 

instructions on how to submit 

comments). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 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. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37407 

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 

whether 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 would be directly regulated if 

we adopt the proposed critical habitat 

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 would be directly 

regulated by this rulemaking, the 

Service certifies that, if made final as 

proposed, the proposed critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if made 

final, the proposed critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this proposed critical habitat 

designation would significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. We 

did not find that designation of this 

proposed critical habitat will have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use due 

to the lack of any energy supply or 

distribution lines within the proposed 

critical habitat designation. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following finding: 

(1) This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute, or regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, and includes both 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ 

and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal 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 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. The lands being 

proposed for critical habitat designation 

are owned by Richmond County and the 

State of Georgia. Neither of these 

governments fits the definition of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’, nor does the 

designation of critical habitat impose an 

obligation on State or local 

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 critical habitat. 

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 

the Service to regulate private actions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37408 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Ocmulgee skullcap, and it concludes 

that, if adopted, this designation of 

critical habitat 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 proposed 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 

proposed 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, the proposed rule does not have 

substantial direct effects either on the 

States, or on the relationship between 

the Federal government and the States, 

or on the distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

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 would 

be required. While non-Federal entities 

that receive Federal funding, assistance, 

or permits, or that otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

would not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. To assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

species, this proposed rule identifies the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

proposed areas of designated critical 

habitat are presented on maps, and the 

proposed 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.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with regulations 

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have coordinated with the Catawba 

Tribe regarding the SSA that informed 

this proposed listing determination and 

critical habitat designation and 

provided the Tribe with an opportunity 

to review the SSA report. We have 

determined that no Tribal lands fall 

within the boundaries of the proposed 

critical habitat for the Ocmulgee 

skullcap, so no Tribal lands would be 

affected by the proposed designation. 

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 proposed 

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, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37409 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 17.12 in paragraph (h) amend 

the table by adding an entry for 

‘‘Scutellaria ocmulgee’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants in 

alphabetical order under FLOWERING 

PLANTS to read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

Flowering Plants 

*******

Scutellaria 

ocmulgee.

Ocmulgee skullcap.Wherever found T [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule]; 50 CFR 

17.73(m); 4d 50 CFR 17.96(a).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.73 by adding 

paragraphs (c) through (m) to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.73 Special rules—flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

(c) through (l) [Reserved] 

(m) Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee 

skullcap). 

(1) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

plants also apply to Ocmulgee skullcap. 

Except as provided under paragraph 

(m)(2) of this section, it is unlawful for 

any person subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States to commit, to attempt 

to commit, to solicit another to commit, 

or cause to be committed, any of the 

following acts in regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.61(b) for endangered plants. 

(ii) Remove and reduce to possession 

the species from areas under Federal 

jurisdiction; maliciously damage or 

destroy the species on any such area; or 

remove, cut, dig up, or damage or 

destroy the species 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. 

(iii) Engage in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, as set forth at § 17.61(d) for 

endangered plants. 

(iv) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.61(e) for endangered plants. 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

permit under § 17.72. 

(ii) Remove and reduce to possession 

from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as 

set forth at § 17.71(b) for threatened 

plants. 

(iii) Engage in any act prohibited 

under paragraph (m)(1) of this section 

with seeds of cultivated specimens, 

provided that a statement that the seeds 

are of ‘‘cultivated origin’’ accompanies 

the seeds or their container. 

■ 4. Amend § 17.96(a) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Family Lamiaceae: Scutellaria 

ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap)’’, 

immediately after the entry for ‘‘Family 

Lamiaceae: Monardella viminea 

(willowy monardella)’’, to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 herb layer. 

(iv) Intact forested habitat that is fully 

functional (i.e., with mature canopy and 

discrete disturbances) and buffered by 

surrounding habitat to impede the 

invasion of competitors. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of this 

rule. 

(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 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) Note: Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37410 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Unit 1: Columbia/Richmond, 

Columbia and Richmond Counties, 

Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield 

Counties, South Carolina. 

(i) Unit 1 includes 3 subunits and 

consists of 557 ac (225 ha) in Columbia 

and Richmond Counties, Georgia, and 

Aiken and Edgefield Counties, South 

Carolina, including county-owned lands 

(28 ac (11 ha)) and lands in private 

ownership (529 ac (214 ha)). 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.001</GPH>

Critical Hal:titat Index Map for Ocmulgee Skullcap (8:cutellarja qcm1,1/g99:) 

Bibb, Bleckley; Burke, Columbia, Houston; Monroe,Pulaski; Richmond;: Screven, 

and Twl s Counties, Geo la; :P.il<en and Ed efleld Counties, South Caro Una 

0 5 '10 :20Mili1'$ 

J 1 r , r, f , i I I I 1-:f 1. I l i 

0 5 10 21H<ilonie!eis 

- Ci'iiic;alAatjtlll! 

·=-=-=-•··0¢lmJ1gM.·RiVet·anc1saWi11naii·R1ver• 

CJ Cotlnty Soundai)' • 

C]State Boundary 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37411 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.002</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee skullcap 

Unit 1, Columbia/Richmond, 

Columbia and Richmond Counties, Georgia 

Ed efield and Aiken Counties South Carolina 

Edgefield County 

Subunit 1a 

Columbia County 

Richmond County 

N 

A 0 0.5 1 2 Miie~ 

0 0,5 1 2Kllomet«s 

South Carolina 

Aiken County 

Legend 

=-::ICICl River 

1111 Critical Habitat 

CJ County Boundary 

D State Boundary 
37412 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.003</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 2, Barney Bluff, Richmond County, Georgia 

Aiken County 

South Carolina 

Richmond County 

Georgia 

BurkEICounty 

N 

A 

0 0,5 1 2Miles 

I I I I I I j I I 

I I .I I I I I I I 

~ o 0,75 1.5 3 Kilometel'$ 

Legend 

=-=-=-=,· River 

1111 Critical Habitat 

D County Boundary 

D State Boundary 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37413 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.004</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 3, Burke North, Burke County, Georgia 

Richmond County 

Burke County 

Georgia 

N 

A 

o 0:75 1:5 3 Miles 

t ! I L l I t I. 

1.• I I I I I I I 

0 O, 751.5 3 Kilom$rs 

Aiken County 

South Carolina 

Legend 

-=-=-=i. River 

Barnwell county 

1111 Critical Habitat 

[:J County Boundary 

D State Boundary 
37414 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.005</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 4, Burke South, Burke County, Georgia 

Aiken. County 

South Caronna 

Burke County 

Georgia 

N 

A 

Q ◊.7S 1.5 3 MDos 

I 1 I i- l r I J 

Barnwell County 

Legend 

=-=-=-::i River 

Ill Critical Habitat 

c=J County Boundary 

D State .Boundary 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37415 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.006</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 5, Prescott Lakes, Screven County, Georgia 

Georgia 

South Carolina 

Allendale County 

Screven county 

N 

A Legend 

=-=-=-::i .. River 

0 0:325 0.65 UMiles 

I I ,. I· . J I I 

I I I I I I I I I 

O 0.3750,75 1.5 Kilometers 

1111 Critical Habitat 

C:J County Boundary 

D State Boundary 
37416 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.007</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 6, Bolingbroke Rest Area, Monroe County, Georgia 

Monroe county 

N 

A Legend 

~ River 

0 0:4 0,8. 1.6 Miles 

I ) I I I ) I I Ill Critical Habitat 

~ 

j_ I I I I I I I I 

o .0.45 0.9 1.8 Kilometers 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37417 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.008</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 7, River North Bluff, Bibb County, Georgia 

Bibb County 

N 

A 

o 0.15 0.3 0.6 Miles 

l l I I I l I 

I Ii I I I I I J 

o 0.1750:35 O.J Kilometers 

Jones county 

Legend 

=-=-=-:;River 

Ill Critical Habitat 

c:=J. Couhty Boundary 
37418 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(14) Unit 9: 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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.009</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 8, Savage Branch, Bibb County, Georgia 

Bibb County 

N 

A 

0 0.2 0.4 0,8 Miles 

I I I ' l ' I I 

I I I ~ I f. I I I 

0 0,2250.45 0.9 Kik>met11rs 

Jone$ County 

Bibb County 

Legend 

~ River 

Ill Critical Habitat 

c=J. CountyB:oundary 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37419 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.010</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 9, Robins Air Force Base, Houston .County, Georgia 

~oblns Air Force Base 

Houston County 

N 

A 

o 0:25 o:s 1 Miles 

I I · I . I J f I 

I II I I I I I 

o 0.2750:55 1 .. 1 Kilometers 

Twiggs County 

Legend 

=-=-=-=> River 

1111 Critical Habitat 

CJ county Boundary 
37420 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.011</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 10, Trlb Richland Creek, Twiggs County, Georgia 

Twiggs county 

N 

A 

0 0.325 0:65 1:3 Miles 

t I 

I ii I I I ii I 

O 0.3750.75 1.5 Kilometers 

Legend 

~·River 

1111 Critical Habital 

c=] County :Sou11da1y 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37421 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.012</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 11, Oaky Woods North, Houston County, Georgia 

Houston County 

N 

A 

o 0,5 1 2 Miles 

I t I I I t I I 

I l I l I I ii I 

Q 0;5 1 2 Kiiometers 

Legend 

~ River 

1111 CriticaLHabitat 

D County Boundary 
37422 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.013</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 12,. Crooked Creek, Twiggs County, Georgia 

twfggs Cciurify 

Houston County 

N 

A 

o 0,325. 0.65 u Miles 

I I I I I I I l 

~ I ii I I I Ii I 

O 0.3750.75 1.5 Kilometertl 

Bleckley County 

Legend 

~ River 

- Crltical Habitat 

D County Boundary 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37423 

(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 Unit 14 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.014</GPH>

~ 

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 13, Shellstone Creek, Twiggs County, Georgia 

Twig9-s County 

N 

A 

o 0,25 o.5 1 Miles 

I I I I l I I I 

I I II I I I I 

0 0.2750.55 1.1. Kilometers 

Bleckley County 

Legend 

·~·River 

1111 Critlcal Habitat 

C=1 County Boundary 
37424 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.015</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 14, Oaky Woods South, Houston County, Georgia 

Houston C::ounty 

N 

A 

o 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 

I I J I t t I I 

I I I I I i I I I 

0 0.2750,55 1.1 Kilometers 

Big Indian creek 

Legend 

~ Rlver 

1111 Critical Habitat 

CJ County Boundary 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37425 

(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 Unit 16 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.016</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocrnulgee Skullcap 

Unit 15, Dry Creek, Houston and Pulaski Counties, Georgia 

Houston County 

POiaski County 

N 

A 

o 0.25 0.5 1Miies 

I I I I I I J I ) 

I II I I I I I 

0 0.27'50,55 1.1 Kilometers 

Legend 

=-=-=-:::i· 8iver 

1111 Critical Habitat 

c=J Countysoundary 
37426 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.017</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 16, James Dykes Memorial, · 

Bleckley and Pulaski Counties, Georgia 

Houston County 

Pulaski County 

N 

A 

o 0.25 0,5 1 Miles 

I I I I I I I I l 

f I I I I i I I I 

0 0.2750.55 1.1 Kilometers 

Bleckley County 

Legend 

=-=-=-::i River 

1111 Critical Habitat 

c=J. County Boundary 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37427 

(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: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.018</GPH>

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 17, South Shellstone Creek, Bleckley County, Georgia 

N 

A 

o 0.4 0:8 1.6 Miles 

I I . I I I , I I I 

i I I I l I I I I 

O 0,5 1 2 Kilometers 

Bleckley County 

Legend 

=-==-=-:; River 

1111 Critical Habitat 

C=1 county Boundary 
37428 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12824 Filed 6–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22JN22.019</GPH>

............,_ 

Critical Habitat for Ocmulgee Skullcap 

Unit 18, Jordan Creek, Pulaski County, Georgia 

Pulaski County 

N 

A 

o 0.25 0.5 t Miles 

I I I I I I I . I I 

I ii I I ii I I 

0 0.2750,55 1.1 Kilometers 

Legend 

~.River 

1111 Critical Habitat 

CJ County Boundary