Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered Status for Carolina Madtom and Designations of Critical Habitat

Citation85 FR 45839
Record Number2020-15347
Published date30 July 2020
CourtFish And Wildlife Service
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
                [Proposed Rules]
                [Pages 45839-45861]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2020-15347]
                =======================================================================
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                Fish and Wildlife Service
                50 CFR Part 17
                [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
                RIN 1018-BC28
                Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
                Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered
                Status for Carolina Madtom and Designations of Critical Habitat
                AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
                ACTION: Proposed rule; revisions and reopening of comment period.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
                reopening of the comment period on our May 22, 2019, proposed rule to
                list the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus) as an endangered species
                and the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi) as a threatened species
                with a section 4(d) rule, and to designate critical habitat for both
                species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In
                this document, we present revisions to the section 4(d) rule language
                and to the critical habitat designation we proposed for the Neuse River
                waterdog on May 22, 2019. We now propose to designate a total of 779
                miles (1,254 kilometers) as critical habitat for the Neuse River
                waterdog across 18 units within portions of 18 counties in North
                Carolina. This amounts to an increase of 41 miles (66 kilometers) in
                the proposed critical habitat designation for that species. We are
                reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties the
                opportunity to comment on the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, as well as
                the revisions described in this document. Comments previously submitted
                need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in
                preparation of the final rule.
                DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published May 22, 2019,
                at 84 FR 23644, is reopened. So that we can fully consider your
                comments in our final determination, submit them on or before August
                31, 2020. 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.
                ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain copies of the May 22,
                2019, proposed rule and associated documents on the internet at http://
                [[Page 45840]]
                www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092 or by mail
                from the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
                INFORMATION CONTACT).
                 Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the
                following methods:
                 (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092,
                which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
                Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
                side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
                Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
                clicking on ``Comment Now!''
                 (2) By hard copy: Submit your comments by U.S. mail to: Public
                Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                Service, MS: JAO/1N, 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 http://www.regulations.gov. This
                generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
                us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S.
                Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office,
                551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919-856-4520. Persons
                who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
                Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                Information Requested
                 We will accept written comments and information during this
                reopened comment period on our May 22, 2019, proposed listing
                determination and designation of critical habitat for the Carolina
                madtom and proposed listing determination with section 4(d) rule and
                designation of critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog (84 FR
                23644), the revisions to the section 4(d) rule and proposed critical
                habitat designation for the Neuse River waterdog that are described in
                this document, and our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
                critical habitat designations for both species. We will consider
                information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are
                particularly interested in comments concerning:
                 (1) The Carolina madtom's and Neuse River waterdog's biology,
                range, and population trends, including:
                 (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
                habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
                 (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, their
                habitats, 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 the 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 the species,
                including the locations of any additional populations of the species.
                 (5) Information on activities that are necessary and advisable to
                provide for the conservation of the Neuse River waterdog to include in
                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 any other forms of take should be excepted
                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, including whether
                there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of
                which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether
                that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that
                the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
                 (7) Specific information on:
                 (a) The amount and distribution of Carolina madtom or Neuse River
                waterdog 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 relevant species, should be included in the
                designation and why;
                 (c) 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
                 (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
                for the conservation of the species 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 areas
                that may be impacted.
                 (10) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
                economic impacts in the DEA 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.
                 (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.''
                 If you submitted comments or information on the May 22, 2019,
                proposed rule or DEA during the comment period that was open from May
                22, 2019, to July 22, 2019, please do not resubmit them. Any such
                comments are already part of the public record of this rulemaking
                proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our
                final determination. Our final determination will take into
                consideration all written comments and any additional information we
                receive during both comment periods. The final decision may differ from
                the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, as revised by the proposals described
                in this document, based on our review of all information
                [[Page 45841]]
                we receive during this rulemaking proceeding.
                 You may submit your comments and materials concerning the May 22,
                2019, proposed rule, this document, or the DEA by one of the methods
                listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the
                methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--including any personal
                identifying information--will be posted on the website. We will post
                all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you
                submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying
                information, you may request at the top of your document that we
                withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot
                guarantee that we will be able to do so.
                 Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
                documentation we used in preparing the May 22, 2019, proposed rule,
                this document, and the DEA, will be available for public inspection on
                http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, or by
                appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
                Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
                FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the May 22,
                2019, proposed rule, this document, and the DEA on the internet at
                http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092, or by
                mail from the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
                INFORMATION CONTACT).
                Public Hearing
                 Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
                proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 15 days after
                the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register
                (see DATES, above). 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).
                 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 a species is
                threatened instead of endangered (or vice versa), or we may conclude
                that a species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species
                or a threatened species. Such final decisions would: (1) Be based on
                the best scientific and commercial data available after considering all
                of the relevant factors; (2) rely only on factors authorized by
                statute; and (3) articulate a rational connection between the facts
                found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our
                conclusion.
                Background
                 The purpose of this document is to discuss only those topics
                directly relevant to the revised proposed section 4(d) rule language
                and the designation of critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog.
                For more information on the Carolina madtom and the Neuse River
                waterdog, their habitats, and previous Federal actions concerning
                either species, refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal
                Register on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 23644).
                 In our May 22, 2019, proposed rule, we proposed to list the Neuse
                River waterdog as a threatened species with a section 4(d) rule,
                including exceptions for species restoration efforts by State wildlife
                agencies, channel restoration projects, bank stabilization projects,
                and silvicultural practices and forest management activities. That rule
                also proposed to designate critical habitat in 16 units encompassing
                approximately 738 stream miles (1,188 kilometers) in the Tar and Neuse
                river basins in North Carolina. In addition, we announced the
                availability of a DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation. We
                accepted comments on the proposal and DEA for 60 days, ending July 22,
                2019.
                 Based on information we received during the public comment period,
                we propose to revise the section 4(d) rule and critical habitat
                designation for Neuse River waterdog, and we are therefore reopening
                the comment period for 30 days to allow the public additional time to
                submit comments on both the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, as well as the
                revisions described in this document.
                New Information and Revisions to Previously Proposed Section 4(d) Rule
                 Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
                states that the ``Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems
                necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation'' of species
                listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory
                language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree
                of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (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.'' 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, 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 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 rules
                developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority
                where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or included a
                limited taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher,
                2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental
                Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis
                5432 (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 enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened
                list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available
                to him with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He
                may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species,
                or he 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).
                 Exercising its authority under section 4(d), the Service has
                developed a species-specific proposed rule that is designed to address
                the Neuse River waterdog's specific threats and conservation needs.
                Although the
                [[Page 45842]]
                statute does not require the Service to make a ``necessary and
                advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of specific
                prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a whole
                satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue
                regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
                conservation of the Neuse River waterdog. The proposed 4(d) rule would
                promote conservation of the Neuse River waterdog by encouraging
                management of the landscape in ways that meet both land management
                considerations and the conservation needs of the Neuse River waterdog.
                It would be one of the tools that the Service would use to promote the
                conservation of the Neuse River waterdog. It would apply only if and
                when the Service makes final the listing of the Neuse River waterdog as
                a threatened species.
                 As discussed under the May 22, 2019, proposed rule's Summary of
                Biological Status and Threats (84 FR 23644, pp. 84 FR 23646-23652),
                declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream
                fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats are affecting the
                status of the Neuse River waterdog. These threats, which are expected
                to be exacerbated by continued urbanization and the effects of climate
                change, were central to our assessment of the future viability of the
                Neuse River waterdog. Therefore, we propose to prohibit actions that
                result in the incidental take of Neuse River waterdog by altering or
                degrading the habitat. Regulating incidental take resulting from these
                activities would help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow
                its rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from
                other stressors.
                 This 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the Neuse
                River waterdog by prohibiting the following activities, except as
                otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; take;
                possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; 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.
                 Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
                wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
                such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
                regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
                direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
                incidental and/or intentional take would help preserve the species'
                remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and decrease
                synergistic, negative effects from other stressors. Therefore, we
                proposed to prohibit intentional take of the Neuse River waterdog,
                including, but not limited to, capturing, handling, trapping,
                collecting, or other activities. In this document, we propose to change
                the way in which the provisions of the 4(d) rule for the Neuse River
                waterdog would appear in 50 CFR 17.43, and we would no longer refer to
                the prohibitions set forth at 50 CFR 17.31(a). Instead, we detail the
                prohibitions set forth at 50 CFR 17.21, which apply to endangered
                species. However, the substance of the prohibitions, and exceptions to
                those prohibitions, in the proposed 4(d) rule for the Neuse River
                waterdog have not changed. As we stated in the May 22, 2019, proposed
                rule, the species needs active conservation to improve the quality of
                its habitat. By excepting some of the general prohibitions of 50 CFR
                17.21, these excepted actions can encourage cooperation by landowners
                and other affected parties in implementing conservation measures. This
                would allow use of the land while at the same time ensuring the
                protection of suitable habitat and minimizing impact on the species.
                 During the comment period on the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, we
                received numerous comments from the public on several of the exceptions
                to the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule. As a result of these
                comments, we retain the four exceptions, and propose to revise three of
                them. Below, we describe the four exceptions, the comments we received,
                and their proposed revisions, if any.
                 The first exception, for incidental take resulting from species
                restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, including collection of
                broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive
                propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and
                unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species, remains
                unchanged from what we proposed on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 23644, see pp.
                84 FR 23655, 23670).
                 The second exception, for incidental take resulting from channel
                restoration projects, retains all of the language from the May 22,
                2019, proposed rule for creation of natural, physically stable,
                ecologically functioning streams that are reconnected with their
                groundwater aquifer (84 FR 23644, see pp. 84 FR 23655, 23670). However,
                we propose to add language that would require surveys for and
                relocation of Neuse River waterdogs observed prior to commencement of
                restoration action.
                 The third exception, for incidental take resulting from bank
                stabilization projects, remains largely unchanged from what we proposed
                on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 23644, see pp. 84 FR 23655, 23671), except that
                we propose to add a requirement that appropriate ``native'' vegetation,
                including woody species appropriate for the region and habitat, be used
                for stabilization.
                 During the public comment period, the Service received several
                comments on the fourth exception for incidental take resulting from
                silvicultural practices and forest management activities (84 FR 23644,
                see pp. 84 FR 23655-23656, 23671), including seeking further
                clarification of the meaning of ``highest standard'' best management
                practices (BMPs). Therefore, to address any uncertainty regarding which
                silvicultural and forest management BMPs will satisfy this exception
                for incidental take resulting from silvicultural practices and forest
                management activities, we propose to revise our section 4(d) language
                to clarify that the BMPs must result in protection of the habitat
                features that provide for the breeding, feeding, sheltering, and
                dispersal needs of the Neuse River waterdog. Specifically concerning
                streamside management zones (SMZs), we propose to revise the proposed
                4(d) rule to provide details about SMZ widths that would be protective
                of the habitat for the species, similar to those more substantial BMPs
                considered for ``special/sensitive'' streams that are designated
                ``trout waters'' and already implemented by the North Carolina forestry
                program in the Neuse and Tar River basins (North Carolina Forest
                Service (NCFS) 2006, p. 42). SMZs for waterbodies that are occupied by
                the Neuse River waterdog are intended to be similar to trout water
                buffers, as described by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
                Quality's Environmental Management Commission (North Carolina General
                Statutes 113A-57), and to protect the species' life-history
                requirements, as documented in the species status assessment (SSA) for
                the Neuse River waterdog (USFWS 2019, pp. 5-11). In waterbodies that
                support listed aquatic species, a wider SMZ is more effective at
                reducing sedimentation, maintaining lower water temperatures through
                shading, and introducing food (such as leaves and insects) into the
                food chain (VADF 2011, p. 37). Ninety percent of the food in forested
                streams comes from bordering vegetation (NCWRC 2002, p. 6; USFWS 2006,
                p. 6; Stewart et al. 2000, p. 210; USFWS 2018, p. 10). Neuse River
                waterdogs require cool,
                [[Page 45843]]
                well-oxygenated water, and a clean stream bottom (USFWS 2018, p. 10). A
                lack of these features limits the number of waterdogs a stream can
                support. Aquatic habitat and suitable water temperature can be
                maintained even during logging operations when streamside vegetation is
                left intact (VADF 2011, p. 37).
                 In addition, we propose to revise the 4(d) rule to provide details
                on how access roads, skid trails, and crossings can be used in a way
                that would be most protective of the habitat by reducing sedimentation
                (NCFS 2018, entire). Highly turbid, silted stream water can clog the
                external gills of waterdogs, and can also decrease the stream's insect
                population, an important source of food (USFWS 2018, p. 8).
                Accordingly, we have clarified the intent of the fourth exception, for
                incidental take resulting from silviculture practices and forest
                management activities, to those practices and activities that implement
                State-approved best management practices (BMPs), which include the
                following specifications for streamside management zones (SMZs), stream
                crossings, and access roads:
                 1. A two-zoned SMZ is established and maintained along each side of
                the margins of intermittent streams, perennial streams, and perennial
                waterbodies (see table for example of current specifications based on
                slope similar to trout waters (VADF 2011, p. 15)). The SMZ is measured
                from bankfull (i.e., the top of the stream bank on both sides), and is
                expected to confine visible sediment resulting from accelerated
                erosion.
                 Table 1--Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) for Waterbodies Occupied by Neuse River Waterdog
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Zone 2
                 Zone 1 (no (selective Total SMZ
                 touch/no harvest width
                 Percent slope of adjacent lands (%) harvest; allowed; (measured in
                 measured in measured in feet)
                 feet) feet)
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                0-10............................................................ 50 16 66
                11-20........................................................... 50 25 75
                21-45........................................................... 50 50 100
                46+............................................................. 50 70 120
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 2. Access roads and skid trails that cross an intermittent stream,
                a perennial stream, or a perennial waterbody are installed using
                properly designed and constructed structures installed at right angles
                to the stream. Structures do not impede fish passage or stream flow,
                and minimize the amount of visible sediment that enters that stream or
                waterbody. Number of crossings is minimized, and stable sites for
                crossings are chosen. These crossings are installed so that:
                 a. Stream flow is not obstructed or impeded;
                 b. No intermittent stream channel, perennial stream channel, or
                perennial waterbody is used as an access road or skid trail;
                 c. Crossings are provided with effective structures or native
                ground cover to protect the stream banks and stream channel from
                accelerated erosion;
                 d. Crossings have sufficient water control devices to collect and
                divert surface flow from the access road or skid trail into undisturbed
                areas or other control structures to restrain accelerated erosion and
                prevent visible sediment from entering intermittent streams, perennial
                streams, and perennial waterbodies; and
                 e. Native ground cover, or best management practices, that prevents
                visible sediment from entering intermittent streams, perennial streams,
                and perennial waterbodies is provided within 10 working days of initial
                disturbance and is maintained until the site is permanently stabilized.
                 3. All access roads and skid trails are located outside of SMZs
                unless no other alternative exists.
                 These State-approved forestry BMPs are upheld by North Carolina's
                Forest Practice Guidelines (FPGs) related to water quality standards
                and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative/Forest Stewardship Council/
                American Tree Farm System certification standards for both forest
                management and responsible fiber sourcing, and are publicly available
                on the websites for these organizations, as follows:
                 https://www.stateforesters.org/bmps/
                 https://www.ncforestservice.gov/publications/Forestry%20Leaflets/WQ01.pdf
                 https://www.sfiprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2015_2019StandardsandRulesSection2Oct2015.pdf
                 https://us.fsc.org/download.fsc-us-forest-management-standard-v1-0.95.htm
                 https://www.treefarmsystem.org/certification-american-tree-farm-standards
                 We reiterate that these actions and activities may have some
                minimal level of take of the Neuse River waterdog, but are unlikely to
                negatively impact the species' conservation and recovery efforts. To
                the contrary, we expect they would have a net beneficial effect on the
                species. Across the species' range, instream habitats have been
                degraded physically by sedimentation and by direct channel disturbance.
                The activities in the proposed 4(d) rule would correct some of these
                problems, creating more favorable habitat conditions for the species.
                 As we already stated in the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, the
                proposed 4(d) rule would allow the issuance of permits to carry out
                otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above,
                involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
                governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to
                threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
                For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
                species, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for
                educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes
                consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain
                statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections
                9 and 10 of the Act.
                 The Service recognizes State natural resource agencies as essential
                partners in the 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 relationships with local governments and
                landowners, are in a unique position to assist the Services in
                implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the
                Act provides
                [[Page 45844]]
                that the Services 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 Neuse River waterdog that may result in
                otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
                 Finally, the proposed 4(d) rule would allow take of the Neuse River
                waterdog without a permit by any employee or agent of the Service or a
                State conservation agency who is designated by his/her agency for such
                purposes and when acting in the course of his official duties if such
                action is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; to
                dispose of a dead specimen; or to salvage a dead specimen which may be
                useful for scientific study. In addition, Federal and State law
                enforcement officers may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a
                Neuse River waterdog taken in violation of the Act as necessary.
                 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 the ability of
                the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
                protection of the Neuse River waterdog. However, interagency
                cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic
                consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service,
                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 the Service could provide or use, respectively, to
                streamline the implementation of this proposed 4(d) rule (see
                Information Requested, above).
                New Information and Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat for Neuse
                River Waterdog
                 During the public comment period, we received 83 letters containing
                26 comments on the proposed critical habitat designation, with 7
                substantive comments specific to the proposed designation for Neuse
                River waterdog. The comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
                Commission (NCWRC) and one private consultant provided new observation
                data collected since the November 2018 version of the SSA report,
                including updated 2018 and 2019 survey records in Middle Creek (Neuse
                River Basin, Johnston County, North Carolina), Tuckahoe Swamp (Trent
                River Basin, Jones County, North Carolina), Tar River (Tar River Basin,
                Franklin and Granville Counties, North Carolina), Fishing Creek (Tar
                River Basin, Nash County, North Carolina), and Bens Creek (Fishing
                Creek Subbasin, Warren County, North Carolina).
                 Based on the new data, we propose certain revisions to the critical
                habitat designation we proposed on May 22, 2019, for the Neuse River
                waterdog. Specifically, we propose to add two units based on new
                observation data of the species provided by NCWRC in locations within
                the historical range; new Unit 3 is 2 miles (3.2 km) of Bens Creek in
                the Tar River Basin in Warren County, North Carolina, and new Unit 18
                is 2 miles (3.2 km) of Tuckahoe Swamp in the Trent River Basin in Jones
                County, North Carolina. We also propose to revise Unit 1 to add 3.7
                river miles (6 km) of the Upper Tar River based on a 2018 observation
                provided by NCWRC of Neuse River waterdog. We propose to revise Unit 4
                (previously Unit 3) to add 20 miles (32.3 km) of Fishing Creek based on
                a 2019 observation provided by NCWRC of Neuse River waterdog. We
                propose to revise Unit 6 (previously Unit 5) to add 11 miles (17.8 km)
                of the upper reach of the Tar River based on a 2019 observation by a
                permitted private consultant of Neuse River waterdog. We propose to
                revise Unit 10 (previously Unit 9) to add 23.2 miles (37.4 km) of
                Middle Creek based on two 2018 observations provided by NCWRC of Neuse
                River waterdog. We propose to revise the downstream portion of Unit 17
                (previously Unit 16) to remove 1.1 miles (2 km) of the Trent River that
                borders the U.S. Department of Defense's Marine Corps Air Station
                Cherry Point Oak Grove Outlying Landing Field (OLF) based on the Neuse
                River waterdog being included in the Station's integrated natural
                resources management plan.
                 All of the additional stream miles are currently occupied, contain
                most or all of the physical or biological features to support life-
                history functions essential to the conservation of the Neuse River
                waterdog, and may require special management considerations or
                protection from threats as described in the May 22, 2019, proposed rule
                (84 FR 23644). Because of these revisions, the numbering for most of
                the critical habitat units has changed from the May 22, 2019, proposed
                rule, although the names and descriptions remain the same.
                 We also used a higher resolution National Hydrography Dataset GIS
                data layer, which resulted in minor changes to the stream mileage
                numbers. Most of the changes result in an increase or decrease of less
                than 3 mi (4.8 km) to proposed critical habitat in any unit, with the
                greatest change being an addition of 4.2 mi (6.8 km) to Unit 5
                (previously Unit 4). The exception is Unit 17 (previously Unit 16),
                which had an error in the proposed stream mileage; to correct that
                error, in this document, we reduce the proposed critical habitat in
                that unit by approximately 28.5 mi (45.6 km).
                 The DEA for the proposed critical habitat designation remains the
                same; the counties containing the new units are included in the DEA's
                analysis that uses the consultation efforts occurring in counties,
                which overlap with the May 22, 2019, proposed designation for Neuse
                River waterdog critical habitat, as the basis of determining
                incremental costs.
                Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
                 In total, we now propose to designate approximately 779 miles
                (1,254 kilometers) in 18 units in North Carolina as critical habitat
                for the Neuse River waterdog. The proposed critical habitat areas
                described below constitute our best assessment, at this time, of areas
                that meet the definition of critical habitat, and all units are
                considered currently occupied by the species. Those 18 units are: (1)
                Upper Tar River, (2) Upper Fishing Creek, (3) Bens Creek, (4) Fishing
                Creek Subbasin, (5) Sandy/Swift Creek, (6) Middle Tar River Subbasin,
                (7) Lower Tar River Subbasin, (8) Eno River, (9) Flat River, (10)
                Middle Creek, (11) Swift Creek, (12) Little River, (13) Mill Creek,
                (14) Middle Neuse River, (15) Contentnea Creek/Lower Neuse River
                Subbasin, (16) Swift Creek (Lower Neuse), (17) Trent River, and (18)
                Tuckahoe Swamp. Table 2 shows the name, land ownership of the riparian
                areas surrounding the units, and approximate river miles of the
                proposed designated units for the Neuse River waterdog. Where
                appropriate, Table 2 also notes the previous number for units for which
                the numbering has changed.
                [[Page 45845]]
                 Table 2--Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Neuse River Waterdog
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 River miles Previous unit
                 Critical habitat unit Riparian ownership (kilometers) Proposed changes numbering
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Unit 1. TAR1--Upper Tar River... Private; Easements 12.3 (19.8)....... +3.7 mi (6 km).... Unit 1: TAR1.
                Unit 2. TAR2--Upper Fishing Private; Easements 10.5 (17)......... none.............. Unit 2: TAR2.
                 Creek.
                Unit 3. TAR3--Bens Creek........ Private........... 2 (3.2)........... New............... New Unit.
                Unit 4. TAR4a--Fishing Creek Private; 82.8 (133.3)...... +20 mi (32.3 km).. Unit 3: TAR3a.
                 Subbasin. Easements; State.
                Unit 5. TAR4b--Sandy/Swift Creek Private; 72.5 (116.8)...... none.............. Unit 4: TAR3b.
                 Easements; State.
                Unit 6. TAR4c--Middle Tar River Private; 111 (179)......... +11 mi (17.8 km).. Unit 5: TAR3c.
                 Subbasin. Easements; State.
                Unit 7. TAR4d--Lower Tar River Private; 59.9 (96.3)....... none.............. Unit 6: TAR3d.
                 Subbasin. Easements; State.
                Unit 8. NR1--Eno River.......... Private; 43.9 (70.6)....... none.............. Unit 7: NR1.
                 Easements; State.
                Unit 9. NR2--Flat River......... Private; Easements 15.2 (24.5)....... none.............. Unit 8: NR2.
                Unit 10. NR3--Middle Creek...... Private; 30.8 (49.6)....... +23.2 mi (37.4 km) Unit 9: NR3.
                 Easements; Local.
                Unit 11. NR4--Swift Creek....... Private........... 24 (38.6)......... none.............. Unit 10: NR4.
                Unit 12. NR5a--Little River..... Private; Easements 90.8 (146.1)...... none.............. Unit 11: NR5a.
                Unit 13. NR5b--Mill Creek....... Private; Easements 20.8 (33.5)....... none.............. Unit 12: NR5b.
                Unit 14. NR5c--Middle Neuse Private; State; 43.2 (69.5)....... none.............. Unit 13: NR5c.
                 River. Easements.
                Unit 15. NR6--Contentnea Creek/ Private; Easements 114.8 (184.8)..... none.............. Unit 14: NR6.
                 Lower Neuse River Subbasin.
                Unit 16. NR7--Swift Creek (Lower Private; Easements 10.3 (16.5)....... none.............. Unit 15: NR7.
                 Neuse).
                Unit 17. TR1--Trent River....... Private........... 32.5 (52.4)....... -1.1 mi (2 km).... Unit 16: TR1.
                Unit 18. TR2--Tuckahoe Swamp.... Private........... 2 (3.2)........... New............... New Unit.
                 -----------------------------------------------------------
                 Total....................... .................. 779 (1,254)....... +41 mi (66 km)....
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Note: Distances may not sum due to rounding.
                 The revised 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. For
                units that are unchanged from the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, please
                refer to information at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
                FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092. We include more detailed information on the
                boundaries of the revised proposed critical habitat designation in the
                discussion of new and revised proposed individual units below.
                Unit 1: TAR1--Upper Tar River
                 Revised Unit 1 consists of 12.3 river miles (19.8 river km) of the
                Tar River in Granville County from approximately SR1004 (Old NC 75)
                downstream to SR1622 (Cannady's Mill Road). We propose to revise Unit 1
                to add 3.7 river miles (6 km) of the Upper Tar River based on a 2018
                observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian
                land adjacent to this unit is primarily privately owned (80 percent),
                with several conservation parcels or easements (20 percent). The unit
                currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the
                species.
                 Special management considerations or protection may be required to
                address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
                as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
                reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
                pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
                Unit 3: TAR3--Bens Creek
                 This is a new unit. Unit 3 consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river km)
                of Bens Creek in Warren County, North Carolina. The proposed designated
                area begins approximately one mile upstream and ends approximately one
                mile downstream of SR1509 (Odell-Littleton Road). We propose the
                addition of this unit based on a 2019 observation of Neuse River
                waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian areas on either side of the
                river are privately owned. The unit currently supports all breeding,
                feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
                 Special management considerations or protection may be required to
                address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
                as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
                reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
                pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
                Unit 4: TAR4a--Fishing Creek Subbasin
                 Revised Unit 4 (previously Unit 3) consists of 82.8 river miles
                (133.3 river km) of lower Little Fishing Creek approximately 1.6 miles
                (2.6 km) upstream of SR1214 (Silvertown Rd) downstream to the
                confluence with Fishing Creek, and including the mainstem of Fishing
                Creek from the Warren/Halifax County line to the confluence with the
                Tar River in Halifax, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties. We propose to
                revise Unit 4 (previously Unit 3) to add 20 miles (32.3 km) of Fishing
                Creek based on a 2019 observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by
                NCWRC. The riparian land adjacent to the unit includes private land (86
                percent), several conservation parcels (6 percent), and State game
                lands (8 percent). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding,
                and sheltering needs for the species.
                 Special management considerations or protection may be required to
                address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
                as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
                reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
                pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
                [[Page 45846]]
                Unit 6: TAR4c--Middle Tar River Subbasin
                 Revised Unit 6 (previously Unit 5) consists of 111 river miles (179
                river km) of the Middle Tar River from upstream of Highway 401
                downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek, including Stony Creek
                below SR1300 (Boddies' Millpond Rd), downstream to the confluence with
                the Tar River. This unit is located in Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe
                Counties. We propose to revise Unit 6 (previously Unit 5) to add 11
                miles (17.8 km) of the upper reach of the Tar River based on a 2019
                observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by a permitted private
                consultant. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is nearly all
                private lands (99 percent), with less than 1 percent conservation
                parcels, local parks, and a research station. The unit currently
                supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
                 Special management considerations or protection may be required
                within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of
                nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the
                waters, causing too much growth of microscopic or macroscopic
                vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. As
                a result, there are six ``impaired'' stream reaches (as identified on
                the State's Clean Water Act section 303d list) totaling approximately
                32 miles in the unit. Expansion or addition of new wastewater
                discharges are also a threat to habitat in this unit. Special
                management focused on use of agricultural BMPs, implementation of
                highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of
                forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will
                benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
                Unit 10: NR3--Middle Creek
                 Revised Unit 10 (previously Unit 9) consists of 30.8 river miles
                (49.6 river km) of Middle Creek from Southeast Regional Park downstream
                to the confluence with Swift Creek in Johnston County, North Carolina.
                We propose to revise Unit 10 (previously Unit 9) to add 23.2 miles
                (37.4 km) of Middle Creek based on two 2018 observations of Neuse River
                waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is
                predominantly privately owned (91 percent) with a few conservation
                parcels (9 percent). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding,
                and sheltering needs for the species. Special management considerations
                or protection may be required within this unit to address threats,
                particularly from encroaching urbanization and pollution from
                agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
                Unit 17: TR1--Trent River
                 Revised Unit 17 (previously Unit 16) consists of 32.5 river miles
                (52.4 river km) of Beaver Creek from SR1316 (McDaniel Fork Rd) to the
                confluence with the Trent River, and Trent River from the confluence
                with Poplar Branch downstream to the SR1121 (Oak Grove Rd) crossing at
                the Marine Corps Cherry Point property, in Jones County. This unit was
                decreased to not include land owned by the Marine Corps at its Air
                Station (MCAS) Cherry Point Oak Grove Outlying Landing Field. The
                base's integrated natural resources management plan includes
                implementing ecosystem management practices that support the
                conservation and management of at-risk herpetofauna species, including
                Neuse River waterdog, known to occur at MCAS Cherry Point (Tetra Tech
                2012, p.C-10). The riparian land adjacent to this unit is privately
                owned. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and
                sheltering needs for the species.
                 Special management considerations or protection may be required to
                address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
                as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
                reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
                pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
                Unit 18: TR2--Tuckahoe Swamp
                 This is a new unit. Unit 18 consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river
                km) of Tuckahoe Swamp in Jones County, North Carolina. The proposed
                designated area begins upstream of SR1142 (Weyerhaeuser Road) to the
                confluence with the Trent River. The riparian areas on either side of
                the river are privately owned. The unit currently supports all
                breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
                 Special management considerations or protection may be required to
                address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve
                as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins,
                reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of
                pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff.
                References Cited
                 A complete list of references cited in this document is available
                on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
                Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
                CONTACT).
                Authors
                 The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Team and Raleigh
                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 further amend part 17, subchapter B of
                chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
                be amended at 84 FR 23644 (May 22, 2019) as set forth below:
                PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
                0
                1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
                 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
                otherwise noted.
                0
                2. Amend Sec. 17.43 by adding a paragraph (f) to read as follows:
                Sec. 17.43 Special rules--amphibians.
                * * * * *
                 (f) Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi).
                 (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
                endangered wildlife also apply to the Neuse River waterdog. Except as
                provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and Sec. 17.4, 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 Sec. 17.21(b) for endangered
                wildlife.
                 (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1) for endangered
                wildlife.
                 (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
                set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
                 (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
                activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
                 (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
                endangered wildlife.
                 (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
                may:
                 (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
                 (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for
                endangered wildlife.
                 (iii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
                 (iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
                wildlife, as set
                [[Page 45847]]
                forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
                 (v) Take incidental to the following activities:
                 (A) Species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies,
                including collection of broodstock, tissue collection for genetic
                analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently
                occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the
                species.
                 (B) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically
                stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland
                systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers. These
                projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the
                desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of
                water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable
                reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and
                groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel;
                riffles and pools comprised of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of
                large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent
                riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands. Second- to third-
                order, headwater streams reconstructed in this way would offer suitable
                habitats for the Neuse River waterdog and contain stable channel
                features, such as pools, glides, runs, and riffles, which could be used
                by the species for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and
                other normal behaviors. Prior to restoration action, surveys to
                determine presence of Neuse River waterdog must be performed, and if
                located, waterdogs must be relocated prior to project implementation.
                 (C) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to
                replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable
                stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation
                and improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these
                bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using native
                species live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into
                the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow),
                native species live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows,
                bound together into long, cigar shaped bundles), or native species
                brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species
                layered between successive lifts of soil fill). Native species
                vegetation includes woody species appropriate for the region and
                habitat conditions. These methods will not include the sole use of
                quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion
                structures.
                 (D) Silviculture practices and forest management activities that
                implement State-approved best management practices for sensitive areas,
                including a two-zoned streamside management zone (SMZ) (Zone 1 width is
                a 50-foot minimum with no harvest allowed; Zone 2 width is variable
                depending on slope and includes selective harvest) established and
                maintained along each side of the margins of intermittent streams,
                perennial streams, and perennial waterbodies. The SMZ is measured from
                bankfull (i.e., the top of the stream bank), and will confine visible
                sediment resulting from accelerated erosion. Access roads and skid
                trails that cross an intermittent stream, a perennial stream, or a
                perennial waterbody will be installed using properly designed and
                constructed structures installed at right angles to the stream, will
                not impede fish passage or stream flow, and will minimize the amount of
                visible sediment that enters that stream or waterbody. The number of
                crossings will be minimized, stable sites for crossings will be chosen,
                and access roads and skid trails will be located outside of SMZs unless
                no other alternative exists.
                0
                3. Amend Sec. 17.95(d), in the entry proposed at 84 FR 23644 for
                ``Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi),'' by revising paragraphs (5)
                through (16) and by adding paragraphs (17) and (18) to read as follows:
                Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
                * * * * *
                 (d) Amphibians.
                * * * * *
                Neuse River Waterdog (Necurus lewisi)
                * * * * *
                 (5) Note: Index map follows:
                BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
                [[Page 45848]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.009
                 (6) Unit 1: TAR1--Upper Tar River, Granville County, North
                Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 12.3 river miles (19.8 river kilometers)
                of occupied habitat in the Upper Tar River from approximately SR1004
                (Old NC 75) downstream to SR1622 (Cannady's Mill Road). Unit 1 includes
                stream habitat up to bankfull height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
                [[Page 45849]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.010
                 (7) Unit 2: TAR2--Upper Fishing Creek, Warren County, North
                Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 10.5 river miles (17.0 river kilometers)
                of habitat in Upper Fishing Creek from SR1118 (No Bottom Drive)
                downstream to NC58. Unit 2 includes stream habitat up to bankfull
                height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
                [[Page 45850]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.011
                 (8) Unit 3: TAR3--Bens Creek, Warren County, North Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river km) of Bens
                Creek beginning approximately one mile upstream and ending
                approximately one mile downstream of SR1509 (Odell-Littleton Road).
                Unit 3 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
                [[Page 45851]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.012
                 (9) Unit 4: TAR4a--Fishing Creek Subbasin, Edgecombe, Halifax,
                Nash, and Warren Counties, North Carolina; Unit 5: TAR4b--Sandy/Swift
                Creek, Edgecombe, Franklin, Nash, and Warren Counties, North Carolina;
                Unit 6: TAR4c--Middle Tar River Subbasin, Edgecombe, Franklin, and Nash
                Counties, North Carolina; and Unit 7: TAR4d--Lower Tar River Subbasin,
                Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, North Carolina.
                 (i) Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 include stream habitat up to bankfull
                height.
                 (ii) Unit 4 consists of 82.8 river miles (133.3 river km) of lower
                Little Fishing Creek approximately 1.6 miles (2.6 km) upstream of
                SR1214 (Silvertown Rd) downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek,
                and including the mainstem of Fishing Creek from the Warren/Halifax
                County line to the confluence with the Tar River in Halifax, Nash, and
                Edgecombe Counties.
                 (iii) Unit 5 consists of 72.5 river miles (116.8 river kilometers)
                of habitat in Sandy Creek downstream of SR 1451 (Leonard Road) to the
                confluence with the Tar River, including Red Bud Creek downstream of
                the Franklin/Nash county line to the confluence with Swift Creek.
                 (iv) Unit 6 consists of 111 river miles (179 river kilometers) of
                the Middle Tar River from upstream of Highway 401 dowstream to the
                confluence with Fishing Creek, including Stony Creek below SR1300
                (Boddies' Millpond Rd), downstream to the confluence with the Tar
                River.
                 (v) Unit 7 consists of 59.9 river miles (96.3 river kilometers) in
                the Lower Tar River Subbasin from the confluence with Fishing Creek
                downstream to the confluence with Barber Creek near SR1533 (Port
                Terminal Road). This unit includes portions of Town Creek below NC111
                to the confluence with the Tar River, Otter Creek below SR1251 to the
                confluence with the Tar River, and Tyson Creek below SR1258 to the
                confluence with the Tar River.
                 (vi) Map of Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 follows:
                [[Page 45852]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.013
                 (10) Unit 8: NR1--Eno River, Durham and Orange Counties, North
                Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 43.9 river miles (70.6 river kilometers)
                of habitat in the Eno River from NC86 downstream to the inundated
                portion of Falls Lake. Unit 7 includes stream habitat up to bankfull
                height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
                [[Page 45853]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.014
                 (11) Unit 9: NR2--Flat River, Durham and Person Counties, North
                Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 15.2 river miles (24.5 river kilometers)
                of habitat in the Flat River from SR1739 (Harris Mill Road) downstream
                to the inundated portion of Falls Lake. Unit 8 includes stream habitat
                up to bankfull height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:
                [[Page 45854]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.015
                 (12) Unit 10: NR3--Middle Creek, Johnston and Wake Counties, North
                Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 30.8 river miles (49.6 river km) of
                Middle Creek from Southeast Regional Park downstream to the confluence
                with Swift Creek in Johnston County, North Carolina. Unit 10 includes
                stream habitat up to bankfull height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:
                [[Page 45855]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.016
                 (13) Unit 11: NR4--Swift Creek, Johnston County, North Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 24 river miles (38.6 river kilometers) of
                occupied habitat in Swift Creek from NC42 downstream to the confluence
                with the Neuse River. Unit 11 includes stream habitat up to bankfull
                height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
                [[Page 45856]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.017
                 (14) Unit 12: NR5a--Little River, Franklin, Johnston, Wake, and
                Wayne Counties, North Carolina; Unit 13: NR5b--Mill Creek, Johnston and
                Wayne Counties, North Carolina; and Unit 14: NR5c--Middle Neuse River,
                Wayne County, North Carolina.
                 (i) Units 12, 13, and 14 include stream habitat up to bankfull
                height.
                 (ii) Unit 12 consists of 90.8 river miles (146.1 river kilometers)
                of habitat in the Little River from near NC96 in Wake County downstream
                to the confluence with the Neuse River, including Buffalo Creek from
                NC39 to the confluence with the Little River.
                 (iii) Unit 13 consists of 20.8 river miles (33.5 river kilometers)
                of Mill Creek from upstream of US701 downstream to the confluence with
                the Neuse River.
                 (iv) Unit 14 consists of 43.2 river miles (69.5 river kilometers)
                of the Middle Neuse River from the confluence with Mill Creek
                downstream to the Wayne/Lenoir County line.
                 (v) Map of Units 12, 13, and 14 follows:
                [[Page 45857]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.018
                 (15) Unit 15: NR6--Contentnea Creek/Lower Neuse River Subbasin,
                Craven, Greene, Lenoir, Pitt, Wayne, and Wilson Counties, North
                Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 114.8 river miles (184.8 river
                kilometers) of habitat in the Contentnea Creek from NC581 downstream to
                its confluence with the Neuse River, Nahunta Swamp from the Wayne/
                Greene County line to the confluence with Contentnea Creek, and the
                Neuse River from the confluence with Contentnea Creek to the confluence
                with Pinetree Creek. Unit 15 includes stream habitat up to bankfull
                height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 15 follows:
                [[Page 45858]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.019
                 (16) Unit 16: NR7--Swift Creek, Craven County, North Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 10.3 river miles (16.5 river kilometers)
                of habitat in Swift Creek from SR1931 (Beaver Camp Rd) downstream to
                SR1440 (Streets Ferry Rd). Unit 16 includes stream habitat up to
                bankfull height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:
                [[Page 45859]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.020
                 (17) Unit 17: TR1--Trent River, Jones County, North Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 32.5 river miles (52.4 river kilometers)
                of habitat in Beaver Creek from SR1316 (McDaniel Fork Rd) to the
                confluence with the Trent River, and Trent River from the confluence
                with Poplar Branch downstream to SR1121 (Oak Grove Rd) crossing at the
                Marine Corps Cherry Point property. Unit 17 includes stream habitat up
                to bankfull height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 17 follows:
                [[Page 45860]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.021
                 (18) Unit 18: TR2--Tuckahoe Swamp, Jones County, North Carolina.
                 (i) This unit consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river km) of Tuckahoe
                Swamp in Jones County, North Carolina. Unit 18 begins upstream of
                SR1142 (Weyerhaeuser Road) to the confluence with the Trent River. Unit
                18 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
                 (ii) Map of Unit 18 follows:
                [[Page 45861]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JY20.022
                * * * * *
                Aurelia Skipwith,
                Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
                [FR Doc. 2020-15347 Filed 7-29-20; 8:45 am]
                BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT