Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Big Creek Crayfish and St. Francis River Crayfish and Designations of Critical Habitat

Published date17 September 2020
Citation85 FR 58192
Record Number2020-19298
SectionProposed rules
CourtFish And Wildlife Service
58192
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2019–0020;
FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018–BD98
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status
with Section 4(d) Rule for Big Creek
Crayfish and St. Francis River Crayfish
and Designations of Critical Habitat
AGENCY
: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION
: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
: After review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list two Missouri species, the Big Creek
crayfish (Faxonius peruncus) and the St.
Francis River crayfish (Faxonius
quadruncus), as threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). If we finalize
this rule as proposed, it would extend
the Act’s protections to both species. We
also propose a species-specific rule
issued under section 4(d) of the Act
(‘‘4(d) rule’’) that provides for the
protection of the Big Creek crayfish and
the St. Francis River crayfish and to
designate critical habitat for both
species under the Act. In total,
approximately 1,069 river miles (1,720
river kilometers) fall within the
boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation for the Big Creek
crayfish, and approximately 1,043 river
miles (1,679 river kilometers) fall within
the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation for the St. Francis
River crayfish. Finally, we announce the
availability of a draft economic analysis
of the proposed critical habitat
designations.
DATES
: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
November 16, 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. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT
by November 2,
2020.
ADDRESSES
: Written comments: You may
submit 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–R3–ES–2019–0020, 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, check the
Proposed Rule box to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R3–ES–2019–0020, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 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 Public
Comments, 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 administrative record
and are available at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/; and at http://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R3–ES–2019–0020; and at the
Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services
Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT
). Any additional
tools or supporting information that we
may develop for the critical habitat
designation will also be available at the
Service website and Field Office set out
above, and may also be included in the
preamble of this proposed rule and/or at
http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Karen Herrington, Field Supervisor;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services
Field Office; 101 Park DeVille Drive,
Suite A; Columbia, MO 65203–0057;
telephone 573–234–2132. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, if we determine that a species
may be an endangered or threatened
species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, we are required to
promptly publish a proposal in the
Federal Register and make a
determination on our proposal within 1
year. To the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we must designate
critical habitat for any species that we
determine to be an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designation of
critical habitat can only be completed
by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We
propose the listing of the Big Creek
crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish
as threatened species with a rule issued
under section 4(d) of the Act, and we
propose the designation of critical
habitat for both species.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may determine that a species is
an endangered or threatened species
based on 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 displacement
(Factor E) by the woodland crayfish
(Faxonius hylas) is the primary threat to
both the Big Creek crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish. However,
degraded water quality (Factor A) from
heavy metal mining activities in the
watershed is impacting the species and
may act synergistically with the spread
of the nonnative woodland crayfish and
subsequent displacement of the Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish. The existing regulatory
mechanisms are not adequate to reduce
these threats to a level that the species
do not warrant listing (Factor D).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
designate critical habitat concurrent
with listing to the extent prudent and
determinable. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
states that the Secretary will make the
designation on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any
other relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
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 protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed if such areas are essential to
the conservation of the species.
Peer Review. 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58193
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
memorandum updating and clarifying
the role of peer review of listing actions
under the Act, we sought the expert
opinions of four (and received responses
from two) appropriate specialists
regarding the species status assessment
report, which informed this proposed
rule. The purpose of peer review is to
ensure that the science behind our
listing determinations, the critical
habitat designations, and 4(d) rule are
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer
reviewers have expertise in the biology,
habitat, and stressors to the species.
Additionally, we received review from
three other experts outside the Service
(State and academic), some of whom
also collaborated with our species status
assessment team during the species
status assessment process, but were not
part of the formal peer review process.
Information Requested
Public Comments
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) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of these 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 these 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 these 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
these species, including the locations of
any additional populations of either
species.
(5) Information concerning activities
that should be considered under a rule
issued in accordance with section 4(d)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as a
prohibition or exemption within U.S.
territory that would contribute to the
conservation of the species. In
particular, information concerning
whether import, export, and activities
related to sale in interstate and foreign
commerce should be prohibited, or
whether any other activities should be
considered excepted from the
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
(6) Additional provisions the Service
may wish to consider for a 4(d) rule in
order to conserve, recover, and manage
the Big Creek crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish, such as the best
management practices used in
agriculture or mining.
(7) 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 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.
(8) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish habitat;
(b) Which areas that were occupied at
the time of listing and that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of these species
should be included in the critical
habitat designations 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.
(9) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(10) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designations, and
the benefits of including or excluding
areas that may be impacted.
(11) 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.
(12) 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.
(13) 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 http://
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
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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Columbia, Missouri 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 by
the date specified above in DATES.
Such requests must be sent to the
address shown in
FOR FURTHER
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58194
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
There have been no previous Federal
actions for these species, and the
Service’s status review was undertaken
on a voluntary basis as a discretionary
action because we were aware of
information that these species may be in
danger of extinction. Neither species
was petitioned for listing.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA)
team prepared an SSA report for the Big
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish. 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). The SSA report
underwent independent peer review by
scientists with expertise in crayfish
biology, habitat management, and
stressors (factors negatively affecting the
species) to the species. The SSA report
and other materials relating to this
proposal can be found on the Midwest
Region website at https://www.fws.gov/
midwest/ and at http://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R3–ES–2019–0020.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy,
life history, and ecology of the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish is presented in the SSA report
(Service 2018, entire).
The Big Creek crayfish (Faxonius
peruncus) is a small, olive-tan crayfish
with blackish blotches and specks over
the upper surface of pincers, carapace,
and abdomen. Length of adult
individuals ranges from 1.1 to 2.2
inches (in) (2.8 to 5.6 centimeters (cm)).
The St. Francis River crayfish (Faxonius
quadruncus) is a small, dark brown
crayfish with blackish blotches or
specks over the upper surfaces of the
pincers, carapace, and abdomen. Length
of adult individuals of St. Francis River
crayfish have been observed to be
similar to adult Big Creek crayfish.
Both the Big Creek crayfish and the
St. Francis River crayfish have localized
distributions in the Upper St. Francis
River watershed upstream of
Wappapello Dam in Iron, Madison, St.
Francois, Washington, and Wayne
Counties in southeastern Missouri. The
Big Creek crayfish appears most
abundant in Big Creek and other streams
on the west side of the watershed and
primarily Twelvemile Creek
subwatersheds on the east side, while
the St. Francis River crayfish mainly
inhabits the upper St. Francis River
tributaries on the upper end of the
Upper St. Francis River watershed.
Despite occupying the Upper St. Francis
River watershed at a coarse spatial scale,
these two species have been observed at
the same location only seven times and
exhibit mostly discrete distributions
(Westhoff 2011, pp. 34–36).
Big Creek crayfish are generally found
in streams with widths less than 33 feet
(ft) (10 meters (m)) under small rocks or
in shallow burrows in headwater
streams and small rocky creeks in
shallow depths. St. Francis River
crayfish are generally found in swiftly
moving streams under rocks and
boulders in small headwater streams
and up to moderately larger rivers. St.
Francis River crayfish may prefer pool/
backwater areas and run macrohabitats
over faster riffles.
Given that both the Big Creek crayfish
and St. Francis River crayfish are habitat
generalists (Westhoff 2017 pers. comm.)
and not all reaches of streams within the
watershed have been sampled, it is
likely that the species occur at more
locations in the watershed. Therefore,
we defined the species’ ranges as the
streams within subwatersheds (12-digit
hydrologic units) known to be occupied
by each species (Figure 1). We consider
these ranges to be a more accurate
depiction of the actual ranges of the Big
Creek Crayfish and St. Francis River
Crayfish than using only known
locations. Within its range, the Big
Creek Crayfish is found in 983 river
miles (rmi) (1,581 river kilometers (km)
in the Upper St. Francis watershed. The
St. Francis River Crayfish is found in
944 rmi (1,519 km). Within the St.
Francis River mainstem (where it is a
5th order stream), the Big Creek crayfish
intermittently occurs in 86 rmi (139 km)
and the St. Francis River crayfish occurs
in 99 rmi (159 km). Few individuals of
any crayfish species have been collected
in these reaches (Westhoff 2018 pers.
comm.) and the crayfishes likely only
occur in the mainstem intermittently,
using these areas for connectivity
between subwatersheds.
Individuals of the Big Creek crayfish
and St. Francis River crayfish mate in
the fall. Big Creek crayfish females
generate an average of 61 eggs, whereas
St. Francis River crayfish females
generate an average of 43 to 81 eggs. The
normal lifespan for both the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish appears to be about 2 years
(Pflieger 1996, pp. 116, 122). We
presume that both species’ feeding
habits are similar to those of other
crayfish species in the region, and their
diets likely consist of plant detritus,
periphyton, and invertebrates.
Based on genetic analyses, we
consider the Big Creek crayfish species
to consist of two populations (referred
to as the Main and Twelvemile Creek
populations), whereas the St. Francis
River crayfish species consists of a
single population (Figure 1). We have
no evidence to suggest that there has
been a reduction in the number of
populations for either species from
historical conditions. For analytical
purposes and for better representation of
groups of individuals that occupy the
same area and are subject to the same
environmental pressures, we defined
finer-scale subpopulations. We consider
a subpopulation to be those individuals
that are able to interbreed and occur
within the same stream reach of
occupied habitat. Therefore, multiple
subpopulations make up the single
population (and species) of the St.
Francis River crayfish and multiple
subpopulations make up the two
populations of the Big Creek crayfish. In
order for Big Creek crayfish and St.
Francis River crayfish subpopulations to
be healthy, they require a population
size and growth rate sufficient to
withstand natural environmental
fluctuations, and habitat of sufficient
quantity and quality to support all life
stages (specific details of each of these
requirements remains unclear). Healthy
subpopulations of each species also
require gene flow among
subpopulations and a native community
structure free from nonnative crayfish
species that may out compete and
ultimately displace the two species (for
more information, see chapter 2 of the
SSA report).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58195
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations in title
50 of the Code of Federal 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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
EP17SE20.001</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58196
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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 of
the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the 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.
In our determination, we correlate the
threats acting on the species to the
factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The
SSA report documents the results of our
comprehensive biological status review
for each species, including an
assessment of the potential stressors to
the species. Those results do not
represent a decision by the Service on
whether the species should be proposed
for listing as an endangered species or
threatened species under the Act. They
do, however, provide the scientific basis
that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involves 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
on the Midwest Region website at
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/ and at
http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2019–0020.
Summary of Analysis
The SSA process can be categorized
into three sequential stages. During the
first stage, we evaluate individual
species’ life-history needs. The next
stage involves 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 involves making predictions
about the species’ responses to positive
and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. This process
uses 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.
To assess the viability of the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy
(together, the 3 Rs) (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);
representation supports the ability of
the species to adapt over time to long-
term changes in the environment (for
example, climate changes); and
redundancy supports the ability of the
species to withstand catastrophic events
(for example, large-scale droughts,
floods, or chemical spills). In general,
the more redundant and resilient 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 Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis
River crayfish viability over time, is
influenced by their resiliency, adaptive
capacity (representation), and
redundancy. Resiliency, in the case of
the crayfishes, is best measured by the
number, distribution, and health of
populations (or subpopulations) across
the species’ ranges. Representation for
both species can be measured by the
number and distribution of healthy
subpopulations across areas of unique
adaptive diversity. For the Big Creek
crayfish, this includes the Twelvemile
Creek and Main populations; for the St.
Francis River crayfish, it includes the
species’ entire range. Redundancy can
be measured for the two species through
the duplication and distribution of
resilient subpopulations across the
species’ ranges.
Risk Factors for the Big Creek Crayfish
and St. Francis River Crayfish
A multitude of natural and
anthropogenic factors may impact the
status of species within aquatic systems.
The largest threat to the future viability
of the Big Creek crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish is displacement
by a nonnative crayfish species.
Contamination from heavy metal mining
and habitat degradation from
sedimentation also affects the species’
viabilities. A brief summary of these
primary stressors is presented below; for
a full description of these stressors, refer
to chapter 3 of the SSA report for each
species.
Non-native Crayfish
The introduction of non-native
crayfish is one of the primary factors
contributing to declining crayfish
populations (Taylor et al. 2007, p. 374).
Non-native crayfish species can displace
native crayfishes through competition,
differential predation, reproductive
interference or hybridization, disease
transmission, or a combination of these
mechanisms (Lodge et al. 2000, pp. 9 &
12). Described below are effects of an
invasive crayfish species on the Big
Creek Crayfish and St. Francis River
Crayfish.
Reproductive interference in the form
of hybridization may be the main
mechanism driving the displacement of
the Big Creek crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish. Genetic evidence
of hybridization between the woodland
crayfish and the Big Creek crayfish, as
well as between the woodland crayfish
and the St. Francis River crayfish has
been documented (Fetzner et al. 2016
pp. 19–26). Alleles from both parental
species detected in individuals in areas
invaded by the woodland Crayfish,
suggests that both native species readily
hybridize with the woodland Crayfish
(Fetzner et al. 2016, p. 28). Genetic
swamping (a process by which the local
genotype is replaced) appears to be the
mechanism that leads to the eventual
full displacement of the native species
of crayfish.
In 1984, the woodland crayfish,
endemic to southeastern Missouri, was
first documented in the Upper St.
Francis River watershed, which is
outside of its native range (Pflieger
1996, p. 82). It is estimated that by 2008
(22 years later), the crayfish had
invaded 5–20 percent of the total 3,225
rmi in the watershed (DiStefano and
Westhoff 2011, pg. 40). Within areas
invaded by the woodland crayfish, the
distribution and abundance of the Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish has been substantially
impacted. In one stream, the Big Creek
crayfish constituted 87 percent of the
crayfish community in areas not
invaded by the woodland crayfish, but
only 27 percent in invaded areas
(DiStefano and Westhoff 2011, 40).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58197
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Similarly, the St. Francis crayfish
constituted 50 percent of the crayfish
community in non-invaded areas, but
only 13 percent in invaded areas of the
stream. In the invaded areas of these
streams, the woodland crayfish had
become the dominant species,
constituting 57–86 percent of the
crayfish community (DiStefano and
Westhoff 2011, p. 40).
The woodland crayfish’s impact on
abundance of the Big Creek crayfish and
St. Francis River crayfish has resulted in
the range contraction of both of the
native species. In one stream, the range
of the Big Creek crayfish contracted 9.1
rmi (14.7 km) from 2004 to 2009,
simultaneous to the woodland crayfish
expansion in the stream (DiStefano and
Westhoff 2011, p. 40). In three other
streams, the range of the St. Francis
crayfish contracted in conjunction with
the woodland crayfish invasion (Riggert
et al. 1999, p. 1999; DiStefano 2008b, p.
419).
The woodland crayfish has been
documented throughout much of the
western portion of the Upper St. Francis
River watershed (Figure 2). Though
range contractions of the Big Creek
crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish
have only been documented in 4
streams, we conclude that the patterns
of displacement and subsequent
extirpation are likely happening
throughout all of the invaded areas in
the Upper St. Francis River watershed,
with 5 of the 16 Big Creek crayfish
watersheds invaded (31 percent) and 4
of the 16 St. Francis River crayfish
subwatersheds invaded (25 percent). In
addition, the known locations of the
woodland crayfish are likely an under-
representation of where the species is
present in the watershed given that 1)
the majority of locations were
documented prior to 2010 and the
species can expand at a rate as high as
745 yards (y) per year (681 m per year)
in the upstream direction and 2,499 y
per year (2,285 m year) in the
downstream direction (DiStefano and
Westhoff 2011, pp. 38, 40); and 2) the
woodland crayfish has already been
introduced at several locations
throughout the watershed and has likely
been introduced at additional,
undocumented locations (it is not
feasible to survey every stream
throughout the watershed). There is
currently no means to slow or stop the
spread of the woodland crayfish.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
EP17SE20.002</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58198
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The main mechanism driving the
displacement of the Big Creek crayfish
and the St. Francis River crayfish
appears to be reproductive interference
by the woodland crayfish in the form of
hybridization. Woodland crayfish have
been observed engaging in mating
behavior with St. Francis River crayfish
(Westhoff 2011, p. 117). There is also
genetic evidence of hybridization
between the woodland crayfish and the
Big Creek crayfish, as well as between
the woodland crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish (Fetzner et al.
2016 pp. 19–26), and at least some of
the hybrid young appear to be viable
(Fetzner et al. 2016, p. 29).
Contamination by Heavy Metal Mining
Southeastern Missouri has been a
primary producer of lead since the early
1700s, in an area referred to as the Old
Lead Mining Belt and more recently in
an area referred to as the New Lead
Mining Belt. Although most mining
ceased in the 1970s, waste from mining
operations is still present in the
landscape, resulting in contamination of
fish and other aquatic biota, alteration of
fish and invertebrate communities, and
public health advisories against human
consumption of lead-contaminated fish
(Czarneski 1985, pp. 17–23; Schmitt et
al. 1993, pp. 468–471). The relocation of
mine waste (chat) throughout the area as
topsoil, fill material, and aggregate for
roads, railroads, concrete, and asphalt
has further expanded the area of
contamination, as has aerial deposition
from heavy metal smelters and the use
of lead mining tailings for agricultural
purposes due to their lime content. All
of these uses have contributed to
contamination of streams in portions of
the Upper St. Francis River watershed.
As a result, 32.4 rmi (52.1 km) of Little
St. Francis River were added to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) 303(d) list of impaired waters for
not meeting water quality standards for
lead. In 2012, a portion of Big Creek
(34.1 rmi) (54.9 km) was also added to
the EPA’s 303(d) list for not meeting
water quality standards for lead and
cadmium; that stream reach recently
was removed from the 303(d) list for
lead (in sediment) but remains listed for
cadmium.
Studies conducted in southeastern
Missouri and other areas demonstrate
that heavy metal contamination
adversely affects riffle-dwelling
crayfish. In a study conducted in a
watershed adjacent to that of the Upper
St. Francis River, metal concentrations
in crayfish at sites downstream of
mining activities were significantly
higher than those at reference sites
(Allert et al. 2008, pp. 100–101).
Significantly lower crayfish densities
were observed at sites downstream of
mining activities than those at reference
sites, indicating that metals associated
with mining activities have negative
impacts on crayfish populations in
Ozark streams (Allert et al. 2008, p.
100). Similar results were observed in
other areas impacted by mining wastes
(including sites in the Upper St. Francis
River watershed), with sites
downstream of mining activities having
significantly higher metal
concentrations in crayfish, reduced
densities of crayfish (from 80 to 100
percent) (Allert et al. 2008, pp. 100–101;
Allert et al. 2012, p. 567), and
significantly lower survivorship (Allert
et al. 2009, pp. 1210–1211). The
mechanisms by which crayfish can be
impacted by heavy metal contamination
includes interference with orienting
(Hubschman 1967, pp. 144–147;
Lahman and Moore 2015, pp. 443–444),
inhibition of respiration or aerobic
metabolism (Khan et al. 2006, pp. 515–
517); and increased susceptibility to
predation (Wiggenton et al. 2010, p. 97).
Approximately 22 percent of the Big
Creek crayfish’s range and 16 percent of
the St. Francis River crayfish’s range
occur in areas with contaminated soil.
Sedimentation
In the Upper St. Francis River
watershed, the absence of a deep cherty
(a hard, dark, opaque rock composed of
silica) residuum in the igneous Ozark
uplift, combined with the formation of
erosion-resistant upland soils, results in
little gravel accumulation in alluvial
floodplain soils. Streambank soils also
are more cohesive than in most Ozark
streams because of lower densities of
gravel, with channel substrates
containing a significant proportion of
stable cobble, stone, and boulders,
which provide habitat for crayfishes
(Boone 2001, p. GE1). However, similar
to many Ozark streams, streams within
the Upper St. Francis River watershed
may experience increased
sedimentation in the future if land use
changes or if riparian corridors are
cleared. There have been impacts to
three streams within the watershed that
experienced excessive sedimentation
due to eroding or breached mine tailings
(Boone 2001, p. WQ4; DiStefano 2008a,
p. 191). Breaches can spill a large
volume of tailings, such as the 1,500
cubic y (1,200 cubic m) spilled into a
stream in 1992 (Boone 2001, p. WQ4),
and it can take multiple years for the
aquatic community to begin to recover
following a breach. Excessive deposition
of fine sediment can cover rocks and
cavities used by the Big Creek crayfish
and St. Francis River crayfish as refugia
(an area in which a population of
organisms can survive through a period
of unfavorable conditions). The loss of
refugia likely results in reduced foraging
habitat, thereby reducing carrying
capacity and the density of
subpopulations. The loss of refugia may
also increase competition with the
woodland crayfish and potentially
facilitate displacement of the Big Creek
crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish.
The loss, caused by sedimentation,
likely also increases predation risk.
Crayfish presence is dependent on rocks
embedded in little or no sediment and
open interstitial spaces (Loughman et al.
2016, p. 645; Loughman et al. 2017, p.
5).
Synergistic Effects
In addition to individually affecting
the species, it is likely that several of the
above-summarized risk factors are
acting synergistically or additively on
both species. The combined impact of
multiple stressors is likely more harmful
than a single stressor acting alone. For
example, in areas affected by lead
mining contamination, the rate of
displacement of Big Creek crayfish and
St. Francis River crayfish by woodland
crayfish may increase. Additionally, in
areas invaded by the woodland crayfish,
the loss of refugia from sedimentation
may increase competition between the
native species and the woodland
crayfish. These combinations of
stressors on the sensitive aquatic species
in this habitat likely impact both native
species more severely in combination
than any one factor alone.
Conservation Actions
Monitoring and research on the Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish have been conducted by the
Missouri Department of Conservation
(MDC) and various other organizations.
Multiple evaluations of effects from lead
mining contamination on crayfish,
including the St. Francis River crayfish,
have been conducted by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). Monitoring
efforts benefit conservation of the Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish by providing information on
population health and trends and on the
magnitude and extent of threats;
research efforts provide information on
mechanisms by which threats may
impact the native crayfishes.
To help curtail the spread of
nonnative crayfish in Missouri, MDC
amended the Missouri Wildlife Code in
2011–2012, to increase regulations
pertaining to the sale, purchase, and
import of live crayfishes. While the
virile crayfish (Faxonius virilis) may
still be commercially sold in the State
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58199
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
for live bait, all other live crayfishes can
be imported, sold, or purchased in
Missouri only for the purposes of
human consumption or as food for
captive animals kept by authorized
entities (for example, research
institutions/agencies, publicly owned
zoos) (Missouri Code of State
Regulations 2018b, pp. 6–7). This
regulation effectively bans the sale and
purchase of live crayfish for bait, the
import and sale of live crayfishes in pet
stores, and the purchase and import of
live crayfishes by schools for classroom
study, all of which are vectors for
crayfish invasions. It is also illegal in
Missouri to release any baitfish or
crayfish into public waters, except as
specifically permitted by the MDC
(Missouri Code of State Regulations
2018a, p. 3). These regulations may help
reduce the likelihood of future
invasions of nonnative crayfishes within
the Upper St. Francis River watershed.
However, as the woodland crayfish has
already been introduced at several
locations in the watershed and the
regulations will not affect the inevitable
spread of that species within the Upper
St. Francis River watershed.
Approximately 41 percent of the
Upper St. Francis River watershed is in
Federal and State ownership, with the
majority managed by the U.S. Forest
Service as part of the Mark Twain
National Forest. The U.S. Forest
Service’s management efforts benefit
stream health by focusing on riparian
protection and control and reduction of
sediment entering streams. Other major
public landowners in the watershed
include the MDC, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources.
Additionally, 5.3 rmi (8.5 km) of Big
Creek is designated an ‘‘Outstanding
State Resource Water.’’ Missouri
Outstanding State Resource Waters are
high-quality waters with significant
aesthetic, recreational, or scientific
value and receive special protection
against degradation in quality (Missouri
Code of State Regulations 2018c, pp. 14,
16). These protections help maintain
water quality and minimize additional
sedimentation; therefore, these
protections may improve the quantity
and quality of habitat of the Big Creek
crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish.
The EPA has conducted, and has
plans to continue, extensive
remediation efforts in areas of
southeastern Missouri impacted by lead
mining, including the Upper St. Francis
River watershed. These efforts include
sediment, soil, and mine waste removal.
The EPA also has funded the
development of a watershed master plan
for the Little St. Francis River, located
in the upper end of the watershed. This
plan will identify sources of pollution
(related to lead mining) and measures to
reduce the pollution.
Current Condition of Species
To evaluate the current (and future
viability) of the Big Creek crayfish and
the St. Francis River crayfish, we
assessed a range of conditions to allow
us to consider the species’ resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. For the
purposes of this assessment,
populations were delineated using
known locations and expanded to a
subwatershed scale. As previously
stated, we scaled down to a
subpopulation level for analytical
purposes, as both species have a limited
number of populations. In the case of
the St. Francis River crayfish,
population-level ecology is also species-
level ecology because genetic analyses
indicate the entire species exists as a
single population. Scaling down to the
subpopulation level allowed us to better
represent and compare groups of
individuals at a finer scale. A summary
of the current condition of each species
is given at the end of this section (Table
1 and Table 2).
The Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis
River crayfish currently occur in 16
subwatersheds. In 2008, it was
estimated that the woodland crayfish
occupied 103 to 403 rmi (166 to 649 km)
or 5 to 20 percent of the total 2,004 rmi
(3,225 km) in the Upper St. Francis
River watershed (DiStefano and
Westhoff 2011, p. 40). Based on known
locations of the woodland crayfish, we
know that 5 of the 16 Big Creek crayfish
subwatersheds have been invaded (31
percent) and 4 of the 16 St. Francis
River subwatersheds have been invaded
(25 percent). We also know that the
invasion has resulted in extirpation of
the Big Creek crayfish in 9.1 rmi (14.7
km) and of the St. Francis River crayfish
in 8.5 rmi (13.7 stream km) (Figure 3).
This is likely a sizable underestimate of
the actual extent of both range
contractions, given that data for known
native range contractions represent
conditions in only 2 of the 11 streams
known to be invaded by the woodland
crayfish (the range contractions for each
species occurred in different streams).
In addition, the known locations of
the woodland crayfish depicted in
Figure 3 are likely an under-
representation of where the species is
present in the watershed given that (1)
the majority of locations were
documented prior to 2010, (2) the
species can expand at a rate as high as
745 yards (y) per year (681 m per year)
in the upstream direction and 2,499 y
per year (2,285 m year) in the
downstream direction (DiStefano and
Westhoff 2011, pp. 38, 40) and (3) the
woodland crayfish has already been
introduced at several locations
throughout the watershed and has likely
been introduced at additional,
undocumented locations (it is not
feasible to survey every stream
throughout the watershed). Finally,
there is currently no means to slow or
stop the spread of the woodland
crayfish.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58200
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
To evaluate the current condition of
the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis
River crayfish in terms of the 3Rs, we
reviewed available information on
health of the subpopulations and
queried species experts on the species’
representation and redundancy. The full
explanation of this analysis can be
found in the SSA report; a summary of
our conclusions is given below.
Resiliency
Although the Twelvemile Creek
population of the Big Creek crayfish has
not been invaded by the woodland
crayfish, the woodland crayfish has
been documented at 30 locations within
the Main population, with 5 of the 14
(36 percent) of the population’s
subwatersheds invaded. Based on the
Big Creek crayfish’s range contractions
and the rate at which the woodland
crayfish can expand, we expect that
range contractions are happening
throughout the other invaded
subwatersheds. We also conclude that it
is likely that St. Francis River crayfish
abundance in the Main population has
been substantially reduced from heavy
metal contamination given that 208 rmi
(335 km) of the 940 rmi (1,514 km), or
22 percent, of the population occurs in
areas with heavy metal surface
contamination. Studies conducted in
nearby watersheds demonstrate that
heavy metal contamination reduces
abundance. These impacts have reduced
resiliency of the Main population and
thus resiliency of the Big Creek crayfish
has been reduced.
Four of the 16 subwatersheds
occupied by the St. Francis River
crayfish (25 percent) have been invaded
by the woodland crayfish. Similar to the
Big Creek crayfish, we expect that
contractions of the St. Francis River
crayfish are occurring in these areas
based on range contractions
documented elsewhere and the rate at
which the woodland crayfish can
expand. Resiliency of the St. Francis
River crayfish has been further reduced
due to impacts from heavy metal
contamination, with 16 percent of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
EP17SE20.003</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58201
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
range occurring in areas with heavy
metal contamination.
The narrow ranges of both the Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish also inherently make them
vulnerable to environmental variation
and stochastic events that could affect
their entire range (for example, extreme
drought or flooding).
Representation
We consider Big Creek crayfish
representation as having healthy
subpopulations in both the Twelvemile
Creek population and the Main
population, to maintain the full breadth
of adaptive diversity (and, thus,
adaptive capacity). There appears to be
gene flow throughout most of the Big
Creek crayfish’s range (Fetzner and
DiStefano 2008, p. 12). However, the Big
Creek crayfish in the Twelvemile Creek
population contain unique haplotypes
(a group of alleles that are inherited
from a single parent) that were not
found anywhere else in the watershed
(Fetzner and DiStefano 2008, p. 12).
Although the Twelvemile Creek
population is currently not impacted by
the woodland crayfish, the range of the
Main population has been reduced due
to woodland crayfish invasion, with 36
percent of the subwatersheds invaded
(Table 1 and Table 2). Therefore, the
species may have lost some level of
representation. For the St. Francis River
crayfish, we consider representation as
having multiple, healthy
subpopulations distributed across the
range of the species to maintain the
breadth of adaptive diversity (that is,
throughout its range in the Upper St.
Francis River watershed). Similar to the
Big Creek crayfish, some level of
representation of the St. Francis River
crayfish may have been lost due to
documented and undocumented range
contractions, with 4 of the 16 (25
percent) of the St. Francis River
subwatersheds invaded.
Redundancy
For the purposes of the SSA, we
define a catastrophic event as a biotic or
abiotic event that causes significant
impacts at the population level such
that the population cannot rebound
from the effects or the population
becomes highly vulnerable to normal
population fluctuations or stochastic
events.
Based on expert input (further
described in the SSA report), we do not
consider extreme drought or chemical
spills as catastrophic events that are
likely to have substantial effects on the
Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish. While these events may not
cause a devastating impact to the entire
Big Creek crayfish or St. Francis River
crayfish populations, the occurrence of
extreme droughts or chemical spills
would reduce resiliency of the species
by potentially extirpating or
compromising subpopulations
throughout the impacted area (see
chapter 3 of the SSA report). However,
both species are inherently vulnerable
to extreme events or large-scale stressors
given their small range, and there has
been some reduction of in-population
redundancy due to the extirpation of
individuals (and subpopulations) in
some areas because of woodland
crayfish invasion.
T
ABLE
1—S
UMMARY OF
B
IG
C
REEK
C
RAYFISH
S
C
URRENT
C
ONDITION
Assessment of current condition
Currently Occupied Stream
Distance. Occurs in approximately 983 rmi (1,581 km) within 16 subwatersheds. However, this does not account for docu-
mented and undocumented range contractions that we expect are occurring in 31 percent of the species’ sub-
watersheds due to the woodland crayfish invasion. In addition, 86 rmi (139 km) of stream reaches are likely oc-
cupied intermittently by the species due to movement among occupied watersheds.
Health of Subpopulations ..... In areas invaded by the woodland crayfish (31 percent of occupied subwatersheds), abundance is substantially
reduced, with the species completely extirpated in some invaded areas. In areas impacted by lead mining con-
tamination (22 percent of the range), abundance is also likely reduced. In areas not invaded by the woodland
crayfish or impacted by lead mining contamination, we presume subpopulations are healthy.
Health of Populations ........... We presume the Twelvemile Creek population is currently healthy because it does not appear that the woodland
crayfish has invaded the population and the population is outside of the area of lead mining contamination. The
health of the Main population, however, has been impacted due to documented and undocumented range con-
tractions from the woodland crayfish invasion in 36 percent of the population’s subwatersheds. Abundance has
also likely been reduced in 22 percent of the Main population due to heavy metal contamination.
Resiliency ............................. Reduced due to documented and undocumented range contractions in 31 percent of the Big Creek crayfish’s
subwatersheds and expected reduced abundance in 22 percent of the range due to heavy metal contamina-
tion.
Representation ..................... Somewhat reduced ecological diversity due to documented and undocumented range contractions in 25 percent
of the Big Creek crayfish’s subwatersheds.
Redundancy ......................... Somewhat reduced due to documented and undocumented range contractions in 36 percent of subwatersheds in
the Main population. The species is also inherently vulnerable to some extreme events given its small range.
However, both populations of the species have a high level of redundancy relative to extreme events that affect
areas downstream of the source of the event (for example, chemical spills) due to the number of tributaries that
they occupy that would not be downstream of the event.
T
ABLE
2—S
UMMARY OF
S
T
. F
RANCIS
R
IVER
C
RAYFISH
S
C
URRENT
C
ONDITION
Assessment of current condition
Currently Occupied Stream
Distance. Occurs in approximately 944 rmi (1,519 km) within 16 subwatersheds. However, this does not account for docu-
mented and undocumented range contractions that we expect are occurring in 25 percent of the species’ sub-
watersheds due to the woodland crayfish invasion. In addition, 99 rmi (159 km) of stream reaches are likely oc-
cupied intermittently by the species due to movement among occupied watersheds.
Health of Subpopulations ..... In areas invaded by the woodland crayfish (25 percent of occupied subwatersheds), abundance is substantially
reduced, with the species completely extirpated in some invaded areas. In areas impacted by lead mining con-
tamination (16 percent of the range), abundance is also likely reduced. In areas not invaded by the woodland
crayfish or impacted by lead mining contamination, we presume subpopulations are healthy.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58202
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
T
ABLE
2—S
UMMARY OF
S
T
. F
RANCIS
R
IVER
C
RAYFISH
S
C
URRENT
C
ONDITION
—Continued
Assessment of current condition
Resiliency ............................. Reduced due to documented and undocumented range contractions in 25 percent of the St. Francis River
crayfish’s subwatersheds. Also reduced due to reduced abundance in 16 percent of the range due to heavy
metal contamination.
Representation ..................... Somewhat reduced ecological diversity due to documented and undocumented range contractions in 25 percent
of the St. Francis River crayfish’s subwatersheds.
Redundancy ......................... Somewhat reduced due to documented and undocumented range contractions in 25 percent of the St. Francis
River crayfish’s subwatersheds. The species is also inherently vulnerable to some extreme events given the
species’ small range, and there has been some reduction in redundancy due to reduction of the range. How-
ever, the species have a high level of redundancy relative to extreme events that affect areas downstream of
the source of the event (for example, chemical spills) due to the number of tributaries that they occupy that
would not be downstream of the event.
Future Scenarios
For the purpose of this assessment,
we define viability as the ability of the
species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. To evaluate future
conditions of the Big Creek crayfish and
St. Francis River crayfish, we predicted
the expansion of the nonnative
woodland crayfish within the ranges of
the native crayfishes. We asked
biologists with expertise on crayfishes
to estimate the future expansion rate in
the Upper St. Francis River watershed,
the impact on Big Creek crayfish and St.
Francis River crayfish abundances, and
the length of time for those impacts to
be fully realized. A full description of
the expert elicitation meeting
methodology and results are available in
the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 36–47
& 64–70). As a way to characterize
uncertainty in predicting future
conditions and to capture the entire
breadth of plausible future conditions,
we developed ‘‘reasonable best,’’
‘‘reasonable worst,’’ and ‘‘most likely’’
scenarios that represent the plausible
range of the Big Creek crayfish’s and St.
Francis River crayfish’s future
conditions (see Table 3, below). Each of
the scenarios is based on the expert-
elicited estimates of the woodland
crayfish’s expansion rates, impacts of
the invasion, and time for impacts to be
fully realized. For each of the scenarios,
we predicted the extent of future
expansion of the woodland crayfish at
10, 25, and 50 years into the future. We
then calculated the extent of the Big
Creek crayfish’s and St. Francis River
crayfish’s ranges that would be affected
under each scenario and described
effects to abundance based on the
experts’ projections. Because we used a
finer scale data, we present results in
river miles invaded, rather than
subwatersheds invaded (as we did to
assess current conditions). Additional
details on the expert elicitation and a
summary of results can be found in
appendix B of the SSA report. Below is
a summary of the results from the SSA;
for further details on the methods,
assumptions, and results, see chapter 5
of the SSA report. A summary of
predicted impacts in 50 years for both
species is summarized in Tables 4 and
5 below.
T
ABLE
3—E
XPLANATION OF
S
CENARIOS
U
SED
T
O
P
REDICT THE
F
UTURE
C
ONDITION OF
B
IG
C
REEK
C
RAYFISH AND
S
T
.
F
RANCIS
R
IVER
C
RAYFISH
Scenario Estimates used
Reasonable Best ............................. Lowest plausible expansion rate of the woodland crayfish.
Lowest level of predicted impact on abundance of Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish.
Highest number of years for impacts to be fully realized.
Reasonable Worst .......................... Highest plausible expansion rate of the woodland crayfish.
Highest level of predicted impact on abundance of Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish.
Lowest number of years for impacts to be fully realized.
Most Likely ...................................... Most likely expansion rate of the woodland crayfish.
Most likely level of predicted impact on abundance of Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish.
Most likely number of years for impacts to be fully realized.
Big Creek Crayfish
Under the ‘‘reasonable best’’ scenario,
we expect the woodland crayfish
invasion will expand to 25 percent of
the Big Creek crayfish Main population
in 10 years, constituting 24 percent of
the species’ range. In 25 years, 35
percent of the Big Creek crayfish Main
population will have been invaded,
constituting 33 percent of the species’
range. In 50 years, 49 percent of the
Main population will be invaded,
constituting 46 percent of the species’
range. The Twelvemile Creek
population is not predicted to be
invaded in 25 or 50 years under this
scenario. In areas invaded by the
woodland crayfish, abundance is
predicted to be reduced by over 50
percent in 10 to 20 years.
Under the ‘‘reasonable worst’’
scenario, we expect 44 percent of the
Main population and 0.2 percent of the
Twelvemile Creek population will be
invaded by the woodland crayfish in 10
years, constituting 42 percent of the Big
Creek crayfish’s total range. In 25 years,
70 percent of the Main population and
81 percent of the Twelvemile Creek
population will be invaded by the
woodland crayfish, constituting 70
percent of the Big Creek crayfish’s total
range. In 50 years, 90 percent of the
Main population and 100 percent of the
Twelvemile Creek population will be
invaded, constituting 91 percent of the
species’ range. In areas invaded by the
woodland crayfish, abundance is
predicted to be reduced by
approximately 100 percent (that is,
extirpation) in less than 10 years.
Under the ‘‘most likely’’ scenario, we
expect 28 percent of the Big Creek
crayfish Main population will be
invaded by the woodland crayfish in 10
years, constituting 27 percent of the
species’ range. In 25 years, 44 percent of
the Main population and 6 percent of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58203
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the Twelvemile Creek population will
be invaded by the woodland crayfish,
constituting 42 percent of the Big Creek
crayfish’s total range. In 50 years, 64
percent of the Main population and 56
percent of the Twelvemile Creek
population will be invaded, constituting
64 percent of the species’ range. In areas
invaded by the woodland crayfish,
abundance will be reduced by
approximately 100 percent (that is,
extirpation) in less than 10 years.
Given that there are currently no
known feasible measures to curtail the
woodland crayfish invasion for the long
term, we consider it extremely likely
that the invasion will continue. Based
on our use of expert-elicited estimates of
the rate of expansion and the resulting
impacts on the Big Creek crayfish, we
are also reasonably certain that we can
predict the plausible range of future
conditions within 50 years. Here, we
discuss the species’ future condition in
terms of the next 50 years (Summarized
below in Table 4.); 10- and 25-year
future conditions are discussed (beyond
what was stated above) in the SSA
report. As previously stated, resiliency
of the Big Creek crayfish has already
been reduced from historical conditions
due to range contractions in 31 percent
of occupied subwatersheds caused by
invasion of the woodland crayfish.
Resiliency also has likely been reduced
due to lead mining contamination in 22
percent of the crayfish’s range. Using
the modeling results (that represent the
range of all future scenarios), we predict
that within 50 years resiliency of the
species will continue to be reduced due
to a 50 to 100 percent reduction in
abundance in 49 to 90 percent of the
Main population and 0 to 100 percent
of the Twelvemile Creek population. In
addition, if other threats (aside from
woodland crayfish invasion and lead
mining contamination) such as drought,
flood events, disease, and degraded
water quality, remain the same or
increase, resiliency will be further
reduced by these threats. Thus, our
modeled results represent the minimum
amount of the species’ range that is
expected to be impacted within 50 years
because the decline in resiliency only
considers impacts of the woodland
crayfish invasion and none of the other
stressors mentioned above that affect the
Big Creek crayfish.
We predict that the Big Creek crayfish
will continue to lose ecological
diversity, given the expected expansion
of the woodland crayfish and the
resulting impact on subpopulations in
both the Main and Twelvemile Creek
populations. Both populations are
expected to experience a 50 to 100
percent reduction in abundance in
invaded areas. For the Twelvemile
Creek population, in 50 years there may
be as much as 100 percent of the
population’s range invaded, whereas up
to 90 percent of the Main population’s
range may be invaded in the same time.
Given the unique haplotypes contained
in the Twelvemile Creek population, the
reduced abundance of subpopulations
in the majority of that population, or
especially the complete loss of that
population, would represent an
appreciable reduction in the species’
representation.
The Big Creek crayfish is inherently
vulnerable to extreme events and other
stressors, given the species’ small range.
There has been already been some
reduction in redundancy due to
documented and undocumented range
contractions in 36 percent of
subwatersheds in the Main population.
Based on results of the future scenario
modeling, we expect that within 50
years, redundancy of the Big Creek
crayfish will be further reduced by the
predicted 50 to 100 percent reduction in
abundance in 49 to 90 percent of the
range of the Main population and 0 to
100 percent of the range of the
Twelvemile Creek population. Because
the Twelvemile Creek population
consists of only one subwatershed, it
will be more vulnerable to extreme
events if multiple sub-tributaries are
impacted by the woodland crayfish
invasion.
St. Francis River Crayfish
Under the ‘‘reasonable best’’ scenario,
we expect 12 percent of the St. Francis
River crayfish’s range will be invaded
by the woodland crayfish in 10 years. In
25 years, 21 percent of the range will
have been invaded, and 33 percent of
the range will have been invaded in 50
years. In areas where the woodland
crayfish has invaded, abundance is
predicted to be reduced by over 10 to 50
percent in 30 to 40 years.
Under the ‘‘reasonable worst’’
scenario, we expect 30 percent of the St.
Francis River crayfish’s range will be
invaded by the woodland crayfish in 10
years. In 25 years, 56 percent of the
range will have been invaded, and 81
percent of the range will have been
invaded in 50 years. In areas where the
woodland crayfish has invaded,
abundance is predicted to be reduced by
approximately 100 percent (that is,
extirpation) in less than 10 years.
Under the ‘‘most likely’’ scenario, we
expect 18 percent of the St. Francis
River crayfish’s range will be invaded
by the woodland crayfish in 10 years. In
25 years, 32 percent of the range will
have been invaded, and 50 percent of
the range will have been invaded in 50
years. In areas where the woodland
crayfish has invaded, abundance is
predicted to be reduced by 50 to 100
percent in 10 to 30 years (Table 5).
Similar to the Big Creek crayfish, we
are also reasonably certain that we can
predict the plausible range of future
conditions for the St. Francis River
crayfish within 50 years because there
are no known feasible measures to
curtail the spread of the woodland
crayfish. Here, we discuss the species’
future condition over the next 50 years;
10- and 25-year future conditions are
discussed (beyond what was stated
above) in the SSA report. As previously
stated, resiliency of the St. Francis River
crayfish has already been reduced from
historical conditions due to effects of
the woodland crayfish invasion in 25
percent of subwatersheds occupied by
the St. Francis River crayfish and also
from lead mining contamination in 22
percent of the species’ range. Based on
the modeling results (the range of all
future scenarios), we predict that
resiliency of the species will continue to
be reduced due to the woodland
crayfish invasion and resulting 10 to
100 percent reduction in abundance in
an estimated 33 to 81 percent of the
range within 50 years. If threats other
than the woodland crayfish and lead
mining contamination, such as drought,
flood events, disease and degraded
water quality remain the same or
increase, resiliency will be further
reduced. Like the Big Creek crayfish,
our modeled results represent the
minimum amount of the species’ range
that is expected to be impacted within
50 years because the decline in
resiliency only considers impacts of the
woodland crayfish invasion and none of
the other stressors mentioned above that
affect the St. Francis River crayfish.
There has already been some loss in
St. Francis River crayfish’s
representation due to the loss of the
subpopulations (and therefore
ecological diversity) impacted by the
woodland crayfish invasion and impacts
of lead mining contamination. The
reduction in representation is expected
to continue given the predicted 10 to
100 percent reduction in abundance in
33 to 81 percent of the species’ range,
based on the results of all future
scenarios.
The St. Francis River crayfish is
inherently vulnerable to extreme events
and stressors, given the species’ small
range and single population, and there
has been some reduction in redundancy
due to range reduction and reduced
abundance of subpopulations due to the
woodland crayfish invasion and lead
mining contamination. Similar to
representation, we expect that
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58204
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
redundancy of the St. Francis River
crayfish will be further reduced by the
predicted 10 to 100 percent reduction in
abundance in 33 to 81 percent of the
species’ range within 50 years as more tributaries are invaded and
subpopulations are extirpated.
T
ABLE
4—T
HE
R
ANGE OF
P
REDICTED
I
MPACTS TO THE
B
IG
C
REEK
C
RAYFISH
F
ROM THE
W
OODLAND
C
RAYFISH AT
50
Y
EARS
B
ASED ON
E
XPERT
I
NPUT
Reasonable best
(percent) Most likely
(percent) Reasonable worst
(percent)
Percent of Main population invaded .......................................................................... 48.7 64.1 90.4
Percent of Twelvemile Creek population invaded ..................................................... 0 55.6 100
Percent of total range invaded .................................................................................. 46.2 63.7 90.9
Percent reduction in abundance in invaded areas .................................................... >50 100 100
T
ABLE
5—T
HE
R
ANGE OF
P
REDICTED
I
MPACTS TO THE
S
T
. F
RANCIS
R
IVER
C
RAYFISH
F
ROM THE
W
OODLAND
C
RAYFISH
AT
50 Y
EARS
B
ASED ON
E
XPERT
I
NPUT
Reasonable best
(percent) Most likely
(percent) Reasonable worst
(percent)
Percent of range invaded .......................................................................................... 33.2 49.5 81.0
Percent reduction in abundance in invaded areas .................................................... 10 to 50 50 to 100 100
Determination
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 ‘‘endangered species’’
or ‘‘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 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
Both Big Creek crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish face threats from
nonnative crayfish invasion (Factor E),
declines in water quality (due to lead
mining, sedimentation, etc.) (Factor A),
and extreme events (drought, chemical
spill, or both) (Factors A and E). There
are no existing regulatory mechanisms
that are adequate to reduce these threats
to a level that the species do not warrant
listing (Factor D). Given current and
future decreases in resiliency,
populations will become more
vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic
events, thereby resulting in concurrent
losses in representation and
redundancy. The range of plausible
future scenarios for the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish suggests significant reductions
in viability into the future.
In 2008, the woodland crayfish,
which is not native to the Upper St.
Francis River watershed, was estimated
to occupy between 103 and 403 rmi (166
to 649 km, or 5 to 20 watershed. Based
on known locations of the woodland
crayfish, we know that 5 of the 16 Big
Creek crayfish subwatersheds have been
invaded (31 percent) and 4 of the 16 St.
Francis River subwatersheds have been
invaded (25 percent). We also know that
the invasion has resulted in extirpation
of the Big Creek crayfish in 9.1 rmi (14.7
km) and of the St. Francis River crayfish
in 8.5 rmi (13.7 stream km). This is
likely a sizable underestimate of the
actual extent of both range contractions,
given that this represents conditions in
only 2 of the 11 streams known to be
invaded by the woodland crayfish (the
range contractions for each species
occurred in different streams). In
addition, the known locations of the
woodland crayfish are likely an under-
representation of where the species is
present in the watershed given that (1)
the majority of locations were
documented prior to 2010, (2) the
species can expand at a rate as high as
745 yards (y) per year (681 m per year)
in the upstream direction and 2,499 y
per year (2,285 m year) in the
downstream direction (DiStefano and
Westhoff 2011, pp. 38, 40); and (3) the
woodland crayfish has already been
introduced at several locations
throughout the watershed, has likely
been introduced at additional,
undocumented locations (it is not
feasible to survey every stream
throughout the watershed) and the
invasion has likely progressed since the
development of the SSA report and this
proposed rule. There is currently no
means to slow or stop the spread of the
woodland crayfish.
Our analysis of the Big Creek
crayfish’s and the St. Francis River
crayfish’s current and future conditions
based on the increasing threat of the
woodland crayfish invasion and the
continuing threat of contamination, as
well as the consideration of
conservation efforts discussed above,
show that the viability for both the Big
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish will continue to decline such
that they are likely to become in danger
of extinction throughout all of their
ranges within the foreseeable future.
First, we considered whether these
species are presently in danger of
extinction and determined that
proposing endangered status is not
appropriate. The current conditions as
assessed in the SSA show that the
species exist throughout most of their
historical ranges and the nonnative
woodland crayfish has only displaced a
small portion of both species’ in their
ranges. Although representation has
declined in some small amount,
ecological diversity (and, therefore,
adaptive capacity) likely remains at a
level that is currently adequate.
Redundancy has also slightly declined
since historical conditions, in that there
has been a reduction in subpopulations,
but we do not believe it has declined
significantly. In short, while the primary
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58205
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
threats are currently acting on the
species and many of those threats are
expected to continue into the future, we
did not find that either species is
currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. However,
according to our assessment of the
plausible future scenarios, both species
are likely to become endangered species
in the foreseeable future throughout all
of their ranges.
The range of plausible future
scenarios of the Big Creek crayfish and
St. Francis River crayfish suggests
reduced viability into the future. Under
the ‘‘most likely’’ scenarios for both
species, resiliency is expected to decline
dramatically within 50 years, given that
over 50 percent of the species’ ranges
are predicted to be invaded by the
woodland crayfish. As additional
subpopulations become extirpated, this
expected reduction in both the number
and distribution of healthy (and thus
resilient) subpopulations is likely to
make the species vulnerable to extreme
disturbances and environmental and
demographic stochasticity.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we determine that Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish are not currently in danger of
extinction, but are likely to become in
danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future, throughout all of
their 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)
(Everson), vacated the aspect of the 2014
Significant Portion of its Range Policy
that provided that the Services do 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
Everson, 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 Big Creek crayfish and St.
Francis River crayfish, 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.
The statutory difference between an
endangered species and a threatened
species is the time horizon in which the
species becomes in danger of extinction;
an endangered species is in danger of
extinction now while a threatened
species is not in danger of extinction
now but is likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. Thus, we considered
the time horizon for the threats that are
driving the Big Creek crayfish and the
St. Francis River crayfish to warrant
listing as a threatened species
throughout all of its range. We
examined the following threats:
Nonnative crayfish invasion (Factor E),
declines in water quality (due to lead
mining, sedimentation, etc.) (Factor A),
extreme events (drought, chemical spill,
or both) (Factors A and E), and
including cumulative effects. There are
no existing regulatory mechanisms that
are adequate to reduce these threats to
a level that the species do not warrant
listing (Factor D).
The best scientific and commercial
data available indicate that the time
horizon on which the species’ responses
to the above-cited threats are likely to
occur is the foreseeable future, not the
present or immediate future. In
addition, the best scientific and
commercial data available do not
indicate that any of the species’
responses to those threats are more
immediate in any portions of the
species’ range. Therefore, we determine
that the Big Creek crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish are not in danger
of extinction now in any portion of their
range, but that the species are likely to
become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future throughout all of
their range. This is consistent with the
courts’ holdings in Desert Survivors v.
Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv–
01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal.
Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946,
959 (D. Ariz. 2017).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that the Big Creek crayfish and
the St. Francis River crayfish meet the
definition of threatened species.
Therefore, we propose to list the Big
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish as threatened species
throughout all of its range in accordance
with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act
include recognition, 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. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-
sustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan. The recovery outline guides the
immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions. Revisions of the
recovery plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species,
as new substantive information becomes
available. The recovery plan also
identifies recovery criteria for review of
when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to
threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal
from the List of Endangered and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58206
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Threatened Wildlife or Plants
(‘‘delisting’’), and for measuring
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. When
completed, the recovery outlines, draft
recovery plans, and the final recovery
plans will be available on our website
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or
from our Columbia, Missouri 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 (for example,
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 these species are
listed, funding for recovery actions will
be available from a variety of sources,
including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-
Federal landowners, the academic
community, and nongovernmental
organizations. In addition, pursuant to
section 6 of the Act, the State of
Missouri would be eligible for Federal
funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or
recovery of the Big Creek crayfish and
the St. Francis River crayfish.
Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can
be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Big Creek crayfish and
St. Francis River crayfish are only
proposed for listing under the Act at
this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in
conservation efforts for these species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit
any new information on these species
whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for
conservation 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
may include, but are not limited to,
management and any other landscape-
altering activities on Federal lands
administered by the Service, U.S. Forest
Service, or National Park Service;
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
construction and maintenance of roads
or highways by the Federal Highway
Administration.
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section
4(d) of the Act for the Big Creek
Crayfish and the St. Francis River
Crayfish
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act 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 very similar
statutory language 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’’ (16 U.S.C.
1532(3)). Additionally, 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)] . . . or [section
9(a)(2)].’’ Thus, regulations promulgated
under section 4(d) of the Act provide
the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select appropriate
provisions tailored to the specific
conservation needs of the threatened
species. The statute 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
approved rules developed under section
4(d) that include a taking prohibition for
threatened wildlife, or include 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 approved 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 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, as long as the
prohibitions, and exceptions to those
prohibitions, will ‘‘serve to conserve,
protect, or restore the species concerned
in accordance with the purposes of the
Act’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st
Sess. 1973).
The Service has developed a species-
specific 4(d) rule that is designed to
address the Big Creek crayfish’s and the
St. Francis River crayfish’s specific
threats and conservation needs.
Although the 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 4(d) rule is
necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish. As discussed above under
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats, the Service has concluded that
the Big Creek crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish are at risk of
extinction within the foreseeable future
primarily due to the spread of invasive
species and degraded water quality. The
provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule
would promote conservation of the Big
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish by discouraging the spread of
the woodland crayfish (and other
invasive species) and encouraging
management of the landscape in ways
that meet land management
considerations while meeting the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58207
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
conservation needs of the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish. The provisions of this
proposed 4(d) rule are one of many tools
that the Service would use to promote
the conservation of the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish. This proposed 4(d) rule would
apply only if and when the Service
makes final the listing of the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish as threatened species.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
As outlined in the regulatory text later
in this proposed rule this proposed 4(d)
(special) rule would provide for the
conservation of the Big Creek crayfish
and the St. Francis River crayfish by
prohibiting the following activities,
except as otherwise authorized or
permitted: Import or export; take;
possession and other acts with
unlawfully taken specimens; delivery,
receipt, transport, or shipment in
interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; and sale
or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce.
As discussed above under Summary
of Biological Status and Threats, the
spread of nonnative crayfish (Factor E)
and declines in water quality (due to
mining, sedimentation, etc.) (Factor A)
are affecting the status of the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish. A range of activities have the
potential to impact these species,
including, but not limited to:
Recreational activities that promote the
spread of the woodland crayfish; mining
(heavy metal and gravel); wastewater
effluent discharge; agricultural
activities; construction of low-water
crossings and bridge construction; and
destruction of bank habitat that
increases rates of sedimentation.
Regulating these activities would help
preserve these species, slow their rate of
decline, and decrease synergistic,
negative effects from other stressors.
In section 3 of the Act, ‘‘take’’ is
defined as 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
intentional take would help discourage
the spread of the woodland crayfish and
would maintain or increase water
quality to preserve the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish, slow their rate of decline, and
decrease synergistic, negative effects
from other stressors.
We may issue 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 propagation or
survival, 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 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 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 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 Big
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish that may result in otherwise
prohibited take without additional
authorization. Additionally, this 4(d)
rule also allows a person to take a Big
Creek crayfish or a St. Francis River
crayfish if that person is conducting
research or education under a valid
Missouri Department of Conservation
Wildlife Collector’s permit.
Along with State (and State
sponsored) conservation efforts, a
person may take, incidental to an
otherwise lawful activity, a Big Creek
crayfish or a St. Francis River crayfish
during restoration activities or other
activities that will result in an overall
benefit to one or both of the species.
Such activities include, but are not
limited to, remediation efforts by the
Environmental Protection Agency and
restoration efforts by the U.S. Forest
Service, the Service’s Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Program or the
Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program.
Education and outreach are important
conservation tools and it is neither
necessary nor advisable for the
conservation of the Big Creek crayfish or
the St. Francis River crayfish to regulate
educational efforts related to these
species. Therefore, any person may
capture a Big Creek crayfish or a St.
Francis River crayfish for educational or
observational purposes, provided that
the crayfish is not removed from the site
of capture.
Missouri’s Wildlife Code allows for a
combined total of 150 crayfish,
freshwater shrimp and non-game fish to
be collected daily as bait. Because
invasion of the woodland crayfish is the
primary threat to Big Creek crayfish and
St. Francis River crayfish, the removal
of individual native crayfish for use as
bait is not expected to impact their
overall status. Additionally, the native
species are abundant in areas where the
woodland crayfish has not yet invaded.
Based on these facts, the Service (in
coordination with the State of Missouri)
has concluded that collection of these
two species, as bait, should not be
prohibited, so long as persons do not
collect more than 25 of each crayfish
species per day as outlined in the
regulatory text below.
Our full proposed 4(d) rule for the Big
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish, including all of the
prohibitions and exceptions to
prohibitions we are proposing for these
species, is provided below, under
Proposed Regulation Promulgation.
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 Big Creek crayfish and the St.
Francis River crayfish. However,
interagency cooperation may be further
streamlined through planned
programmatic consultations for the
species between Federal agencies and
the Service. 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58208
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
III. Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation
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).
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. Designation also does
not allow the government or public to
access private lands, nor does
designation require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners.
Where a landowner requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an
action that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the 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). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur
in specific occupied areas, we focus on
the specific features that are essential to
support the life-history needs of the
species, including but not limited to,
water characteristics, soil type,
geological features, 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.
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. When designating critical
habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate
areas occupied by the species. 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. In
addition, 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
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.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58209
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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) section 9
of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including
taking caused by actions that affect
habitat. Federally funded or permitted
projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas
may still result in jeopardy findings in
some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations
made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or
other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
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 above, there is currently
no imminent threat of take attributed to
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 and proposed
listing rule for the Big Creek crayfish
and the St. Francis River crayfish, we
determined that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range is a
threat to the Big Creek Crayfish and the
St. Francis River crayfish 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
there are no other circumstances the
Secretary has identified for which this
designation of critical habitat would be
not prudent we have determined that
the designation of critical habitat is
prudent for both the Big Creek crayfish
and the St. Francis River crayfish.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is
prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
we must then find whether critical
habitat for both species 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 both species and habitat
characteristics where the species are
located. We find that this information is
sufficient for us to conduct both the
biological and economic analyses
required for the critical habitat
determination. Therefore, we conclude
that the designation of critical habitat is
determinable for the Big Creek crayfish
and St. Francis River crayfish.
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 life-
history needs of the species, including but
not limited to, water characteristics, soil
type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics.
Features may include habitat characteristics
that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat
conditions. Features may also be expressed
in terms relating to principles of conservation
biology, such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity.
For example, physical features essential
to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size
required for spawning, alkali soil for
seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding
or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey
species, forage grasses, specific kinds or
ages of trees for roosting or nesting,
symbiotic fungi, or 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.
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential for Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish from studies of both species’
habitat, ecology, and life history. The
primary habitat elements that influence
resiliency of both species include water
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58210
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
quality, water quantity, substrate,
habitat connectivity, adequate available
forage, and ratios or densities of
nonnative species low enough to allow
for maintaining populations of Big
Creek crayfish or St. Francis River
crayfish. A full description of the needs
of individuals, populations, and the
species is available from the SSA report;
the individuals’ needs are summarized
below in Table 6.
T
ABLE
6—L
IFE
-H
ISTORY AND
R
ESOURCE
N
EEDS OF THE
B
IG
C
REEK
C
RAYFISH AND
S
T
. F
RANCIS
R
IVER
C
RAYFISH
Type of requirement Description
Macrohabitats .................................. Pools, runs, and riffles.
Stream Flow Velocity ...................... Big Creek crayfish: low water velocity (0.00–0.35 meters per second (m/s) (0–1.14 feet per second (ft/s)).
St. Francis River crayfish: low water velocity (0.00–0.35 m/s (0–1.14 f/s)).
Water Depth .................................... Big Creek crayfish: 0.06–0.49 m (0.20–1.61 ft).
St. Francis River crayfish: 0.06–0.52 m (0.20–1.71 ft).
Water Temperature ......................... 1.1 °C (34.0 °F) to 28.9 °C (84.0 °F).
Embeddedness ............................... Low, so that spaces under rocks and cavities in gravel remain available.
Refugia ............................................ Under rocks or in shallow burrows in gravel.
Diet .................................................. Invertebrates, periphyton, plant detritus.
Summary of Essential Physical or
Biological Features
In summary, we derive the specific
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of Big Creek crayfish
and St. Francis River crayfish from
studies of these species’ habitats,
ecology, and life histories as described
above. Additional information can be
found in the SSA report (Service 2018)
available on http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2019–
0020. We have determined that the
following physical or biological features
are essential to the conservation of Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish:
(1) Stream flow velocity generally
between 0 and 1.1 feet per second (ft/
s) (0 and 0.35 meters per second (m/s)).
(2) Stream depths generally between
0.2 and 1.6 ft (0.06 and 0.49 m) for the
Big Creek crayfish, and stream depths
generally between 0.2 and 1.7 ft (0.06
and 0.52 m) for the St. Francis River
crayfish.
(3) Water temperatures between 34
and 84 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1.1 and
28.9 degrees Celsius (°C)).
(4) Adequately low stream
embeddedness so that spaces under
rocks and cavities in gravel remain
available to the Big Creek crayfish and
St. Francis River crayfish.
(5) Spaces under rocks or shallow
burrows in gravel that provide refugia.
(6) An available forage and prey base
consisting of invertebrates, periphyton,
and plant detritus.
(7) Connectivity among occupied
stream reaches of the Big Creek crayfish,
and connectivity among occupied
stream reaches of the St. Francis River
crayfish.
(8) Ratios or densities of nonnative
species low enough to allow for
maintaining the populations of the Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish.
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 that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The
features essential to the conservation of
the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis
River crayfish may require special
management considerations or
protections to reduce the following
threats: (1) Facilitated movement of
nonnative crayfish (for example, bait
bucket dumping); (2) nutrient pollution
that impacts water quantity and quality,
including, but not limited to,
agricultural runoff and wastewater
effluent; (3) significant alteration of
water quality (for example, heavy metal
contamination); (4) forest management
or silviculture activities that do not
implement appropriate best
management practices (BMPs) such that
riparian corridors are impacted or
sedimentation is increased; (5)
sedimentation from construction of
dams, culverts, and low water crossings,
and pipeline and utility installation that
creates barriers to movement; and (6)
other watershed and floodplain
disturbances that release sediments or
nutrients into the water.
Management activities that could
ameliorate these threats include, but are
not limited to: Education to encourage
responsible and legal bait use and
proper disposal of unused bait; use of
BMPs designed to reduce
sedimentation, erosion, and bank side
destruction; protection of riparian
corridors and retention of sufficient
canopy cover along banks; moderation
of surface and ground water
withdrawals to maintain natural flow
regimes; increased use of stormwater
management and reduction of
stormwater flows into the systems;
remediation of contaminated stream
reaches and eroding stream banks; and
reduction of other watershed and
floodplain disturbances that release
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into
the water.
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. 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 meet the
definition of critical habitat.
We anticipate that recovery will
require continued protection of existing
populations and habitat, as well as
ensuring there are adequate numbers of
Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish in stable subpopulations and
that these subpopulations occur over a
wide geographic area. This strategy will
help to ensure that extreme events, such
as the effects of flooding (for example,
flooding that causes excessive
sedimentation, nutrients, and debris to
disrupt stream ecology), droughts, or
chemical spills, cannot simultaneously
affect all known subpopulations. The
following rangewide potential recovery
actions were considered in formulating
this proposed critical habitat: (1)
Mitigating or minimizing the effects of
the spread of woodland crayfish,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58211
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
preventing additional introductions of
woodland crayfish (and other nonnative
species), investigating methods to slow
or halt the expansion of woodland
crayfish, and investigating methods of
eradicating woodland crayfish; (2)
maintaining the quality and quantity of
habitat (including, but not limited to,
preventing increased sedimentation
rates); (3) preventing additional heavy
metal contamination and remediating
previous heavy metal contamination; (4)
investigating other water quality issues
that may impact crayfish abundance;
and (5) maintaining existing genetic
diversity and striving for representation
of all major portions of the species’
current ranges by maintaining
connectivity.
Sources of data for this proposed
critical habitat include the Missouri
Department of Conservation, National
Hydrography Dataset Plus (for mapping
purposes), published literature, and
survey reports on water quality in
various streams within the species’
ranges (for more information, see the
SSA report). We have also reviewed
available information that pertains to
the habitat requirements of this species.
Sources of information on habitat
requirements include studies conducted
at occupied sites and published in peer-
reviewed articles, agency reports, and
data collected during monitoring efforts
(Service 2018, the SSA report).
Geographical Areas Occupied by the
Species at the Time of Listing
As previously stated, for the purposes
of critical habitat, the geographical area
occupied is an area that may generally
be de-lineated around species’
occurrences, as determined by the
Secretary. Such areas may include those
areas used throughout all or part of the
species’ life cycle, even if not used on
a regular basis (for example, migratory
corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats
used periodically, but not solely by
vagrant individuals) (50 CFR 424.02).
We consider the areas occupied at the
time of listing to include all streams
within occupied subwatersheds (at the
12-digit hydrologic unit level).
Occupied watersheds were determined
using data from the Missouri
Department of Conservation. For the
purposes of designating critical habitat,
we also consider stretches of the St.
Francis River between subwatersheds as
occupied migratory corridors, based on
genetic analyses that indicate there is
gene flow among subwatersheds.
Based on this information, we
consider all streams within the
following subwatersheds in the Upper
St. Francis River watershed to be
currently occupied by the Big Creek
crayfish at the time of this proposed
listing (numbers in parentheses
represent the 12-digit hydrologic codes):
Big Lake Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020503), Blankshire Branch-St.
Francis River (080202020204), Captain
Creek-St. Francis River (080202020405),
Cedar Bottom Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020402), Clark Creek
(080202020407), Cedar Bottom Creek
(080202020501), Crane Pond Creek
(080202020303), Headwaters St. Francis
River (080202020201), Headwaters
Twelvemile Creek (080202020403),
Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020406), Lower Big Creek
(080202020304), Middle Big Creek
(080202020302), Saline Creek-Little St.
Francis River (080202020102), Turkey
Creek-St. Francis River (080202020210),
Twelvemile Creek (080202020404), and
Upper Big Creek (080202020301). We
also consider the entire St. Francis River
upstream of 37.091254N, 90.447212W to
be occupied because genetic analyses
indicate gene flow among the
subwatersheds.
For the St. Francis River crayfish, we
consider all streams within the
following subwatersheds to be currently
occupied at the time of listing:
Blankshire Branch-St. Francis River
(80202020204), Captain Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020405), Cedar
Bottom Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020402), Headwaters St. Francis
River (80202020201), Headwaters Stouts
Creek (80202020207), Hubble Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020502),
Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020406), Little St. Francis River
(80202020103), Lost Creek
(80202020507), Marble Creek
(80202020401), Musco Creek-Little St.
Francis River (80202020101), O’Bannon
Creek-St. Francis River (80202020206),
Saline Creek-Little St. Francis River
(80202020102), Stouts Creek
(80202020208), Turkey Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020210), and
Wachita Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020209). We also consider the
entire St. Francis River upstream of
36.982104N, 90.335400W to be
currently occupied, given that genetic
analyses indicate gene flow among
subwatersheds. The proposed critical
habitat designation for each species
includes all known currently occupied
streams within the historical range, as
well as those that connect occupied
streams, that contain the physical or
biological features that will allow for the
maintenance and expansion of existing
populations. See Proposed Critical
Habitat Designations, below, for a more
detailed explanation of the units.
Areas Outside the Geographic Area
Occupied at the Time of Listing
We are not proposing to designate any
areas outside the geographical area
currently occupied by the Big Creek
crayfish or the St. Francis River crayfish
because we did not find any unoccupied
areas that were essential for the
conservation of the species. The
protection of the currently occupied
subpopulations across the range would
reduce the risk of extinction, by
improving the resiliency of
subpopulations in these currently
occupied streams.
General Information on the Maps of the
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
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 proposed critical
habitat designation in the discussion of
individual units below. Further specific
locality information can be found using
the online critical habitat mapper tool
available on the Environmental
Conservation Online System (ECOS) at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/
critical-habitat.html and then clicking
on the ‘‘online mapper’’ link. The online
mapper can be used to find where areas
of critical habitat overlap with specific
addresses, places, or both. We will make
the coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on http://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R3–ES–2019–0020, and at the
field office responsible for the
designation (see
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT
, above).
When determining proposed critical
habitat boundaries, we make 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 the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal
Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
maps of this 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58212
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
under the Act 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.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate
approximately 1,069 rmi (1,720 km) in
one unit in the Upper St. Francis River
watershed in Missouri as critical habitat
for the Big Creek crayfish, and 1,043 rmi
(1,679 km) in one unit in the Upper St.
Francis River watershed in Missouri as
critical habitat for the St. Francis River
crayfish. Both units are currently
occupied by the species, and there is
some overlap between critical habitat
units. Although these unit sizes are
slightly larger than the ranges stated in
Tables 1 and 2, we consider this slightly
larger area occupied for the purposes of
critical habitat because of the need to
maintain connectivity between
occurrences as identified in physical or
biological feature 7. These areas are
intermittently occupied by the crayfish
to connect occupied streams within the
range of the Big Creek crayfish and St.
Francis River crayfish, but are not
occupied consistently. Adding these
areas to the designations is consistent
with our definitions of physical or
biological features outlined in the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02. Both units
contain some or all of the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. Both units
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
the introduction and spread of
nonnative species and habitat
degradation and its associated
watershed-level effects on water quality,
water quantity, habitat connectivity, and
instream habitat suitability. Tables 7
and 8, below, show land ownership of
the riparian areas surrounding the units
and approximate river miles of the
proposed designated units for the Big
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish. Because all streambeds are
navigable waters, both proposed critical
habitat units are managed by the State
of Missouri. We are not currently
proposing to designate any areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species because the occupied areas are
adequate and encompass the historical
range of both species.
T
ABLE
7—O
WNERSHIP OF
A
DJACENT
L
AND
W
ITHIN THE
B
IG
C
REEK
C
RAY
-
FISH
P
ROPOSED
C
RITICAL
H
ABITAT
U
NIT
Ownership Stream miles
(kilometers)
Federal .................................. 296 (476)
State ..................................... 42 (68)
Private ................................... 730 (1,175)
Total ............................... 1,069 (1,720)
NOTE
: Stream miles may not sum due
to rounding.
Big Creek Crayfish Unit
The Big Creek crayfish unit consists of
approximately 1,069 rmi (1,720 km) in
the Upper St. Francis River watershed
upstream of Wappapello Dam in Iron,
Madison, St. Francois, Washington, and
Wayne Counties in Missouri. The unit
consists of all of the streams in the
following 12-digit hydrologic units: Big
Lake Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020503), Blankshire Branch-St.
Francis River (080202020204), Captain
Creek-St. Francis River (080202020405),
Cedar Bottom Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020402), Clark Creek
(080202020407), Cedar Bottom Creek
(080202020501), Crane Pond Creek
(080202020303), Headwaters St. Francis
River (080202020201), Headwaters
Twelvemile Creek (080202020403),
Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020406), Lower Big Creek
(080202020304), Middle Big Creek
(080202020302), Saline Creek-Little St.
Francis River (080202020102), Turkey
Creek-St. Francis River (080202020210),
Twelvemile Creek (080202020404), and
Upper Big Creek (080202020301). The
unit also consists of the entire St.
Francis River upstream of 37.091254N,
90.447212W. The unit does not include
any areas of adjacent land. A large
portion of the riparian land adjacent to
streams in this unit is privately owned
(68 percent), with 28 percent in Federal
ownership and 4 percent in State
ownership.
T
ABLE
8—O
WNERSHIP OF
A
DJACENT
L
AND
W
ITHIN THE
S
T
. F
RANCIS
R
IVER
C
RAYFISH
P
ROPOSED
C
RIT
-
ICAL
H
ABITAT
U
NIT
Ownership Stream miles
(kilometers)
Federal .................................. 329 (529)
State ..................................... 22 (35)
Private ................................... 693 (1,115)
Total ............................... 1,043 (1,679)
NOTE
: Stream miles may not sum due
to rounding.
St. Francis River Crayfish Unit
The St. Francis River crayfish unit
consists of approximately 1,043 rmi
(1,679 km) in the Upper St. Francis
River watershed upstream of
Wappapello Dam in Iron, Madison, St.
Francois, Washington, and Wayne
Counties in Missouri. The unit consists
of all of the streams in the following 12-
digit hydrologic units: Blankshire
Branch-St. Francis River (80202020204),
Captain Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020405), Cedar Bottom Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020402),
Headwaters St. Francis River
(80202020201), Headwaters Stouts
Creek (80202020207), Hubble Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020502),
Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020406), Little St. Francis River
(80202020103), Lost Creek
(80202020507), Marble Creek
(80202020401), Musco Creek-Little St.
Francis River (80202020101), O’Bannon
Creek-St. Francis River (80202020206),
Saline Creek-Little St. Francis River
(80202020102), Stouts Creek
(80202020208), Turkey Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020210), and
Wachita Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020209). The unit also consists of
the entire St. Francis River upstream of
36.982104N, 90.335400W. The unit does
not include any areas of adjacent land.
A large portion of the riparian land
adjacent to streams in this unit is
privately owned (66 percent), with 32
percent in Federal ownership and 2
percent in State ownership.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with
a revised definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27,
2019 (84 FR 45020). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or
indirect alteration that appreciably
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58213
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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 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, we have listed a new
species or designated critical habitat
that may be affected by the Federal
action, or the action has been modified
in a manner that affects the species or
critical habitat in a way not considered
in the previous consultation. 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 7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying
or adversely modifying such habitat, or
that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that the Services
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) Replacement or maintenance of
river crossings and bridges;
(2) Construction, replacement,
removal, or abandonment of pipelines
and electrical transmission lines;
(3) Watershed restoration activities
and stream restoration activities,
including, but not limited to, stream
liming, habitat improvements, natural
channel design, and bank restoration;
(4) Stocking of nonnative fish or of
competitive, native sport fish;
(5) Pesticide use;
(6) Emergency response activities; and
(7) Oil and gas exploration and
extraction.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
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 [INRMP] prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
There are no Department of Defense
lands within the proposed critical
habitat designations.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making 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.
The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of
the Act requires that we take into
consideration the economic, national
security or other relevant impacts of
designating any particular area as
critical habitat. We describe below the
process that we undertook for taking
into consideration each category of
impacts and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58214
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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 whether a specific critical
habitat designation may restrict or
modify 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 these 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 socioeconomic burden imposed on
landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the
designation of critical habitat (for
example, under the Federal listing as
well as other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore,
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
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 these proposed designations, we
developed an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) for each species
considering the probable incremental
economic impacts that may result from
the proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in
our IEMs was then used to develop a
screening analysis of the probable
effects of the designation of critical
habitat for both species (IEc 2019,
entire). The purpose of the screening
analysis is to filter out the geographic
areas in which the critical habitat
designation is unlikely to result in
probable incremental economic impacts.
In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent
critical habitat designation) and
includes probable economic impacts
where land and water use may 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. The
screening analysis filters out particular
areas of critical habitat that are already
subject to such protections and are,
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental
economic impacts. 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. This screening
analysis, combined with the information
contained in our IEM, constitutes our
draft economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed critical habitat designations
for the Big Creek crayfish and St.
Francis River crayfish and 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 proposed critical habitat
designations. In our February 22, 2019,
IEM, we first identified probable
incremental economic impacts
associated with each of the following
categories of activities: (1) Federal lands
management (U.S. Forest Service); (2)
pesticide use; (3) forest management/
silviculture/timber; (4) development; (5)
recreation (fish stocking and baitfish
harvesting); (6) restoration activities
(instream and watershed); (7) emergency
response; and (8) water crossings
(transportation, utility, oil and gas).
Additionally, we considered whether
the activities have any Federal
involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; under the ESA designation
of critical habitat only affects activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or
authorized by Federal agencies. In areas
where the Big Creek crayfish or the St.
Francis River crayfish is present,
Federal agencies already are 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 we finalize this proposed
critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
would be incorporated into the existing
consultation process.
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 (that is,
difference between the jeopardy and
adverse modification standards) for the
Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish. Because the designations of
critical habitat are being 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 would 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 either species
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 the species. This evaluation
of the incremental effects has been used
as the basis to evaluate the probable
incremental economic impacts of these
proposed designations of critical
habitat.
The proposed critical habitat
designations for the Big Creek crayfish
and St. Francis River crayfish fall
completely within areas that are
currently occupied by the species. In
these areas, any actions that may affect
the species or its habitat would likely
also affect proposed critical habitat, and
it is unlikely that any additional
conservation efforts would be required
to address the adverse modification
standard over and above those
recommended as necessary to avoid
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58215
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jeopardizing the continued existence of
the species. Therefore, the only
additional costs that are expected in all
of the proposed critical habitat
designations are administrative costs,
due to the fact that this additional
analysis will require time and resources
by both the Federal action agency and
the Service.
Our analysis concluded that, in most
circumstances, these costs would not
reach the threshold of ‘‘significant’’
under E.O. 12866. For the critical
habitat designations for both species, we
anticipate a maximum of 115 section 7
consultations annually at a total
incremental cost of approximately
$135,000 per year.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting
data and comments from the public on
the DEA, as well as all aspects of the
proposed rule and our required
determinations. We may revise the
proposed rule or supporting documents
to incorporate or address information
we receive during the public comment
period. In particular, 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.
During the development of a final
designation, we will consider any
additional economic impact information
received through the public comment
period, and as such areas may be
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. As discussed above, we
prepared an analysis of the probable
economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designations and related
factors. Based on the draft analysis, the
Secretary does not propose to exercise
his discretion to exclude any areas from
the final designations based on
economic impacts. However, during the
development of the final designations,
we will consider any additional
economic impact information we
receive during the public comment
period, which may result in areas being
excluded from the final critical habitat
designations under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts or Homeland Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense or Department of Homeland
Security where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the
lands within the proposed designations
of critical habitat for both species are
not owned or managed by the
Department of Defense or Department of
Homeland Security, and, therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national
security. Consequently, the Secretary
does not propose to exercise his
discretion to exclude any areas from the
final designations based on impacts on
national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts on national security. We
consider a number of factors, including
whether there are permitted
conservation plans covering the species
in the area such as habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), safe harbor agreements, or
candidate conservation agreements with
assurances, or whether there are non-
permitted conservation agreements and
partnerships that would be encouraged
by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. In addition, we look at
the existence of Tribal conservation
plans and partnerships, and consider
the government-to-government
relationship of the United States with
Tribal entities. We also consider any
social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that there are currently no
HCPs or other management plans for the
Big Creek crayfish or St. Francis River
crayfish, and the proposed designations
do not include any Tribal lands or trust
resources. Accordingly, the Secretary
does not propose to exercise his
discretion to exclude any areas from the
final designations based on other
relevant impacts.
IV. 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 waived their
review regarding their E.O. 12866
significance determination of this
proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act 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 (that is, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58216
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
The Service’s current understanding
of the requirements under the RFA, as
amended, and following recent court
decisions, is that Federal agencies are
only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on
those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not
required to evaluate the potential
impacts to indirectly regulated entities.
The regulatory mechanism through
which critical habitat protections are
realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or
carried 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 designations.
There is no requirement under the RFA
to evaluate 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 adopted, the
proposed critical habitat designations
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
In summary, we have considered
whether the proposed designations
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 adopted,
the proposed critical habitat
designations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities.
Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 13771
We do not believe this proposed rule
is an E.O. 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory
action because we believe this rule is
not significant under E.O. 12866;
however, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has waived their
review regarding their E.O. 12866
significance determination of this
proposed rule.
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 the designations of proposed
critical habitat for the Big Creek crayfish
and St. Francis River crayfish will
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action,
and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This 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 non-
Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the lands
being proposed for critical habitat
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58217
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
designation are primarily Federally or
privately owned, and are managed by
the State of Missouri. These government
entities do not fit the definition of
‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’
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 the Big
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish in takings implications
assessments. The Act does not authorize
the Service to regulate private actions
on private lands or confiscate private
property as a result of critical habitat
designation. Designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership,
or establish any closures or restrictions
on use of or access to the designated
areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect
landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it
preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions
that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. However, Federal
agencies are prohibited from carrying
out, funding, or authorizing actions that
would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications
assessment has been completed for both
species and concludes that, if adopted,
the designations of critical habitat for
Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River
crayfish do not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected
by the designations.
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 these
proposed critical habitat designations
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 national government and the States,
or on the distribution of powers and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed
designations 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 to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist 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 Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We 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
elements of 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.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), need not be prepared in
connection with listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species under
the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
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 NEPA in connection with
designating critical habitat under the
Act. This determination is discussed in
the October 1983 Federal Register
document just mentioned. 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.
As we have already discussed, there are
no tribal lands in the proposed critical
habitat designations, and we expect no
effect on Tribes as a result of the
proposed listings.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
the SSA report and this proposed rule
is available on the internet at
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58218
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Columbia, Missouri
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 Columbia,
Missouri 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:
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. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, by
adding entries for ‘‘Crayfish, Big Creek’’
and ‘‘Crayfish, St. Francis River’’ in
alphabetical order under
CRUSTACEANS to read as set forth
below:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules
*******
C
RUSTACEANS
:
*******
Crayfish, Big Creek Faxonius peruncus ....... Wherever found ............ T [Federal Register citation when published as a
final rule]; 50 CFR 17.46(b);
4d
50 CFR
17.95(h).
CH
*******
Crayfish, St. Francis
River. Faxonius quadruncus ... Wherever found ............ T [Federal Register citation when published as a
final rule]; 50 CFR 17.46(b);
4d
50 CFR
17.95(h).
CH
*******
3. Amend § 17.46 by adding paragraph
(b) to read as set forth below:
§ 17.46 Special rules—crustaceans.
* * * * *
(b) Big Creek crayfish (Faxonius
peruncus) and St. Francis River crayfish
(Faxonius quadruncus).
(1) Prohibitions. The following
prohibitions that apply to endangered
wildlife also apply to the Big Creek
crayfish and the St. Francis River
crayfish. Except as provided under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section and
§§ 17.4 and 17.5, 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
§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife.
(ii) The following activities that result
in mortality of the species:
(A) Activities that impact crayfish
habitat, riparian areas adjacent to
crayfish sites, and habitat between
connecting sites such that the species’
reproduction or survival will be
impacted or the effects of woodland
crayfish invasion will be exacerbated.
Such activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Construction of instream low-
water crossings;
(2) Destruction of riparian habitat that
results in excessive sedimentation;
(3) Bridge construction; and
(4) Gravel mining.
(B) Activities that lead to the
introduction of heavy metals into
streams. Such activities include, but are
not limited to, heavy metal mining.
(C) Activities that appreciably
negatively affect water quality,
chemistry, or quantity such that the
species’ reproduction or survival will be
impacted. Such activities may include,
but are not limited to, the release of
wastewater effluent and agricultural
runoff.
(D) Activities that impact hydrological
flows such that the species’
reproduction or survival will be
impacted. Such activities include, but
are not limited to, construction of dams
and modification of stream channels.
(E) Activities that facilitate the spread
of woodland crayfish or introduce
additional woodland crayfish in
occupied Big Creek crayfish or St.
Francis River crayfish stream reaches.
Such activities may include, but are not
limited to, bait bucket dumping.
(iii) Possession and other acts with
unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth
at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in
the course of commercial activity, as set
forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered
wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth
at § 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 § 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2)
through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b).
(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise
lawful activity caused by:
(A) Restoration activities or other
activities that will result in an overall
benefit to one or both of the species.
Such activities include, but are not
limited to, remediation efforts by the
Environmental Protection Agency and
restoration efforts by the U.S. Forest
Service, the Service’s Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Program or the
Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program.
(B) A person conducting research or
education under a valid Missouri
Department of Conservation Wildlife
Collector’s permit.
(C) A person capturing crayfish for
educational or observational purposes
provided that the crayfish is not
removed from the site of capture.
(D) A person capturing and possessing
up to 25 of each crayfish species for use
as bait with a valid Missouri fishing
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58219
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
license provided that the crayfish are
used as bait only in the river in which
they were collected and provided that
any unused bait crayfish are released
back into the river from which they
were captured or are disposed of in a
trash can.
(v) Possess and engage in other acts
with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set
forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered
wildlife.
3. Amend § 17.95, paragraph (h), by:
a. Adding an entry for ‘‘Big Creek
Crayfish (Faxonius peruncus)’’ in the
same alphabetical order as the species
appears in the table in § 17.11(h); and
b. Adding an entry for ‘‘St. Francis
River Crayfish (Faxonius quadruncus)’’
in the same alphabetical order as the
species appears in the table in
§ 17.11(h).
The additions read as set forth below:
§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) Crustaceans.
* * * * *
Big Creek Crayfish (Faxonius peruncus)
(1) The critical habitat unit is
depicted for Iron, Madison, St. Francois,
Washington, and Wayne Counties in
Missouri, on the map in this entry.
(2) Within the critical habitat unit, the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Big Creek
Crayfish consist of the following
components:
(i) Stream flow velocity generally
between 0 and 1.1 feet per second (ft/
s) (0 and 0.35 meters per second (m/s)).
(ii) Stream depths generally between
0.2 and 1.6 feet (0.06 and 0.49 meters).
(iii) Water temperatures between 34
and 84 °F (1.1 and 28.9 °C).
(iv) Adequately low stream
embeddedness so that spaces under
rocks and cavities in gravel remain
available to the Big Creek crayfish.
(v) Spaces under rocks or shallow
burrows in gravel that provide refugia.
(vi) An available forage and prey base
consisting of invertebrates, periphyton,
and plant detritus.
(vii) Connectivity among occupied
stream reaches of the Big Creek crayfish.
(viii) Adequately low ratios or
densities of nonnative species that allow
for maintaining populations of the Big
Creek crayfish.
(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 the
final rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit. The
National Hydrography Dataset Plus
(NHDPlus) was the geospatial data used
to delineate critical habitat. NHDPlus is
a national geospatial surface water
framework that integrates the National
Hydrography Dataset with the National
Elevation Dataset and the Watershed
Boundary Dataset. NHDPlus uses
medium resolution (1:100,000-scale)
data with a geographic projection and
NAD83 datum. Critical habitat was
delineated by including all streams
within subwatersheds (at the 12-digit
hydrologic unit level) occupied by the
Big Creek crayfish. Occupied
watersheds were defined using data
from the Missouri Department of
Conservation; the entire St. Francis
River upstream of 37.091254N,
90.447212W is also considered
occupied as a migratory route. The map
in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text,
establishes the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which the map
is based are available to the public at
http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2019–0020 and
at the Columbia, Missouri Ecological
Services Field Office. 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) Upper St. Francis River Watershed
Unit—Iron, Madison, St. Francois,
Washington, and Wayne Counties,
Missouri.
(i) The unit consists of all of the
streams (approximately 1,069 river
miles (1,720 kilometers)) upstream of
Wappapello Dam in the following
subwatersheds (numbers in parentheses
represent the 12-digit hydrologic codes):
Big Lake Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020503), Blankshire Branch-St.
Francis River (080202020204), Captain
Creek-St. Francis River (080202020405),
Cedar Bottom Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020402), Clark Creek
(080202020407), Cedar Bottom Creek
(080202020501), Crane Pond Creek
(080202020303), Headwaters St. Francis
River (080202020201), Headwaters
Twelvemile Creek (080202020403),
Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River
(080202020406), Lower Big Creek
(080202020304), Middle Big Creek
(080202020302), Saline Creek-Little St.
Francis River (080202020102), Turkey
Creek-St. Francis River (080202020210),
Twelvemile Creek (080202020404), and
Upper Big Creek (080202020301). The
unit also consists of the entire St.
Francis River upstream of 37.091254N,
90.447212W. The unit does not include
any areas of adjacent land. This unit
includes stream habitat up to bank full
height.
(ii) Map of Upper St. Francis River
Watershed Unit of Big Creek crayfish
critical habitat follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58220
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
St. Francis River Crayfish (Faxonius
quadruncus)
(1) The critical habitat unit is
depicted for Iron, Madison, St. Francois,
Washington, and Wayne Counties in
Missouri, on the map in this entry.
(2) Within the critical habitat unit, the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the St. Francis
River crayfish consist of the following
components:
(i) Stream flow velocity generally
between 0 and 1.1 feet per second (ft/
s) (0 and 0.35 meters per second (m/s)).
(ii) Stream depths generally between
0.2 and 1.7 feet (0.06 and 0.52 meters).
(iii) Water temperatures between 34
and 84 °F (1.1 and 28.9 °C).
(vi) Adequately low stream
embeddedness so that spaces under
rocks and cavities in gravel remain
available to the St. Francis River
crayfish.
(v) Spaces under rocks or shallow
burrows in gravel that provide refugia.
(vi) An available forage and prey base
consisting of invertebrates, periphyton,
and plant detritus.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
EP17SE20.004</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58221
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(vii) Connectivity among occupied
stream reaches of the St. Francis River
crayfish.
(viii) Adequately low ratios or
densities of nonnative species that allow
for maintaining populations of the St.
Francis River crayfish.
(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 the
final rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit. The
National Hydrography Dataset Plus
(NHDPlus) was the geospatial data used
to delineate critical habitat. NHDPlus is
a national geospatial surface water
framework that integrates the National
Hydrography Dataset with the National
Elevation Dataset and the Watershed
Boundary Dataset. NHDPlus uses
medium resolution (1:100,000-scale)
data with a geographic projection and
NAD83 Datum. Critical habitat was
delineated by including all streams
within subwatersheds (at the 12-digit
hydrologic unit level) occupied by the
St. Francis River crayfish. Occupied
watersheds were defined using data
from the Missouri Department of
Conservation; the entire St. Francis
River upstream of 36.982104N,
90.335400W is also considered
occupied as a migratory route. The map
in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text,
establishes the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which the map
is based are available to the public at
http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2019–0020 and
at the Columbia, Missouri Ecological
Services Field Office. 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) Upper St. Francis River Watershed
Unit—Iron, Madison, St. Francois,
Washington, and Wayne Counties,
Missouri.
(i) The unit consists of all of the
streams (approximately 1,043 river
miles (1,679 kilometers)) upstream of
Wappapello Dam in the following
subwatersheds (numbers in parentheses
represent the 12-digit hydrologic codes):
Blankshire Branch-St. Francis River
(80202020204), Captain Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020405), Cedar
Bottom Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020402), Headwaters St. Francis
River (80202020201), Headwaters Stouts
Creek (80202020207), Hubble Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020502),
Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020406), Little St. Francis River
(80202020103), Lost Creek
(80202020507), Marble Creek
(80202020401), Musco Creek-Little St.
Francis River (80202020101), O’Bannon
Creek-St. Francis River (80202020206),
Saline Creek-Little St. Francis River
(80202020102), Stouts Creek
(80202020208), Turkey Creek-St.
Francis River (80202020210), and
Wachita Creek-St. Francis River
(80202020209). The unit also consists of
the entire St. Francis River upstream of
36.982104N, 90.335400W. The unit does
not include any areas of adjacent land.
The Upper St. Francis River Watershed
Unit includes stream habitat up to bank
full height.
(ii) Map of Upper St. Francis River
Watershed Unit of St. Francis River
crayfish critical habitat follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
58222
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 181 / Thursday, September 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules
* * * * *
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–19298 Filed 9–16–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Sep 16, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17SEP3.SGM 17SEP3
EP17SE20.005</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

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