Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Yellow Lance, 16559-16569 [2017-06783]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16559-16569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06783]



[[Page 16559]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0017; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB45


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status for Yellow Lance

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list a mussel species, the yellow 
lance (Elliptio lanceolata), as endangered or threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
listing the yellow lance is warranted, and accordingly we propose to 
list the yellow lance as a threatened species under the Act. The yellow 
lance is a freshwater mussel native to Maryland, Virginia, and North 
Carolina. If we finalize this rule as proposed, the final rule would 
add the yellow lance to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and extend the Act's protections to this species.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 
5, 2017. 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 May 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
    https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-
2017-0017, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, check the Proposed Rules box to locate this document. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2017-0017, 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 https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 
551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919-856-4520; or 
facsimile 919-856-4556. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the yellow lance. The SSA team was composed of U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA 
report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial 
data available concerning the status of the species, including the 
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and 
beneficial) affecting the yellow lance. The SSA report underwent 
independent peer review by scientists with expertise in mussel 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 Southeast Region Web site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0017.

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 this 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 this species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of the species.
    (5) Information on activities which might warrant being exempted 
under section 4(d) of the ESA. The Service is considering proposing 
such measures before the final listing determination is published, and 
will evaluate ideas provided by the public in considering whether such 
exemptions are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the 
species.
    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 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is 
an endangered or a threatened species must be made ``solely on the 
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. 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 https://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 16560]]

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the dates 
specified above in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address 
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public 
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the 
dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain 
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers 
at least 15 days before the hearing.

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, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of 13 
appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report for the yellow lance, 
which informed this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to 
ensure that our listing determination is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in 
mussel biology, habitat, and stressors (factors negatively affecting 
the species) to the species. We invite any additional comment from the 
peer reviewers during this public comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

    We identified the yellow lance as a Category 2 candidate species in 
our November 21, 1991, Animal Candidate Review for Listing as 
Endangered or Threatened Species (56 FR 58804). Category 2 candidates 
were defined as taxa for which we had information that listing was 
possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability 
and threats were not available to support a proposed rule at that time. 
The species remained a Category 2 candidate in a subsequent Candidate 
Notice of Review (CNOR) (59 FR 58982; November 15, 1994). In the 
February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation 
of species as Category 2 candidates; therefore, the yellow lance was no 
longer a candidate species.
    On April 20, 2010, we were petitioned to list 404 aquatic species, 
including yellow lance, in the southeastern United States. In response 
to the petition, we completed a partial 90-day finding on September 27, 
2011 (76 FR 59836), in which we announced our finding that the petition 
contained substantial information that listing may be warranted for the 
yellow lance. On April 15, 2015, the Center for Biological Diversity 
(CBD) filed a complaint against the Service (1:15-CV-00229-EGS) for 
failure to complete a 12-month finding for the yellow lance in 
accordance with statutory deadlines. On September 9, 2015 the Service 
and the CBD filed stipulated settlements in the District of Columbia, 
agreeing that the Service would submit to the Federal Register a 12-
month finding for the yellow lance no later than March 31, 2017 (Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, case 1:14-CV-01021-EGS/JMF). We 
conducted a status review for the species, and this proposed listing 
rule constitutes our 12-month petition finding for the yellow lance. We 
intend to publish a proposal to designate critical habitat for the 
yellow lance under the Act in the near future.

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
yellow lance is presented in the Species Status Assessment Report for 
the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata) Version 1.2 (Service, 2017). The 
yellow lance is a freshwater mussel found in eight drainages from the 
upper Chesapeake River Basin in Maryland to the Neuse River Basin in 
North Carolina. The yellow lance was described in Bogan et al. (2009, 
p. 9) from seven river basins, from the Patuxent River Basin, the lower 
Chesapeake Bay basins (Rappahannock, York, James), the Chowan River 
Basin, and the Tar and Neuse River basins in North Carolina. There are 
also historical occurrences of the species recorded in the Potomac 
River Basin, although the accuracy of one of these records is unclear 
(Villela 2006, p. 11).
    The yellow lance is a bright yellow, elongate mussel with a shell 
over twice as long as tall, usually no more than 86 millimeters (mm) 
(3.4 inches (in)) in length. They are omnivores that primarily filter 
feed on a wide variety of microscopic particulate matter suspended in 
the water column, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, 
detritus, and dissolved organic matter (Haag 2012, p. 26). Juveniles 
likely pedal feed in the sediment, whereas adults filter feed from the 
water column. Like most freshwater mussels, they have a unique life 
cycle that relies on fish hosts for successful reproduction. Following 
release from the female mussel, floating glochidia (larvae) attach to 
the gills and scales of host minnows.
    The yellow lance is a sand-loving species (Alderman 2003, p. 6) 
often found buried deep in clean, coarse to medium sand and sometimes 
migrating with shifting sands (NatureServe 2015, p. 6), although it has 
also been found in gravel substrates. The species is dependent on clean 
(i.e., not polluted), moderate flowing water with high dissolved oxygen 
content in riverine or larger creek environments. Most freshwater 
mussels, including the yellow lance, are found in aggregations (mussel 
beds) that vary in size and are often separated by stream reaches in 
which mussels are absent or rare (Vaughn 2012, p. 983). Genetic 
exchange occurs between and among mussel beds via sperm drift, host 
fish movement, and movement of mussels during high flow events.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors 
affecting its continued existence. The SSA report documents the results 
of our comprehensive biological status review for the yellow lance, 
including an assessment of the potential stressors to the species. The 
SSA report does not represent a decision by the Service on whether the 
yellow lance should be proposed for listing as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. The SSA report, however, provides the 
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decision, 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 Southeast Region Web site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0017.

Summary of Analysis

    To assess yellow lance viability, we used the three conservation 
biology principles of resiliency, representation, and redundancy 
(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

[[Page 16561]]

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, droughts, 
hurricanes). 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 SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we used the conservation biology principles of 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3Rs) to 
evaluate the yellow lance's life-history needs. The next stage involved 
an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' 
demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of 
how the yellow lance arrived at its current condition. The final stage 
of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' response to 
positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. This 
process used the best available information to characterize viability 
as the ability of the yellow lance to sustain populations in the wild 
over time. We utilize this information to inform our regulatory 
decision in this 12-month finding and proposed rule.
    To evaluate the current and future viability of the yellow lance, 
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 the eight river basins 
that yellow lance mussels have historically occupied (i.e., Patuxent, 
Potomac, Rappahannock, York, James, Chowan, Tar, and Neuse River 
basins). Because the river basin level is at a very coarse scale, 
populations were further delineated using management units (MUs). MUs 
were defined as one or more HUC10 (hydrologic unit code) watersheds 
that species experts identified as most appropriate for assessing 
population-level resiliency.
    To assess resiliency, we analyzed occurrence, recruitment, and 
abundance data (``population factors'') as well as four habitat 
elements that influence the species: Water quality, water quantity, 
substrate, and habitat connectivity (``habitat elements''). We then 
assessed the overall condition of each population. Overall population 
condition rankings were determined by combining the three population 
factors and four habitat elements. For a more detailed explanation of 
the condition categories, see Table 1, below.
    Representation for the yellow lance can be described in terms of 
river basin variability (known from eight historical river basins), 
physiographic variability (Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain), and 
latitudinal variability (Maryland south to North Carolina). High 
redundancy for yellow lance is defined as multiple resilient 
populations (inclusive of multiple, resilient MUs) distributed 
throughout the species' historical range. That is, highly resilient 
populations, coupled with a relatively broad distribution, have a 
positive relationship to species-level redundancy.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 16562]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP17.001

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Current Condition of Yellow Lance
    The historical range of the yellow lance included streams and 
rivers in the Atlantic Slope drainages from the Patuxent River Basin 
south to the Neuse River Basin, with the documented historical 
distribution in 12 MUs within eight former populations. The yellow 
lance is presumed extirpated from 25 percent (\3/12\) of the 
historically occupied MUs. Of the remaining nine occupied MUs, 17 
percent are estimated to have high resiliency, 8 percent moderate 
resiliency, and 67 percent low resiliency. At the population level, the 
overall condition of one of the eight populations (the Tar population) 
is estimated to have moderate resiliency, while the remaining six 
extant populations (Patuxent, Rappahannock, York, James, Chowan, and 
Neuse populations) are characterized by low resiliency. The Potomac 
population is presumed to be extirpated. An assessment of the habitat 
elements finds that 86 percent of streams that remain part of the 
current species' range are estimated to be in low or very low 
condition.
    Once known to occupy streams in three physiographic regions 
(Mountain, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain), the species has lost 
occurrences in each physiographic region compared with historical 
occurrences, although it is still represented by at least one 
population in each region. We estimated that the yellow lance currently 
has reduced adaptive potential relative to historical potential due to 
decreased representation in seven river basins and three physiographic 
regions. The species retains most of its known river basin variability, 
but its distribution has been greatly reduced in the Rappahannock, 
York, Chowan, and Neuse River populations. In addition, compared to 
historical distribution, the species has declined by 70 percent in the 
Coastal Plain region and by approximately 50 percent in both the 
Piedmont and the Mountain regions. Latitudinal variability is also 
reduced,

[[Page 16563]]

as much of the species' current distribution has contracted and is 
largely limited to the southern portions of its historical range, 
primarily in the Tar River Basin.
    While the overall range of the yellow lance has not changed 
significantly, the remaining occupied portions of the range have become 
constricted within each basin and the species is largely limited to the 
southern portions of its historical range. One population (the Tar 
population, the southernmost population) was estimated to be moderately 
resilient, but all other extant populations exhibit low resiliency. 
Redundancy was estimated as the number of historically occupied MUs 
that remain currently occupied. The species retains redundancy (albeit 
in low condition) within the Rappahannock, Chowan, and Neuse River 
populations, and one population (Tar) has multiple moderate or highly 
resilient management units. Overall, the species has decreased 
redundancy across its range due to an estimated 57 percent reduction in 
occupancy compared to historical levels.

Risk Factors for the Yellow Lance

    Aquatic systems face a multitude of natural and anthropogenic 
factors that may impact the status of species within those systems 
(Neves et al., 1997, p. 44). Generally, these factors can be 
categorized as either environmental stressors (e.g., development, 
agriculture practices, or forest management) or systematic changes 
(e.g., climate change, invasive species, dams or other barriers). The 
largest threats to the future viability of the yellow lance relate to 
habitat degradation from stressors influencing water quality, water 
quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity. All of these 
factors are exacerbated by the effects of climate change. A brief 
summary of these primary stressors is presented below; for a full 
description of these stressors, refer to chapter 4 of the SSA report 
for the yellow lance.

Environmental Stressors

    Development: Development refers to urbanization of the landscape, 
including (but not limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial 
use, infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities), and urban water uses 
(water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment, etc.). The effects of 
urbanization may include alterations to water quality, water quantity, 
and habitat (both in-stream and stream-side) (Ren et al., 2003, p. 649; 
Wilson 2015, p. 424). Yellow lance adults require clear, flowing water 
with a temperature less than 35 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (95 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) and a dissolved oxygen greater than 3 milligrams 
per liter (mg/L). Juveniles require very specific interstitial 
chemistry to complete that life stage: Low salinity (similar to 0.9 
parts per thousand (ppt)), low ammonia (similar to 0.7 mg/L), low 
levels of copper and other contaminants, and dissolved oxygen greater 
than 1.3 mg/L.
    Impervious surfaces associated with development negatively affect 
water quality when pollutants that accumulate on impervious surfaces 
are washed directly into the streams during storm events. Storm water 
runoff affects water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, 
dissolved oxygen, and salinity, which in turn alters the water 
chemistry and could it make it unsuitable for the yellow lance. 
Concentrations of contaminants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, 
chloride, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and personal 
care products, increase with urban development (Giddings et al., 2009, 
p. 2; Bringolf et al. 2010, p. 1311).
    Urban development can lead to increased variability in streamflow, 
typically increasing the amount of water entering a stream after a 
storm and decreasing the time it takes for the water to travel over the 
land before entering the stream (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 1). Stream 
habitat is altered either directly via channelization or clearing of 
riparian areas, or indirectly via high streamflows that reshape the 
channel and cause sediment erosion (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 2). 
Impervious surfaces associated with increased development cause rain 
water to accumulate and flow rapidly into storm drains, thereby 
becoming superheated, which can stress or kill these mussel species 
when the superheated water enters streams. Pollutants like gasoline, 
oil, and fertilizers are also washed directly into streams and can kill 
mussels and other aquatic organisms. The large volumes and velocity of 
water combined with the extra debris and sediment entering streams 
following a storm can stress, displace, or kill the yellow lance, and 
the host fish species that it depends on.
    A further risk of urbanization is the accompanying road development 
that often results in improperly constructed culverts at stream 
crossings. These culverts act as barriers, either as flow through the 
culvert varies significantly from the rest of the stream, or if the 
culvert ends up being perched above the stream bed, and host fish (and, 
therefore, the yellow lance) cannot pass through them. This leads to 
loss of access to quality habitat, as well as fragmented habitat and a 
loss of connectivity between populations of the yellow lance. This can 
limit both genetic exchange and recolonization opportunities.
    All of the river basins within the range of the yellow lance are 
affected by development, from 7 percent in the Tar River basin to 25 
percent in the Patuxent River basin (based on the 2011 National Land 
Cover Data). The Neuse River basin in North Carolina contains one-sixth 
of the entire State's population, indicating heavy development pressure 
on the watershed. The Nottoway MU (in the Chowan population) contains 
155 impaired stream miles, 4 major discharges, 32 minor discharges, and 
over 3,000 road crossings, affecting the quality of the habitat for the 
yellow lance. The Potomac River basin is currently made up of 12.7 
percent impervious surfaces, changing natural streamflow, reducing 
appropriate stream habitat, and decreasing water quality throughout the 
population. For complete data on all of the populations, refer to 
appendix D of the SSA report.
    Agricultural Practices: The main impacts to the yellow lance from 
agricultural practices are from nutrient pollution and water pumping 
for irrigation. Fertilizers and animal manure, which are both rich in 
nitrogen and phosphorus, are the primary sources of nutrient pollution 
from agricultural sources. Excess nutrients impact water quality when 
it rains or when water and soil containing nitrogen and phosphorus wash 
into nearby waters or leach into the water table/ground waters causing 
algal blooms. These algal blooms can harm freshwater mussels by 
suffocating host fish and decreasing available oxygen in the water 
column.
    It is common practice to pump water for irrigation from adjacent 
streams or rivers into a reservoir pond, or to spray the stream or 
river water directly onto crops. If the water withdrawal is excessive 
or done illegally, this may cause impacts to the amount of water 
available to downstream sensitive areas during low flow months, 
resulting in dewatering of channels and stranding of mussels, leading 
to desiccation and death. In the Rappahannock River basin, for example, 
the upper watershed supports largely agricultural land uses. 
Sedimentation is a problem in the upper watershed, as stormwater runoff 
from the major tributaries (Rapidan and Hazel rivers) leaves the 
Rappahannock River muddy even after minor storm events. According to 
the 2011 National Land Cover Data, all of the watersheds within the 
range of the yellow lance are affected by agricultural land uses, most 
with 20 percent or more of the

[[Page 16564]]

watershed having been converted for agricultural use.
    Forest Management: Silviculture activities when performed according 
to strict forest practices guidelines (FPGs) or best management 
practices (BMPs) can retain adequate conditions for aquatic ecosystems; 
however, when FPGs/BMPs are not followed, these practices can also 
contribute to the myriad of stressors facing aquatic systems in the 
Southeast. Both small- and large-scale forestry activities have been 
shown to have a significant impact upon the physical, chemical, and 
biological characteristics of adjacent small streams (Allan 1995, p. 
107). The clearing of large areas of forested wetlands and riparian 
systems can eliminate shade provided by these canopies, exposing 
streams to more sunlight and increasing the in-stream water 
temperature. The increase in stream temperature and light after 
deforestation has been found to alter the macroinvertebrate and other 
aquatic species richness and abundance composition in streams (Couceiro 
et al. 2007, p. 272; Kishi et al. 2004, p. 283; Caldwell et al. 2014, 
p. 3). As stated above, the yellow lance is sensitive to changes in 
temperature, and sustained temperature increases will stress and 
possibly lead to mortality for the species.
    Further, many forestry activities do not require a permit for 
wetland or stream fill, as many silviculture activities are exempted 
from permit requirements (USACE 2016, entire; USEPA 2017, p. 1). 
Forestry activities often include the construction of logging roads 
through the riparian zone, and this can directly degrade nearby stream 
environments (Aust et al. 2011, p. 123). Roads can cause point source 
pollution and sedimentation, as well as sedimentation traveling 
downstream into more sensitive habitats. These effects lead to stress 
and mortality for the yellow lance, as discussed in ``Development,'' 
above. While BMPs are widely adhered to, they were not always common 
practice. The most recent surveys of Southeastern U.S. States show that 
the average implementation rate is at 92 percent; so while improper 
implementation is rare, it can have drastic negative effects on 
sensitive aquatic species like freshwater mussels.
Systematic Changes
    Climate Change: Aquatic systems are encountering changes and shifts 
in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff as a result of climate 
change. While mussels have evolved in habitats that experience seasonal 
fluctuations in discharge, global weather patterns can have an impact 
on the normal regimes (e.g., El Ni[ntilde]o or La Ni[ntilde]a). Even 
during naturally occurring low flow events, mussels become stressed 
either because they exert significant energy to move to deeper waters 
or they may succumb to desiccation. Because low flows in late summer 
and early fall are stress-inducing, droughts during this time of year 
result in stress and, potentially, an increased rate of mortality. 
Droughts have impacted all river basins within the range of the yellow 
lance, from an ``abnormally dry'' ranking for North Carolina and 
Virginia in 2001 on the Southeast Drought Monitor scale to the highest 
ranking of ``exceptionally dry'' for the entire range of the yellow 
lance in 2002 and 2007. The 2015 drought data indicated the entire 
Southeast ranging from ``abnormally dry'' to ``moderate drought'' or 
``severe drought.'' These data are from the first week in September, 
indicating a very sensitive time for drought to be affecting the yellow 
lance. The Middle Neuse tributaries of the Neuse River basin had 
consecutive drought years from 2005-2012, indicating sustained stress 
on the species over a long period of time. Sedentary freshwater mussels 
have limited refugia from disturbances such as droughts and floods, and 
they are completely dependent on specific water temperatures to 
complete their physiological requirements. Changes in water temperature 
lead to stress, increased mortality, and also increase the likelihood 
of extinction for the species (Poff et al. 2002, pp. ii-v). Increases 
in the frequency and strength of storms events alter stream habitat. 
Stream habitat is altered either directly via channelization or 
clearing of riparian areas, or indirectly via high streamflows that 
reshape the channel and cause sediment erosion (Giddings et al. 2009, 
p. 2). The large volumes and velocity of water, combined with the extra 
debris and sediment entering streams following a storm, stress, 
displace, or kill yellow lance and the host fish species on which it 
depends.
    Invasive Species: There are many areas across the States of 
Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina where aquatic invasive species 
are invading aquatic communities and altering biodiversity by competing 
with native species for food, light, or breeding and nesting areas. For 
example, the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) alters benthic substrates, 
competes with native species for limited resources, and causes ammonia 
spikes in surrounding water when they die off en masse (Scheller 1997, 
p. 2). Juvenile mussels need low levels of ammonia to survive that life 
stage, and a multitude of bioassays conducted on 16 mussel species 
(summarized by Augspurger et al. 2007, pp. 2025-2028) show that 
freshwater mollusks are more sensitive than previously known to some 
chemical pollutants, including ammonia. The Asian clam is ubiquitous 
across the southeastern United States and is present in watersheds 
across the range of the yellow lance (Foster et al. 2017). The flathead 
catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) is an apex predator known to feed on 
almost anything, including other fish, crustaceans, and mollusks, and 
to impact host fish communities, reducing the amount of fish available 
as hosts for the mussels to complete their glochidia life stage. 
Introductions of flathead catfish into rivers in North Carolina have 
led to steep declines in numbers of native fish. The flathead catfish 
has been documented in the Potomac, James, Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse 
river systems.
    Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), an aquatic plant, alters stream 
habitat, decreases flows, and contributes to sediment buildup in 
streams (NCANSMPC 2015, p. 57). High sedimentation can cause 
suffocation, reduce stream flow, and make it difficult for mussels' 
interactions with host fish necessary for development. Hydrilla occurs 
in several watersheds where the yellow lance occurs, including recent 
documentation from the Tar River. The dense growth is altering the flow 
in this system and causing sediment buildup, which can cause 
suffocation in filter-feeding mussels. While data are lacking on 
hydrilla currently having population-level effects on the yellow lance, 
the spread of this invasive plant is expected to increase in the 
future.
    Barriers: Extinction/extirpation of North American freshwater 
mussels can be traced to impoundment and inundation of riffle habitats 
(shallow water with rapid currents running over gravel or rocks) in all 
major river basins of the central and eastern United States (NCWRC 
2015a, p. 109). Upstream of dams, the change from flowing to impounded 
waters, increased depths, increased buildup of sediments, decreased 
dissolved oxygen, and the drastic alteration in resident fish 
populations can threaten the survival of mussels and their overall 
reproductive success. Downstream of dams, fluctuations in flow regimes, 
minimal releases and scouring flows, seasonal dissolved oxygen 
depletion, reduced or increased water temperatures, and changes in fish 
assemblages can also threaten the survival and reproduction of many 
mussel species. Because the

[[Page 16565]]

yellow lance uses smaller host fish (e.g., darters and minnows), it is 
even more susceptible to impacts from habitat fragmentation due to 
increasing distance between suitable habitat patches and a low 
likelihood of host fish swimming over that distance (C. Eads (NCSU) 
2016, pers. comm.). Even improperly constructed culverts at stream 
crossings can act as significant barriers, and have some similar 
effects as dams on stream systems. Fluctuating flows through the 
culvert can vary significantly from the rest of the stream, preventing 
fish passage and scouring downstream habitats. If a culvert ends up 
being perched above the stream bed, aquatic organisms cannot pass 
through it. These barriers not only fragment habitats along a stream 
course, they also contribute to genetic isolation of the yellow lance. 
All 12 of the MUs containing yellow lance populations have been 
impacted by dams, with as few as 3 dams in the Fishing Creek subbasin 
to over 100 dams in the York basin (Service 2016, appendix D). The 
Middle Neuse contains 237 dams and over 5,000 stream crossings, so 
connectivity there has been severely affected by barriers.
Synergistic Effects
    In addition to the impacts on the yellow lance individually, it is 
likely that several of the above summarized risk factors are acting 
synergistically or additively on the species. The combined impact of 
multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor acting 
alone. For example, in the Meherrin River MU, there are four stream 
reaches with 34 miles of impaired streams. The stream reaches have low 
benthic-macroinvertebrate scores, low dissolved oxygen, low pH, and 
contain Escherichia coli (also known as E. coli). There are 16 non-
major and 2 major discharges within this MU, along with 7 dams, 676 
road crossings, and droughts recorded for 4 consecutive years in 2007-
2010. The combination of all of these stressors on the sensitive 
aquatic species in this habitat has impacted yellow lance such that no 
individuals have been recorded here since 1994.

Conservation Actions

    The Service and State wildlife agencies are working with numerous 
partners to make ecosystem management a reality, primarily by providing 
technical guidance and offering development of conservation tools to 
meet both species and habitat needs in aquatic systems from Maryland to 
North Carolina. There are ongoing efforts to work with agriculture 
producers through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service to install riparian buffers along 
streams. Land trusts are targeting key parcels for acquisition, Federal 
and State biologists are surveying and monitoring species occurrences, 
and recently there has been a concerted effort to ramp up captive 
propagation and species population restoration via augmentation, 
expansion, and reintroduction efforts.
    In 2014, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission staff and 
partners began a concerted effort to propagate the yellow lance in 
hopes of augmenting existing populations in the Tar and Neuse River 
basins. In July 2015, 270 yellow lances were stocked into Sandy Creek, 
a tributary of the Tar River. Annual monitoring to evaluate growth and 
survival is planned, and additional propagation and stocking efforts 
will continue in upcoming years.
    For a more-detailed discussion of our evaluation of the biological 
status of the yellow lance and the factors that may affect its 
continued existence, please see the SSA report for the yellow lance 
(Elliptio lanceolata) (Service, 2017 entire). Our conclusions are based 
upon the best available scientific and commercial data and the expert 
opinion of the SSA team members.

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 (in 
this case, 50 years). To help address uncertainty associated with the 
degree and extent of potential future stressors and their impacts on 
species' requirements, the 3Rs were assessed using four plausible 
future scenarios. These scenarios were based, in part, on the results 
of urbanization (Terando et al. 2014) and climate models (International 
Panel on Climate Change 2013) that predict changes in habitat used by 
the yellow lance. To forecast the biological conditions of the yellow 
lance into the future, we devised plausible future scenarios by 
eliciting expert information on the primary stressors anticipated to 
affect the species into the future: Habitat loss and degradation due to 
urbanization and the effects of climate change. The models that were 
used to forecast urbanization into the future projected out 50 years, 
and climate change models included that timeframe as well. For more 
detailed information on these models and their projections, please see 
the SSA report for the yellow lance (Service, 2017).
    In scenario one, the ``Status Quo'' scenario, factors that 
influence current populations of the yellow lance were assumed to 
remain constant over the 50-year time horizon. Climate models predict 
that, if emissions continue at current rates, the Southeast will 
experience an increase in low flow (drought) events (IPCC 2013, p. 7). 
Likewise, this scenario assumed the `business as usual' pattern of 
urban growth, which predicts that urbanization will continue to 
increase rapidly (Terando et al. 2014, p. 1). This continued growth in 
development means increases in impervious surfaces, increased 
variability in streamflow, channelization of streams or clearing of 
riparian areas, and other negative effects explained above under 
``Development.'' The ``Status Quo'' scenario also assumed that current 
conservation efforts would remain in place but that no new actions 
would be taken.
    In scenario two, the ``Pessimistic'' scenario, factors that 
negatively influence yellow lance populations get worse; reflecting 
Climate Model RCP8.5 (Wayne 2013, p. 11), effects of climate change are 
expected to be magnified beyond what is experienced in the ``Status 
Quo'' scenario. Effects are predicted to result in extreme heat, more 
storms and flooding, and exacerbated drought conditions (IPCC 2013, p. 
7). Based on the results of the SLEUTH BAU model (Terando et al. 2014, 
entire), urbanization in yellow lance watersheds could expand to triple 
the amount of developed area, resulting in large increases of 
impervious surface cover and, potentially, consumptive water use. 
Increased urbanization and climate change effects are likely to result 
in increased impacts to water quality, water flow, and habitat 
connectivity, and we predict that there is limited capacity for species 
restoration under this scenario.
    Scenario three is labeled the ``Optimistic'' scenario, under which 
factors that influence population and habitat conditions of the yellow 
lance are expected to be somewhat improved. Reflecting Climate Model 
RCP2.6 (Wayne 2013, p.11), climate change effects are predicted to be 
minimal under this scenario, so effects of increased temperatures, 
storms, and droughts are not reflected in ``Optimistic'' scenario 
predictions, as they were in ``Status Quo'' and ``Pessimistic'' 
scenario predictions. Urbanization is also predicted to have less 
impact in this scenario as reflected by effects that are slightly lower 
than BAU model predictions (Terando et al. 2014; Table 5-1). Because 
water quality, water flow, and habitat impacts are predicted to be less 
severe in this scenario as compared to others, it is expected that the 
yellow lance will

[[Page 16566]]

maintain or have a slightly positive response. While the capacity for 
species restoration was kept at current levels for this scenario, 
predicted responses to targeted conservation activities were more 
positive based on the predicted habitat conditions under this scenario.
    In scenario four, the ``Opportunistic'' scenario, those landscape-
level factors (e.g., development and climate change) that are 
influencing populations of the yellow lance get moderately worse, 
reflecting Climate Change Model RCP4.5 or RCP6 (Wayne 2013, p. 11) and 
SLEUTH BAU (Terando et al. 2014; Table 5-1). Effects of climate change 
are expected to be moderate, resulting in some increased impacts from 
heat, storms, and droughts (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Urbanization in this 
scenario reflects the moderate BAU SLEUTH levels, indicating 
approximately double the amount of developed area compared to current 
levels. This continued growth in development means increases in 
impervious surfaces, increased variability in streamflow, 
channelization of streams or clearing of riparian areas, and other 
negative effects explained above under ``Development.''

Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on: (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. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of 
the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the yellow lance. The historical range of the yellow lance included 
streams and rivers in the Atlantic Slope drainages from the Patuxent 
River Basin south to the Neuse River Basin, with the documented 
historical distribution in 12 MUs within eight former populations. The 
yellow lance is presumed extirpated from 25 percent (3) of the 
historically occupied MUs. Of the remaining nine occupied MUs, 17 
percent are estimated to have high resiliency, 8 percent moderate 
resiliency, and 67 percent low resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to 
the population level, one of eight former populations (the Tar 
population) was estimated to have moderate resiliency, while the 
remaining six extant populations (Patuxent, Rappahannock, York, James, 
Chowan, and Neuse populations) were characterized by low resiliency. 
The Potomac population is presumed to be extirpated, thus eliminating 
13 percent of the species' historical range. Eighty-six percent of 
streams that remain part of the current species' range are estimated to 
be in low or very low condition. Known to historically occupy streams 
in three physiographic regions, the species continues to maintain 
physiographic representation in all three regions, although occupancy 
has decreased in each region. An estimated 50 percent loss has occurred 
in the Mountain region's watersheds, an estimated 56 percent loss has 
occurred in the Piedmont region's watersheds, and an estimated 70 
percent loss has occurred in the Coastal Plain region's watersheds.
    The yellow lance faces threats from declines in water quality, loss 
of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration 
of instream habitats (Factor A). These threats, which are expected to 
be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and effects of 
climate change (Factor E), were important factors in our assessment of 
the future viability of the yellow lance. Given current and future 
decreases in resiliency, populations become more vulnerable to 
extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent 
losses in representation and redundancy. The range of plausible future 
scenarios of yellow lance habitat conditions and population factors 
suggest possible extirpation in as many as five of seven currently 
extant populations. The most optimistic model predicted that only two 
populations will remain extant in 50 years and those populations are 
expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance.

Proposal To List the Yellow Lance

    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We considered whether the yellow lance 
meets either of these definitions, and we find that the yellow lance 
meets the definition of a threatened species. Our analysis of the 
species' current and future conditions, as well as the conservation 
efforts discussed above, show that the population and habitat factors 
used to determine the resiliency, representation, and redundancy for 
the yellow lance will continue to decline so that it is likely to 
become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range within the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose to 
list the yellow lance as a threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    We considered whether the yellow lance is currently in danger of 
extinction and determined that proposing endangered status is not 
appropriate. The current conditions as assessed in the yellow lance SSA 
report show that 12 MUs over seven (of eight) different populations 
(river systems) occur over a majority (87 percent) of the species' 
historical range. The yellow lance still exhibits representation across 
all three physiographic regions and extant populations remain from the 
Patuxent River south to the Neuse River. While threats are currently 
acting on the species and many of those threats are expected to 
continue into the future, we did not find that the species is currently 
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. According to our 
assessment of plausible future scenarios, the species is likely to 
become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all 
of its range.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species warrants 
listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the 
yellow lance is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of 
its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the definitions of 
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See the Final Policy 
on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations in 50 CFR 424.12, require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the 
species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. 
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of 
section 4 of this Act, on which are

[[Page 16567]]

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 in accordance with the provisions of 
section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary of the 
Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when any of the following situations 
exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. The regulations also 
provide that, in determining whether a designation of critical habitat 
would not be beneficial to the species, the factors that the Services 
may consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' 
habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas 
meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii)).
    We do not know of any imminent threat of take attributed to 
collection or vandalism for the yellow lance. The available information 
does not indicate that identification and mapping of critical habitat 
is likely to initiate any threat of collection or vandalism for the 
yellow lance. Therefore, in the absence of finding that the designation 
of critical habitat would increase threats to the species, if there are 
benefits to the species from a critical habitat designation, a finding 
that designation is prudent is appropriate.
    The potential benefits of designation may include: (1) Triggering 
consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in 
which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur 
because, for example, it is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation 
activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing 
educational benefits to State or county governments or private 
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to 
the protected species. Because designation of critical habitat would 
not likely increase the degree of threat to the yellow lance and may 
provide some measure of benefit, designation of critical habitat may be 
prudent for the yellow lance.
    Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical 
habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following 
situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required 
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the 
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to 
permit identification of an area as critical habitat. A careful 
assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical 
habitat designation is still ongoing, and we are in the process of 
working with the States and other partners in acquiring the complex 
information needed to perform that assessment. The information 
sufficient to perform a required analysis of the impacts of the 
designation is lacking, and, therefore, we find designation of critical 
habitat for the yellow lance to be not determinable at this time.

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 and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the 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 Threatened Wildlife or Plants 
(``delisting''), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery 
plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their 
recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing 
recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal 
and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) 
are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the 
recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan for 
the yellow lance will be available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of the yellow lance requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands. 
If the yellow lance is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Maryland, Virginia, and 
North Carolina would be eligible for Federal funds to implement 
management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the 
yellow lance. Information on our grant programs that are available to 
aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the yellow lance is only proposed for listing under the 
Act at

[[Page 16568]]

this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to 
submit any new information on the yellow lance whenever it becomes 
available and any information you may have for recovery planning 
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include, but are not limited to, management and any other 
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and 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.
    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue 
regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing 
regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions 
that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) 
of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 
17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high 
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, 
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has 
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the 
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land 
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to 
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 
educational purposes, or for other 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.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing.
    Activities that the Service believes could potentially harm the 
yellow lance and result in ``take'' include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
    (2) Destruction or alteration of the species' habitat by discharge 
of fill material, dredging, snagging, impounding, channelization, or 
modification of stream channels or banks;
    (3) Destruction of riparian habitat directly adjacent to stream 
channels that causes significant increases in sedimentation and 
destruction of natural stream banks or channels;
    (4) Discharge of pollutants into a stream or into areas 
hydrologically connected to a stream occupied by the species;
    (5) Diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow; and
    (6) Pesticide/herbicide applications in violation of label 
restrictions.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Raleigh 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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.

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; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is 
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon 
request from the Raleigh 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 Unified Listing Team and the Raleigh 
Ecological Services Field Office.

[[Page 16569]]

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

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, by adding an entry for ``Lance, yellow'' in alphabetical 
order under CLAMS to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed          Status         and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
              Clams
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Lance, yellow...................  Elliptio lanceolata  Wherever found.....               T   [Federal Register
                                                                                              citation when
                                                                                              published as a
                                                                                              final rule].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Dated: March 31, 2017.
 Stephen Guertin,
 Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-06783 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P