Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Suwannee Moccasinshell, 65325-65345 [2019-25598]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65325-65345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25598]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0059; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-BD09


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Suwannee Moccasinshell

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Suwannee moccasinshell (Medionidus 
walkeri) under the Endangered Species Act (Act). The Suwannee 
moccasinshell is a freshwater mussel species from the Suwannee River 
Basin in Florida and Georgia. In total, approximately 306 kilometers 
(190 miles) of stream channels in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, 
Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, and Union Counties, 
Florida, and Brooks and Lowndes Counties, Georgia, fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. If we finalize 
this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this 
species' critical habitat. The effect of this regulation is to 
designate critical habitat for the Suwannee moccasinshell under the 
Act. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of 
the proposed designation.

DATES: We will accept comments on the proposed rule or draft economic 
analysis that are received or postmarked on or before January 27, 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 ADDRESSES by January 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule or draft 
economic analysis by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0059, 
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, 
click on the Proposed Rules link 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-2019-0059; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Headquarters, MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 
22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will also include any personal information you 
provide during the comment period (see the Information Requested 
section below for more information).
    Document availability: The DEA is available at https://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity and at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0059, and at the Panama City Ecological Services Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The coordinates from which the maps are generated are included in 
the critical habitat unit descriptions of this document and are 
available at https://www.fws.gov/PanamaCity, and at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0059 and at the Panama 
City Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). Additional tools or supporting information that we may

[[Page 65326]]

develop for this critical habitat designation will be available at the 
Fish and Wildlife Service website and Field Office set out above, and 
may also be included in the preamble and/or at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean M. Blomquist, Acting Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Ecological 
Services Field Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405; by 
telephone 850-769-0552; or by facsimile at 850-763-2177. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf, call the Federal Relay Service 
at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, 
when we list any species as threatened or endangered we must designate 
critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. 
Designation of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a 
rule.
    What this document does. This document is a proposed rule for 
designation of critical habitat for the Suwannee moccasinshell in the 
Suwannee River Basin in Florida and Georgia. It provides our rationale 
for pursuing this rulemaking action.
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, when we 
determine that a species is threatened or endangered, we must, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, designate critical habitat. 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act states that the Secretary 
shall designate 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.
    Economic impacts. We have prepared an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors. We hereby announce the availability of the draft economic 
analysis and seek additional public review and comment.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our listing proposal is based on 
scientifically sound data and analyses. We have invited these peer 
reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions in 
this listing proposal.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) including information to inform the following factors such that a 
designation of critical habitat may be determined to be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Suwannee moccasinshell habitat,
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why,
    (c) 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. We particularly seek comments 
regarding:
    (i) Whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of 
the species; and,
    (ii) Specific information that supports the determination that 
unoccupied areas will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the 
conservation of the species and, contain at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Suwannee moccasinshell and proposed critical 
habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation and the benefits of including or excluding areas that 
exhibit these impacts.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic 
impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the 
likely economic impacts.
    (7) 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.
    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.
    All comments submitted electronically via https://www.regulations.gov will be presented on the website in their entirety 
as submitted. For comments submitted via hard copy, we will post your 
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--on 
https://www.regulations.gov. You may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold personal information such as your street address, 
phone number, or email address from public review; however, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing 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, Panama City Ecological Services Office, Panama City, 
FL (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Because we will consider all 
comments and information received during the

[[Page 65327]]

comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal.

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 6, 2015, we published a proposed rule to list the 
Suwannee moccasinshell as threatened (80 FR 60335) under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 
Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which 
closed on December 7, 2015. On October 6, 2016, we published the final 
rule listing the species as threatened (81 FR 69417). Federal actions 
prior to October 6, 2016, affecting the species are outlined in the 
proposed listing rule.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features.
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as: An area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or 
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to 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 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 developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include 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

[[Page 65328]]

that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the 
species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not 
signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may 
not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to 
the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) 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 the Secretary shall designate 
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. 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 in the final rule listing this species as threatened, 
at the time of listing, there was no imminent threat of take attributed 
to collection or vandalism of this species; and in the years since 
listing, no threat of taking or vandalism have emerged. Identification 
and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such 
threat. In our final listing rule, we determined that the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range is a threat to the Suwannee moccasinshell and those threats may 
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 the Suwannee 
moccasinshell.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the 
Suwannee moccasinshell 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.''
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where the species is 
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data 
available and lead us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for the Suwannee moccasinshell.

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. We have 
defined physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species in 50 CFR 424.02. Categories of physical or biological 
features include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential 
for the Suwannee moccasinshell from studies of its habitat, ecology, 
and life history as described below. Additional information can be 
found in the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on 
October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69417).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Mussels generally live embedded in the bottom of stable streams and 
other bodies of water, in areas where flow velocities are sufficient to 
remove finer sediments and provide well-oxygenated waters. The Suwannee 
moccasinshell inhabits creeks and rivers where it is found in 
substrates of sand or a mixture of sand and gravel, and in areas with 
slow to moderate current (Williams 2015, p. 2). The Suwannee 
moccasinshell, similar to other mussels, is dependent on areas with 
flow refuges, where shear stress is relatively low and sediments remain 
stable during high flow events (Strayer 1999, pp. 468, 472; Hastie et 
al. 2001, pp. 111-114; Gangloff and Feminella 2007, p. 71). The species 
is often associated with large woody material embedded in the 
substrate, which may help stabilize substrates and

[[Page 65329]]

act as a flow refuge. Substrates that remain stable in high flows 
conceivably allow these relatively sedentary animals to remain in the 
same general location throughout their entire lives. These habitat 
conditions not only provide space for Suwannee moccasinshell 
populations, but also provide cover and shelter and sites for breeding, 
reproduction, and growth of offspring.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Freshwater mussels, such as the Suwannee moccasinshell, siphon 
water into their shells and across four gills that are specialized for 
respiration, food collection, and brooding larvae in females. Food 
items include fine detritus (particles of organic debris), algae, 
diatoms, and bacteria (Strayer et al. 2004, pp. 430-431, Vaughn et al. 
2008, p. 410). Adult mussels obtain food items both from the water 
column and from the sediment, either by taking water in through the 
incurrent siphon or by moving material extracted from sediments into 
their shell using cilia (hair-like structures) on their foot. For the 
first several months, juvenile mussels feed primarily with their foot, 
although they also may filter interstitial (pore) water (Yeager et al. 
1994, pp. 217-221). Food availability and quality for the Suwannee 
moccasinshell is affected by habitat stability, floodplain 
connectivity, flow, and water and sediment quality. Adequate food 
availability and quality is essential for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability during all life stages of this species.
    The Suwannee moccasinshell is a riverine species that depends upon 
adequate amounts of flowing water. Flowing water transports food items 
to the sedentary juvenile and adult life stages, provides oxygen for 
respiration, removes wastes, transports sperm to females, and maintains 
the stream bottom habitats where the species is found (the effects of 
flow alteration on habitat is discussed below under Habitats Protected 
from Disturbance). A sufficient amount of continuously flowing water is 
a feature essential to this species.
    The ranges of standard water quality characteristics (such as 
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity) required by the 
Suwannee moccasinshell for normal behavior, growth, and viability of 
all life stages have not been investigated or are poorly understood. 
However, as relatively sedentary animals, mussels must tolerate the 
full range of physical and chemical conditions that occur naturally 
within the streams where they persist. The physical and chemical 
conditions (water quality) within the Suwannee moccasinshell's 
historical range may vary according to season, geology, climate events, 
and human activities within the watershed. The combined effects of 
groundwater pumping and drought can lower groundwater levels in the 
basin, which can result in severely reduced stream flows for extended 
periods (Grubbs and Crandall 2007, p. 78; Torak et al. 2010, pp. 46-
47). Moreover, increased stream temperatures and decreased dissolved 
oxygen concentrations are important secondary effects associated with 
flow reduction and cessation. Sensitive mussel species like the 
Suwannee moccasinshell may suffer lethal and non-lethal effects to low 
dissolved oxygen levels and elevated stream temperatures (Johnson et 
al. 2001, pp. 5-8; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 501; Haag and Warren 2008, 
pp. 1174-1176), and is particularly susceptible to these conditions 
during its early life stages (Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp. 132-133; 
Pandolfo et al. 2010, p. 965; Archambault et al. 2013, p. 247). 
Although specific physical and chemical tolerance ranges are not known 
for the Suwannee moccasinshell, we believe that current numeric 
standards for water quality criteria that have been adopted by the 
States under the Clean Water Act (CWA) represent levels that are 
essential to the conservation of the species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Sites for breeding, reproduction, and development are tied to areas 
in stable rivers and creeks where flow velocities are sufficient to 
maintain habitats, and bottom substrates are composed of sand or a 
mixture of sand and gravel (see Space for Individual and Population 
Growth and for Normal Behavior above). Juvenile mussels depend upon 
areas where substrates remain stable during high flow events. The 
presence of large embedded logs may contribute to substrate stability 
and act as flow refuges. The larvae of most freshwater mussels are 
parasitic, requiring a period of encystment on a fish host in order to 
transform into juvenile mussels. Thus, the presence of appropriate host 
fishes to complete its reproductive life cycle is essential to the 
Suwannee moccasinshell. In laboratory host trials, Suwannee 
moccasinshell larvae transformed primarily on the blackbanded darter 
(Percina nigrofasciata) and to a lesser extent on the brown darter 
(Etheostoma edwini) (Johnson et al. 2016, p. 171). The blackbanded 
darter is one of the most abundant darter species in coastal plain 
streams, and the distribution of both fish species overlap with the 
historical distribution of the Suwannee moccasinshell (Kuehne and 
Barbour 1983, pp. 29-30; Robins et al. 2018, pp. 317, 336).
Habitats Protected From Disturbance
    The Suwannee moccasinshell's habitat has been impacted by pollution 
and reduced flows throughout its range, and by channel instability and 
excessive sedimentation in portions of its range (see Factor A. The 
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 
Habitat or Range of the proposed listing rule).
    An environment free from toxic levels of pollutants is essential to 
the Suwannee moccasinshell, especially to its early life stages. There 
is no specific information on the sensitivity of the species to common 
municipal, agricultural, and industrial pollutants. However, as a 
group, freshwater mussels are more sensitive to pollution than many 
other aquatic organisms, and are one of the first species to respond to 
water quality impacts (Haag 2012, p. 355) (see Pollution discussion 
under Factor A of the final listing rule). We currently believe that 
most numeric standards for pollutants that have been adopted by the 
States under the CWA represent levels that are essential to the 
conservation of the Suwannee moccasinshell. However, some standards may 
not adequately protect sensitive mollusks like the Suwannee 
moccasinshell, or are not being appropriately measured, monitored, or 
achieved in some reaches (see Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 
Regulatory Mechanisms section of the final listing rule).
    The Suwannee moccasinshell is a riverine species that depends upon 
a natural flow regime to maintain the benthic habitats where it lives. 
A natural hydrologic regime is critical for the exchange of nutrients, 
movement and spawning activities of potential fish hosts, and 
maintenance of habitats. Altered flow regimes (including higher peak 
flows, lower base flows, and changes to seasonal flow pulses) can 
physically alter stream habitats. For example, increases in the amount 
and rate at which stormwater runoff enters stream channels can erode 
the stream bed and banks and cause sedimentation in downstream areas. 
Reductions in stream flow can alter hydraulically mediated sediment 
sorting throughout the river, which may displace or otherwise alter 
habitat for the Suwannee moccasinshell and its host fishes. Changes in 
flow regimes are attributable

[[Page 65330]]

to factors such as lowering of the groundwater table due to pumping, 
changes in land use, and impoundments.
    The Suwannee moccasinshell requires geomorphically stable stream 
channels to maintain its habitats. Channel instability occurs when the 
natural erosion process is accelerated leading to erosion (degradation) 
and sediment deposition (aggradation), and can eventually lead to 
channel incision (lowering of the streambed). Channel instability can 
lead to profound changes to mussel habitats due to scouring and 
sediment deposition (Hartfield 1993, p. 138). Stream channels can 
become destabilized as a result of physical alterations to the channel 
(such as dredging, straightening, impounding, and hardening), altered 
stormwater runoff patterns, and disturbance to riparian areas. Natural 
stream channel stability is achieved by allowing the river or creek to 
develop a stable dimension, pattern, and profile such that, over time, 
channel features are maintained and the stream channel neither degrades 
nor aggrades. Stable rivers and creeks consistently transport their 
sediment load, both in size and type, associated with local deposition 
and scour (Rosgen 1996, pp. 1-3). These habitats are dynamic and are 
formed and maintained by water quantity, channel features (dimension, 
pattern, and profile), and natural sediment input to the system through 
periodic flooding, which maintains connectivity and interaction with 
the floodplain.
    The Suwannee moccasinshell requires habitats that are free from 
excessive sedimentation. Although sediment deposition is a normal 
stream process, habitat may be degraded or destroyed in areas where 
excessive amounts of sediment accumulate and smother habitat. Sediments 
that enter via stormwater runoff, may also serve to transport 
pollutants (like pesticides and surfactants) into streams (Haag 2012, 
p. 378). Heavy accumulations of unconsolidated sediments can alter 
bottom substrates to such a degree that it becomes uninhabitable for 
mussels, particularly juveniles.
    In conclusion, based on the analysis above, we have determined that 
the following physical or biological features are essential to support 
the Suwannee moccasinshell:
    (1) Geomorphically stable stream channels (channels that maintain 
lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity patterns over 
time without an aggrading or degrading bed elevation).
    (2) Stable substrates of muddy sand or mixtures of sand and gravel, 
and with little to no accumulation of unconsolidated sediments and low 
amounts of filamentous algae.
    (3) A natural hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency, 
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain 
benthic habitats where the species is found, and connectivity of stream 
channels with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and 
sediment for habitat maintenance, food availability, and spawning 
habitat for native fishes.
    (4) Water quality conditions needed to sustain healthy Suwannee 
moccasinshell populations, including low pollutant levels (not less 
than State criteria), a natural temperature regime, pH (between 6.0 to 
8.5), adequate oxygen content (not less than State criteria), hardness, 
turbidity, and other chemical characteristics necessary for normal 
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
    (5) The presence of abundant fish hosts necessary for recruitment 
of the Suwannee moccasinshell. The presence of blackbanded darters 
(Percina nigrofasciata) and brown darters (Etheostoma edwini) will 
serve as an indication of fish host presence.

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. All three units that we are proposing for designation, 
including the unit that was occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, have mixed ownership of adjacent riparian lands with mainly 
private (72 percent) and State (27 percent) lands (table 1). All State-
owned riparian lands are in Florida, and the majority are managed by 
Florida's Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD). Tracts are 
managed to maintain adequate water supply and water quality for natural 
systems by preserving riparian habitats and restricting development 
(SRWMD 2014, p. 3). The SRWMD also established minimum flows and levels 
for the river channel in the lower basin, downstream of Fanning 
Springs. Minimum flow and level criteria establish a limit at which 
further withdrawals would be detrimental to water resources, taking 
into consideration fish and wildlife habitats, the passage of fish, 
sediment loads, and water quality, among others (SRWMD 2005, pp. 6-8). 
In addition, the Suwannee River and Santa Fe River system have been 
designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), which prevents the 
permitted discharge of pollutants that would lower existing water 
quality of, or significantly degrade, the OFW. While these programs may 
indirectly alleviate some detrimental impacts on aquatic habitats, 
there currently are no plans or agreements designed specifically for 
the conservation of the Suwannee moccasinshell or for freshwater 
mussels in general.
    The features essential to the conservation of the Suwannee 
moccasinshell may require special management considerations or 
protection to ameliorate the following threats: Reduced flows, nonpoint 
source pollution (from stormwater runoff or infiltration), point source 
pollution (from wastewater discharges or accidental releases), and 
physical alterations to the stream channel (for example, dredging, 
straightening, impounding, etc.). Special management considerations or 
protection are required within critical habitat areas to ameliorate 
these threats, and include (but are not limited to): (1) Moderation of 
surface and ground water withdrawals; (2) improvement of the treatment 
of wastewater discharged from permitted facilities and the operation of 
those facilities; (3) reductions in pesticide and fertilizer use 
especially in groundwater recharge areas and near stream channels; (4) 
use of best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce 
sedimentation, erosion, and stream bank alteration; (5) protection and 
restoration of riparian buffers; and (6) avoidance of physical 
alternations to the stream channel. This only applies to federal 
actions (see the Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard 
below for more information).

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.
    The current distribution of the species is much reduced from its 
historical range. We anticipate that recovery will require continued 
protection of the existing population and its habitat, as

[[Page 65331]]

well as reintroduction of Suwannee moccasinshell into historically 
occupied areas, ensuring there are viable populations and that they 
occur over a wide geographic area. Rangewide recovery considerations, 
such as maintaining existing genetic diversity and striving for 
representation of all major portions of the species' current range, 
were considered in formulating this proposed critical habitat.
    For this proposed rule, we completed the following steps to 
delineate critical habitat (specific methods follow below):
    (1) We compiled all available occurrence data records.
    (2) We used confirmed presences from June 2001-March 2016 as the 
foundation for identifying areas currently occupied.
    (3) We evaluated habitat suitability of stream segments currently 
occupied by the species, and retained all occupied stream segments.
    (4) We evaluated unoccupied stream segments for suitability, 
connectivity, and expansion, and identified areas containing the 
components comprising the physical or biological features that may 
require special management considerations or protection.
    (5) We omitted some unoccupied areas that are highly degraded and 
are not likely restorable (e.g., insufficient flowing water, channel 
destabilized), and, therefore, are not considered essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    (6) We delineated boundaries of potential proposed critical habitat 
units based on the above information.
    Specific criteria and methodology used to determine proposed 
critical habitat unit boundaries are discussed below.
    Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat designation 
include multiple databases maintained by Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission, Dr. James D. Williams, Florida Museum of 
Natural History, and U.S. Geological Survey; verified museum records 
from multiple institutions (see Methods in Johnson et al. 2016, pp. 
164-165); and a status report by Blalock-Herod and Williams (2001, 
entire). Occurrence data included records collected from May 1916 to 
March 2016. A large number of surveys were conducted throughout the 
Suwannee River basin by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission biologists during 2012-2016, and all sites with historical 
occurrences of Suwannee moccasinshell were sampled during this period. 
Sources of information pertaining to habitat requirements of the 
Suwannee moccasinshell include observations recorded during surveys and 
information contained in Blalock-Herod and Williams (2001, entire) and 
Williams et al. (2014, pp. 278-280).
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
    We define ``currently occupied'' as river reaches with positive 
surveys from 2000 to 2016. In making these determinations, we 
recognized that known occurrences for some mussel species are extremely 
localized, and rare mussels can be difficult to locate. In addition, 
stream habitats are highly dependent upon upstream and downstream 
channel habitat conditions for their maintenance. Therefore, we 
considered the entire reach between the uppermost and lowermost 
currently occupied locations to delineate the probable upstream and 
downstream extent of the Suwannee moccasinshell's distribution. Within 
the current range of the species, some habitats may or may not be 
actively utilized by individuals, but we consider these areas to be 
occupied at the scale of the geographic range of the species.
    We propose to designate one occupied unit as critical habitat for 
the Suwannee moccasinshell in the Suwannee River and lower Santa Fe 
River. This area contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features to support life-history processes essential to the 
conservation of the Suwannee moccasinshell, and those physical or 
biological features require special management conditions or 
protections. This remaining population provides little redundancy for 
the species, and a series of back-to-back stochastic events or a single 
catastrophic event could significantly reduce or extirpate the 
remaining population. Consequently, we have determined that the 
occupied area is inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. 
Therefore, we have also identified, and are proposing for designation 
of critical habitat, unoccupied areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
Areas Unoccupied at the Time of Listing
    Because we have determined occupied areas alone are not adequate 
for the conservation of the species, we have evaluated whether any 
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We 
are proposing as critical habitat two units that are currently 
unoccupied. The units have at least one of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and we are 
reasonably certain that each will contribute to the conservation of the 
species. Our specific rationale for each unit can be found below in the 
unit descriptions below.
    An examination of all available collection data shows that the 
Suwannee moccasinshell's range and numbers have declined over time (see 
``Distribution and Abundance'' discussion in the final listing rule). 
For example, despite considerable survey effort, the species has not 
been collected in the lower Suwannee River or Withlacoochee River 
subbasins since the 1960s, and was last collected in the upper Santa Fe 
River subbasin in 1996 (Johnson et al. 2016, p. 170). There has also 
been a reduction in numbers, with fewer individuals encountered during 
recent surveys than were collected historically (Johnson et al. 2016, 
pp. 166, 170).
    The Suwannee moccasinshell's reduced range and small population 
size may increase its vulnerability to many threats. Aquatic species 
with small ranges, few populations, and small or declining population 
sizes are the most vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2008, p. 137; Haag 
2012, p. 336). The effects of certain environmental pressures, 
particularly habitat degradation and loss, catastrophic weather events, 
and introduced species, are greater when population size is small 
(Soul[eacute] 1980, pp. 33, 71; Primack 2008, pp. 133-137, 152). 
Threats to the Suwannee moccasinshell are compounded by its reduced and 
linear distribution, with nearly the entire population presently 
distributed within the Suwannee River mainstem. A small population also 
occurs in the lower Santa Fe River, however, only 5 recent collections 
(3 of which are relic shell) have been reported in this subbasin 
(Johnson et al. 2016, p. 171).
    A larger population of Suwannee moccasinshell occurring over a wide 
geographic area can have higher resilience. A large population is 
better able to return to pre-disturbance numbers after stochastic 
events, and also has increased availability of mates and reduced risk 
of genetic drift and inbreeding depression. The minimum viable 
population size needed to withstand stochastic events is not known for 
mussels. However, for species with complex life histories like 
freshwater mussels, maximizing the chances of persistence over the 
long-term, likely requires a population of considerable size (Haag 
2012, p. 371). Reestablishing viable populations in the Withlacoochee 
and upper Santa Fe River subbasins increases Suwannee moccasinshell 
resiliency by expanding its range into historically occupied areas, 
potentially increasing population size, and providing refuge from

[[Page 65332]]

catastrophic events (for example, flooding and spills) in the Suwannee 
River.
    We determined the Withlacoochee and upper Santa Fe River subbasins 
have the potential for future reoccupation by the species, provided 
that stressors are managed and mitigated. These specific areas 
encompass the minimum area of the species' historical range within the 
proposed critical habitat designation, while still providing ecological 
diversity so that the species has the ability to evolve and adapt over 
time (representation) to ensure that the species has an adequate level 
of redundancy to guard against future catastrophic events. These areas 
also represent the stream reaches within the historical range with the 
best potential for recovery of the species due to their current 
conditions and likely suitability for reintroductions. Accordingly, we 
propose to designate one unoccupied unit in the upper Santa Fe River 
and one unoccupied unit in the Withlacoochee River. As described below 
in the individual unit descriptions, each unit contains one or more of 
the physical or biological features and are reasonably certain to 
contribute to the conservation of the species.
General Information on the Maps of the Proposed Critical Habitat 
Designation
    The critical habitat streams were mapped with USGS National 
Hydrography Dataset GIS data. The high-resolution 1:24,000 flowlines 
were used to delineate the upstream and downstream boundaries of the 
proposed critical habitat units and to calculate river kilometers and 
miles, according to the criteria explained below. The downstream 
boundary of a unit is the confluence of a named tributary stream or 
spring, below the farthest downstream occurrence record. The upstream 
boundary is the confluence of the first major tributary, road-crossing 
bridge, or a permanent barrier to fish passage above the farthest 
upstream occurrence record. The confluence of a large tributary 
typically marks a significant change in the size of the stream and is a 
logical and recognizable upstream terminus. Likewise, a dam or other 
barrier to fish passage marks the upstream extent to which mussels may 
disperse via their fish hosts. In the unit descriptions, distances 
between landmarks marking the upstream or downstream extent of a stream 
segment are given in river kilometers (km) and equivalent miles (mi), 
as measured tracing the course of the stream, not straight-line 
distance.
    The areas proposed as critical habitat include only stream channels 
within the ordinary high-water line. There are no developed areas 
within the critical habitat boundaries except for transportation 
crossings, which do not remove the suitability of these areas for this 
species. 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 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.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information 
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble 
of this document. The coordinates on which each map is based are 
provided in the critical habitat unit descriptions at the end of this 
document, and are available at the Service's internet site, (https://
www.fws.gov/panamacity), (https://www.regulations.gov) at Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2019-0059, and at the field office responsible for this 
designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate approximately 306 km (190 mi) of 
stream channel in three units as critical habitat for the Suwannee 
moccasinshell. The three units we propose as critical habitat are: Unit 
1: Suwannee River, Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River, and Unit 3: 
Withlacoochee River. Overall, about 81 percent of critical habitat 
proposed for the Suwannee moccasinshell is already designated as 
critical habitat for either of two ESA-listed species: The oval pigtoe 
(Pleurobema pyriforme) or Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). 
Table 1 shows the proposed critical habitat units for the Suwannee 
moccasinshell and ownership of riparian lands adjacent to the units.

                     Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Suwannee Moccasinshell
  [Ownership of riparian lands adjacent to the units is given for each streambank in kilometers (km) and miles
          (mi). Lengths greater than 10 kilometers are rounded to the nearest whole kilometer and mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Private km                                    Unit length km
                      Bank                             (mi)        State km (mi)  County km (mi)       (mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Suwannee River, FL......................  ..............  ..............  ..............     187 (116.2)
    Right descending bank *.....................        133 (83)         51 (31)       3.1 (1.9)  ..............
    Left descending bank *......................        133 (83)         53 (33)       1.5 (0.9)  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................       266 (165)        103 (64)       4.6 (2.9)  ..............
Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River, FL................  ..............  ..............  ..............       43 (26.7)
    Right descending bank.......................         34 (21)       8.4 (5.2)       0.4 (0.3)  ..............
    Left descending bank........................         26 (16)          13 (8)       3.6 (2.2)  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................         61 (38)         22 (13)         4 (2.5)  ..............
Unit 3: Withlacoochee River, FL and GA..........  ..............  ..............  ..............     75.5 (46.9)
    Right descending bank.......................         58 (36)         17 (11)               0  ..............
    Left descending bank........................         53 (33)         22 (14)               0  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................        112 (69)         39 (25)               0  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
* Right and left descending bank is that bank of a stream when facing in the direction of flow or downstream.


[[Page 65333]]

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Suwannee moccasinshell, 
below.

Unit 1: Suwannee River, Florida

    Unit 1 consists of approximately 187 km (116 mi) of the Suwannee 
River and lower Santa Fe River in Alachua, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, 
Lafayette, Madison, and Suwannee Counties, Florida. The unit includes 
the Suwannee River mainstem from the confluence of Hart Springs (near 
river kilometer 71) in Dixie-Gilchrist Counties, upstream 137 km (85 
mi) to the confluence of the Withlacoochee River in Madison-Suwannee 
Counties; and the Santa Fe River from its confluence with the Suwannee 
River in Suwannee-Gilchrist Counties, upstream 50 km (31 mi) to the 
river's rise in Alachua County. The Santa Fe River flows underground 
for about 5 km (3.1 mi), ``sinking'' at O'Leno State Park and 
``rising'' at River Rise Preserve State Park. The lower and upper 
portions of the Santa Fe are intermittently connected during high flow 
event. The riparian lands along stream reaches in this unit are 
generally privately owned agricultural or silvicultural lands, or 
State-owned or -managed conservation lands (Table 1). The Suwannee 
moccasinshell occupies all stream reaches in this unit, which contains 
most of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Suwannee moccasinshell. However, in the Santa Fe 
River, flow levels have declined over time, and excessive sedimentation 
and algae growth are a problem; therefore, physical or biological 
features 1 and 3 are not consistently present in this portion of the 
unit. Currently, 73 percent of Unit 1 is designated critical habitat 
for the Gulf sturgeon (a migratory fish). Some small urban areas also 
exist near the two rivers. Special management considerations and 
protections that may be required to address threats within the unit 
include: Minimizing ground and surface water withdrawals or other 
actions that alter stream hydrology; reducing the use of fertilizers 
and pesticides, especially in spring recharge areas and near stream 
channels; improving treatment of wastewater discharged from permitted 
facilities and the operation of those facilities; implementing 
practices that protect or restore riparian buffer areas along stream 
corridors; prohibiting the removal of pre-cut submerged timber 
(deadhead logs); establishing and enforcing restrictions on boat speed 
and length, especially in the lower Santa Fe River. Many of these 
measures must also be implemented in areas upstream of the unit to 
adequately protect habitat within the unit.

Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River, Florida

    Unit 2 consists of approximately 43 km (27 mi) of the Santa Fe 
River and New River in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, and Union Counties, 
Florida. The unit includes the Santa Fe River from the river's sink in 
Alachua County, upstream 36.5 km (23 mi) to the confluence of Rocky 
Creek in Bradford-Alachua Counties; and the New River from its 
confluence with the Santa Fe River, upstream 6.5 km (4 mi) to the 
confluence of Five Mile Creek in Union-Bradford Counties. Unit 2 is 
within the historical range of the Suwannee moccasinshell but is not 
currently occupied by the species. The riparian lands along stream 
channels in this unit are generally privately owned agricultural or 
silvicultural lands, or are State-owned or -managed conservation lands 
(Table 1). All of Unit 2 is already designated critical habitat for the 
oval pigtoe (a freshwater mussel). The Suwannee moccasinshell was 
routinely represented in historical collections in the upper Santa Fe 
subbasin, however, it is the only mussel species not detected in 
contemporary surveys. Currently, the unit supports a diverse mussel 
fauna, including several species that ordinarily co-occur with the 
Suwannee moccasinshell. This unit has at least one of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and we 
are reasonably certain that this area will contribute to the 
conservation of the species. Our specific rationale for this unit can 
be found below.
    This area is essential to the conservation of the species because 
it would improve the resiliency and redundancy of the species, which is 
necessary to conserve and recover the Suwannee moccasinshell. For 
species resiliency and redundancy, it is important to reestablish 
Suwannee moccasinshell populations in Unit 2. Presently, nearly the 
entire population is linearly distributed within the mainstem Suwannee 
River and vulnerable to catastrophic events (for example, contaminant 
spills or severe floods) as well as to random fluctuations in 
population size or environmental conditions (Haag and Williams 2014, p. 
48). Reestablishing viable populations in the Santa Fe River subbasin 
would reduce its extinction risk by expanding its current range into 
areas beyond the mainstem by providing connectivity to already occupied 
areas, space for growth and population expansion in portions of 
historical habitat, and refugia areas from threats in the Suwannee 
River mainstem.
    Although it is considered unoccupied, portions of this unit contain 
some or all of the physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of the species. Unit 2 possesses those characteristics as 
described by physical or biological features 1 and 2 and stable stream 
channels and suitable substrates are present throughout much of the 
unit. Unit 2 retains the features of a natural stream channel and 
presently supports a diverse mussel fauna, including several mussel 
species that ordinarily co-occur with the Suwannee moccasinshell. Both 
fish species found to serve as larval hosts for the Suwannee 
moccasinshell occur within the unit (Robins et al. 2018, pp. 317, 336).
    Physical or biological features 3 and 4 are degraded in the unit 
during some times of the year. Flow levels in the upper Santa Fe River 
have declined over time, and the river has ceased to flow multiple 
times since 2000 (Johnson et al. 2016, p. 170). An important effect of 
reduced flows is altered water quality, especially depressed dissolved 
oxygen levels and elevated water temperatures (discussed above under 
``Physical or Biological Features''). In 2007, the SRWMD developed 
minimum flow levels to establish flows protective of ``fish and 
wildlife habitats and the passage of fish'' in the upper Santa Fe River 
(SRWMD 2007, entire). The restoration of natural flow levels is a 
complex issue that will require considerable involvement and 
collaboration of Federal, State, and local governments and private 
landowners to implement projects that reduce groundwater pumping in 
order to recover aquifer levels and sustain base flows in the upper 
Santa Fe River subbasin. However, if implemented, water management 
strategies would improve physical or biological features 3 and 4.
    The need for conservation efforts is recognized by our conservation 
partners, and methods for restoring and reintroducing the species into 
unoccupied habitat are being developed. The Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission has expressed support for including this area 
in a critical habitat designation (Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission 2019). Accordingly, we are reasonably certain 
this unit will contribute to the conservation of the species.

Unit 3: Withlacoochee River, Georgia and Florida

    Unit 3 consists of approximately 75.5 km (47 mi) of the 
Withlacoochee River

[[Page 65334]]

in Madison and Hamilton Counties, Florida, and Brooks and Lowndes 
Counties, Georgia. The unit includes the Withlacoochee River from its 
confluence with the Suwannee River in Madison-Hamilton Counties, FL, 
upstream 75.5 km (47 mi) to the confluence of Okapilco Creek in Brooks-
Lowndes Counties, GA. Unit 3 is within the historical range of the 
Suwannee moccasinshell but is not currently occupied by the species. 
The riparian lands along stream channels in this unit are generally 
agricultural or silvicultural lands (Table 1). Upstream of the unit, 
urban areas associated with the City of Valdosta, GA are present near 
the Withlacoochee River. Twenty-five percent of Unit 3 is already 
designated critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. Currently, the unit 
supports a diverse mussel fauna, however, the Suwannee moccasinshell is 
the only species not detected in contemporary surveys. This unit has at 
least one of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species and we are reasonably certain that this 
area will contribute to the conservation of the species. Our specific 
rationale for this unit can be found below.
    This area is essential to the conservation of the species because 
it would improve the resiliency and redundancy of the species, which is 
necessary to conserve and recover the Suwannee moccasinshell. For 
species resiliency and redundancy, it is important to reestablish 
Suwannee moccasinshell populations in Unit 3. Presently, nearly the 
entire population is linearly distributed within the mainstem Suwannee 
River and vulnerable to catastrophic events (for example, contaminant 
spills or severe floods) as well as to random fluctuations in 
population size or environmental conditions (Haag and Williams 2014, p. 
48). Reestablishing viable populations in the Withlacoochee River 
subbasin would reduce its extinction risk by expanding its current 
range into areas beyond the mainstem by providing connectivity to 
already occupied areas, space for growth and population expansion in 
portions of historical habitat, and refugia areas from threats in the 
Suwannee River mainstem.
    Although it is considered unoccupied, portions of this unit contain 
some or all of the physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of the species. Unit 3 possesses those characteristics as 
described by physical or biological features 1 and 2, and long reaches 
of stable stream channel with suitable substrates are present within 
the unit. Unit 3 retains the features of a natural stream channel and 
supports a diverse mussel fauna, including several mussel species that 
ordinarily co-occur with the Suwannee moccasinshell. Both fish species 
found to serve as larval hosts for the Suwannee moccasinshell occur 
within the unit (Robins et al. 2018, pp. 317, 336). Therefore, we 
believe the unit has the potential to support the species' life-history 
functions.
    Physical or biological feature 4 is in degraded condition, and 
pollution may have contributed to the Suwannee moccasinshell's decline 
in Unit 3. The domestic wastewater treatment plant for the city of 
Valdosta, GA is approximately 14 river miles upstream of the unit, and 
has a history of untreated sewage releases to the Withlacoochee River 
after heavy rain events. However, major renovations to the city's sewer 
system were completed in June 2016 with the construction of a new 
treatment plant. Additional projects to address continued problems with 
sewage spills are ongoing, and the construction of a large retention 
basin is planned. If these improvements are realized, water quality 
could be restored to levels necessary to support the species.
    The need for conservation efforts is recognized by our conservation 
partners, and methods for restoring and reintroducing the species into 
unoccupied habitat are being developed. The Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission and Georgia Department of Natural Resources 
have expressed support for including this area in a critical habitat 
designation (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2019; 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2018). Accordingly, we are 
reasonably certain this unit will contribute to the conservation of the 
species.

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 that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final regulation with a revised definition of 
destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). 
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as 
a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the CWA 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, or 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

[[Page 65335]]

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 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat. The 
regulations also specify some exceptions to this requirement for 
specific land management plans. See the regulations for a description 
of those exceptions.
    Overall, about 81 percent of critical habitat proposed for the 
Suwannee moccasinshell is already designated as critical habitat for 
either the oval pigtoe or Gulf sturgeon. For Federal actions within 
areas already designated as critical habitat for these species, 
conservation measures we would recommend for the Suwannee moccasinshell 
are likely to be the same or very similar to those we already recommend 
for the oval pigtoe and Gulf sturgeon. New additional conservation 
measures will, however, likely be needed within that portion of Unit 3 
that is unoccupied by the Suwannee moccasinshell but not currently 
designated critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon.

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal 
action, the critical habitat affected by the action is altered in way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the designated critical 
habitat as a whole for the conservation of the listed species. As 
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a 
listed species and provide for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that may be found likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat under 7(a)(2) of the Act include, but are not limited 
to:
    (1) Actions that would introduce contaminants or alter water 
chemistry or temperature. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, release of chemical or biological pollutants, or heated 
effluents into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point 
source or by dispersed release (nonpoint source). These activities 
could alter water quality conditions to levels that are beyond the 
tolerances of the mussel or its fish host.
    (2) Actions that would reduce flow levels or alter flow regimes. 
This could include, but are not limited to, activities that lower 
groundwater levels including groundwater pumping and surface water 
withdrawal or diversion. These activities can result in long-term 
reduced stream flows, which may cause channels to stop flowing or dry 
up; and also may decrease oxygen levels, elevate water temperatures, 
degrade water quality, and cause sediments to accumulate. These 
activities could alter flow levels beyond the tolerances of the mussel 
or its fish host.
    (3) Actions that would significantly increase the filamentous algal 
community within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but 
are not limited to, release of nutrients into the surface water or 
connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release 
(nonpoint source). These activities can result in excessive filamentous 
algae filling streams and reducing habitat for the mussel and its fish 
host, degrading water quality during their decay, and decreasing oxygen 
levels at night from their respiration. Thick algal mats can also 
entrain young mussels and prevent juveniles from settling into the 
sediment. These activities could degrade the habitat and reduce oxygen 
levels below the tolerances of the mussel or its fish host.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or 
cause channel instability. Such activities could include but are not 
limited to channelization, impoundment, road and bridge construction, 
mining, dredging, destruction of riparian vegetation, and land 
clearing. These activities may lead to changes in flow regimes, erosion 
of the streambed and banks, and excessive sedimentation that could 
degrade the habitat of the mussel or its fish host.
    (5) Actions that would cause significant amounts of sediments to 
enter the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to livestock grazing, road and bridge construction, channel 
alteration, timber harvest, commercial and residential development, and 
other watershed and floodplain disturbances. These activities could 
eliminate or degrade the habitat necessary for the growth and 
reproduction of the mussel or its fish host.

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 geographic 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 with a completed INRMP within the proposed 
critical habitat designation.

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 that determination, 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.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other

[[Page 65336]]

things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in 
conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of 
the Suwannee moccasinshell, the benefits of critical habitat include 
public awareness of the presence of the species and the importance of 
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased 
habitat protection for the Suwannee moccasinshell due to protection 
from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In 
practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal 
lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies. Additionally, 
continued implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides 
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would 
reduce the benefits of including that specific area in the critical 
habitat designation.
    We have not considered any areas for exclusion from critical 
habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas 
will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the 
final designation, including information obtained during the comment 
period and information about the economic impact of designation. 
Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the 
proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review 
and comment (see ADDRESSES).

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without 
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, 
which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden 
imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially 
affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the 
Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local 
regulations). 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 an optional section 
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this designation, we developed an incremental effects 
memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts 
that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The 
information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening 
analysis of the probable effects of the designation (Industrial 
Economics 2017). 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. The screening analysis 
also assesses whether units unoccupied by the species may require 
additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the 
critical habitat designation, and thus may incur incremental economic 
impacts. This screening analysis, combined with the information 
contained in our IEM, constitute our draft economic analysis (DEA) of 
the proposed critical habitat designation for the Suwannee 
moccasinshell and is summarized in the narrative below.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As 
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Suwannee moccasinshell, first 
we identified, in the IEM dated June 30, 2016, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) Groundwater pumping; (2) agriculture; (3) mining; (4) 
grazing; (5) discharge of chemical pollutants; (6) roadway and bridge 
construction; (7) in-stream dams and diversions; (8) dredging; (9) 
commercial or residential development; (10) timber harvest; and (11) 
removal of large in-channel logs. We considered each industry or 
category individually. Additionally, we considered whether these 
activities would have any Federal involvement.
    Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities 
that do not have any Federal involvement; under the ESA, the 
designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where 
the Suwannee moccasinshell 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 will result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical

[[Page 65337]]

habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy and adverse 
modification standards) for the Suwannee moccasinshell's critical 
habitat. The following specific circumstances in this case help to 
inform our evaluation: (1) The physical or biological features 
identified for occupied critical habitat are the same features 
essential for the life requisites of the species and (2) any actions 
that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute 
jeopardy to the Suwannee moccasinshell would also likely adversely 
affect the essential physical or biological features of occupied 
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this 
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and 
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this 
species.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for the Suwannee 
moccasinshell totals approximately 306 kilometers (190 miles) of stream 
channels in three units. The riparian lands adjacent to critical 
habitat are under private (72 percent), State (27 percent), and county 
(1 percent) ownership. Unit 1 is the only occupied unit and is 61 
percent of the total proposed critical habitat designation. As 
discussed above, in this occupied area, any actions that may affect the 
species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat 
and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be 
recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above 
those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued 
existence of the Suwannee moccasinshell. Therefore, only administrative 
costs are expected in actions affecting this unit. While this 
additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal 
action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most 
circumstances, these costs, because they are predominantly 
administrative in nature, would not be significant.
    Units 2 and 3 are currently unoccupied by the species but are 
essential for the conservation of the species. These units total 119 km 
(78 mi) and comprise 39 percent of the total proposed critical habitat 
designation. In these unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or 
associated probable impacts would be considered incremental effects 
attributed to the critical habitat designation.
    The screening analysis finds that the total annual incremental 
costs of critical habitat designation for the Suwannee moccasinshell 
are anticipated to be less than $100,000 per year. The highest costs 
are anticipated in Unit 3 because it is unoccupied by the species and 
is not already designated critical habitat for another mussel species 
(for comparison, see discussion for Unit 2 below). In this unit, the 
designation is anticipated to result in a small number of additional 
section 7 consultations (approximately three per year), primarily 
related to planned transportation projects that intersect the unit. 
Anticipated project modifications may include minimizing the extent of 
in-channel maintenance activities, relocation of discharge outfalls, or 
requiring strict adherence of water quality and habitat protections. 
Total annual costs to the Service and action agencies for consultations 
and project modifications in Unit 3 are anticipated to be less than 
$80,000 annually (Industrial Economics 2017, pp. 9-12).
    In Units 1 and 2, the economic costs of implementing the rule will 
most likely be limited to additional administrative efforts by the 
Service and action agencies to consider adverse modification. Unit 1 is 
occupied by the Suwannee moccasinshell, and conservation actions taken 
in order to be protective of the species would also be sufficient to 
protect its critical habitat. Unit 2 is also designated as critical 
habitat for the oval pigtoe, a freshwater mussel with nearly identical 
physical or biological features to the Suwannee moccasinshell. 
Conservation efforts taken to protect oval pigtoe critical habitat 
would also be sufficient to protect Suwannee moccasinshell critical 
habitat. Thus, additional project modifications are not anticipated in 
Units 1 and 2. In total, up to six section 7 consultations per year are 
anticipated to occur in Units 1 and 2, with total costs of less than 
$20,000 annually (Industrial Economics 2017, pp. 7-9).

Exclusions

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule. During 
the development of a final designation, we will consider the 
information presented in the DEA and any additional information on 
economic impacts received through the public comment period to 
determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that none of the 
lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
Suwannee moccasinshell are owned or managed by the Department of 
Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we 
anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security. 
However, during the development of a final designation we will consider 
any additional information received through the public comment period 
on the impacts of the proposed designation on national security or 
homeland security to determine whether any specific areas should be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

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 the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any tribal issues, 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 Suwannee 
moccasinshell, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal 
lands or trust resources. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on tribal 
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat 
designation. During the development of a final designation, we will 
consider any additional information received through the public comment 
period regarding other relevant impacts to determine whether any 
specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at

[[Page 65338]]

least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this 
proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our 
critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound data and 
analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment during this 
public comment period.

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in ADDRESSES. 
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.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    E.O. 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 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
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, 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 will be directly regulated by this designation. 
Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because 
no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the 
Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat 
designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed 
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the 
designation of this proposed critical habitat 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. We will further evaluate this issue if relevant comments are 
received during the comment period.

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 rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal

[[Page 65339]]

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 it will not produce a Federal 
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments and, as such, 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 Suwannee moccasinshell in a takings implications 
assessment. 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 
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Suwannee 
moccasinshell does not pose significant takings implications for lands 
within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of this proposed critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies in Florida and Georgia. 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 rule does not 
have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments 
because the areas that contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical 
or biological features of the habitat necessary 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 these local governments in long-range planning (because 
these local governments 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) 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, 
the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species. The designated areas of 
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several 
options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location 
information, if desired.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining

[[Page 65340]]

our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes.
    As stated above (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts, 
above), we have determined that no tribal lands or interests are 
affected by this proposed designation.

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.

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rulemaking are the staff 
members of the Panama City 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

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Moccasinshell, Suwannee'' 
under ``CLAMS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
              Clams
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Moccasinshell, Suwannee.........  Medionidus walkeri  Wherever found....  T              81 FR 69417, 10/6/2016;
                                                                                          50 CFR 17.95(f).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding an entry for 
``Suwannee moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri),'' in the same 
alphabetical order that the species appears in the table at Sec.  
17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95   Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Suwannee Moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted on the maps below for 
Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, 
Madison, Suwannee, and Union Counties, Florida; and Brooks and Lowndes 
Counties, Georgia.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Suwannee moccasinshell consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Geomorphically stable stream channels (channels that maintain 
lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity patterns over 
time without an aggrading or degrading bed elevation).
    (ii) Stable substrates of muddy sand or mixtures of sand and 
gravel, and with little to no accumulation of unconsolidated sediments 
and low amounts of filamentous algae.
    (iii) A natural hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency, 
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain 
benthic habitats where the species is found, and connectivity of stream 
channels with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and 
sediment for habitat maintenance, food availability, and spawning 
habitat for native fishes.
    (iv) Water quality conditions needed to sustain healthy Suwannee 
moccasinshell populations, including low pollutant levels (not less 
than State criteria), a natural temperature regime, pH (between 6.0 to 
8.5), adequate oxygen content (not less than State criteria), hardness, 
turbidity, and other

[[Page 65341]]

chemical characteristics necessary for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages.
    (v) The presence of fish hosts necessary for recruitment of the 
Suwannee moccasinshell. The presence of blackbanded darters (Percina 
nigrofasciata) and brown darters (Etheostoma edwini) will serve as an 
indication of fish host presence.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, dams, roads, and other paved areas) and the land 
on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created with USGS National Hydrography Dataset GIS data. The high-
resolution 1:24,000 flowlines were used to calculate river kilometers 
and miles. ESRIs ArcGIS 10.2.2 software was used to determine longitude 
and latitude coordinates using decimal degrees. The projection used in 
mapping all units was Universal Transverse Mercator, NAD 83, Zone 16 
North. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates on which each map is based are provided in 
the critical habitat unit descriptions and are available at the 
Service's internet site, (https://www.fws.gov/panamacity), (https://www.regulations.gov) at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0059, and at the 
field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field 
office location by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the 
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the Suwannee 
moccasinshell in Florida and Georgia follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 65342]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO19.000

    (6) Unit 1: Suwannee River in Alachua, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, 
Lafayette, Madison, and Suwannee Counties, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 1 consists of approximately 187 
kilometers (km) (116 miles (mi)) of the Suwannee River and lower Santa 
Fe River in Alachua, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Madison, 
and Suwannee Counties, Florida. The unit includes the Suwannee River 
mainstem from the confluence of Hart Springs (-82.954, 29.676) in 
Dixie-Gilchrist Counties, upstream 137 km (85 mi) to the confluence of 
the Withlacoochee River (-83.171, 30.385) in Madison-Suwannee Counties; 
and the Santa Fe River from its confluence with the Suwannee River in 
Suwannee-Gilchrist Counties (-82.879, 29.886), upstream 50 km (31 mi) 
to the river's rise (the Santa Fe River runs underground for more than 
3 miles, emerging at River Rise Preserve State Park) in Alachua County 
(-82.591, 29.873).
    (ii) Map of Unit 1, Suwannee River, follows:

[[Page 65343]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO19.001

    (7) Unit 2: Upper Santa Fe River in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, 
and Union, Counties, Florida.
    (i) The Upper Santa Fe River Unit consists of approximately 43 km 
(27 mi) of the Santa Fe River and New River in Alachua, Bradford, 
Columbia, and Union Counties, Florida. The unit includes the Santa Fe 
River from the river's sink (-82.572, 29.912) in Alachua County, 
upstream 36.5 km (23 mi) to the confluence of Rocky Creek (-82.373, 
29.879) in Bradford-Alachua Counties; and the New River from its 
confluence with the Santa Fe River (-82.418, 29.923), upstream 6.5 km 
(4 mi) to the confluence of Five Mile Creek (-82.362, 29.934) in Union-
Bradford Counties.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2, Upper Santa Fe River, follows:

[[Page 65344]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO19.002

    (8) Unit 3: Withlacoochee River in Hamilton and Madison Counties, 
Florida; Brooks and Lowndes Counties, Georgia.
    (i) The Withlacoochee River Unit consists of approximately 75.5 km 
(47 mi) of the Withlacoochee River in Hamilton and Madison Counties, 
Florida, and Brooks and Lowndes Counties, Georgia. The unit includes 
the Withlacoochee River from its confluence with the Suwannee River (-
83.171, 30.385) in Madison-Hamilton Counties, FL, upstream 75.5 km (47 
mi) to the confluence of Okapilco Creek (-83.484, 30.752) in Brooks-
Lowndes Counties, GA.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3, Withlacoochee River, follows:

[[Page 65345]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO19.003

* * * * *

    Dated: November 18, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising 
the authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-25598 Filed 11-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-C