Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Western Fanshell and “Ouachita” Fanshell and Designation of Critical Habitat, 12338-12384 [2022-02994]
Download as PDF
12338
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061;
FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018–BE79
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status
With Section 4(d) Rule for Western
Fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell and
Designation of Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the western fanshell (Cyprogenia
aberti), a freshwater mussel species
from Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and
Oklahoma, and the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
(Cyprogenia cf. aberti), a freshwater
mussel species from Arkansas and
Louisiana, as threatened species and to
designate critical habitat for these
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This
document also proposes a rule issued
under section 4(d) of the Act (4(d) rule)
for these mussel species and serves as
our 12-month finding on a petition to
list the western fanshell. The proposed
critical habitat designation for the
western fanshell totals approximately
360 river miles (579 kilometers), all of
which are occupied by the species, in
Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri, and the
proposed critical habitat designation for
the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell totals
approximately 294 river miles (474
kilometers), all of which are occupied
by the species, in Arkansas. We also
announce the availability of a draft
economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell. If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it would add these species to
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and extend the Act’s
protections to these species and their
designated critical habitats.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
May 2, 2022. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by April 18, 2022.
ADDRESSES:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
Written comments: You may submit
comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, check the
Proposed Rule box to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more
information).
Availability of supporting materials:
For the critical habitat designation, the
coordinates or plot points or both from
which the maps are generated are
included in the decision file and are
available at https://www.fws.gov/
midwest/ for western fanshell and
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ for
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell, at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061, and at the
Missouri and Arkansas Ecological
Services Field Offices (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional
tools or supporting information that we
may develop for the critical habitat
designation will also be available at the
Service websites and field offices set out
above or at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about the western fanshell,
contact Karen Herrington, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Missouri Ecological Services
Field Office, 101 Park DeVille Drive,
Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203–0057;
telephone 573–234–2132. For
information about the ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell, contact Melvin Tobin, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arkansas Ecological Services
Field Office, 110 South Amity, Suite
300, Conway, AR 72032–8975;
telephone 501–513–4473. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, if we determine that a species
is an endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, we are required to promptly
publish a proposal in the Federal
Register and make a determination on
our proposal within 1 year. To the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, we must designate critical
habitat for any species that we
determine to be an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designation of
critical habitat can only be completed
by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We
propose to list the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell as threatened
species with a rule issued under section
4(d) of the Act, and we propose the
designation of critical habitat for these
two species.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may determine that a species is
an endangered or threatened species
because of any of five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We
have determined that water quality
degradation, altered flow, landscape
changes, and habitat fragmentation, all
of which are exacerbated by the effects
of climate change, are the primary
threats affecting the western fanshell
and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
designate critical habitat concurrent
with listing to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. Section
3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat
as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed, on which
are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may
require special management
considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary must make the designation on
the basis of the best scientific data
available and after taking into
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any
other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from other governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this
proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) Factors that may affect the
continued existence of these species,
which may include habitat modification
or destruction, overutilization, disease,
predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural
or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to these species
and existing regulations that may be
addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of
these species, including the locations of
any additional populations of these
species.
(5) Information on regulations that are
necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell and that the Service
can consider in developing a 4(d) rule
for these species. In particular, we seek
information concerning the extent to
which we should include any of the
Act’s section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d)
rule or whether we should consider any
additional exceptions from the
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. In
addition, we request comments on
whether we should include an
exception from permitting requirements
for individuals conducting presence/
absence surveys, studies to document
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
habitat use, population monitoring, and
evaluations of potential impacts to the
fanshells, provided the individual holds
a valid scientific collecting permit for
mussels from the appropriate State
agency.
(6) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including
information to inform the following
factors that the regulations identify as
reasons why designation of critical
habitat may be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species, or threats
to the species’ habitat stem solely from
causes that cannot be addressed through
management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the
United States provide no more than
negligible conservation value, if any, for
a species occurring primarily outside
the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of
critical habitat.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell 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 these species,
should be included in the designation
and why;
(c) Any additional areas occurring
within the range of the species that
should be included in the designation
because they (1) are occupied at the
time of listing and contain the physical
or biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management
considerations, or (2) are unoccupied at
the time of listing and are essential for
the conservation of the species;
(d) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are
proposing, including managing for the
potential effects of climate change; and
(e) What areas not occupied at the
time of listing are essential for the
conservation of these species. We
particularly seek comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas
are adequate for the conservation of
these species;
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12339
(ii) Providing specific information
regarding whether or not unoccupied
areas would, with reasonable certainty,
contribute to the conservation of these
species and contain at least one physical
or biological feature essential to the
conservation of these species; and
(iii) Explaining whether or not
unoccupied areas fall within the
definition of ‘‘habitat’’ at 50 CFR 424.02
and why.
(8) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(9) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation, and
the related benefits of including or
excluding specific areas.
(10) Information on the extent to
which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic
analysis is a reasonable estimate of the
likely economic impacts, the
description of the environmental
impacts in the draft environmental
assessment is complete and accurate,
and any additional information
regarding probable economic impacts
that we should consider.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If
you think we should exclude any
additional areas, please provide credible
information regarding the existence of a
meaningful economic or other relevant
impact supporting a benefit of
exclusion.
(12) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for, or opposition to, the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or a threatened
species must be made ‘‘solely on the
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12340
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all
comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final
determinations may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information
we receive (and any comments on that
new information), we may conclude that
the western fanshell or ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell is endangered instead of
threatened, or we may conclude that
either species does not warrant listing as
either an endangered species or a
threatened species. For critical habitat,
our final designation may not include
all areas proposed, may include some
additional areas that meet the definition
of critical habitat, and may exclude
some areas if we find the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. In addition, we may change
the parameters of the prohibitions or the
exceptions to those prohibitions in the
4(d) rule if we conclude it is appropriate
in light of comments and new
information we receive. For example,
we may expand the prohibitions to
include prohibiting additional activities
if we conclude that those additional
activities are not compatible with
conservation of the species. Conversely,
we may establish additional exceptions
to the prohibitions in the final rule if we
conclude that the activities would
facilitate or are compatible with the
conservation and recovery of the
species.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
a public hearing on this proposal, if
requested. Requests must be received by
the date specified in DATES. Such
requests must be sent to the address
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. We will schedule a public
hearing on this proposal, if requested,
and announce the date, time, and place
of the hearing, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing. For
the immediate future, we will provide
these public hearings using webinars
that will be announced on the Service’s
website, in addition to the Federal
Register. The use of these virtual public
hearings is consistent with our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the western fanshell as
a ‘‘Category 2’’ candidate in our May 22,
1984, Review of Invertebrate Wildlife
for Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species (49 FR 21664). Category 2
candidates were defined as species for
which we had information that
proposed listing was possibly
appropriate, but conclusive data on
biological vulnerability and threats were
not available to support a proposed rule
at the time. The species remained so
designated in subsequent candidate
notices of review (CNORs) (54 FR 554,
January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November
21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15,
1994). In the February 28, 1996, CNOR
(61 FR 7596), we discontinued the
designation of Category 2 species as
candidates; therefore, the western
fanshell was no longer a candidate
species.
On April 20, 2010, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers
Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood
Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network,
Tennessee Forests Council, and West
Virginia Highlands Conservancy, to list
404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland
species, including the western fanshell,
from the southeastern United States as
endangered or threatened species and to
designate critical habitat concurrent
with listing under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published a 90day finding in the Federal Register (76
FR 59836), concluding that the petition
presented substantial information that
indicated listing the western fanshell
may be warranted. Since that time, the
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell has been
determined to be a separate species from
western fanshell (Williams et al. 2017,
p. 47; see discussion of taxonomy
below); therefore, we conducted a
discretionary status review for the
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell concurrent with
our status review for the western
fanshell.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA)
team prepared an SSA report for the
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell. The SSA team was composed
of Service biologists, in consultation
with other species experts. The SSA
report represents a compilation of the
best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of these
species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting these
species. In accordance with our joint
policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and our August 22, 2016,
memorandum updating and clarifying
the role of peer review of listing actions
under the Act, we sought the expert
opinions of five appropriate specialists
regarding the SSA report. We received
two responses. We also sent the SSA
report to eight Federal and State
partners with expertise in aquatic
ecology and freshwater mussel biology,
taxonomy, and conservation. We
received reviews from a Federal
biologist and a State biologist.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
The western fanshell (Cyprogenia
aberti) is a freshwater mussel in the
Unionidae family. Adults are a dull tan
with a distinctive ray pattern from
bands of tiny pigment flecks. The shell
is thick, compressed to moderately
inflated, and round to triangular (up to
3 inches (76 millimeters)), with a
wrinkled or rough appearance (Conrad
1850, p. 10; McMurray et al. 2012, p. 30;
Oesch 1995, pp. 143–144; Roe 2004, pp.
4–5).
Recent molecular analysis of
Cyprogenia identified the fanshell from
the Ouachita River basin in Arkansas
and Louisiana as an independent
evolutionary lineage (Chong et al. 2016,
pp. 2445–2449). There is confusion
regarding what name is available for the
Ouachita River drainage fanshell, but
the distinctiveness of this species was
recognized in the most recent list of
freshwater mussels of the United States
and Canada (Williams et al. 2017, p. 47).
The Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan
refers to the species as the ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell (C. cf. aberti) (Arkansas Game
and Fish Commission 2015, p. 974).
Based on this information, we find the
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell is a listable entity
under the Act, and we follow this
naming convention until a specific
epithet can be designated.
The western fanshell is currently
found in the Lower Mississippi-St.
Francis, Neosho-Verdigris, and Upper
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12341
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
White River basins, within the States of
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and
Oklahoma (Service 2020, pp. 21–28; see
Figure 1, below). It is considered
extirpated from the Lower Arkansas
basin. The ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
currently occurs in the Lower RedOuachita basin in Arkansas and
historically in Louisiana (Service 2020,
pp. 29–31; see Figure 2, below).
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
Index Map: Western Fanshell
Rangewide Distribution
NE
IL
KS
OK
AR
MS
TX
~ Extant Management Units
1111 Extirpated Management Units
-
State Boundaries
O
31
I
I
I
I
I I I I
55
110 Kilometers
Figure 1. Distribution of the extant and extirpated management units of western
fanshell in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.001
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
o
62 Miles
12342
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Index Map: "Ouachita" Fanshell
Rangewide Distribution
AR
LA
~ · Extant Management Units
1111 Extirpated Management Units
-
State Boundaries
0
12.5
25 Miles
I
1
111
24.5
1.
49 Kilometers
A
Figure 2. Distribution of the extant and extirpated management units of "Ouachita"
fanshell in Arkansas and Louisiana.
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
Both species are typically found in
large creeks and rivers with good water
quality, moderate to swift current, and
gravel-sand substrates, but specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
information on microhabitat
requirements is lacking. Like all
mussels, these two species of fanshell
are omnivores that primarily filter-feed
on a wide variety of microscopic
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
particulate matter suspended in the
water column, including phytoplankton,
zooplankton, bacteria, detritus, and
dissolved organic matter (Haag 2012, p.
26). As with most freshwater mussels,
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.002
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
0
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the fanshell mussels have a unique life
cycle that relies on fish hosts for
successful reproduction (Barnhart et al.
2008, pp. 371–373; Vaughn and Taylor
1999, p. 913; Barnhart 1997, p. 12).
Thorough reviews of the taxonomy,
life history, and ecology of the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell are
presented in detail in the SSA report
(Service 2020, pp. 9–12).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species. The Act defines an
‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that
is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range, and
a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that
is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following
factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself.
However, the mere identification of
any threat(s) does not necessarily mean
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining
whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the
expected response by the species, and
the effects of the threats—in light of
those actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its
expected effects on the species, then
analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only
after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected
effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis. The term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far
into the future as the Service can
reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction. Thus, a
prediction is reliable if it is reasonable
to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results
of our comprehensive biological review
of the best scientific and commercial
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12343
data regarding the status of these
species, including an assessment of the
potential threats to these species. The
SSA report does not represent a
decision by the Service on whether
these species should be proposed for
listing as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act. However, it does
provide the scientific basis that informs
our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards
within the Act and its implementing
regulations and policies. The following
is a summary of the key results and
conclusions from the SSA report; the
full SSA report can be found at Docket
No. FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061 on https://
www.regulations.gov and at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/ and https://
www.fws.gov/southeast/.
To assess the western fanshell’s and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell’s viability, we used
the three conservation biology
principles of resiliency, redundancy,
and representation (Shaffer and Stein
2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency
supports the ability of the species to
withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example,
wet or dry, warm or cold years),
redundancy supports the ability of the
species to withstand catastrophic events
(for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the
ability of the species to adapt over time
to long-term changes in the environment
(for example, climate changes). In
general, the more resilient and
redundant a species is and the more
representation it has, the more likely it
is to sustain populations over time, even
under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we
identified the species’ ecological
requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual,
population, and species levels and
described the beneficial and risk factors
influencing the species’ viability.
The SSA process can be categorized
into three sequential stages. During the
first stage, we evaluated each individual
species’ life-history needs. The next
stage involved an assessment of the
historical and current condition of the
species’ demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an
explanation of how the species arrived
at its current condition. The final stage
of the SSA involved making predictions
about the species’ responses to positive
and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. Throughout
all of these stages, we used the best
available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to
sustain populations in the wild over
time. We use this information to inform
our regulatory decision.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12344
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
In this discussion, we review the
biological condition of the two species
and their resources, and the threats that
influence both species’ current and
future condition, to assess each species’
overall viability and the risks to that
viability.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Species Needs
Fanshell mussels feed primarily on a
wide variety of microscopic particulate
matter, including phytoplankton,
zooplankton, bacteria, detritus, and
dissolved organic matter (Haag 2012, p.
26). Juveniles likely pedal feed in the
sediment, whereas adults filter-feed
from the water column.
As with most freshwater mussels,
both fanshell mussels rely on a host fish
for reproduction. The female mussel
holds the fertilized eggs internally as
they develop into larvae. Once mature,
the larvae are released as glochidia,
which attach on the gills, head, or fins
of fishes (Barnhart et al. 2008, pp. 371–
373; Vaughn and Taylor 1999, p. 913).
Glochidia encyst (enclose in a cyst-like
structure) on the host’s tissue and draw
nutrients from the fish. The glochidia
for the fanshell mussels remain
encysted for about a month until
transformation to the juvenile stage, at
which point they release from the fish
and drop to the substrate (Barnhart
1997, p. 12). Glochidia die if they fail
to find a host fish, attach to the wrong
species of host fish, attach to a fish that
has developed immunity from prior
infestations, or attach to the wrong
location on a host fish (Bogan 1993, p.
599; Neves 1991, p. 254).
Logperch (Percina caprodes) is a
suitable fish host for both fanshell
species in all river basins (Eckert 2003,
pp. 18–19). Slenderhead darter (Percina
phoxocephala) and orangebelly darter
(Etheostoma radiosum) are suitable
hosts for ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell (Eckert
2003, p. 46), while slenderhead darter,
fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare),
rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum),
and orangebelly darter are suitable hosts
for western fanshell, but only for their
respective sympatric fanshell mussel
population (Eckert 2003, p. 33). In other
words, glochidia had greater success
transforming on darters from the same
stream as the mussel. For example, a
higher percentage of glochidia from
Ouachita River transformed on
orangebelly darters from Ouachita River
than on orangebelly darters from
Verdigris River (Eckert 2003, p. 11).
We assessed the best available
information to identify the physical and
biological needs to support individual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
fitness at all life stages for the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. Full
descriptions of all needs are available in
chapter 2 of the SSA report (Service
2020, pp. 9–15). Based upon the best
available scientific and commercial
information, the resource needs for both
species are characterized as:
• Stable river channels and banks (for
example, stable riffles, sometimes with
runs, and mid-channel island habitats
that provide flow refuges), consisting of
mixed sand, gravel, and cobble
substrates with low to moderate
amounts of fine sediment and attached
filamentous algae;
• A hydrologic flow regime (the
severity, frequency, duration, and
seasonality of discharge over time) that
maintains the benthic habitats where
the species are found and the river
connectivity with the floodplain;
• Habitat connectivity (that is, a lack
of barriers for passage of host fish,
which are necessary for dispersal of
mussels);
• Water and sediment quality, such as
(but not limited to) dissolved oxygen
above 3 parts per million (ppm),
ammonia generally below 1.0 ppm total
ammonia-nitrogen, temperatures
generally below 80 degrees Fahrenheit
(°F) (27 degrees Celsius (°C)), low
concentrations of metals, and an
absence of excessive total suspended
solids and other pollutants;
• The presence and abundance of fish
hosts (logperch, slenderhead darter,
fantail darter, rainbow darter, and
orangebelly darter) necessary for
recruitment of the fanshell mussels; and
• Appropriate food sources
(phytoplankton, zooplankton,
protozoans, detritus, and dissolved
organic matter) in adequate supply.
Threats Analysis
We identified water quality
degradation, altered flow, landscape
changes, and habitat fragmentation, all
of which are exacerbated by the effects
of climate change, as the primary threats
affecting the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell (Service 2020, p.
65). We acknowledge that invasive
species can have individual and, in
some circumstances, population-level
effects to mussels. However, the best
available data do not support that
invasive species are a driving force
affecting the current or future
conditions of these two fanshell mussels
(Service 2020, pp. 62–63). The primary
threats are discussed below.
Water Quality
Chemical contaminants are a major
threat in the decline of mussel species
(Cope et al. 2008, p. 451; Richter et al.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1997, p. 1081; Strayer et al. 2004, p. 436;
Wang et al. 2007a, p. 2029). Chemicals
enter rivers through point and nonpoint
discharges, including spills, industrial
and municipal effluents, and residential
and agricultural runoff. These sources
contribute organic compounds, heavy
metals, nutrients, pesticides, and a wide
variety of newly emerging
contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals,
to the aquatic environment.
The western fanshell has been
exposed to zinc and copper at
concentrations that cause acute toxicity
(Service 2020, p. 41) and may be
exposed to toxic levels of lead in the
future (Service 2020, Appendix I–D—I–
E). Metals from mine water runoff (for
example, Tri-State Mining District in
southwest Missouri and southeast
Kansas) contributed to mussel declines
in Shoal Creek and Spring River in the
Arkansas River basin (Angelo et al.
2007, p. 467; EcoAnalysts, Inc. 2018, p.
59).
Nutrients, such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, primarily occur in runoff
from livestock farms, feedlots, heavily
fertilized row crops and pastures
(Peterjohn and Correll 1984, p. 1471),
post timber management activities, and
urban and suburban runoff (including
residential lawns and leaking septic
tanks). Sources of ammonia include
agricultural wastes (animal feedlots and
nitrogenous fertilizers), municipal
wastewater treatment plants, and
industrial waste (Augspurger et al. 2007,
p. 2569), as well as precipitation and
natural processes (decomposition of
organic nitrogen) (Augspurger et al.
2003, p. 2569; Goudreau et al. 1993, p.
212; Hickey and Martin 1999, p. 44;
Newton et al. 2003, p. 1243). As
discussed above under Species Needs,
both fanshell species require dissolved
oxygen above 3 ppm and ammonia
generally below 1.0 ppm total ammonianitrogen. We analyzed total ammonia
nitrogen data in rivers occupied by the
two fanshell mussel species, but did not
find concentrations at levels expected to
result in acute or chronic toxicity to
mussels (Service 2020, p. 41, Appendix
I–D—I–E). In addition, nutrient
enrichment increases primary
productivity, and the associated algae
respiration depletes dissolved oxygen
levels. However, available water quality
data indicate that hypoxia (low
dissolved oxygen) is not occurring in
occupied streams and is not currently a
threat to the fanshell mussels.
Flow
Reductions in the diversity and
abundance of mussels are principally
attributed to habitat alteration caused by
inundation of free-flowing rivers and
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
streams (Neves et al. 1997, p. 60), which
has occurred in portions of the fanshell
mussels’ ranges (for example, White,
Ouachita, Caddo, and Neosho rivers).
The construction of reservoirs and other
impoundments permanently alters the
hydrology, with deleterious effects to
fish host movement and mussel
dispersal.
The water released from the
hypolimnion (lower layers of the lake)
in large reservoirs is cold and often
devoid of oxygen and necessary
nutrients, which adversely affects
mussel survival. Cold water can stunt
mussel growth and delay or hinder
spawning (Vaughn and Taylor 1999, p.
917). Reservoirs, like Bull Shoals on the
White River in north-central Arkansas,
that release cold water from the bottom
of the reservoir (in part to support
nonnative rainbow trout and brown
trout recreational fisheries) can affect
water temperatures for many kilometers
downstream. These cold releases create
an extinction gradient, where freshwater
mussels are absent or present in low
numbers near the dam, and abundance
does not rebound until some distance
downstream where ambient conditions
raise the water temperature to within
the tolerance limits of mussels (Vaughn
and Taylor 1999, pp. 915–916).
In addition to low water temperature
limits, freshwater mussels also have an
upper water temperature threshold. As
described above under Species Needs,
both fanshell species require water
temperatures generally below 80 °F (27
°C).
In ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell occupied
streams from 1990 to 2018, the percent
of water temperature samples exceeding
27 °C ranged from 6.9 to 15.4 percent,
with maximum water temperature
ranging from 30.3 °C to 36.6 °C. In
western fanshell MUs from 1990 to
2018, the percent of water temperature
samples exceeding 27 °C ranged from 0
to 12.6 percent, with maximum water
temperature ranging from 22.0 °C to 35.8
°C.
Recruitment in some species of
mussels is significantly related to
components of spring and summer flow
(Ries et al. 2016, p. 711). High velocity
flows during spawning can decrease
fertilization success (Ries et al. 2016, p.
712) and affect juvenile settling (Daraio
et al. 2010, p. 838; Hardison and Layzer
2001, p. 77). Mussel beds may be
constrained by threshold limits at both
flow extremes. Under low flow
conditions, mussels may require a
minimum flow to transport nutrients,
oxygen, and waste products. Under high
flow conditions, areas with relatively
low flow may provide a refuge for
mussels (Steuer et al. 2008, p. 67).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
Fanshell mussels undoubtedly evolved
in the presence of extreme hydrological
conditions to some degree, including
severe droughts leading to dewatering,
and heavy rains leading to damaging
scour events and movement of mussels
and substrate, although the frequency,
duration, and intensity of these events
may be different from today. Streamflow
and overall discharge for rivers
inhabited by western and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell mussels will likely decline due
to climate change and projected
increases in temperatures and
evaporation rates, resulting in more
frequent and intense droughts
(LaFontaine et al. 2019, entire).
Excessive sediments adversely affect
riverine mussel populations requiring
clean, stable streams (Brim Box and
Mossa 1999, p. 99; Ellis 1936, pp. 39–
40). Specific biological effects include
reduced feeding and respiratory
efficiency from clogged gills, disrupted
metabolic processes, reduced growth
rates, limited burrowing activity,
physical smothering, and disrupted host
fish attraction mechanisms (Ellis 1936,
pp. 39–40; Hartfield and Hartfield 1996,
p. 373; Marking and Bills 1979, p. 210;
Vannote and Minshall 1982, pp. 4105–
4106; Waters 1995, pp. 173–175). The
physical effects of sediment on mussel
habitat include changes in suspended
and bed material load; changes in bed
sediment composition associated with
increased sediment production and
runoff in the watershed; channel
changes in form, position, and degree of
stability; changes in depth or the width
and depth ratio that affects light
penetration and flow regime, actively
aggrading (filling) or degrading
(scouring) channels; and changes in
channel position. These effects to
habitat may dislodge, transport
downstream, or leave mussels stranded
(Brim Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 109–
112; Kanehl and Lyons 1992, pp. 4–5;
Vannote and Minshall 1982, p. 4106).
The majority of sediment transport
occurs during floods (Clark and
Mangham 2019, pp. 6–7; Kondolf 1997,
p. 533). The increase in flooding
severity results in greater sediment
transport, with important effects to
substrate stability and benthic habitats
for freshwater mussels, as well as other
organisms that are dependent on stable
benthic habitats (Kondolf 1997, p. 535).
High base flows can incise channels,
erode riverbanks, scour mussel beds,
and remove substrate preferred by
mussels. Over time, the physical force of
these higher base flows can dislodge
mussels from the sediment and
permanently alter the geomorphology of
rivers (Clark and Mangham 2019, pp. 6–
7; Kondolf 1997, p. 533).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12345
Runoff from impervious surfaces
prevalent in urban areas affects the
natural hydrology of streams by
increasing flood magnitude, duration,
and frequency (Bressler et al. 2009, p.
292). Frequent floods in urban areas
scour stream substrate and banks,
thereby increasing erosion and
sedimentation and altering
geomorphology. Geomorphic changes,
such as changes in channel width, occur
with impervious areas as low as 2 to 10
percent (Booth and Jackson 1997, p.
1084; Dunne and Leopold 1978, pp.
275–277; Morisawa and LaFlure 1979,
Figure 11). Initial degradation of fish
communities and lower larval densities
have been associated with as low as 10
percent impervious areas (Limburg and
Schmidt 1990, pp. 1241–1242;
Steedman 1988, pp. 498–499). Unpaved
road networks also interact with
streams, delivering sediment runoff and
increasing water velocity entering
stream channels, thereby increasing
stream energy, eroding streambanks,
scouring channels, and increasing
flooding (Coffin 2007, pp. 397–398).
Landscape Alterations
Many rivers where the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell occur
are threatened by land use activities and
changes (for example, increased
urbanization, alteration of riparian
buffers, improperly designed and
maintained unpaved roads).
Urbanization of a watershed can result
in increased pollutant loads from
stormwater runoff, altered flow,
decreased bank stability, and increased
water temperature. Urbanization can
also indirectly increase channel erosion
and downstream sedimentation by
increasing the frequency and volume of
channel-altering storm flows (Hammer
1972, p. 1530; Leopold 1968, entire).
These effects of urbanization can lower
fish species richness and density,
leading to predictable changes in
species composition, and these changes
can accrue rapidly (less than 10 years)
and are detectable at low levels
(approximately 5 to 10 percent
urbanization) (Walters et al. 2005, p. 1).
In 2016, 80 percent of the western and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell MUs had 5 percent
or greater urban land use, but all were
less than 10 percent (Service 2020,
Appendix I–A).
The amount of impervious surface
and riparian forest cover influences
stream hydrology and water quality
(Brabec et al. 2002, pp. 505–507).
Riparian forest cover intercepts and
moderates the timing of runoff, buffers
temperature extremes, filters pollutants
in runoff, provides woody debris to
stream channels that enhances aquatic
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12346
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
food webs, and stabilizes excessive
erosion. Furthermore, the removal of
riparian trees in forested watersheds has
a strong influence on stream
invertebrate communities (Wallace et al.
1997, entire). In 2016, forest cover
ranged from 70 to 76 percent in
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell MUs and 12 to 77
percent in western fanshell MUs
(Service 2020, Appendix I–A).
Agricultural practices, such as
livestock grazing and tilling on land
adjacent to streams, can lead to soil
erosion and subsequent runoff of fine
sediments, nutrients, and pesticides (for
example, Schulz and Liess 1999, p.
155). Watersheds with the most habitat
converted to farmland often have the
greatest levels of mussel richness
decline (Poole and Downing 2004, p.
123). In 2016, agricultural land use
ranged from 5 to 13 percent in
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell MUs and 17 to 68
percent in western fanshell MUs, and
decreased in all MUs for both species
from 2011 to 2016 (Service 2020,
Appendix I–A).
Roads adversely affect watershed
integrity by intercepting, concentrating,
and diverting water. Roads directly
affect natural sediment and hydrologic
regimes by altering stream flow,
sediment loading, sediment transport
and deposition, channel morphology,
channel stability, substrate composition,
stream temperature, water quality, and
riparian condition (Lee et al. 1997, pp.
1102–1104). Hydrologic effects are
sensitive to road density, with increased
peak flows evident at road densities of
2 to 3 kilometers (km)/square kilometers
(km2) (Forman and Alexander 1998, p.
223). In 2016, unpaved road density in
all the western and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
mussel MUs were 1.6 km/km2 or less.
Habitat Fragmentation
Hydrologic and geomorphic processes
directly relate to habitat extent. The
number and distribution of habitat
patches and their connectivity influence
species population health. Historically,
the two fanshell species likely occurred
throughout the river basins described in
the SSA (Service 2020, pp. 21–31).
Large-scale reductions in mussel
diversity and abundance are largely due
to habitat changes caused by
impoundments (Neves et al. 1997, p.
63). The number of impoundments in
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell MUs ranges from 3
to 51, and in western fanshell MUs
ranges from 4 to 73.
Effects of Climate Change
We examined information on the
anticipated effects of climate change,
including changes to water temperatures
and precipitation patterns. In its 5th
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
Assessment Report, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) adopted ‘‘representative
concentration pathways’’ (RCPs), which
are greenhouse gas concentration
trajectories, to describe potential future
climate outcomes, depending on the
amount of greenhouse gases that are
emitted in the future (IPCC 2014, pp.
126–127). Under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5,
the seasonal averages of 30 Coupled
Model Intercomparison Project 5
(CMIP5) models from 1950 to 2100
indicate warming air temperatures in
the Lower Mississippi River region,
with a central tendency of less than 2
inches change in precipitation (Alder
and Hostetler 2013, pp. 2–3). We expect
changes in stream temperatures to
reflect changes in air temperature, at a
rate of an approximately 0.6–0.8 °C
increase in stream water temperature for
every 1 °C increase in air temperature
(Morrill et al. 2005, pp. 1–2, 15). These
water temperature changes will have
implications for temperature-dependent
water quality parameters (such as
dissolved oxygen and ammonia
toxicity), spawning, and physiological
effects to thermally sensitive species.
Future increases in the frequency and
severity of both extreme drought and
extreme rainfall are expected to
transform many ecosystems in the
Southeast, including Arkansas (Carter et
al. 2018, pp. 743–808). Mussels are
highly sensitive to secondary effects of
drought (for example, water
temperature, etc.), but their ability to
withstand severe drought is highly
dependent on where they occur (Haag
and Warren 2008, p. 1165) and
sufficient time between sequential
drought events for mussel populations
to recover (Vaughn et al. 2015, pp.
1297–1298).
We also considered whether the
threats discussed above may be
exacerbated by small population size (or
low condition). Although there are
populations in low condition in all the
basins in which the two species occur,
none of the basins have seen their
populations reduced to one or two
populations in low condition.
Regulatory Mechanisms
State Protections
The western fanshell is listed as State
endangered with designated critical
habitats under the Kansas Nongame and
Endangered Species Conservation Act.
Under State law, any time an eligible
project is proposed that will impact the
species’ preferred habitats within its
probable range in Kansas, the project
sponsor must contact the Kansas
Department of Wildlife, Parks and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Tourism, regarding potential permit
requirements. The western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell do not receive
protection under State law in any other
States.
Other Regulatory Mechanisms
The U.S. Forest Service (2005, p. 58)
established a wildlife and fish habitat
road density objective of less than or
equal to 1.6 km/2.6 km2 on the Ouachita
National Forest in west-central
Arkansas, which includes the Ouachita
Headwaters and Caddo MUs for
‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell. The Arkansas
Unpaved Roads Program, authorized by
Act 898 of the 90th General Assembly
in 2005, establishes a proactive,
incentive-based management program
that results in utilization of best
management practices on unpaved
roads to minimize erosion and maintain
and improve the health of priority lakes
and rivers (TNC 2017, entire), including
those where both fanshell mussel
species occur.
Current Conditions
Current (and future) conditions are
described using categories that estimate
the overall condition (resiliency) of the
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell populations. These categories
are based on an evaluation of multiple
population and habitat factors (Service
2020, pp. 16–19).
Given that both of the fanshells’
ranges include medium to large rivers
with some populations fragmented by
dams and creation of navigation
channels, we delineated separate
populations for each watershed through
which these streams flow (if there was
an occurrence record for the stream in
that watershed), based on the hydrologic
unit code (HUC) (Seaber et al. 1987,
entire; U.S. Geological Survey 2018,
entire) at the fourth of six levels (that is,
the HUC–8 watershed), and termed
these ‘‘management units’’ (MUs). MUs
represent areas with one or more
populations capable of dispersal and
interaction. As a result, some
watersheds have been combined into
one management unit because of a lack
of dispersal barriers and some divided
into multiple management units. MUs
were identified as most appropriate for
assessing population-level resiliency
because the stream level was
determined to be too coarse of a scale
to estimate the condition factors
influencing resiliency (Service 2020, p.
16). We defined a MU as currently
extant if it contains live or recent dead
individuals observed in surveys from
2000 to the present (Service 2020, p.
21).
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
To evaluate the species’ genetic and
ecological diversity (representation) in
the absence of species-specific genetic
information, we considered the extent
and variability of environmental
conditions within the two species’
geographic ranges. Based on the best
available data, we identified
representation units at the HUC–4
watershed level, which is the second
HUC level and covers a larger area than
HUC–8.
Western Fanshell
The western fanshell’s current range
includes a total of 11 MUs across three
HUC–4 units: Neosho-Verdigris (2
MUs), Lower Mississippi-St. Francis (3
MUs), and Upper White (6 MUs) river
drainages of Arkansas, Missouri,
Kansas, and Oklahoma. Historically, the
western fanshell occurred in another 14
MUs and is presumed extirpated from
the Lower Arkansas (HUC–4) river
drainage. Of the current MUs, three (27
percent) are estimated to be highly
resilient, three (27 percent) are
estimated to be moderately resilient,
and five (46 percent) are estimated to
have low resiliency (Service 2020, pp.
36–46). The habitat conditions across
the 11 extant populations are medium to
high (Service 2020, p. 41).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell
The ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell currently
occurs in 4 MUs within portions of the
Ouachita River basin (HUC–4) in
Arkansas. One population is presumed
extirpated. Of the current MUs, one (25
percent) is estimated to be highly
resilient, one (25 percent) is estimated
to be moderately resilient, and two (50
percent) are estimated to have low
resiliency (Service 2020, pp. 46–50).
The habitat conditions across the 4
extant populations are medium to high
(Service 2020, p. 47).
Future Conditions
We forecasted the western fanshell’s
and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell’s responses to
plausible future scenarios of
environmental conditions. The future
scenarios project the threats into the
future and consider the impacts those
threats could have on the viability of the
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell. We apply the concepts of
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to the future scenarios to
describe possible future conditions of
the western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell. The scenarios described in the
SSA report represent only two possible
future conditions for each species.
Uncertainty is inherent in any
projection of future condition, so we
must consider plausible scenarios to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
make our determinations. When
assessing the future, viability is not a
specific state, but rather a continuous
measure of the likelihood that the
species will sustain populations over
time.
In the SSA, we considered two future
scenarios. Scenario 1 assesses the
species’ responses to moderate increases
in stressors influencing the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
populations, although current
conservation practices would remain in
place. Scenario 2 assesses the species’
responses to severe increases in
stressors. Due to a lack of resolution of
the available data, we were unable to
distinguish any meaningful difference
between a moderate increase in stressors
and a moderate decrease in stressors. As
a result, we limited the future forecasts
to these two scenarios, which we
projected over a 40-year period. We
restricted our evaluation to 40 years
primarily due to limitations projecting
non-modeled, extrapolated future
conditions for water quality, road
density, and habitat fragmentation. A
full description of the future scenarios
and our methods is available in the SSA
report (Service 2020, pp. 64–69).
Under Scenario 1, populations of both
fanshell species are projected to decline
in resiliency and redundancy over time
as conditions moderately decline from
current conditions. For western
fanshell, we project five (45 percent) of
the currently extant MUs to become
extirpated. Of the remaining six
populations, four (67 percent) would be
in medium condition, and two (33
percent) in low condition, with no MUs
in high condition. For ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell, we project two (50 percent) of
the currently extant MUs to become
extirpated. Of the remaining two
populations, one (50 percent) would be
in medium condition, and one (50
percent) in low condition, with no MUs
in high condition. All of the extant
HUC–4 river basins would remain
occupied for both species.
While our projections under Scenario
2 do not anticipate additional
extirpations from those observed under
Scenario 1, we expect all remaining
populations of both species to be in low
condition in 40 years. All extant HUC–
4 river basins would remain occupied
for both species.
We note that, by using the SSA
framework to guide our analysis of the
scientific information documented in
the SSA report, we have not only
analyzed individual effects on the
species, but we have also analyzed their
potential cumulative effects. We
incorporate the cumulative effects into
our SSA analysis when we characterize
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12347
the current and future condition of the
species. To assess the current and future
condition of the species, we undertake
an iterative analysis that encompasses
and incorporates the threats
individually and then accumulates and
evaluates the effects of all the factors
that may be influencing the species,
including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework
considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they
collectively influence risk to the entire
species, our assessment integrates the
cumulative effects of the factors and
replaces a standalone cumulative effects
analysis.
Determination of Western Fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species.’’ The
Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as a
species in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and ‘‘threatened species’’ as a
species likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the
definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or
‘‘threatened species’’ because of any of
the following factors: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Western Fanshell—Status Throughout
All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species
and assessing the cumulative effect of
the threats under the Act’s section
4(a)(1) factors, we determined that the
western fanshell has experienced a
reduction in populations/management
units from historical conditions.
However, the species still ranges over
three of the four major drainages (HUC–
4 representation units) in which it
historically occurred. Eleven of 27
historical MUs are extant. Of those 11,
3 MUs are currently in high condition,
3 in medium condition, and 5 in low
condition. The majority (54 percent) of
the MUs are in high or medium
condition. There is at least one MU in
high condition in each of the 3 extant
representation units. With 11 extant
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12348
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
MUs across three HUC–4s, the species
currently retains redundancy to
withstand and survive potential
catastrophic events, although there is no
imminent catastrophic threat. Therefore,
we determined that the species is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
However, the following threats
currently acting on the western fanshell
will likely continue into the foreseeable
future and decrease the condition of the
species further over time: Habitat loss
and degradation from siltation, water
quality degradation, altered flow,
landscape changes, and habitat
fragmentation (Factor A). These threats
are reasonably expected to be
exacerbated by continued urbanization,
and threats of water quality
(temperature) and flow are especially
exacerbated by climate change (Factor
E). These threats will continue to impact
the species into the foreseeable future,
and the existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) are not adequately reducing
the impact of these threats on the
species. The best available data do not
indicate that the western fanshell is
currently impacted at the population
level by overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B) or predation or
disease (Factor C), nor do the best
available data indicate that the species
will be impacted by these factors in the
future.
Given the projection of threats 40
years into the future, the number of
western fanshell populations will
decline with the projected loss of five
MUs, reducing the species’ redundancy.
Across the plausible future scenarios,
resiliency also declines with zero to four
populations projected to be in medium
condition and two to six populations in
low condition. No populations are
projected to be in high condition in the
foreseeable future. Representation is
projected to remain across the range, but
the considerable loss of redundancy and
resiliency makes the species likely to
become in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future throughout its range.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
western fanshell is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
Western Fanshell—Status Throughout a
Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The court in Center
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020
WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020)
(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated
the aspect of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered
Species Act’s Definitions of
‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened
Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014)
that provided that the Service does not
undertake an analysis of significant
portions of a species’ range if the
species warrants listing as threatened
throughout all of its range. Therefore,
we proceed to evaluating whether the
species is endangered in a significant
portion of its range—that is, whether
there is any portion of the species’ range
for which both (1) the portion is
significant; and (2) the species is in
danger of extinction in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more
efficient for us to address the
‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’
question first. We can choose to address
either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we
reach a negative answer with respect to
the first question that we address, we do
not need to evaluate the other question
for that portion of the species’ range.
Following the court’s holding in
Center for Biological Diversity, we now
consider whether there are any
significant portions of the species’ range
where the species is in danger of
extinction now (that is, endangered). In
undertaking this analysis for western
fanshell, we choose to address the status
question first—we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution
of both the species and the threats that
the species faces to identify any
portions of the range where the species
is endangered.
For western fanshell, we considered
whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in any portion of the
species’ range at a biologically
meaningful scale. We examined the
following threats: Water quality
degradation, altered flow, landscape
changes, and habitat fragmentation,
including cumulative effects. We
evaluated multiple factors—including
various water quality parameters, land
cover data, road density, and barriers—
that contribute to these primary threats.
These habitat factors are in a medium to
high condition across the species’ range.
Overall, we found that threats are acting
similarly within the occupied river
basins across the species’ range. We
found no concentration of threats in any
portion of the western fanshell’s range
at a biologically meaningful scale. Thus,
there are no portions of the species’
range where the species has a different
status from its rangewide status.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Therefore, no portion of the species’
range provides a basis for determining
that the species is in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its
range, and we determine that the
species is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. This is
consistent with the courts’ holdings in
Desert Survivors v. Department of the
Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018
WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018),
and Center for Biological Diversity v.
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D.
Ariz. 2017).
Western Fanshell—Determination of
Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that the western fanshell
meets the Act’s definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we
propose to list the western fanshell as a
threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell—Status
Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species
and assessing the cumulative effect of
the threats under the section 4(a)(1)
factors, we determined that the
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell has experienced a
reduction in resiliency and redundancy
from historical conditions. The species
is extant in four MUs within one major
drainage (HUC–4 representation unit).
The species historically occurred in
Bayou Bartholomew in Louisiana. Of
the four extant MUs, one is currently in
high condition, one in medium
condition, and two in low condition.
The species appears to be endemic to
the Ouachita River basin. Although the
species is known from only one
representation unit, half of the extant
populations are in high or medium
condition. The species currently retains
redundancy to withstand and survive
potential catastrophic events, although
there is no imminent catastrophic
threat. Therefore, we determined that
the species is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
The following threats currently acting
on the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell will likely
continue into the foreseeable future and
decrease the condition of the species
further over time: Habitat loss and
degradation from siltation, water quality
degradation, altered flow, landscape
changes, and habitat fragmentation
(Factor A). These threats are reasonably
expected to be exacerbated by continued
urbanization, and threats of water
quality (temperature) and flow are
especially exacerbated by climate
change (Factor E). These threats will
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
continue to impact the species into the
foreseeable future, and the existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are
not adequately reducing the impact of
these threats on the species. The best
available data do not indicate that the
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell is currently
impacted at the population level by
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B) or predation or
disease (Factor C), nor do the best
available data indicate that the species
will be impacted by these factors in the
future.
Given the projection of threats 40
years into the future, the number of
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell populations will
decline with the projected loss of two
MUs, reducing the species’ redundancy.
Resiliency also declines with three to
four populations projected to be in low
condition and zero to one population(s)
in medium condition. No populations
are projected to be in high condition in
the foreseeable future. As the species
occurs in only the Ouachita River basin,
representation is projected to remain,
but the considerable loss of redundancy
and resiliency makes the species likely
to become in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future throughout its range.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell is likely to become
in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell—Status
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its
Range
See above, under Western Fanshell—
Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range, for a description of our
evaluation methods and our policy
application.
In undertaking the analysis for the
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell, we choose to
address the status question first—we
consider information pertaining to the
geographic distribution of both the
species and the threats that the species
faces to identify any portions of the
range where the species is endangered.
We examined the following threats:
Water quality degradation, altered flow,
landscape changes, and habitat
fragmentation, including cumulative
effects. We evaluated multiple factors—
including various water quality
parameters, land cover data, road
density, and barriers—that contribute to
these primary threats. These habitat
factors are in a medium to high
condition across the species’ range.
Overall, we found that threats are acting
similarly across the species’ range. We
found no concentration of threats in any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
portion of the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell’s
range at a biologically meaningful scale.
Thus, there are no portions of the
species’ range where the species has a
different status from its rangewide
status. Therefore, no portion of the
species’ range provides a basis for
determining that the species is in danger
of extinction in a significant portion of
its range, and we determine that the
species is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. This is
consistent with the courts’ holdings in
Desert Survivors v. Department of the
Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018
WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018),
and Center for Biological Diversity v.
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D.
Ariz. 2017).
‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell—Determination of
Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
meets the Act’s definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we
propose to list the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
as a threatened species in accordance
with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act
include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness, and conservation by
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, private organizations, and
individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other
countries and calls for recovery actions
to be carried out for listed species. The
protection required by Federal agencies
and the prohibitions against certain
activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the
Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12349
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of
preparing draft and final recovery plans,
beginning with the development of a
recovery outline and making it available
to the public within 30 days of a final
listing determination. The recovery
outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery
actions. Revisions of the plan may be
done to address continuing or new
threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes
available. The recovery plan also
identifies recovery criteria for review of
when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to
threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal
from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and
as a benchmark for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. When completed, the
recovery outline, draft recovery plan,
and the final recovery plan will be
available on our website (https://
www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Arkansas Ecological Services Field
Office for ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell or
Missouri Ecological Services Field
Office for western fanshell (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (for example,
restoration of native vegetation),
research, captive propagation and
reintroduction, and outreach and
education. The recovery of many listed
species cannot be accomplished solely
on Federal lands because their range
may occur primarily or solely on nonFederal lands. To achieve recovery of
these species requires cooperative
conservation efforts on private, State,
and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the States of Arkansas, Kansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the western
fanshell and the States of Arkansas and
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12350
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Louisiana would be eligible for Federal
funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or
recovery of the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell.
Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can
be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell are only proposed
for listing under the Act at this time,
please let us know if you are interested
in participating in conservation efforts
for these species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new
information on these species whenever
it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include, but are not limited to, activities
authorized, funded, or carried out by the
following agencies:
(1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(channel dredging and maintenance;
dam projects including flood control,
navigation, hydropower, bridge projects,
stream restoration, and Clean Water Act
permitting).
(2) U.S. Department of Agriculture,
including the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and Farm Service
Agency (technical and financial
assistance for projects) and the Forest
Service (aquatic habitat restoration, fire
management plans, fuel reduction
treatments, forest plans, mining
permits).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
(3) U.S. Department of Energy
(renewable and alternative energy
projects).
(4) Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (interstate pipeline
construction and maintenance, dam
relicensing, hydrokinetics).
(5) U.S. Department of Transportation
(highway and bridge construction and
maintenance).
(6) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(issuance of section 10 permits for
enhancement of survival, habitat
conservation plans, and safe harbor
agreements; National Wildlife Refuge
planning and refuge activities; Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program projects
benefiting these species or other listed
species; Wildlife and Sportfish
Restoration program sportfish stocking).
(7) Environmental Protection Agency
(water quality criteria, permitting).
(8) Office of Surface Mining (land
resource management plans, mining
permits, oil and natural gas permits,
renewable energy development).
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of the species proposed for
listing. The discussion below regarding
protective regulations under section 4(d)
of the Act complies with our policy.
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section
4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two
sentences. The first sentence states that
the Secretary shall issue such
regulations as she deems necessary and
advisable to provide for the
conservation of species listed as
threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has
noted that statutory language like
‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates
a large degree of deference to the agency
(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592
(1988)). Conservation is defined in the
Act to mean the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring
any endangered species or threatened
species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act
are no longer necessary. Additionally,
the second sentence of section 4(d) of
the Act states that the Secretary may by
regulation prohibit with respect to any
threatened species any act prohibited
under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish
or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of plants. Thus, the combination of the
two sentences of section 4(d) provides
the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select and promulgate
appropriate regulations tailored to the
specific conservation needs of the
threatened species. The second sentence
grants particularly broad discretion to
the Service when adopting the
prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent
of the Secretary’s discretion under this
standard to develop rules that are
appropriate for the conservation of a
species. For example, courts have
upheld rules developed under section
4(d) as a valid exercise of agency
authority where they prohibited take of
threatened wildlife, or include a limited
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007);
Washington Environmental Council v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002
U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash.
2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d)
rules that do not address all of the
threats a species faces (see State of
Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th
Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative
history when the Act was initially
enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the
threatened list, the Secretary has an
almost infinite number of options
available to him [or her] with regard to
the permitted activities for those
species. He [or she] may, for example,
permit taking, but not importation of
such species, or he [or she] may choose
to forbid both taking and importation
but allow the transportation of such
species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong.,
1st Sess. 1973).
Exercising this authority under
section 4(d), we have developed a
proposed rule that is designed to
address the western fanshell’s and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell’s specific threats
and conservation needs. Although the
statute does not require us to make a
‘‘necessary and advisable’’ finding with
respect to the adoption of specific
prohibitions under section 9, we find
that this rule as a whole satisfies the
requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to
issue regulations deemed necessary and
advisable to provide for the
conservation of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. As discussed
above under Summary of Biological
Status and Threats, we have concluded
that the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell are likely to
become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future primarily due to
habitat loss and degradation from
siltation, water and sediment quality
degradation, changes to flow, and
impoundments. These threats, which
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
are expected to be exacerbated by
continued urbanization and the effects
of climate change, were central to our
assessment of the future viability of the
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell. The provisions of this
proposed 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell by encouraging
management of the landscape in ways
that meet both land management
considerations and the conservation
needs of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. The provisions of
this proposed rule are one of many tools
that we would use to promote the
conservation of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. This proposed 4(d)
rule would apply only if and when we
make final the listing of the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell as
threatened species.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat—and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded,
authorized, or carried out by a Federal
agency—do not require section 7
consultation.
This obligation does not change in
any way for a threatened species with a
species-specific 4(d) rule. Actions that
result in a determination by a Federal
agency of ‘‘not likely to adversely
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
affect’’ continue to require the Service’s
written concurrence and actions that are
‘‘likely to adversely affect’’ a species
require formal consultation and the
formulation of a biological opinion.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would
provide for the conservation of the
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell by prohibiting the following
activities, except as otherwise
authorized or permitted: Importing or
exporting; take; possession and other
acts with unlawfully taken specimens;
delivering, receiving, transporting, or
shipping in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial
activity; or selling or offering for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce.
As discussed above under Summary
of Biological Status and Threats,
multiple factors are affecting the status
of western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell. A range of activities have the
potential to affect these species,
including, for example, habitat loss and
degradation from siltation, water and
sediment quality degradation, changes
to flow, and impoundments. These
threats, which are expected to be
exacerbated by continued urbanization
and the effects of climate change, were
central to our assessment of the future
viability of western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. Therefore, we
prohibit actions resulting in the
incidental take of western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell by altering or
degrading the habitat. Regulating
incidental take resulting from these
activities would help preserve the
species’ remaining populations, slow
their rate of decline, and decrease
synergistic, negative effects from other
stressors.
Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
to attempt to engage in any such
conduct. Some of these provisions have
been further defined in regulation at 50
CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or
otherwise, by direct and indirect
impacts, intentionally or incidentally.
The proposed 4(d) rule would also
provide for the conservation of the
species by allowing exceptions to
actions and activities that, while they
may have some minimal level of
disturbance to the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell, are not expected to
negatively affect the species’
conservation and recovery efforts. The
proposed exceptions to these
prohibitions include: (1) Channel and
bank restoration projects; (2) silviculture
and forest management that implements
best management practices; and (3)
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12351
transportation projects that avoid
instream disturbance in waters occupied
by the species.
The first exception is for incidental
take resulting from channel and bank
restoration projects for creation of
natural, physically stable, ecologically
functioning streams, taking into
consideration connectivity with
floodplain and groundwater aquifers.
This exception includes a requirement
that bank restoration projects require
planting appropriate native vegetation,
including woody species appropriate for
the region and habitat. We also propose
language that would require surveys and
relocation prior to commencement of
restoration actions (and, if applicable,
monitoring after relocation) for western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell that
would otherwise be negatively affected
by the actions. Actions related to
restoration activities that would
negatively affect western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell include: Individual
mussels being removed, dislodged,
crushed and/or killed by heavy
equipment operations and rip-rap
placement; removal, destruction and/or
replacement of habitat; increased
turbidity from streambed disturbance;
and alterations to flow and turbidity
from permanent (weirs) or temporary
(causeways) structures needed for
construction.
The second exception is for incidental
take resulting from silviculture and
forest management activities that use
State-approved best management
practices to protect water and sediment
quality and stream and riparian habitat.
Best management practices are designed
to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and
bank destruction, thereby protecting
instream habitat for these species.
The third exception is for incidental
take resulting from transportation
projects that do not include activities
that disturb instream habitat. Bridge
designs that include spanning the
stream and avoiding stream bank
disturbance reduce sedimentation and
erosion, thereby protecting instream
habitat for these species.
We reiterate that these actions and
activities may have some minimal level
of take of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell, but any such take
is expected to be rare and insignificant,
and is not expected to negatively impact
the species’ conservation and recovery
efforts. Rather, we expect they would
have a net beneficial effect on the
species. Across the species’ range,
instream habitats have been degraded
physically by sedimentation and by
direct and indirect channel disturbance.
The habitat restoration activities in the
proposed 4(d) rule are intended to
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12352
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
improve habitat conditions for the
species in the long term.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above,
involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for threatened
wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.32.
With regard to threatened wildlife, a
permit may be issued for the following
purposes: For scientific purposes, to
enhance the propagation or survival of
the species, for economic hardship, for
zoological exhibition, for educational
purposes, for incidental taking, or for
special purposes consistent with the
purposes of the Act. The statute also
contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in
sections 9 and 10 of the Act. In addition,
we are considering, but have not
specifically proposed in this document,
an exception from permitting
requirements for individuals conducting
presence/absence surveys, studies to
document habitat use, population
monitoring, and evaluations of potential
impacts to the fanshells, provided the
individual holds a valid scientific
collecting permit for mussels from the
appropriate State agency. If we conclude
that this measure would provide for the
conservation of the species, we may
include a provision in the final 4(d)
rule. We specifically request comments
on this provision we are considering.
We recognize the special and unique
relationship with our State natural
resource agency partners in contributing
to conservation of listed species. State
agencies often possess scientific data
and valuable expertise on the status and
distribution of endangered, threatened,
and candidate species of wildlife and
plants. State agencies, because of their
authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments
and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist the Service in
implementing all aspects of the Act. In
this regard, section 6 of the Act provides
that the Service shall cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the
States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any
qualified employee or agent of a State
conservation agency that is a party to a
cooperative agreement with the Service
in accordance with section 6(c) of the
Act, who is designated by his or her
agency for such purposes, would be able
to conduct activities designed to
conserve the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell that may result in
otherwise prohibited take without
additional authorization.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule
would change in any way the recovery
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
planning provisions of section 4(f) of the
Act, the consultation requirements
under section 7 of the Act, or the ability
of the Service to enter into partnerships
for the management and protection of
the western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell. However, interagency
cooperation may be further streamlined
through planned programmatic
consultations for the species between
Federal agencies and the Service, where
appropriate. We ask the public,
particularly State agencies and other
interested stakeholders that may be
affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to
provide comments and suggestions
regarding additional guidance and
methods that the Service could provide
or use, respectively, to streamline the
implementation of this proposed 4(d)
rule (see Information Requested, above).
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02
define the geographical area occupied
by the species as an area that may
generally be delineated around species’
occurrences, as determined by the
Secretary (that is, 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
(for example, migratory corridors,
seasonal habitats, and habitats used
periodically, but not solely by vagrant
individuals). Additionally, our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the
word ‘‘habitat,’’ for the purposes of
designating critical habitat only, as the
abiotic and biotic setting that currently
or periodically contains the resources
and conditions necessary to support one
or more life processes of a species.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation also
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section
7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the
proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of
the critical habitat, the Federal action
agency and the landowner are not
required to abandon the proposed
activity, or to restore or recover the
species; instead, they must implement
‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’
to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) essential to the
conservation of the species and (2)
which may require special management
considerations or protection. For these
areas, critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data
available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected
habitat). In identifying those physical or
biological features that occur in specific
occupied areas, we focus on the specific
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
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. The implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further delineate
unoccupied critical habitat by setting
out three specific parameters: (1) When
designating critical habitat, the
Secretary will first evaluate areas
occupied by the species; (2) the
Secretary will consider unoccupied
areas to be essential only where a
critical habitat designation limited to
geographical areas occupied by the
species would be inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species; and (3)
for an unoccupied area to be considered
essential, the Secretary must determine
that there is a reasonable certainty both
that the area will contribute to the
conservation of the species and that the
area contains one or more of those
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
our primary source of information is
generally the information from the SSA
report and information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include any generalized
conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the
species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed
journals; conservation plans developed
by States and counties; scientific status
surveys and studies; biological
assessments; other unpublished
materials; or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
As the regulatory definition of
‘‘habitat’’ reflects (50 CFR 424.02),
habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species; and (3) the
prohibitions found in section 9 of the
Act. Federally funded or permitted
projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas
may still result in jeopardy findings in
some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of these species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations
made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or
other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at
the time of those planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be an
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12353
endangered or threatened species. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state
that the Secretary may, but is not
required to, determine that a
designation would not be prudent in the
following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species, or threats
to the species’ habitat stem solely from
causes that cannot be addressed through
management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of
the United States provide no more than
negligible conservation value, if any, for
a species occurring primarily outside
the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of
critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise
determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on
the best scientific data available.
As discussed earlier in this document,
there is currently no imminent threat of
collection or vandalism identified under
Factor B for these species, and
identification and mapping of critical
habitat is not expected to initiate any
such threat. In our SSA and proposed
listing determination for the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell, we
determined that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range is a
threat to the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell and that those
threats can be addressed in some way by
section 7(a)(2) consultation measures.
These species occur wholly in the
jurisdiction of the United States, and we
are able to identify areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. Therefore,
because none of the circumstances
enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1) have been met and because
the Secretary has not identified other
circumstances for which this
designation of critical habitat would be
not prudent, we have determined that
the designation of critical habitat is
prudent for the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell.
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 western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12354
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following
situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required
analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species
are not sufficiently well known to
identify any area that meets the
definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’
When critical habitat is not
determinable, the Act allows the Service
an additional year to publish a critical
habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available
information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat
characteristics where these species are
located. This and other information
represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the
designation of critical habitat is
determinable for the western fanshell
and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell.
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 which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define
‘‘physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species’’ as
the features that occur in specific areas
and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including,
but not limited to, water characteristics,
soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single
habitat characteristic or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics.
Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral
or dynamic habitat conditions. Features
may also be expressed in terms relating
to principles of conservation biology,
such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity. For
example, physical features essential to
the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size
required for spawning, alkaline soil for
seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding
or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey
species, forage grasses, specific kinds or
ages of trees for roosting or nesting,
symbiotic fungi, or absence of or a
particular level of nonnative species
consistent with conservation needs of
the listed species. The features may also
be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or
the necessary amount of a characteristic
essential to support the life history of
the species.
In considering whether features are
essential to the conservation of the
species, we may consider an appropriate
quality, quantity, and spatial and
temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of
the species. These characteristics
include, but are not limited to, space for
individual and population growth and
for normal behavior; food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,
or rearing (or development) of offspring;
and habitats that are protected from
disturbance.
As described above under Summary
of Biological Status and Threats,
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell occur in large creeks and rivers.
Occasional or regular interaction among
individuals in different river reaches not
interrupted by a barrier likely occurs,
but in general, interaction is strongly
influenced by habitat fragmentation and
distance between occupied river or
stream reaches. Once released from their
fish host, freshwater mussels are benthic
(bottom-dwelling), generally sedentary
aquatic organisms and closely
associated with appropriate habitat
patches within a river or stream.
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential for the
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell from studies of these species’
(or appropriate surrogate species’)
habitat, ecology, and life history. The
primary habitat elements that influence
resiliency of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell include water
quality, water quantity, substrate,
habitat connectivity, and the presence of
host fish species to ensure recruitment.
These features are also described above
as species needs under Summary of
Biological Status and Threats, and a full
description is available in the SSA
report; the individuals’ needs are
summarized below in Table 1.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 1—REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE STAGES OF WESTERN FANSHELL AND ‘‘OUACHITA’’ FANSHELL
Life stage
Resource needs—habitat requirements
References
All Life Stages ...............
Water Quality: Naturally clean, high quality water with little or no
harmful pollutants (that is, pollutants occur below tolerance limits of
mussels, fish hosts, prey). The values below are based on the best
available science and assume mussels respond to average values
of a constituent over time (acute or chronic exposure).
➢ Dissolved oxygen >3 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
➢ Low salinity/total dissolved solids
➢ Low nutrient concentrations
➢ Total ammonia nitrogen <0.3–1.0 mg/L at pH 8.0 & 25 °C
➢ Nitrate <2.0 mg/L
➢ Nitrite <55.8 mg/L
➢ Low concentrations of metals
➢ Cadmium <0.014 mg/L at 50 mg/L calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) hardness
➢ Zinc <0.120 mg/L at 50 mg/L CaCO3 hardness
➢ Lead <0.205 mg/L at 50 mg/L CaCO3 hardness
➢ Copper <0.005 mg/L in moderately hard water
➢ Natural, unaltered ambient water temperature generally <27 °C
Water Quantity: Flowing water in sufficient quantity to support the
life-history requirements of mussels and their fish hosts.
Allen et al. 2007, pp. 80–85; Augspurger et al.
2003, p. 2569; Bringolf et al. 2007a, p.
2094; 2007b, p. 2086; Cope et al. 2008, p.
455; Fuller 1974, pp. 240–246; Gillis et al.
2008, pp. 140–141; Gray et al. 2002, pp.
155–156; Kolpin et al. 2002, pp. 1208–
1210; Spooner and Vaughn 2008, p. 311;
Steingraeber et al. 2007, p. 297; Wang et
al. 2007a, 2007b, 2010, 2013, entire.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Galbraith and Vaughn 2009, p. 46; Allen and
Vaughn 2010, p. 390; Peterson et al. 2011,
p. 115; Daraio et al. 2010, p. 838.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
12355
TABLE 1—REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE STAGES OF WESTERN FANSHELL AND ‘‘OUACHITA’’ FANSHELL—Continued
Life stage
Resource needs—habitat requirements
References
Gamete (sperm, egg development, fertilization).
Glochidia .......................
➢ Sexually mature males and females with appropriate water temperatures for spawning, fertilization, and brooding.
➢ Presence of fish hosts (of appropriate species) with sufficient flow
to allow attachment, encystment, relocation, excystment, and dispersal of glochidia.
➢ Stable substrate comprised of mixed sand, gravel and cobble,
and appropriate for burrowing, pedal feeding, and survival.
➢ Appropriate food sources (phytoplankton, zooplankton,
protozoans, detritus, dissolved organic matter) in adequate supply.
➢ Presence and abundance of fish hosts available for recruitment.
Haag 2012, pp. 38–39; Galbraith and Vaughn
2009, pp. 45–46; Barnhart et al. 2008, p.
372.
behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages, including, but not limited to:
Dissolved oxygen (generally above 3
parts per million (ppm)) and water
temperature (generally below 80 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F) (27 degrees Celsius (°C)).
Additionally, water and sediment
should be low in ammonia (generally
below 1.0 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen)
and heavy metals, and lack excessive
total suspended solids and other
pollutants.
(4) The presence and abundance of
fish hosts necessary for recruitment of
the western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell, including logperch (Percina
caprodes), rainbow darter (Etheostoma
caeruleum), slenderhead darter (Percina
phoxocephala), fantail darter
(Etheostoma flabellare), or orangebelly
darter (Etheostoma radiosum).
municipal effluents, mining, and
agricultural activities; (4) land use
activities that remove large areas of
forested wetlands and riparian systems;
(5) dam construction and culvert and
pipe installation that create barriers to
movement for the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell, or their host fishes;
(6) changes and shifts in seasonal
precipitation patterns as a result of
climate change; and (7) other watershed
and floodplain disturbances that release
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into
the water.
Management activities that could
ameliorate these threats include, but are
not limited to: Use of best management
practices designed to reduce
sedimentation, erosion, and bank
destruction; protection of riparian
corridors and woody vegetation;
moderation of surface and ground water
withdrawals to maintain natural flow
regimes; improved stormwater
management; and reduction of other
watershed and floodplain disturbances
that release sediments, pollutants, or
nutrients into the water.
In summary, we find that the
occupied areas we are proposing to
designate as critical habitat contain the
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special
management considerations or
protection. Special management
considerations or protection may be
required of the Federal action agency to
eliminate, or to reduce to negligible
levels, the threats affecting the physical
and biological features of each unit.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Juvenile, sub-adult, and
adult (from
excystment to maturity).
Summary of Essential Physical or
Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell from studies of the
species’ habitat, ecology, and life history
as described below. Additional
information can be found in chapter 2
of the SSA report (Service 2020, pp. 9–
15), which is available on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061. We have
determined that the following physical
or biological features are essential to the
conservation of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell:
(1) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic
flow regime (magnitude, timing,
frequency, duration, rate of change, and
overall seasonality of discharge over
time), necessary to maintain benthic
habitats where the species are found
and to maintain stream connectivity,
specifically providing for the exchange
of nutrients and sediment for
maintenance of the mussels’ and fish
hosts’ habitat and food availability,
maintenance of spawning habitat for
native host fishes, and the ability for
newly transformed juveniles to settle
and become established in their
habitats. Adequate flows ensure
delivery of oxygen, enable reproduction,
deliver food to filter-feeding mussels,
and reduce contaminants and fine
sediments from interstitial spaces.
(2) Suitable substrates and connected
instream habitats, characterized by
geomorphically stable stream channels
and banks (that is, channels that
maintain lateral dimensions,
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity
patterns over time without an aggrading
or degrading bed elevation) with
habitats that support a diversity of
freshwater mussel and native fish (such
as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that
provide flow refuges consisting of siltfree gravel and coarse sand substrates).
(3) Water and sediment quality
necessary to sustain natural
physiological processes for normal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
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 essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require
special management considerations or
protection.
The features essential to the
conservation of the western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell may require special
management considerations or
protections to reduce the following
threats: (1) Alteration of the natural flow
regime (modifying the natural
hydrograph and seasonal flows),
including water withdrawals, resulting
in flow reduction and available water
quantity; (2) urbanization of the
landscape, including (but not limited to)
land conversion for urban and
commercial use, infrastructure
(pipelines, roads, bridges, utilities), and
urban water uses (resource extraction
activities, water supply reservoirs,
wastewater treatment, etc.); (3)
significant alteration of water quality
and nutrient pollution from a variety of
activities, such as industrial and
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Allen and Vaughn 2010, pp. 384–385; Haag
2012, pp. 26–42; Eckert 2003, pp. 18–19,
33.
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
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12356
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing and any specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species to be considered for designation
as critical habitat.
We anticipate that recovery will
require conserving the genetic diversity
of extant populations across the HUC–
4 watersheds within the species’ current
range and maintaining and, where
necessary, improving habitat and habitat
connectivity to ensure the long-term
viability of western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. We have
determined that the currently occupied
MUs of western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell would maintain
each species’ resiliency, redundancy,
and representation and are sufficient to
conserve these two species. Therefore,
we are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species.
Methodology Used for Selection of
Proposed Units
First, we included current
populations with high or medium
resiliency. These populations show
recruitment or varied age class structure
and could be used for recovery actions
to augment other populations through
propagation activities or direct
translocations within their basins. We
defined a population as ‘‘current’’ if it
contains live or recent dead individuals
observed in surveys from 2000 to the
present (Service 2020, p. 21).
Second, we evaluated spatial
representation and redundancy across
the species’ ranges, to include last
remaining population(s) in major river
basins.
Third, we examined the overall
contribution of populations in low
condition and threats to those
populations. We considered adjacency
and connectivity to high and medium
populations, as well as isolated
populations with potentially important
genetic or adaptive traits, and did not
include populations that have
potentially low likelihood of recovery
due to low abundance and limited
distribution or populations currently
under high levels of threats.
Sources of data for this proposed
critical habitat designation include
information from State agencies
throughout the species’ ranges and
numerous survey reports on streams
throughout the species’ ranges (Service
2020, entire). We have also reviewed
available information that pertains to
the habitat requirements of these
species. Sources of information on
habitat requirements include studies
conducted at occupied sites and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
published in peer-reviewed articles,
agency reports, and data collected
during monitoring efforts (Service 2020,
entire).
In summary, for areas within the
geographic area occupied by these
species at the time of listing, we
delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using a precise set of
criteria. Specifically, we identified river
and stream reaches with observations
from 2000 to present. We determined it
is reasonable to find these areas
occupied, given the variable data
associated with timing and frequency of
mussel surveys conducted throughout
the species’ ranges and available State
heritage databases, and information
supports the likelihood of both species’
continued presence in these areas
within this timeframe. Specific habitat
areas were delineated, based on Natural
Heritage Element Occurrences,
published reports, and unpublished
survey data provided by States. These
areas provide habitat for western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
populations and are large enough to be
self-sustaining over time, despite
fluctuations in local conditions. The
areas within the proposed units
represent continuous river and stream
reaches of free-flowing habitat patches
capable of sustaining host fishes and
allowing for seasonal transport of
glochidia, which are essential for
reproduction and dispersal of western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. We
consider portions of the following rivers
and streams to be occupied by these
species at the time of proposed listing,
and appropriate for critical habitat
designation:
(1) Western fanshell—Black River,
Fall River, Middle Fork Little Red River,
St. Francis River, South Fork Spring
River, Spring River, Strawberry River,
and Verdigris River.
(2) ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell—Little
Missouri River, Ouachita River, and
Saline River.
When determining proposed critical
habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid inclusion of developed
areas, such as lands covered by
buildings, pavement, and other
structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary
for the western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical
habitat is finalized as proposed, a
Federal action involving these lands
would not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification
unless the specific action would affect
the physical or biological features in the
adjacent critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical
habitat lands that we have determined
are occupied at the time of listing (that
is, currently occupied) and that contain
one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support
life-history processes of the species.
We are proposing to designate as
critical habitat nine units for the
western fanshell and four units for the
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell based on one or
more of the physical or biological
features being present to support the
western fanshell’s or ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell’s life-history processes. Some
units contain all of the identified
physical or biological features and
support multiple life-history processes.
Some units contain only some of the
physical or biological features necessary
to support the western fanshell’s and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell’s particular use of
that habitat.
The proposed critical habitat
designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document under Proposed
Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the
boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this
document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061 and on our
internet sites https://www.fws.gov/
midwest/ for western fanshell and
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ for
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate
approximately 360 river miles (river mi)
(579 kilometers (km)) in nine units as
critical habitat for western fanshell and
approximately 294 river mi (474 km) in
four units for ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. The
critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for western fanshell and
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell. All units are
occupied by their respective species.
The nine areas we propose as critical
habitat for western fanshell are: (1)
Upper Black River, (2) Lower Black/
Strawberry River, (3) Fall River, (4)
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Middle Fork Little Red River, (5) St.
Francis River, (6) South Fork Spring
River, (7) Spring River (AR), (8) Spring
River (MO/KS), and (9) Verdigris River.
The four areas we propose as critical
habitat for ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell are: (1)
Little Missouri River, (2) Ouachita
Headwaters, (3) Ouachita River, and (4)
12357
Saline River. Tables 2 and 3 show the
proposed critical habitat units and the
approximate area of each unit.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR WESTERN FANSHELL
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
River miles
(kilometers)
Critical habitat unit
Adjacent riparian land ownership by type
WF 1. Upper Black River ................................................................................
WF 9. Verdigris River .....................................................................................
Public (Federal, State) ...........................................
Private ....................................................................
Public (State) ..........................................................
Private ....................................................................
Private ....................................................................
Public (Federal) ......................................................
Private ....................................................................
Public (Federal, State) ...........................................
Private ....................................................................
Private ....................................................................
Private ....................................................................
Public (State) ..........................................................
Private ....................................................................
Private ....................................................................
13.7 (22)
51 (82.1)
10.9 (17.5)
100.4 (161.6)
45.5 (73.2)
3.5 (5.6)
30.6 (49.2)
12.6 (20.2)
36.7 (59.1)
13.4 (21.6)
14.2 (22.9)
1.0 (1.6)
14.0 (22.5)
12.4 (20)
Totals .......................................................................................................
Public ......................................................................
41.7 (67.1)
Private ....................................................................
Total ................................................................
318.2 (512.1)
359.9 (579.2)
WF 2. Lower Black/Strawberry River .............................................................
WF 3. Fall River ..............................................................................................
WF 4. Middle Fork Little Red River ................................................................
WF 5. St. Francis River ..................................................................................
WF 6. South Fork Spring River ......................................................................
WF 7. Spring River (AR) ................................................................................
WF 8. Spring River (MO/KS) ..........................................................................
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
TABLE 3—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR ‘‘OUACHITA’’ FANSHELL
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
River miles
(kilometers)
Critical habitat unit
Adjacent riparian land ownership by type
OF 1. Little Missouri River ..............................................................................
OF 2. Ouachita Headwaters ...........................................................................
Private ....................................................................
Public (Federal) ......................................................
Private ....................................................................
Private ....................................................................
Public (State) ..........................................................
Private ....................................................................
22.9 (36.9)
2.8 (4.5)
29.9 (48.1)
53.5 (86.1)
0.5 (0.8)
184.8 (297.4)
Public ......................................................................
Private ....................................................................
3.3 (5.3)
291.1 (468.5)
Total ................................................................
294.4 (473.8)
OF 3. Ouachita River ......................................................................................
OF 4. Saline River ..........................................................................................
Totals .......................................................................................................
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
western fanshell or ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell,
below.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
WF 1: Upper Black River
Unit WF 1 consists of 64.7 river mi
(104.1 km) of Black River in Butler and
Wayne Counties, Missouri, from
Clearwater Dam southwest of Piedmont,
Wayne County, extending downstream
to Butler County Road 658 crossing
southeast of Poplar Bluff, Butler County,
and includes the river channel up to the
ordinary high water mark. Riparian
lands that border the unit include
approximately 51 river mi (82.1 km; 79
percent) in private ownership and 13.7
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
river mi (22 km; 21 percent) in public
(Federal or State) ownership.
Approximately 2.7 miles of the public
ownership in this unit are State lands
associated with Missouri Department of
Conservation’s (MDC) Bradley A.
Hammer Memorial Conservation Area,
Dan River Access, Hilliard Access, and
Stephen J. Sun Conservation Area.
Eleven miles are Federal land associated
with the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS)
Mark Twain National Forest and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Clearwater Recreation Area. General
land use within the adjacent riparian
areas of this unit includes forest,
agriculture, several State-managed game
lands, the town of Mill Spring, and city
of Poplar Bluff. Clearwater Dam is
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
operated by the USACE. Unit WF 1 is
occupied by the species and contains all
of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species. There is no overlap with any
designated critical habitat for other
listed species.
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from impoundments,
channelization, and point and nonpoint
source water pollution, including
siltation and pollution associated with
agriculture, development, and
wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12358
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 2: Lower Black/Strawberry River
Unit WF 2 consists of 111.3 river mi
(179.1 km) of Black River and
Strawberry River in Independence,
Jackson, Lawrence, and Sharp Counties
in Arkansas and includes the river
channel up to the ordinary high water
mark. Black River makes up 54.6 river
mi (87.9 km) from the mouth of Spring
River northeast of Black Rock, extending
downstream to the mouth of Strawberry
River northeast of Dowdy,
Independence County, Arkansas.
Strawberry River makes up 56.7 river mi
(91.2 km) from the mouth of Lave Creek
north of Evening Shade, Sharp County,
extending downstream to the
confluence with Black River northeast
of Dowdy, Independence County,
Arkansas. Riparian lands that border the
unit include approximately 100.4 river
mi (161.6 km; 90 percent) in private
ownership and 10.9 river mi (17.5 km;
10 percent) in public (State) ownership.
The public land ownership in this unit
is associated with Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission’s Shirey Bay Rainey
Brake Wildlife Management Area on
Black River. The Nature Conservancy’s
Strawberry River Preserve and Ranch on
Strawberry River is also in this unit.
General land use within this unit
includes forest, agriculture, Statemanaged game lands, the town of
Powhatan, and city of Black Rock. Unit
WF 2 is occupied by the species and
contains one or more of the physical or
biological features essential to the
species’ conservation. There is overlap
of 70.3 river mi (113.1 km) of this unit
with designated critical habitat for
rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica
cylindrica) (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80
FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from impoundments,
channelization, and point and nonpoint
source water pollution, including
siltation and pollution associated with
agriculture, development, unpaved
roads, and wastewater treatment plants.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 3: Fall River
Unit WF 3 consists of 45.5 river mi
(73.2 km) of Fall River in Greenwood
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
and Wilson Counties, Kansas, from the
Greenwood County Road 33/Merchants
Avenue crossing at Fall River,
Greenwood County, extending
downstream to the U.S. Route 400
crossing west of Neodesha, Wilson
County, and includes the river channel
up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in
private ownership. General land use
within the adjacent riparian areas of this
unit includes forest, agriculture, and the
city of Fall River. Unit WF 3 is occupied
by the species and contains one or more
of the physical or biological features
essential to the species’ conservation.
There is overlap of 45.5 river mi (73.2
km) of this unit with designated critical
habitat for Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana) (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and
80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from impoundments and point
and nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution
associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, and
wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 4: Middle Fork Little Red River
Unit WF 4 consists of 34.1 river mi
(54.8 km) of Middle Fork Little Red
River in Cleburne, Stone, and Van
Buren Counties, Arkansas, from the
mouth of Linn Creek east of Dennard,
Van Buren County, extending
downstream to the mouth of Wild Goose
Creek north of Fairfield Bay, Cleburne
and Van Buren Counties, and includes
the river channel up to the ordinary
high water mark. Riparian lands that
border the unit include approximately
30.6 river mi (49.2 km; 90 percent) in
private ownership and 3.5 river mi (5.6
km; 10 percent) in public (Federal)
ownership. All of the public land
ownership in this unit is Federal land
associated with the USACE’s Greers
Ferry Recreation Area. General land use
within the adjacent riparian areas of this
unit includes forest, pasture, the town of
Shirley, and the city of Fairfield Bay.
Unit WF 4 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the species’ conservation. There is
overlap of 34.1 river mi (54.9 km) of this
unit with designated critical habitat for
yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei)
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(see 50 CFR 17.95(e) and 77 FR 63604,
October 16, 2012) and rabbitsfoot (see
50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April
30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from impoundments and point
and nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution
associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, and
wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 5: St. Francis River
Unit WF 5 consists of 49.3 river mi
(79.3 km) of St. Francis River in
Madison and Wayne Counties, Missouri,
extending from the mouth of Wachita
Creek west of Fredericktown, Madison
County, downstream to the mouth of Big
Creek northwest of Silva, Wayne
County, and includes the river channel
up to the ordinary high water mark.
Riparian lands that border the unit
include approximately 36.7 river mi
(59.1 km; 74 percent) in private
ownership and 12.6 river mi (20.2 km;
26 percent) in public (Federal or State)
ownership. Approximately 2.4 river mi
of the public ownership in this unit are
State lands associated with MDC’s
Coldwater Conservation Area, Mill
Stream Gardens, and Roselle Access.
Ten miles are Federal land associated
with the USFS’s Mark Twain National
Forest. General land use within the
adjacent riparian areas of this unit is
predominantly forest and pasture with
isolated occurrences of developed areas.
Unit WF 5 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the species’ conservation. There is
overlap of 49.3 river mi (79.3 km) of this
unit with designated critical habitat for
rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80
FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from impoundments and point
and nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution
associated with development, unpaved
roads, and wastewater treatment plants.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
WF 6: South Fork Spring River
Unit WF 6 consists of 13.4 river mi
(21.6 km) of South Fork Spring River in
Fulton County, Arkansas, from the
mouth of Camp Creek east of Salem,
Fulton County, extending downstream
to the Arkansas Highway 289 crossing
northwest of Cherokee Village, Fulton
and Sharp Counties, and includes the
river channel up to the ordinary high
water mark. Approximately 100 percent
of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership. General land
use within the adjacent riparian areas of
this unit is predominantly forest,
agriculture, and pasture with isolated
occurrences of developed areas. Unit
WF 6 is occupied by the species and
contains one or more of the physical or
biological features essential to the
species’ conservation. There is no
overlap with any designated critical
habitat for other listed species.
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from point and nonpoint source
water pollution, including siltation and
pollution associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, and
wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 7: Spring River (AR)
Unit WF 7 consists of 14.2 river mi
(22.9 km) of Spring River in Lawrence
and Randolph Counties, Arkansas, from
the mouth of Wells Creek at Ravenden,
extending downstream to the mouth of
Stennitt Creek southeast of Imboden,
Lawrence County, and includes the
river channel up to the ordinary high
water mark. Approximately 100 percent
of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership. General land
use within the adjacent riparian areas of
this unit includes forest, agriculture,
pasture, and the towns of Imboden and
Ravenden. Unit WF 7 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the species’ conservation. There is
overlap of 14.2 river mi (22.9 km) of this
unit with designated critical habitat for
rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80
FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from point and nonpoint source
water pollution, including siltation and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
pollution associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, and
wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 8: Spring River (MO/KS)
Unit WF 8 consists of 15 river mi
(24.1 km) of Spring River in Jasper
County, Missouri, and Cherokee County,
Kansas, from the mouth of North Fork
Spring River east of Asbury, Jasper
County, Missouri, extending
downstream through Cherokee County,
Kansas, to the mouth of Center Creek
west of Carl Junction, Jasper County,
Missouri, and includes the river channel
up to the ordinary high water mark.
Riparian lands that border the unit
include approximately 14.0 river mi
(22.5 km; 94 percent) in private
ownership and 1.0 river mi (1.6 km; 6
percent) in public (State) ownership.
The public ownership of this unit is
State land associated with the Kansas
Department of Wildlife, Parks and
Tourism’s Spring River Wildlife Area.
General land use within the adjacent
riparian areas of this unit is
predominantly forest, agriculture,
pasture, and State-managed lands with
isolated occurrences of developed areas.
Unit WF 8 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the species’ conservation. There is
overlap of 15 river mi (24.1 km) of this
unit with designated critical habitat for
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot (see 50
CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April 30,
2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from point and nonpoint source
water pollution, including siltation and
pollution associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads,
wastewater treatment plants, and
historical heavy metal mining. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, wastewater treatment
plants, and heavy metal contamination
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 9: Verdigris River
Unit WF 9 consists of 12.4 river mi
(20 km) of Verdigris River in
Montgomery and Wilson Counties,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12359
Kansas, from the mouth of Fall River
south of Neodesha, Wilson County,
extending downstream to the mouth of
Choteau Creek northeast of
Independence, Montgomery County,
and includes the river channel up to the
ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in
private ownership. General land use
within the adjacent riparian areas of this
unit is predominantly forest and
agriculture with isolated occurrences of
developed areas. Unit WF 9 is occupied
by the species and contains one or more
of the physical or biological features
essential to the species’ conservation.
There is overlap of 12.4 river mi (20 km)
of this unit with designated critical
habitat for Neosho mucket (see 50 CFR
17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April 30,
2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include degradation of habitat and water
quality from point and nonpoint source
water pollution, including siltation and
pollution associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, and
wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
OF 1: Little Missouri River
Unit OF 1 consists of 22.9 river mi
(36.9 km) of Little Missouri River in
Clark, Nevada, and Ouachita Counties,
Arkansas, from the mouth of Garland
Creek northeast of Prescott, Nevada
County, downstream to the mouth of
Horse Branch north of Red Hill,
Ouachita County, and includes the river
channel up to the ordinary high water
mark. Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in
private ownership. General land use
within the adjacent riparian areas of this
unit includes forest and agriculture.
Unit OF 1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the species’ conservation. There is no
overlap with any designated critical
habitat for other listed species.
Threats identified within the unit
include dams, impoundments, and
point and nonpoint source water
pollution, including siltation and
pollution associated with a variety of
land uses. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include reducing water quality
degradation and habitat loss and
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12360
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
fragmentation (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
OF 2: Ouachita Headwaters
Unit OF 2 consists of 32.7 river mi
(52.6 km) of Ouachita River in
Montgomery and Polk Counties,
Arkansas, from the County Road 67
crossing south of Cherry Hill, Polk
County, downstream to the U.S. Route
270 crossing southeast of Pencil Bluff,
Montgomery County, and includes the
river channel up to the ordinary high
water mark. Riparian lands that border
the unit include approximately 29.9
river mi (48.1 km; 91 percent) in private
ownership and 2.8 river mi (4.5 km; 9
percent) in public (Federal) ownership.
The public ownership in this unit is
Federal land associated with USFS’s
Ouachita National Forest. General land
use within the adjacent riparian areas of
this unit includes forest and agriculture.
Unit OF 2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the species’ conservation. There is no
overlap with any designated critical
habitat for other listed species.
Threats identified within the unit
include impoundments and point and
nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution
associated with a variety of land uses.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss and fragmentation (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
OF 3: Ouachita River
Unit OF 3 consists of 53.5 river mi
(86.1 km) of Ouachita River in Clark,
Dallas, and Ouachita Counties,
Arkansas, from the mouth of L’Eau Frais
Creek southeast of Arkadelphia, Clark
County, downstream to the mouth of
Ecore Fabre Bayou north of Camden,
Ouachita County, and includes the river
channel up to the ordinary high water
mark. Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in
private ownership. There is a Wetlands
Reserve Program easement within the
unit. General land use within the
adjacent riparian areas of this unit
includes forest, agriculture, and pasture.
Unit OF 3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the species’ conservation. There is
overlap of 22.8 river mi (36.7 km) of this
unit with designated critical habitat for
rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80
FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include dams, impoundments, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
point and nonpoint source water
pollution, including siltation and
pollution associated with a variety of
land uses. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include reducing water quality
degradation and habitat loss and
fragmentation (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
OF 4: Saline River
Unit OF 4 consists of 185.3 river mi
(298.2 km) of Saline River in Ashley,
Bradley, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Grant,
and Saline Counties, Arkansas, from the
mouth of North Fork Saline River north
of Benton, Saline County, downstream
to the mouth of Mill Creek north of
Stillions, Ashley County, and includes
the river channel up to the ordinary
high water mark. Approximately 100
percent of the riparian lands that border
the unit are in private ownership and
less than 1 percent is in public
ownership. The public ownership in
this unit is State-owned land associated
with Jenkins Ferry State Park. General
land use within the adjacent riparian
areas of this unit includes forest,
agriculture, pasture, the town of Tull,
and the city of Benton. Unit OF 4 is
occupied by the species and contains
one or more of the physical or biological
features essential to the species’
conservation. There is overlap of 185.3
river mi (298.2 km) of this unit with
designated critical habitat for the
rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80
FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit
include dams, impoundments, mining,
development, and point and nonpoint
source water pollution, including
siltation and pollution associated with
development in the headwaters and a
variety of other land uses. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing water quality degradation and
habitat loss and fragmentation (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 rule revising the
definition of destruction or adverse
modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR
44976). Destruction or adverse
modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes
the value of critical habitat as a whole
for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat—and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded,
authorized, or carried out by a Federal
agency—do not require section 7
consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) is documented through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director’s
opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of
the listed species and/or avoid the
likelihood of destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth
requirements for Federal agencies to
reinitiate formal consultation on
previously reviewed actions. These
requirements apply when the Federal
agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action
(or the agency’s discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by
law) and, subsequent to the previous
consultation: (1) If the amount or extent
of taking specified in the incidental take
statement is exceeded; (2) if new
information reveals effects of the action
that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not
previously considered; (3) if the
identified action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an
effect to the listed species or critical
habitat that was not considered in the
biological opinion; or (4) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the
identified action. In such situations,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us, but the regulations also specify some
exceptions to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation on specific land
management plans after subsequently
listing a new species or designating new
critical habitat. See the regulations for a
description of those exceptions.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Application of the ‘‘Destruction or
Adverse Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the
destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether
implementation of the proposed Federal
action directly or indirectly alters the
designated critical habitat in a way that
appreciably diminishes the value of the
critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of the listed species. As
discussed above, the role of critical
habitat is to support physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of a listed species and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
provide for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by
destroying or adversely modifying such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that the Service may,
during a consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat include, but are not limited to,
actions that would: (1) Alter the
geomorphology of the species’ stream
and river habitats (for example, instream
excavation or dredging, impoundment,
channelization, sand and gravel mining,
clearing riparian vegetation, and
discharge of fill materials); (2)
significantly alter the existing flow
regime where these species occur (for
example, impoundment, urban
development, water diversion, water
withdrawal, water draw-down, and
hydropower generation); (3)
significantly alter water chemistry or
water quality (for example, hydropower
discharges, or the release of chemicals,
biological pollutants, or heated effluents
into surface water or connected
groundwater at a point source or by
dispersed release (nonpoint source));
and (4) significantly alter stream bed
material composition and quality by
increasing sediment deposition or
filamentous algal growth (for example,
construction projects, gravel and sand
mining, oil and gas development, coal
mining, livestock grazing, irresponsible
logging practices, and other watershed
and floodplain disturbances that release
sediments or nutrients into the water).
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the
Secretary shall not designate as critical
habitat any lands or other geographical
areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense (DoD), 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. No
DoD lands with a completed INRMP are
within the proposed critical habitat
designation.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12361
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national
security, or any other relevant impacts.
In considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If the analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the
Secretary may exercise discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species. In making the determination to
exclude a particular area, the statute on
its face, as well as the legislative history,
are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to
use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
We describe below the process that
we undertook for taking into
consideration each category of impacts
and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its
implementing regulations require that
we consider the economic impact that
may result from a designation of critical
habitat. To assess the probable
economic impacts of a designation, we
must first evaluate specific land uses or
activities and projects that may occur in
the area of the critical habitat. We then
must evaluate the impacts that a specific
critical habitat designation may have on
restricting or modifying specific land
uses or activities for the benefit of the
species and its habitat within the areas
proposed. We then identify which
conservation efforts may be the result of
the species being listed under the Act
versus those attributed solely to the
designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable
economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by
comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical
habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’
The ‘‘without critical habitat’’
scenario represents the baseline for the
analysis, which includes the existing
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
12362
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
regulatory and socio-economic burden
imposed on landowners, managers, or
other resource users potentially affected
by the designation of critical habitat (for
example, under the Federal listing as
well as other Federal, State, and local
regulations). Therefore, the baseline
represents the costs of all efforts
attributable to the listing of the species
under the Act (that is, conservation of
the species and its habitat incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenario describes the incremental
impacts associated specifically with the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. The incremental conservation
efforts and associated impacts would
not be expected without the designation
of critical habitat for the species. In
other words, the incremental costs are
those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and
beyond the baseline costs. These are the
costs we use when evaluating the
benefits of inclusion and exclusion of
particular areas from the final
designation of critical habitat should we
choose to conduct a discretionary
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we
developed an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) considering the
probable incremental economic impacts
that may result from this proposed
designation of critical habitat. The
information contained in our IEM was
then used to develop a screening
analysis of the probable effects of the
designation of critical habitat for the
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell (Industrial Economics, Inc.
2021, entire). We began by conducting
a screening analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat in order to
focus our analysis on the key factors
that are likely to result in incremental
economic impacts. The purpose of the
screening analysis is to filter out
particular geographic areas of critical
habitat that are already subject to such
protections and are, therefore, unlikely
to incur incremental economic impacts.
In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (that is, absent
critical habitat designation) and
includes any probable incremental
economic impacts where land and water
use may already be subject to
conservation plans, land management
plans, best management practices, or
regulations that protect the habitat area
as a result of the Federal listing status
of the species. Ultimately, the screening
analysis allows us to focus our analysis
on evaluating the specific areas or
sectors that may incur probable
incremental economic impacts as a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
result of the designation. If the proposed
critical habitat designation contains any
unoccupied units, the screening
analysis assesses whether those units
require additional management or
conservation efforts that may incur
incremental economic impacts. This
screening analysis combined with the
information contained in our IEM
constitute what we consider to be our
draft economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed critical habitat designations
for the western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell; our DEA is summarized in the
narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct Federal agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives in quantitative
(to the extent feasible) and qualitative
terms. Consistent with the E.O.
regulatory analysis requirements, our
effects analysis under the Act may take
into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly affected entities,
where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess
to the extent practicable the probable
impacts to both directly and indirectly
affected entities. As part of our
screening analysis, we considered the
types of economic activities that are
likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat
designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts
that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell, first we identified, in the IEM
dated February 1, 2021, probable
incremental economic impacts
associated with the following categories
of activities: Instream excavation or
dredging; impoundments;
channelization; sand and gravel mining;
clearing riparian vegetation; discharge
of fill materials; urban development;
water diversion; water withdrawal;
water draw-down; hydropower
generation and discharges; release of
chemicals, biological pollutants, or
heated effluents into surface water or
connected ground water at a point
source or by dispersed release
(nonpoint); construction projects; oil
and gas development; coal mining;
livestock grazing; timber harvest; and
other watershed or floodplain
disturbances that release sediments or
nutrients into the water. We considered
each industry or category individually.
Additionally, we considered whether
their activities have any Federal
involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; under the Act, designation
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of critical habitat affects only activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or
authorized by Federal agencies. If we
list these species, in areas where the
western fanshell or ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
are present, Federal agencies would be
required to consult with the Service
under section 7 of the Act on activities
they fund, permit, or implement that
may affect the species. If, when we list
these species, we also finalize this
proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations would include an
evaluation of measures to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify
the distinction between the effects that
would result from the species being
listed and those attributable to the
critical habitat designation (that is,
difference between the jeopardy and
adverse modification standards) for the
western fanshell’s and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell’s critical habitat. Because the
designation of critical habitat for
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell is proposed concurrently with
the listing, it has been our experience
that it is more difficult to discern which
conservation efforts are attributable to
the species being listed and those which
would result solely from the designation
of critical habitat. However, the
following specific circumstances in this
case help to inform our evaluation: (1)
The essential physical or biological
features identified for critical habitat are
the same features essential for the life
requisites of the species, and (2) any
actions that would result in sufficient
harm or harassment to constitute
jeopardy to the western fanshell or
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell would also likely
adversely affect the essential physical or
biological features of critical habitat.
The IEM outlines our rationale
concerning this limited distinction
between baseline conservation efforts
and incremental impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for this
species. This evaluation of the
incremental effects has been used as the
basis to evaluate the probable
incremental economic impacts of this
proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat
designation for the western fanshell
includes nine units, all of which are
occupied by the species. Ownership of
riparian lands adjacent to the proposed
units includes 318.2 river mi (512.1 km;
88 percent) in private ownership and
41.7 river mi (67.1 km; 12 percent) in
public (Federal or State) ownership. The
proposed critical habitat designation for
the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell includes four
units, all of which are occupied by the
species. Ownership of riparian lands
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
adjacent to the proposed units includes
291.1 river mi (468.5 km; 99 percent) in
private ownership and 3.3 river mi (5.3
km; 1 percent) in public (Federal or
State) ownership.
Total incremental costs of critical
habitat designation for the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell are not
expected to exceed $79,000 (2021
dollars) per year. The costs are reflective
of: (1) All proposed units are considered
occupied, (2) project modifications
requested to avoid adverse modification
are likely to be the same as those
recommended to avoid jeopardy in
occupied habitat for these species, and
(3) the proposed designations receive
baseline protection from the presence of
critical habitat for co-occurring listed
mussel species with similar habitat
needs in 60 percent of the proposed
western fanshell critical habitat and in
71 percent of the proposed ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell critical habitat. Because
consultation would be required as a
result of the listing of the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell and is
already required in some of these areas
as a result of the presence of other listed
species and critical habitats, the
economic costs of the critical habitat
designation would likely be primarily
limited to additional administrative
efforts to consider adverse modification
for these two species in section 7
consultations.
Based on the consultation history
regarding historical projects and
activities overlapping the proposed
critical habitat area for the western
fanshell, the number of future
consultations, including technical
assistance efforts, is likely to be no more
than 23 per year across all nine units.
Based on the consultation history
regarding historical projects and
activities overlapping the proposed
critical habitat area for the ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell, the number of future
consultations, including technical
assistance efforts, is likely to be no more
than 15 per year across all four units.
Overall, transportation and utilities
activities are expected to result in the
largest portion of consultations for both
the western and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshells
and, therefore, incur the highest costs.
The geographic distribution of future
section 7 consultations and associated
costs are likely to be most heavily
concentrated in western fanshell
proposed Unit 2 and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell proposed Unit 4. However,
even assuming consultation activity
increases substantially, incremental
administrative costs are still likely to
remain well under $100 million per
year.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
We are soliciting data and comments
from the public on the DEA discussed
above, as well as on all aspects of this
proposed rule and our required
determinations. During the development
of a final designation, we will consider
the information presented in the DEA
and any additional information on
economic impacts we receive during the
public comment period to determine
whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under authority of section
4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we
receive credible information regarding
the existence of a meaningful economic
or other relevant impact supporting a
benefit of exclusion, we will conduct an
exclusion analysis for the relevant area
or areas. We may also exercise the
discretion to evaluate any other
particular areas for possible exclusion.
Furthermore, when we conduct an
exclusion analysis based on impacts
identified by experts in, or sources with
firsthand knowledge about, impacts that
are outside the scope of the Service’s
expertise, we will give weight to those
impacts consistent with the expert or
firsthand information unless we have
rebutting information. We may exclude
an area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the area outweigh the benefits of
including the area, provided the
exclusion will not result in the
extinction of either species.
Consideration of National Security
Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may
not cover all DoD lands or areas that
pose potential national-security
concerns (for example, a DoD
installation that is in the process of
revising its INRMP for a newly listed
species or a species previously not
covered). If a particular area is not
covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then
national-security or homeland-security
concerns are not a factor in the process
of determining what areas meet the
definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’
However, the Service must still consider
impacts on national security, including
homeland security, on those lands or
areas not covered by section
4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 4(b)(2)
requires the Service to consider those
impacts whenever it designates critical
habitat. Accordingly, if DoD,
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), or another Federal agency has
requested exclusion based on an
assertion of national-security or
homeland-security concerns, or we have
otherwise identified national-security or
homeland-security impacts from
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12363
designating particular areas as critical
habitat, we generally have reason to
consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically
exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests
exclusion from critical habitat on the
basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, we must conduct an
exclusion analysis if the Federal
requester provides credible information,
including a reasonably specific
justification of an incremental impact
on national security that would result
from the designation of that specific
area as critical habitat. That justification
could include demonstration of
probable impacts, such as impacts to
ongoing border-security patrols and
surveillance activities, or a delay in
training or facility construction, as a
result of compliance with section 7(a)(2)
of the Act. If the agency requesting the
exclusion does not provide us with a
reasonably specific justification, we will
contact the agency to recommend that it
provide a specific justification or
clarification of its concerns relative to
the probable incremental impact that
could result from the designation. If we
conduct an exclusion analysis because
the agency provides a reasonably
specific justification or because we
decide to exercise the discretion to
conduct an exclusion analysis, we will
defer to the expert judgment of DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency as to:
(1) Whether activities on its lands or
waters, or its activities on other lands or
waters, have national-security or
homeland-security implications; (2) the
importance of those implications; and
(3) the degree to which the cited
implications would be adversely
affected in the absence of an exclusion.
In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion
analysis, we will give great weight to
national-security and homeland-security
concerns in analyzing the benefits of
exclusion.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
also consider whether a nationalsecurity or homeland-security impact
might exist on lands not owned or
managed by DoD or DHS. In preparing
this proposal, we have determined that
the lands within the proposed
designation of critical habitat for
western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell are not owned or managed by
the DoD or DHS. Therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national
security. However, if through the public
comment period we receive credible
information regarding impacts on
national security or homeland security
from designating particular areas as
critical habitat, then as part of
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12364
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
developing the final designation of
critical habitat, we will conduct a
discretionary exclusion analysis to
determine whether to exclude those
areas under authority of section 4(b)(2)
and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 17.90.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Consideration of Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts on national security discussed
above. Other relevant impacts may
include, but are not limited to, impacts
to Tribes, States, local governments,
public health and safety, community
interests, the environment (such as
increased risk of wildfire or pest and
invasive species management), Federal
lands, and conservation plans,
agreements, or partnerships. To identify
other relevant impacts that may affect
the exclusion analysis, we consider a
number of factors, including whether
there are permitted conservation plans
covering the species in the area—such
as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs),
or candidate conservation agreements
with assurances (CCAAs)—or whether
there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that may
be impaired by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at whether Tribal
conservation plans or partnerships,
Tribal resources, or government-togovernment relationships of the United
States with Tribal entities may be
affected by the designation. We also
consider any State, local, public-health,
community-interest, environmental, or
social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
We have not identified any areas to
consider for exclusion from critical
habitat based on other relevant impacts.
However, during the development of a
final designation, we will consider all
information currently available or
received during the public comment
period. If we receive credible
information regarding the existence of a
meaningful impact supporting a benefit
of excluding any areas, we will
undertake an exclusion analysis and
determine whether those areas should
be excluded from the final critical
habitat designation under the authority
of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. We may
also exercise the discretion to undertake
exclusion analyses for other areas as
well, and we will describe all of our
exclusion analyses as part of a final
critical habitat determination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
Summary of Exclusions Considered
Under 4(b)(2) of the Act
At this time, we are not considering
any exclusions from the proposed
designation based on economic impacts,
national security impacts, or other
relevant impacts—such as partnerships,
management, or protection afforded by
cooperative management efforts—under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In preparing
this proposal, we have determined that
no HCPs or other management plans for
western fanshell or ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
currently exist, 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
and thus, as described above, we are not
considering excluding any particular
areas on the basis of the presence of
conservation agreements or impacts to
trust resources.
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 17.90.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget will review all
significant rules. OIRA has determined
that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (that is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
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
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
whether potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as
understood in light of recent court
decisions, Federal agencies are required
to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities
directly regulated by the rulemaking
itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated
entities. The regulatory mechanism
through which critical habitat
protections are realized is section 7 of
the Act, which requires Federal
agencies, in consultation with the
Service, to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by the
agency is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Therefore, under section 7, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is
our position that only Federal action
agencies would be directly regulated if
we adopt the proposed critical habitat
designations. The RFA does not require
evaluation of the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated.
Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no
small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the
Service certifies that, if made final as
proposed, the proposed critical habitat
designations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered
whether the proposed designations
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For the above reasons and
based on currently available
information, we certify that, if made
final, the proposed critical habitat
designations would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
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.
Facilities that provide energy supply,
distribution, or use occur within some
units of the proposed critical habitat
designations (for example, dams,
pipelines) and may potentially be
affected. We determined that
consultations, technical assistance, and
requests for species lists may be
necessary in some instances. In our
economic analysis, we did not find that
this proposed critical habitat
designation would significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not
produce a Federal mandate. In general,
a Federal mandate is a provision in
legislation, statute, or regulation that
would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or Tribal governments, or
the private sector, and includes both
‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’
and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or Tribal
governments’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12365
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments 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 western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell 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
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12366
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take
permits to permit actions that do require
Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are
prohibited from carrying out, funding,
or authorizing actions that would
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. A takings implications
assessment has been completed for the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for western fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell, and it concludes that, if
adopted, these designations of critical
habitat would not pose significant
takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designations.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects.
A federalism summary impact statement
is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and
coordinated development of these
proposed critical habitat designations
with, appropriate State resource
agencies. From a federalism perspective,
the designation of critical habitat
directly affects only the responsibilities
of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no
other duties with respect to critical
habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a
result, the proposed rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the
States, or on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of powers and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed
designations may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the physical or
biological features of the habitat
necessary for the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist State and
local governments in long-range
planning because they no longer have to
wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would
be required. While non-Federal entities
that receive Federal funding, assistance,
or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
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 would not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the
species, this proposed rule identifies the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. The
proposed areas of designated critical
habitat are presented on maps, and the
proposed rule provides several options
for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements,
and a submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required.
We may not conduct or sponsor and you
are not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
However, when the range of the species
includes States within the Tenth
Circuit, such as that of the western
fanshell, under the Tenth Circuit ruling
in Catron County Board of
Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996),
we undertake a NEPA analysis for
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
critical habitat designation. We invite
the public to comment on the extent to
which this proposed regulation may
have a significant impact on the human
environment, or fall within one of the
categorical exclusions for actions that
have no individual or cumulative effect
on the quality of the human
environment. We will complete our
analysis, in compliance with NEPA,
before finalizing this proposed rule.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
We have determined that no Tribal
lands fall within the boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat for the western
fanshell and ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell, so no
Tribal lands would be affected by the
proposed designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Missouri
Ecological Services Field Office for
western fanshell and the Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office for
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the Fish
and Wildlife Service’s Species
Assessment Team and the Missouri and
Arkansas Ecological Services Field
Offices.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12367
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
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:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
Common name
*
CLAMS
Where listed
*
Status
*
*
Wherever found ..............
T
Fanshell, western ............
Cyprogenia aberti ...........
Wherever found ..............
T
■
*
3. Add § 17.45 to read as follows:
§ 17.45
Special rules—snails and clams.
(a)–(d) [Reserved]
(e) ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell (Cyprogenia
cf. aberti) and western fanshell
(Cyprogenia aberti).
(1) Prohibitions. The following
prohibitions that apply to endangered
wildlife also apply to the ‘‘Ouachita’’
fanshell and western fanshell. Except as
provided under paragraph (e)(2) of this
section and §§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is
unlawful for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to
commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit
another to commit, or cause to be
committed, any of the following acts in
regard to this species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at
§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1)
for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with
unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth
at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in
the course of commercial activity, as set
forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered
wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth
at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In
regard to this species, you may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by
a permit under § 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2)
through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b).
(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise
lawful activity caused by:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
*
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
*
*
[Federal Register
final rule]; 50
17.95(f).CH
[Federal Register
final rule]; 50
17.95(f).CH
*
Sfmt 4702
*
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
(A) Channel and bank restoration
projects for creation of natural,
physically stable, ecologically
functioning streams, taking into
consideration connectivity with
floodplain and groundwater aquifers.
These projects can be accomplished
using a variety of methods, but the
desired outcome is a natural channel
with low shear stress (force of water
moving against the channel); bank
heights that enable reconnection to the
floodplain; connection of surface and
groundwater systems, resulting in
perennial flows in the channel; riffles
and pools comprised of existing soil,
rock, and wood instead of large
imported materials; low compaction of
soils within adjacent riparian areas; and
inclusion of riparian wetlands. For bank
stabilization projects that use
bioengineering methods to replace
preexisting, bare, eroding stream banks
with vegetated, stable stream banks,
thereby reducing bank erosion and
instream sedimentation and improving
habitat conditions for the species,
stream banks may be stabilized using
native species live stakes (live,
vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped
into the ground in a manner that allows
the stake to take root and grow), native
species live fascines (live branch
cuttings, usually willows, bound
together into long, cigar-shaped
bundles), or native species brush
layering (cuttings or branches of easily
rooted tree species layered between
successive lifts of soil fill). Bank
restoration projects require planting
appropriate native vegetation, including
PO 00000
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
*
Cyprogenia cf. aberti ......
*
*
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries
for ‘‘Fanshell, ‘Ouachita’’’ and
Scientific name
*
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
■
*
Fanshell, ‘‘Ouachita’’ .......
*
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
‘‘Fanshell, western’’ to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under CLAMS to read
as follows:
*
*
*
citation when published as a
CFR 17.45(e); 4d 50 CFR
citation when published as a
CFR 17.45(e); 4d 50 CFR
*
*
woody species appropriate for the
region and habitat. These projects will
not include the sole use of quarried rock
(rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or
gabion structures. To qualify under this
exception, restoration projects must
include the following:
(1) Surveys to determine presence of
‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell and western
fanshell prior to the commencement of
restoration actions;
(2) If either mussel is present,
coordination with the Service’s local
Ecological Services field office for
relocation of ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell and
western fanshell mussels to suitable
habitat outside of the project footprint
prior to project implementation; and
(3) If relocation of mussels occurs,
monitoring of relocated mussels postimplementation of restoration activities.
(B) Silviculture practices and forest
management activities that use Stateapproved best management practices to
protect water and sediment quality and
stream and riparian habitat.
(C) Transportation projects that avoid
or do not include instream disturbance
in waters occupied by the species.
(v) Possess and engage in other acts
with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set
forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered
wildlife.
■ 4. Amend § 17.95(f) by adding entries
for ‘‘ ‘Ouachita’ Fanshell (Cyprogenia cf.
aberti)’’ and ‘‘Western Fanshell
(Cyprogenia aberti)’’ immediately
following the entry for ‘‘Appalachian
Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)’’, to
read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
12368
§ 17.95
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Clams and Snails.
*
*
*
*
*
‘‘Ouachita’’ Fanshell (Cyprogenia cf.
aberti)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Ashley, Bradley, Clark, Cleveland,
Dallas, Drew, Grant, Montgomery,
Nevada, Ouachita, Polk, and Saline
Counties, Arkansas, on the maps in this
entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell
consist of the following components:
(i) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic
flow regime (magnitude, timing,
frequency, duration, rate of change, and
overall seasonality of discharge over
time), necessary to maintain benthic
habitats where the species is found and
to maintain stream connectivity,
specifically providing for the exchange
of nutrients and sediment for
maintenance of the mussel’s and fish
hosts’ habitat and food availability,
maintenance of spawning habitat for
native host fishes, and the ability for
newly transformed juveniles to settle
and become established in their
habitats. Adequate flows ensure
delivery of oxygen, enable reproduction,
deliver food to filter-feeding mussels,
and reduce contaminants and fine
sediments from interstitial spaces.
(ii) Suitable substrates and connected
instream habitats, characterized by
geomorphically stable stream channels
and banks (that is, channels that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
maintain lateral dimensions,
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity
patterns over time without an aggrading
or degrading bed elevation) with
habitats that support a diversity of
freshwater mussel and native fish (such
as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that
provide flow refuges consisting of siltfree gravel and coarse sand substrates).
(iii) Water and sediment quality
necessary to sustain natural
physiological processes for normal
behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages, including, but not limited to:
Dissolved oxygen (generally above 3
parts per million (ppm)) and water
temperature (generally below 80 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F) (27 degrees Celsius (°C)).
Additionally, water and sediment
should be low in ammonia (generally
below 1.0 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen)
and heavy metals, and lack excessive
total suspended solids and other
pollutants.
(iv) The presence and abundance of
fish hosts necessary for recruitment of
the ‘‘Ouachita’’ fanshell, including
logperch (Percina caprodes),
slenderhead darter (Percina
phoxocephala), or orangebelly darter
(Etheostoma radiosum).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of the
rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units
were created by overlaying Natural
Heritage Element Occurrence data and
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic data
for stream reaches using ESRI ArcGIS
mapping software. Critical habitat unit
upstream and downstream limits were
delineated at the nearest road crossing
or stream confluence of each occupied
reach. Data layers defining map units
were created with U.S. Geological
Survey National Hydrography Dataset
(NHD) Medium Flowline data. ArcGIS
was also used to calculate river
kilometers and river miles from the
NHD dataset, and it was used to
determine longitude and latitude
coordinates in decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping and
calculating distances and locations
within the units was EPSG:4269–
NAD83 Geographic. Natural Heritage
program and State mussel database
species presence data from Arkansas
were used to select specific river and
stream segments for inclusion in the
critical habitat layer. The maps in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available
to the public at the Service’s internet
site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/,
at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061, and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
12369
Index Map: "Ouachita" Fanshell Critical Habitat Units
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
Critical Habitat
-
State Boundaries
o
9
N ,
18 Miles
,. . .,-':;:=,'::.-:;::.-:::.:-, . . . . · ........ ·. . . .
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
o
(6) Unit OF 1: Little Missouri River;
Clark, Nevada, and Ouachita Counties,
Arkansas.
(i) Unit OF 1 consists of 22.9 river
miles (mi) (36.9 kilometers (km)) of
Little Missouri River in Clark, Nevada,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
18.5
37 Kilometers
A
and Ouachita Counties, Arkansas, from
the mouth of Garland Creek northeast of
Prescott, Nevada County, downstream to
the mouth of Horse Branch north of Red
Hill, Ouachita County, and includes the
river channel up to the ordinary high
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
water mark. Approximately 100 percent
of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit OF 1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.003
-
12370
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat for "Ouachita" Fanshell
OF1 Little Missouri River; Clark, Nevada, and Ouachita Counties, Arkansas
Clark County
Garland Cr
•
Red Hill
Nevada County
Ouachita County
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
-.,,,. State Boundary
River
Waterbody
(7) Unit OF 2: Ouachita Headwaters;
Montgomery and Polk Counties,
Arkansas.
(i) Unit OF 2 consists of 32.7 river mi
(52.6 km) of Ouachita River in
Montgomery and Polk Counties,
Arkansas, from the County Road 67
crossing south of Cherry Hill, Polk
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N
A
1 inch = 5 Kilometers
1 inch = 3 miles
County, downstream to the U.S. Route
270 crossing southeast of Pencil Bluff,
Montgomery County, and includes the
river channel up to the ordinary high
water mark. Riparian lands that border
the unit include approximately 29.9
river mi (48.1 km; 91 percent) in private
ownership and 2.8 river mi (4.5 km; 9
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percent) in public (Federal) ownership.
The public ownership in this unit is
Federal land associated with the U.S.
Forest Service’s Ouachita National
Forest.
(ii) Map of Unit OF 2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.004
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
-
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
12371
Critical Habitat for "Ouachita" Fanshell
OF2 Ouachita Headwaters; Montgomery and Polk Counties, Arkansas
Scott County
f
I • • • • • • • •
Montgomery
County
Polk County
-
Critical Habitat
MajorRoad
----- County Boundary
State Boundary
- - River
Waterbody
N
(8) Unit OF 3: Ouachita River; Clark,
Dallas, and Ouachita Counties,
Arkansas.
(i) Unit OF 3 consists of 53.5 river mi
(86.1 km) of Ouachita River in Clark,
Dallas, and Ouachita Counties,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
A
1 inch = 6 Kilometers
1 inch = 4 miles
Arkansas, from the mouth of L’Eau Frais
Creek southeast of Arkadelphia, Clark
County, downstream to the mouth of
Ecore Fabre Bayou north of Camden,
Ouachita County, and includes the river
channel up to the ordinary high water
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mark. Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in
private ownership. There is a Wetlands
Reserve Program easement within the
unit.
(ii) Map of Unit OF 3 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.005
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
=
12372
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat for "Ouachita" Fanshell
OF3 Ouachita River; Clark, Danas, and Ouachita Counties, Arkansas
Dallas county
Clark County
Ouachita
County
Nevada
County
,
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
State' Boundary
River
Waterbody
(9) Unit OF 4: Saline River; Ashley,
Bradley, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Grant,
and Saline Counties, Arkansas.
(i) Unit OF 4 consists of 185.3 river
mi (298.2 km) of Saline River in Ashley,
Bradley, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Grant,
and Saline Counties, Arkansas, from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N
A
1 inch
= 11 Kilometers
1 inch = 7 miles
mouth of North Fork Saline River north
of Benton, Saline County, downstream
to the mouth of Mill Creek north of
Stillions, Ashley County, and includes
the river channel up to the ordinary
high water mark. Approximately 100
percent of the riparian lands that border
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the unit are in private ownership and
less than 1 percent is in public
ownership. The public ownership in
this unit is State-owned land associated
with Jenkins Ferry State Park.
(ii) Map of Unit OF 4 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.006
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
-~-----
Calhoun
County
12373
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat for "Ouachita" Fanshell
OF4 Saline River; Ashley, Bradley, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Grant, and Saline
Counties, Arkansas
Dallas County
..,.,.··~;,;··;.,_·;..;·
.
:,:..;.;•:..··..:··..;·'...;·;,;;·;,,;,.;;."'
.
.;,;;,.·,
~
Drew county
Bradley
County
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
State Boundary
River
Waterbody
Western Fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Cleburne, Fulton, Independence,
Jackson, Lawrence, Randolph, Sharp,
Stone, and Van Buren Counties,
Arkansas; Cherokee, Greenwood,
Montgomery, and Wilson Counties,
Kansas; and Butler, Jasper, Madison,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N
A
1 inch = 34 Kilometers
1 inch = 21 miles
and Wayne Counties, Missouri, on the
maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of western fanshell consist
of the following components:
(i) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic
flow regime (magnitude, timing,
frequency, duration, rate of change, and
overall seasonality of discharge over
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
time), necessary to maintain benthic
habitats where the species is found and
to maintain stream connectivity,
specifically providing for the exchange
of nutrients and sediment for
maintenance of the mussel’s and fish
hosts’ habitat and food availability,
maintenance of spawning habitat for
native host fishes, and the ability for
newly transformed juveniles to settle
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.007
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
--~----
12374
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
and become established in their
habitats. Adequate flows ensure
delivery of oxygen, enable reproduction,
deliver food to filter-feeding mussels,
and reduce contaminants and fine
sediments from interstitial spaces.
(ii) Suitable substrates and connected
instream habitats, characterized by
geomorphically stable stream channels
and banks (that is, channels that
maintain lateral dimensions,
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity
patterns over time without an aggrading
or degrading bed elevation) with
habitats that support a diversity of
freshwater mussel and native fish (such
as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that
provide flow refuges consisting of siltfree gravel and coarse sand substrates).
(iii) Water and sediment quality
necessary to sustain natural
physiological processes for normal
behavior, growth, and viability of all life
stages, including, but not limited to:
dissolved oxygen (generally above 3
parts per million (ppm)) and water
temperature (generally below 80 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F) (27 degrees Celsius (°C)).
Additionally, water and sediment
should be low in ammonia (generally
below 1.0 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen)
and heavy metals, and lack excessive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
total suspended solids and other
pollutants.
(iv) The presence and abundance of
fish hosts necessary for recruitment of
the western fanshell, including logperch
(Percina caprodes), rainbow darter
(Etheostoma caeruleum), slenderhead
darter (Percina phoxocephala), fantail
darter (Etheostoma flabellare), or
orangebelly darter (Etheostoma
radiosum).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of the
rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units
were created by overlaying Natural
Heritage Element Occurrence data and
U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic data
for stream reaches using ESRI ArcGIS
mapping software. Critical habitat unit
upstream and downstream limits were
delineated at the nearest road crossing
or stream confluence of each occupied
reach. Data layers defining map units
were created with U.S. Geological
Survey National Hydrography Dataset
(NHD) Medium Flowline data. ArcGIS
was also used to calculate river
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
kilometers and river miles from the
NHD dataset, and it was used to
determine longitude and latitude
coordinates in decimal degrees. The
projection used in mapping and
calculating distances and locations
within the units was EPSG:4269–
NAD83 Geographic. Natural Heritage
program and State mussel database
species presence data from Arkansas,
Kansas, and Missouri were used to
select specific river and stream
segments for inclusion in the critical
habitat layer. The maps in this entry, as
modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available
to the public at the Service’s internet
site at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/, at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R3–ES–2021–0061, and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
12375
Index Map: Western Fanshell
Critical Habitat Units
AN AS
- - - Critical Habitat
State Boundaries
o
26.5
53 Miles
N .
I .........,,_,,..I.,..,
'
I-,I
,-I
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
o
(6) Unit WF 1: Upper Black River;
Butler and Wayne Counties, Missouri.
(i) Unit WF 1 consists of 64.7 river
miles (mi) (104.1 kilometers (km)) of
Black River in Butler and Wayne
Counties, Missouri, from Clearwater
Dam southwest of Piedmont, Wayne
County, extending downstream to Butler
County Road 658 crossing southeast of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
so
A
.
oo Kilometers
1
Poplar Bluff, Butler County, and
includes the river channel up to the
ordinary high water mark. Riparian
lands that border the unit include
approximately 51 river mi (82.1 km; 79
percent) in private ownership and 13.7
river mi (22 km; 21 percent) in public
(Federal or State) ownership.
Approximately 2.7 miles of the public
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
•
ownership in this unit are State lands
associated with Missouri Department of
Conservation’s (MDC) Bradley A.
Hammer Memorial Conservation Area,
Dan River Access, Hilliard Access, and
Stephen J. Sun Conservation Area.
Eleven miles are Federal land associated
with the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS)
Mark Twain National Forest and U.S.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.008
-
12376
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Clearwater Recreation Area.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 1 follows:
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF1 Upper Black River; Butler and Wayne Counties, Missouri
Carter County
Ripley County
Critical Habitat
==-=- Major Road
----- County Boundary
State Boundary
- - River
Waterbody
(7) Unit WF 2: Lower Black/
Strawberry River; Independence,
Jackson, Lawrence, and Sharp Counties,
Arkansas.
(i) Unit WF 2 consists of 111.3 river
mi (179.1 km) of Black River and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N
A
1 inch = 12 Kilometers
1 inch = 8 miles
Strawberry River in Independence,
Jackson, Lawrence, and Sharp Counties
in Arkansas, and includes the river
channel up to the ordinary high water
mark. Black River makes up 54.6 river
mi (87.9 km) from the mouth of Spring
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
River northeast of Black Rock, extending
downstream to the mouth of Strawberry
River northeast of Dowdy,
Independence County. Strawberry River
makes up 56.7 river mi (91.2 km) from
the mouth of Lave Creek north of
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.009
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
-
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Evening Shade, Sharp County,
extending downstream to the
confluence with Black River northeast
of Dowdy, Independence County.
Riparian lands that border the unit
include approximately 100.4 river mi
(161.6 km; 90 percent) in private
ownership and 10.9 river mi (17.5 km;
10 percent) in public (State) ownership.
The public land ownership in this unit
is associated with Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission’s Shirey Bay Rainey
12377
Brake Wildlife Management Area on
Black River. The Nature Conservancy’s
Strawberry River Preserve and Ranch on
Strawberry River is also in this unit.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 2 follows:
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF2 Lower Black/Strawberry River; Independence, Jackson, Lawrence, and
Sharp Counties, Arkansas
Fulton County.•••
Randolph County
412c:@
s~~
J
~y
l( ~
~~
tP""
l
r:.r
Lawrence County
-",;:::;=~ti.
•
Dowdy
Independence County
Critical Habitat
= Major Road
-···- County Boundary
State Boundary
- - River
Waterbody
(8) Unit WF 3: Fall River; Greenwood
and Wilson Counties, Kansas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N
A
1 inch = 13 Kilometers
1 inch = 8 miles
(i) Unit WF 3 consists of 45.5 river mi
(73.2 km) of Fall River in Greenwood
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and Wilson Counties, Kansas, from the
Greenwood County Road 33/Merchants
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.010
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
-
12378
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Avenue crossing at Fall River,
Greenwood County, extending
downstream to the U.S. Route 400
crossing west of Neodesha, Wilson
County, and includes the river channel
up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in
private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 3 follows:
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF3 Fall River; Greenwood and Wilson Counties, Kansas
Greenwood County
\
"'
Elk County
~~~'
~F==i'.
@=:.:-=~~
\\
~
400
s;,
7~
~
\'
,
i
~
-,
-(_.✓
Wils-0n County
'
39
u
-------
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
State Boundary
River
N
A
1 inch =8 Kilometers
1 inch = 5 miles
Wat~rbody
(9) Unit WF 4: Middle Fork Little Red
River; Cleburne, Stone, and Van Buren
Counties, Arkansas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
(i) Unit WF 4 consists of 34.1 river mi
(54.8 km) of the Middle Fork Little Red
River in Cleburne, Stone, and Van
Buren Counties, Arkansas, from the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mouth of Linn Creek east of Dennard,
Van Buren County, extending
downstream to the mouth of Wild Goose
Creek north of Fairfield Bay, Cleburne
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.011
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Montgomery County
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
and Van Buren counties, and includes
the river channel up to the ordinary
high water mark. Riparian lands that
border the unit include approximately
30.6 river mi (49.2 km; 90 percent) in
private ownership and 3.5 river mi (5.6
km; 10 percent) in public (Federal)
ownership. All of the public land
12379
ownership in this unit is Federal land
associated with the USACE’s Greers
Ferry Recreation Area.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 4 follows:
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF4 Middle Fork Little Red River; Cleburne, Stone, and Van Buren Counties,
Arkansas
r,==df;',
/"::::::;,:.J
--·@f~J
Searcy County
Stone County
( Cfeburne
) County
Van Buren County
:=
~-.#)
/
,.
-------
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
State Boundary
River
Waterbody
(10) Unit WF 5: St. Francis River;
Madison and Wayne Counties, Missouri.
(i) Unit WF 5 consists of 49.3 river mi
(79.3 km) of St. Francis River in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N
A
1 inch = 6 Kilometers
1 inch = 4 miles
Madison and Wayne Counties, Missouri,
extending from the mouth of Wachita
Creek west of Fredericktown, Madison
County, downstream to the mouth of Big
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Creek northwest of Silva, Wayne
County, and includes the river channel
up to the ordinary high water mark.
Riparian lands that border the unit
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.012
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Fairfield Bay
12380
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
include approximately 36.7 river mi
(59.1 km; 74 percent) in private
ownership and 12.6 river mi (20.2 km;
26 percent) in public (Federal or State)
ownership. Approximately 2.4 river mi
of the public ownership in this unit are
State lands associated with MDC’s
Coldwater Conservation Area, Mill
Stream Gardens, and Roselle Access.
Ten miles are Federal land associated
with the USFS’s Mark Twain National
Forest.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 5 follows:
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF5 St. Francis River; Madison and Wayne Counties, Missouri
St. Francois County
-·-·-------
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
State Boundary
River
Waterbody
(11) Unit WF 6: South Fork Spring
River; Fulton County, Arkansas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N
A
1 inch = 9 Kilometers
1 inch = 6 miles
(i) Unit WF 6 consists of 13.4 river mi
(21.6 km) of South Fork Spring River in
Fulton County, Arkansas, from the
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mouth of Camp Creek east of Salem,
Fulton County, extending downstream
to the Arkansas Highway 289 crossing
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.013
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Iron County
12381
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
northwest of Cherokee Village, Fulton
and Sharp Counties, and includes the
river channel up to the ordinary high
water mark. Approximately 100 percent
of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 6 follows:
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF6 South Fork Spring River; Fulton County, Arkansas
Fulton County
•
- - Critical Habitat
= Major Road
------ County Boundary
. - . State Boundary
---- River
1111 Waterbody
(12) Unit WF 7: Spring River (AR);
Lawrence and Randolph Counties,
Arkansas.
(i) Unit WF 7 consists of 14.2 river mi
(22.9 km) of Spring River in Lawrence
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
-1 inch = 2 Kilometers
1 inch = 1 miles
and Randolph Counties, Arkansas, from
the mouth of Wells Creek at Ravenden,
extending downstream to the mouth of
Stennitt Creek southeast of Imboden,
Lawrence County, and includes the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
river channel up to the ordinary high
water mark. Approximately 100 percent
of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 7 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.014
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
//Cherokee Village
12382
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF7 Spring River (AR); Lawrence and Randolph Counties, Arkansas
Sharp
County
Randolph County
Lawrence county
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
State Boundary
River
Waterbody
(13) Unit WF 8: Spring River (MO/
KS); Jasper County, Missouri, and
Cherokee County, Kansas.
(i) Unit WF 8 consists of 15 river mi
(24.1 km) of Spring River in Jasper
County, Missouri, and Cherokee County,
Kansas, from the mouth of North Fork
Spring River east of Asbury, Jasper
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N.
A
1 inch = 4 Kilometers
1 inch = 2 miles
County, Missouri, extending
downstream through Cherokee County,
Kansas, to the mouth of Center Creek
west of Carl Junction, Jasper County,
Missouri, and includes the river channel
up to the ordinary high water mark.
Riparian lands that border the unit
include approximately 14.0 river mi
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(22.5 km; 94 percent) in private
ownership and 1.0 river mi (1.6 km; 6
percent) in public (State) ownership.
The public ownership of this unit is
State land associated with the Kansas
Department of Wildlife, Parks and
Tourism’s Spring River Wildlife Area.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 8 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.015
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
---··--
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
12383
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF8 Spring River (MO/KS); Jasper County, Missouri; Cherokee County,
Kansas
Cherokee County
Jasper County
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
,s_-__,,, State Boundary
River
Waterbody
(14) Unit WF 9: Verdigris River;
Montgomery and Wilson Counties,
Kansas.
(i) Unit WF 9 consists of 12.4 river mi
(20 km) of Verdigris River in
Montgomery and Wilson Counties,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
N
A
1 inch= 3 Kilometers
1 inch = 2 miles
Kansas, from the mouth of Fall River
south of Neodesha, Wilson County,
extending downstream to the mouth of
Choteau Creek northeast of
Independence, Montgomery County,
and includes the river channel up to the
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in
private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.016
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
-
12384
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat for Western Fanshell
WF9 Verdigris River; Montgomery and Wilson Counties, Kansas
;1
--:/·
7~:.~:::>
1:
ru
~
@
Wilson County
Montgomery County
Independence •
-
*
*
*
N
A
1 inch = 3 Kilometers
1 inch = 2 miles
*
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the
Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022–02994 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03MRP3.SGM
03MRP3
EP03MR22.017
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
Critical Habitat
Major Road
County Boundary
State
River
Waterbody
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12338-12384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02994]
[[Page 12337]]
Vol. 87
Thursday,
No. 42
March 3, 2022
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Western Fanshell and ``Ouachita''
Fanshell and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12338]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2021-0061; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE79
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Western Fanshell and ``Ouachita''
Fanshell and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the western fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti), a freshwater mussel
species from Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and the
``Ouachita'' fanshell (Cyprogenia cf. aberti), a freshwater mussel
species from Arkansas and Louisiana, as threatened species and to
designate critical habitat for these species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This document also proposes a
rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (4(d) rule) for these mussel
species and serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to list the
western fanshell. The proposed critical habitat designation for the
western fanshell totals approximately 360 river miles (579 kilometers),
all of which are occupied by the species, in Arkansas, Kansas, and
Missouri, and the proposed critical habitat designation for the
``Ouachita'' fanshell totals approximately 294 river miles (474
kilometers), all of which are occupied by the species, in Arkansas. We
also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of
the proposed designation of critical habitat for the western fanshell
and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it
would add these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to these species and their
designated critical habitats.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May
2, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by April 18, 2022.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R3-ES-2021-0061,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2021-0061, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps
are generated are included in the decision file and are available at
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/ for western fanshell and https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ for ``Ouachita'' fanshell, at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2021-0061, and at the
Missouri and Arkansas Ecological Services Field Offices (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for the critical habitat designation
will also be available at the Service websites and field offices set
out above or at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the western
fanshell, contact Karen Herrington, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, 101 Park
DeVille Drive, Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203-0057; telephone 573-234-
2132. For information about the ``Ouachita'' fanshell, contact Melvin
Tobin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office, 110 South Amity, Suite 300, Conway,
AR 72032-8975; telephone 501-513-4473. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a
proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose to list the western fanshell
and ``Ouachita'' fanshell as threatened species with a rule issued
under section 4(d) of the Act, and we propose the designation of
critical habitat for these two species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that water quality degradation,
altered flow, landscape changes, and habitat fragmentation, all of
which are exacerbated by the effects of climate change, are the primary
threats affecting the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into
[[Page 12339]]
consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and
any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of these
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(5) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of western fanshell and ``Ouachita''
fanshell and that the Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule
for these species. In particular, we seek information concerning the
extent to which we should include any of the Act's section 9
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether we should consider any
additional exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. In
addition, we request comments on whether we should include an exception
from permitting requirements for individuals conducting presence/
absence surveys, studies to document habitat use, population
monitoring, and evaluations of potential impacts to the fanshells,
provided the individual holds a valid scientific collecting permit for
mussels from the appropriate State agency.
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell 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 these species, should be included in the designation
and why;
(c) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species
that should be included in the designation because they (1) are
occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations, or (2) are unoccupied at
the time of listing and are essential for the conservation of the
species;
(d) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of these species. We particularly seek comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the
conservation of these species;
(ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of these species and contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of these species; and
(iii) Explaining whether or not unoccupied areas fall within the
definition of ``habitat'' at 50 CFR 424.02 and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(10) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts, the description of the
environmental impacts in the draft environmental assessment is complete
and accurate, and any additional information regarding probable
economic impacts that we should consider.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think we should exclude any
additional areas, please provide credible information regarding the
existence of a meaningful economic or other relevant impact supporting
a benefit of exclusion.
(12) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the
[[Page 12340]]
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the western
fanshell or ``Ouachita'' fanshell is endangered instead of threatened,
or we may conclude that either species does not warrant listing as
either an endangered species or a threatened species. For critical
habitat, our final designation may not include all areas proposed, may
include some additional areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat, and may exclude some areas if we find the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. In addition, we may
change the parameters of the prohibitions or the exceptions to those
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule if we conclude it is appropriate in light
of comments and new information we receive. For example, we may expand
the prohibitions to include prohibiting additional activities if we
conclude that those additional activities are not compatible with
conservation of the species. Conversely, we may establish additional
exceptions to the prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that
the activities would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation
and recovery of the species.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the western fanshell as a ``Category 2'' candidate in
our May 22, 1984, Review of Invertebrate Wildlife for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species (49 FR 21664). Category 2 candidates
were defined as species for which we had information that proposed
listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule
at the time. The species remained so designated in subsequent candidate
notices of review (CNORs) (54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804,
November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28,
1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2
species as candidates; therefore, the western fanshell was no longer a
candidate species.
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including the western fanshell, from the
southeastern United States as endangered or threatened species and to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing under the Act. On
September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal
Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented
substantial information that indicated listing the western fanshell may
be warranted. Since that time, the ``Ouachita'' fanshell has been
determined to be a separate species from western fanshell (Williams et
al. 2017, p. 47; see discussion of taxonomy below); therefore, we
conducted a discretionary status review for the ``Ouachita'' fanshell
concurrent with our status review for the western fanshell.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. The SSA team was
composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species
experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific
and commercial data available concerning the status of these species,
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting these species. In accordance with
our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions
under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five appropriate
specialists regarding the SSA report. We received two responses. We
also sent the SSA report to eight Federal and State partners with
expertise in aquatic ecology and freshwater mussel biology, taxonomy,
and conservation. We received reviews from a Federal biologist and a
State biologist.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
The western fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti) is a freshwater mussel in
the Unionidae family. Adults are a dull tan with a distinctive ray
pattern from bands of tiny pigment flecks. The shell is thick,
compressed to moderately inflated, and round to triangular (up to 3
inches (76 millimeters)), with a wrinkled or rough appearance (Conrad
1850, p. 10; McMurray et al. 2012, p. 30; Oesch 1995, pp. 143-144; Roe
2004, pp. 4-5).
Recent molecular analysis of Cyprogenia identified the fanshell
from the Ouachita River basin in Arkansas and Louisiana as an
independent evolutionary lineage (Chong et al. 2016, pp. 2445-2449).
There is confusion regarding what name is available for the Ouachita
River drainage fanshell, but the distinctiveness of this species was
recognized in the most recent list of freshwater mussels of the United
States and Canada (Williams et al. 2017, p. 47). The Arkansas Wildlife
Action Plan refers to the species as the ``Ouachita'' fanshell (C. cf.
aberti) (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2015, p. 974). Based on this
information, we find the ``Ouachita'' fanshell is a listable entity
under the Act, and we follow this naming convention until a specific
epithet can be designated.
The western fanshell is currently found in the Lower Mississippi-
St. Francis, Neosho-Verdigris, and Upper
[[Page 12341]]
White River basins, within the States of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri,
and Oklahoma (Service 2020, pp. 21-28; see Figure 1, below). It is
considered extirpated from the Lower Arkansas basin. The ``Ouachita''
fanshell currently occurs in the Lower Red-Ouachita basin in Arkansas
and historically in Louisiana (Service 2020, pp. 29-31; see Figure 2,
below).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.001
[[Page 12342]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.002
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Both species are typically found in large creeks and rivers with
good water quality, moderate to swift current, and gravel-sand
substrates, but specific information on microhabitat requirements is
lacking. Like all mussels, these two species of fanshell are omnivores
that primarily filter-feed on a wide variety of microscopic particulate
matter suspended in the water column, including phytoplankton,
zooplankton, bacteria, detritus, and dissolved organic matter (Haag
2012, p. 26). As with most freshwater mussels,
[[Page 12343]]
the fanshell mussels have a unique life cycle that relies on fish hosts
for successful reproduction (Barnhart et al. 2008, pp. 371-373; Vaughn
and Taylor 1999, p. 913; Barnhart 1997, p. 12).
Thorough reviews of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell are presented in detail in
the SSA report (Service 2020, pp. 9-12).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of these species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to these species. The SSA report does not represent a decision
by the Service on whether these species should be proposed for listing
as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2021-0061 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/ and https://www.fws.gov/southeast/.
To assess the western fanshell's and ``Ouachita'' fanshell's
viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of
resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp.
306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to
withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet
or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the
species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large
pollution events), and representation supports the ability of the
species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for
example, climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant
a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is
to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels and described the beneficial
and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated each individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
[[Page 12344]]
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the two
species and their resources, and the threats that influence both
species' current and future condition, to assess each species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
Fanshell mussels feed primarily on a wide variety of microscopic
particulate matter, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria,
detritus, and dissolved organic matter (Haag 2012, p. 26). Juveniles
likely pedal feed in the sediment, whereas adults filter-feed from the
water column.
As with most freshwater mussels, both fanshell mussels rely on a
host fish for reproduction. The female mussel holds the fertilized eggs
internally as they develop into larvae. Once mature, the larvae are
released as glochidia, which attach on the gills, head, or fins of
fishes (Barnhart et al. 2008, pp. 371-373; Vaughn and Taylor 1999, p.
913). Glochidia encyst (enclose in a cyst-like structure) on the host's
tissue and draw nutrients from the fish. The glochidia for the fanshell
mussels remain encysted for about a month until transformation to the
juvenile stage, at which point they release from the fish and drop to
the substrate (Barnhart 1997, p. 12). Glochidia die if they fail to
find a host fish, attach to the wrong species of host fish, attach to a
fish that has developed immunity from prior infestations, or attach to
the wrong location on a host fish (Bogan 1993, p. 599; Neves 1991, p.
254).
Logperch (Percina caprodes) is a suitable fish host for both
fanshell species in all river basins (Eckert 2003, pp. 18-19).
Slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala) and orangebelly darter
(Etheostoma radiosum) are suitable hosts for ``Ouachita'' fanshell
(Eckert 2003, p. 46), while slenderhead darter, fantail darter
(Etheostoma flabellare), rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum), and
orangebelly darter are suitable hosts for western fanshell, but only
for their respective sympatric fanshell mussel population (Eckert 2003,
p. 33). In other words, glochidia had greater success transforming on
darters from the same stream as the mussel. For example, a higher
percentage of glochidia from Ouachita River transformed on orangebelly
darters from Ouachita River than on orangebelly darters from Verdigris
River (Eckert 2003, p. 11).
We assessed the best available information to identify the physical
and biological needs to support individual fitness at all life stages
for the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. Full descriptions
of all needs are available in chapter 2 of the SSA report (Service
2020, pp. 9-15). Based upon the best available scientific and
commercial information, the resource needs for both species are
characterized as:
Stable river channels and banks (for example, stable
riffles, sometimes with runs, and mid-channel island habitats that
provide flow refuges), consisting of mixed sand, gravel, and cobble
substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached
filamentous algae;
A hydrologic flow regime (the severity, frequency,
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) that maintains the
benthic habitats where the species are found and the river connectivity
with the floodplain;
Habitat connectivity (that is, a lack of barriers for
passage of host fish, which are necessary for dispersal of mussels);
Water and sediment quality, such as (but not limited to)
dissolved oxygen above 3 parts per million (ppm), ammonia generally
below 1.0 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen, temperatures generally below 80
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (27 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), low
concentrations of metals, and an absence of excessive total suspended
solids and other pollutants;
The presence and abundance of fish hosts (logperch,
slenderhead darter, fantail darter, rainbow darter, and orangebelly
darter) necessary for recruitment of the fanshell mussels; and
Appropriate food sources (phytoplankton, zooplankton,
protozoans, detritus, and dissolved organic matter) in adequate supply.
Threats Analysis
We identified water quality degradation, altered flow, landscape
changes, and habitat fragmentation, all of which are exacerbated by the
effects of climate change, as the primary threats affecting the western
fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell (Service 2020, p. 65). We
acknowledge that invasive species can have individual and, in some
circumstances, population-level effects to mussels. However, the best
available data do not support that invasive species are a driving force
affecting the current or future conditions of these two fanshell
mussels (Service 2020, pp. 62-63). The primary threats are discussed
below.
Water Quality
Chemical contaminants are a major threat in the decline of mussel
species (Cope et al. 2008, p. 451; Richter et al. 1997, p. 1081;
Strayer et al. 2004, p. 436; Wang et al. 2007a, p. 2029). Chemicals
enter rivers through point and nonpoint discharges, including spills,
industrial and municipal effluents, and residential and agricultural
runoff. These sources contribute organic compounds, heavy metals,
nutrients, pesticides, and a wide variety of newly emerging
contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals, to the aquatic environment.
The western fanshell has been exposed to zinc and copper at
concentrations that cause acute toxicity (Service 2020, p. 41) and may
be exposed to toxic levels of lead in the future (Service 2020,
Appendix I-D--I-E). Metals from mine water runoff (for example, Tri-
State Mining District in southwest Missouri and southeast Kansas)
contributed to mussel declines in Shoal Creek and Spring River in the
Arkansas River basin (Angelo et al. 2007, p. 467; EcoAnalysts, Inc.
2018, p. 59).
Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, primarily occur in
runoff from livestock farms, feedlots, heavily fertilized row crops and
pastures (Peterjohn and Correll 1984, p. 1471), post timber management
activities, and urban and suburban runoff (including residential lawns
and leaking septic tanks). Sources of ammonia include agricultural
wastes (animal feedlots and nitrogenous fertilizers), municipal
wastewater treatment plants, and industrial waste (Augspurger et al.
2007, p. 2569), as well as precipitation and natural processes
(decomposition of organic nitrogen) (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2569;
Goudreau et al. 1993, p. 212; Hickey and Martin 1999, p. 44; Newton et
al. 2003, p. 1243). As discussed above under Species Needs, both
fanshell species require dissolved oxygen above 3 ppm and ammonia
generally below 1.0 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen. We analyzed total
ammonia nitrogen data in rivers occupied by the two fanshell mussel
species, but did not find concentrations at levels expected to result
in acute or chronic toxicity to mussels (Service 2020, p. 41, Appendix
I-D--I-E). In addition, nutrient enrichment increases primary
productivity, and the associated algae respiration depletes dissolved
oxygen levels. However, available water quality data indicate that
hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) is not occurring in occupied streams and
is not currently a threat to the fanshell mussels.
Flow
Reductions in the diversity and abundance of mussels are
principally attributed to habitat alteration caused by inundation of
free-flowing rivers and
[[Page 12345]]
streams (Neves et al. 1997, p. 60), which has occurred in portions of
the fanshell mussels' ranges (for example, White, Ouachita, Caddo, and
Neosho rivers). The construction of reservoirs and other impoundments
permanently alters the hydrology, with deleterious effects to fish host
movement and mussel dispersal.
The water released from the hypolimnion (lower layers of the lake)
in large reservoirs is cold and often devoid of oxygen and necessary
nutrients, which adversely affects mussel survival. Cold water can
stunt mussel growth and delay or hinder spawning (Vaughn and Taylor
1999, p. 917). Reservoirs, like Bull Shoals on the White River in
north-central Arkansas, that release cold water from the bottom of the
reservoir (in part to support nonnative rainbow trout and brown trout
recreational fisheries) can affect water temperatures for many
kilometers downstream. These cold releases create an extinction
gradient, where freshwater mussels are absent or present in low numbers
near the dam, and abundance does not rebound until some distance
downstream where ambient conditions raise the water temperature to
within the tolerance limits of mussels (Vaughn and Taylor 1999, pp.
915-916).
In addition to low water temperature limits, freshwater mussels
also have an upper water temperature threshold. As described above
under Species Needs, both fanshell species require water temperatures
generally below 80 [deg]F (27 [deg]C).
In ``Ouachita'' fanshell occupied streams from 1990 to 2018, the
percent of water temperature samples exceeding 27 [deg]C ranged from
6.9 to 15.4 percent, with maximum water temperature ranging from 30.3
[deg]C to 36.6 [deg]C. In western fanshell MUs from 1990 to 2018, the
percent of water temperature samples exceeding 27 [deg]C ranged from 0
to 12.6 percent, with maximum water temperature ranging from 22.0
[deg]C to 35.8 [deg]C.
Recruitment in some species of mussels is significantly related to
components of spring and summer flow (Ries et al. 2016, p. 711). High
velocity flows during spawning can decrease fertilization success (Ries
et al. 2016, p. 712) and affect juvenile settling (Daraio et al. 2010,
p. 838; Hardison and Layzer 2001, p. 77). Mussel beds may be
constrained by threshold limits at both flow extremes. Under low flow
conditions, mussels may require a minimum flow to transport nutrients,
oxygen, and waste products. Under high flow conditions, areas with
relatively low flow may provide a refuge for mussels (Steuer et al.
2008, p. 67). Fanshell mussels undoubtedly evolved in the presence of
extreme hydrological conditions to some degree, including severe
droughts leading to dewatering, and heavy rains leading to damaging
scour events and movement of mussels and substrate, although the
frequency, duration, and intensity of these events may be different
from today. Streamflow and overall discharge for rivers inhabited by
western and ``Ouachita'' fanshell mussels will likely decline due to
climate change and projected increases in temperatures and evaporation
rates, resulting in more frequent and intense droughts (LaFontaine et
al. 2019, entire).
Excessive sediments adversely affect riverine mussel populations
requiring clean, stable streams (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 99; Ellis
1936, pp. 39-40). Specific biological effects include reduced feeding
and respiratory efficiency from clogged gills, disrupted metabolic
processes, reduced growth rates, limited burrowing activity, physical
smothering, and disrupted host fish attraction mechanisms (Ellis 1936,
pp. 39-40; Hartfield and Hartfield 1996, p. 373; Marking and Bills
1979, p. 210; Vannote and Minshall 1982, pp. 4105-4106; Waters 1995,
pp. 173-175). The physical effects of sediment on mussel habitat
include changes in suspended and bed material load; changes in bed
sediment composition associated with increased sediment production and
runoff in the watershed; channel changes in form, position, and degree
of stability; changes in depth or the width and depth ratio that
affects light penetration and flow regime, actively aggrading (filling)
or degrading (scouring) channels; and changes in channel position.
These effects to habitat may dislodge, transport downstream, or leave
mussels stranded (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, pp. 109-112; Kanehl and
Lyons 1992, pp. 4-5; Vannote and Minshall 1982, p. 4106).
The majority of sediment transport occurs during floods (Clark and
Mangham 2019, pp. 6-7; Kondolf 1997, p. 533). The increase in flooding
severity results in greater sediment transport, with important effects
to substrate stability and benthic habitats for freshwater mussels, as
well as other organisms that are dependent on stable benthic habitats
(Kondolf 1997, p. 535). High base flows can incise channels, erode
riverbanks, scour mussel beds, and remove substrate preferred by
mussels. Over time, the physical force of these higher base flows can
dislodge mussels from the sediment and permanently alter the
geomorphology of rivers (Clark and Mangham 2019, pp. 6-7; Kondolf 1997,
p. 533).
Runoff from impervious surfaces prevalent in urban areas affects
the natural hydrology of streams by increasing flood magnitude,
duration, and frequency (Bressler et al. 2009, p. 292). Frequent floods
in urban areas scour stream substrate and banks, thereby increasing
erosion and sedimentation and altering geomorphology. Geomorphic
changes, such as changes in channel width, occur with impervious areas
as low as 2 to 10 percent (Booth and Jackson 1997, p. 1084; Dunne and
Leopold 1978, pp. 275-277; Morisawa and LaFlure 1979, Figure 11).
Initial degradation of fish communities and lower larval densities have
been associated with as low as 10 percent impervious areas (Limburg and
Schmidt 1990, pp. 1241-1242; Steedman 1988, pp. 498-499). Unpaved road
networks also interact with streams, delivering sediment runoff and
increasing water velocity entering stream channels, thereby increasing
stream energy, eroding streambanks, scouring channels, and increasing
flooding (Coffin 2007, pp. 397-398).
Landscape Alterations
Many rivers where the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell
occur are threatened by land use activities and changes (for example,
increased urbanization, alteration of riparian buffers, improperly
designed and maintained unpaved roads). Urbanization of a watershed can
result in increased pollutant loads from stormwater runoff, altered
flow, decreased bank stability, and increased water temperature.
Urbanization can also indirectly increase channel erosion and
downstream sedimentation by increasing the frequency and volume of
channel-altering storm flows (Hammer 1972, p. 1530; Leopold 1968,
entire). These effects of urbanization can lower fish species richness
and density, leading to predictable changes in species composition, and
these changes can accrue rapidly (less than 10 years) and are
detectable at low levels (approximately 5 to 10 percent urbanization)
(Walters et al. 2005, p. 1). In 2016, 80 percent of the western and
``Ouachita'' fanshell MUs had 5 percent or greater urban land use, but
all were less than 10 percent (Service 2020, Appendix I-A).
The amount of impervious surface and riparian forest cover
influences stream hydrology and water quality (Brabec et al. 2002, pp.
505-507). Riparian forest cover intercepts and moderates the timing of
runoff, buffers temperature extremes, filters pollutants in runoff,
provides woody debris to stream channels that enhances aquatic
[[Page 12346]]
food webs, and stabilizes excessive erosion. Furthermore, the removal
of riparian trees in forested watersheds has a strong influence on
stream invertebrate communities (Wallace et al. 1997, entire). In 2016,
forest cover ranged from 70 to 76 percent in ``Ouachita'' fanshell MUs
and 12 to 77 percent in western fanshell MUs (Service 2020, Appendix I-
A).
Agricultural practices, such as livestock grazing and tilling on
land adjacent to streams, can lead to soil erosion and subsequent
runoff of fine sediments, nutrients, and pesticides (for example,
Schulz and Liess 1999, p. 155). Watersheds with the most habitat
converted to farmland often have the greatest levels of mussel richness
decline (Poole and Downing 2004, p. 123). In 2016, agricultural land
use ranged from 5 to 13 percent in ``Ouachita'' fanshell MUs and 17 to
68 percent in western fanshell MUs, and decreased in all MUs for both
species from 2011 to 2016 (Service 2020, Appendix I-A).
Roads adversely affect watershed integrity by intercepting,
concentrating, and diverting water. Roads directly affect natural
sediment and hydrologic regimes by altering stream flow, sediment
loading, sediment transport and deposition, channel morphology, channel
stability, substrate composition, stream temperature, water quality,
and riparian condition (Lee et al. 1997, pp. 1102-1104). Hydrologic
effects are sensitive to road density, with increased peak flows
evident at road densities of 2 to 3 kilometers (km)/square kilometers
(km\2\) (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 223). In 2016, unpaved road
density in all the western and ``Ouachita'' fanshell mussel MUs were
1.6 km/km\2\ or less.
Habitat Fragmentation
Hydrologic and geomorphic processes directly relate to habitat
extent. The number and distribution of habitat patches and their
connectivity influence species population health. Historically, the two
fanshell species likely occurred throughout the river basins described
in the SSA (Service 2020, pp. 21-31). Large-scale reductions in mussel
diversity and abundance are largely due to habitat changes caused by
impoundments (Neves et al. 1997, p. 63). The number of impoundments in
``Ouachita'' fanshell MUs ranges from 3 to 51, and in western fanshell
MUs ranges from 4 to 73.
Effects of Climate Change
We examined information on the anticipated effects of climate
change, including changes to water temperatures and precipitation
patterns. In its 5th Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) adopted ``representative concentration pathways''
(RCPs), which are greenhouse gas concentration trajectories, to
describe potential future climate outcomes, depending on the amount of
greenhouse gases that are emitted in the future (IPCC 2014, pp. 126-
127). Under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, the seasonal averages of 30 Coupled
Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models from 1950 to 2100
indicate warming air temperatures in the Lower Mississippi River
region, with a central tendency of less than 2 inches change in
precipitation (Alder and Hostetler 2013, pp. 2-3). We expect changes in
stream temperatures to reflect changes in air temperature, at a rate of
an approximately 0.6-0.8 [deg]C increase in stream water temperature
for every 1 [deg]C increase in air temperature (Morrill et al. 2005,
pp. 1-2, 15). These water temperature changes will have implications
for temperature-dependent water quality parameters (such as dissolved
oxygen and ammonia toxicity), spawning, and physiological effects to
thermally sensitive species.
Future increases in the frequency and severity of both extreme
drought and extreme rainfall are expected to transform many ecosystems
in the Southeast, including Arkansas (Carter et al. 2018, pp. 743-808).
Mussels are highly sensitive to secondary effects of drought (for
example, water temperature, etc.), but their ability to withstand
severe drought is highly dependent on where they occur (Haag and Warren
2008, p. 1165) and sufficient time between sequential drought events
for mussel populations to recover (Vaughn et al. 2015, pp. 1297-1298).
We also considered whether the threats discussed above may be
exacerbated by small population size (or low condition). Although there
are populations in low condition in all the basins in which the two
species occur, none of the basins have seen their populations reduced
to one or two populations in low condition.
Regulatory Mechanisms
State Protections
The western fanshell is listed as State endangered with designated
critical habitats under the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species
Conservation Act. Under State law, any time an eligible project is
proposed that will impact the species' preferred habitats within its
probable range in Kansas, the project sponsor must contact the Kansas
Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, regarding potential permit
requirements. The western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell do not
receive protection under State law in any other States.
Other Regulatory Mechanisms
The U.S. Forest Service (2005, p. 58) established a wildlife and
fish habitat road density objective of less than or equal to 1.6 km/2.6
km\2\ on the Ouachita National Forest in west-central Arkansas, which
includes the Ouachita Headwaters and Caddo MUs for ``Ouachita''
Fanshell. The Arkansas Unpaved Roads Program, authorized by Act 898 of
the 90th General Assembly in 2005, establishes a proactive, incentive-
based management program that results in utilization of best management
practices on unpaved roads to minimize erosion and maintain and improve
the health of priority lakes and rivers (TNC 2017, entire), including
those where both fanshell mussel species occur.
Current Conditions
Current (and future) conditions are described using categories that
estimate the overall condition (resiliency) of the western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell populations. These categories are based on an
evaluation of multiple population and habitat factors (Service 2020,
pp. 16-19).
Given that both of the fanshells' ranges include medium to large
rivers with some populations fragmented by dams and creation of
navigation channels, we delineated separate populations for each
watershed through which these streams flow (if there was an occurrence
record for the stream in that watershed), based on the hydrologic unit
code (HUC) (Seaber et al. 1987, entire; U.S. Geological Survey 2018,
entire) at the fourth of six levels (that is, the HUC-8 watershed), and
termed these ``management units'' (MUs). MUs represent areas with one
or more populations capable of dispersal and interaction. As a result,
some watersheds have been combined into one management unit because of
a lack of dispersal barriers and some divided into multiple management
units. MUs were identified as most appropriate for assessing
population-level resiliency because the stream level was determined to
be too coarse of a scale to estimate the condition factors influencing
resiliency (Service 2020, p. 16). We defined a MU as currently extant
if it contains live or recent dead individuals observed in surveys from
2000 to the present (Service 2020, p. 21).
[[Page 12347]]
To evaluate the species' genetic and ecological diversity
(representation) in the absence of species-specific genetic
information, we considered the extent and variability of environmental
conditions within the two species' geographic ranges. Based on the best
available data, we identified representation units at the HUC-4
watershed level, which is the second HUC level and covers a larger area
than HUC-8.
Western Fanshell
The western fanshell's current range includes a total of 11 MUs
across three HUC-4 units: Neosho-Verdigris (2 MUs), Lower Mississippi-
St. Francis (3 MUs), and Upper White (6 MUs) river drainages of
Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Historically, the western
fanshell occurred in another 14 MUs and is presumed extirpated from the
Lower Arkansas (HUC-4) river drainage. Of the current MUs, three (27
percent) are estimated to be highly resilient, three (27 percent) are
estimated to be moderately resilient, and five (46 percent) are
estimated to have low resiliency (Service 2020, pp. 36-46). The habitat
conditions across the 11 extant populations are medium to high (Service
2020, p. 41).
``Ouachita'' Fanshell
The ``Ouachita'' fanshell currently occurs in 4 MUs within portions
of the Ouachita River basin (HUC-4) in Arkansas. One population is
presumed extirpated. Of the current MUs, one (25 percent) is estimated
to be highly resilient, one (25 percent) is estimated to be moderately
resilient, and two (50 percent) are estimated to have low resiliency
(Service 2020, pp. 46-50). The habitat conditions across the 4 extant
populations are medium to high (Service 2020, p. 47).
Future Conditions
We forecasted the western fanshell's and ``Ouachita'' fanshell's
responses to plausible future scenarios of environmental conditions.
The future scenarios project the threats into the future and consider
the impacts those threats could have on the viability of the western
fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. We apply the concepts of
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to the future scenarios to
describe possible future conditions of the western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell. The scenarios described in the SSA report
represent only two possible future conditions for each species.
Uncertainty is inherent in any projection of future condition, so we
must consider plausible scenarios to make our determinations. When
assessing the future, viability is not a specific state, but rather a
continuous measure of the likelihood that the species will sustain
populations over time.
In the SSA, we considered two future scenarios. Scenario 1 assesses
the species' responses to moderate increases in stressors influencing
the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell populations, although
current conservation practices would remain in place. Scenario 2
assesses the species' responses to severe increases in stressors. Due
to a lack of resolution of the available data, we were unable to
distinguish any meaningful difference between a moderate increase in
stressors and a moderate decrease in stressors. As a result, we limited
the future forecasts to these two scenarios, which we projected over a
40-year period. We restricted our evaluation to 40 years primarily due
to limitations projecting non-modeled, extrapolated future conditions
for water quality, road density, and habitat fragmentation. A full
description of the future scenarios and our methods is available in the
SSA report (Service 2020, pp. 64-69).
Under Scenario 1, populations of both fanshell species are
projected to decline in resiliency and redundancy over time as
conditions moderately decline from current conditions. For western
fanshell, we project five (45 percent) of the currently extant MUs to
become extirpated. Of the remaining six populations, four (67 percent)
would be in medium condition, and two (33 percent) in low condition,
with no MUs in high condition. For ``Ouachita'' fanshell, we project
two (50 percent) of the currently extant MUs to become extirpated. Of
the remaining two populations, one (50 percent) would be in medium
condition, and one (50 percent) in low condition, with no MUs in high
condition. All of the extant HUC-4 river basins would remain occupied
for both species.
While our projections under Scenario 2 do not anticipate additional
extirpations from those observed under Scenario 1, we expect all
remaining populations of both species to be in low condition in 40
years. All extant HUC-4 river basins would remain occupied for both
species.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Determination of Western Fanshell and ``Ouachita'' Fanshell Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species.'' The Act defines ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Western Fanshell--Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we determined that the western fanshell has experienced a
reduction in populations/management units from historical conditions.
However, the species still ranges over three of the four major
drainages (HUC-4 representation units) in which it historically
occurred. Eleven of 27 historical MUs are extant. Of those 11, 3 MUs
are currently in high condition, 3 in medium condition, and 5 in low
condition. The majority (54 percent) of the MUs are in high or medium
condition. There is at least one MU in high condition in each of the 3
extant representation units. With 11 extant
[[Page 12348]]
MUs across three HUC-4s, the species currently retains redundancy to
withstand and survive potential catastrophic events, although there is
no imminent catastrophic threat. Therefore, we determined that the
species is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
However, the following threats currently acting on the western
fanshell will likely continue into the foreseeable future and decrease
the condition of the species further over time: Habitat loss and
degradation from siltation, water quality degradation, altered flow,
landscape changes, and habitat fragmentation (Factor A). These threats
are reasonably expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization,
and threats of water quality (temperature) and flow are especially
exacerbated by climate change (Factor E). These threats will continue
to impact the species into the foreseeable future, and the existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are not adequately reducing the impact
of these threats on the species. The best available data do not
indicate that the western fanshell is currently impacted at the
population level by overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) or predation or disease
(Factor C), nor do the best available data indicate that the species
will be impacted by these factors in the future.
Given the projection of threats 40 years into the future, the
number of western fanshell populations will decline with the projected
loss of five MUs, reducing the species' redundancy. Across the
plausible future scenarios, resiliency also declines with zero to four
populations projected to be in medium condition and two to six
populations in low condition. No populations are projected to be in
high condition in the foreseeable future. Representation is projected
to remain across the range, but the considerable loss of redundancy and
resiliency makes the species likely to become in danger of extinction
in the foreseeable future throughout its range. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we conclude that the western fanshell
is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.
Western Fanshell--Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened
Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that the Service
does not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species'
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity,
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (that
is, endangered). In undertaking this analysis for western fanshell, we
choose to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is endangered.
For western fanshell, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats: Water
quality degradation, altered flow, landscape changes, and habitat
fragmentation, including cumulative effects. We evaluated multiple
factors--including various water quality parameters, land cover data,
road density, and barriers--that contribute to these primary threats.
These habitat factors are in a medium to high condition across the
species' range. Overall, we found that threats are acting similarly
within the occupied river basins across the species' range. We found no
concentration of threats in any portion of the western fanshell's range
at a biologically meaningful scale. Thus, there are no portions of the
species' range where the species has a different status from its
rangewide status. Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides
a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction in
a significant portion of its range, and we determine that the species
is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. This is consistent with the courts'
holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-
01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017).
Western Fanshell--Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the western fanshell meets the Act's
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the
western fanshell as a threatened species in accordance with sections
3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
``Ouachita'' Fanshell--Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the ``Ouachita'' fanshell has experienced a reduction
in resiliency and redundancy from historical conditions. The species is
extant in four MUs within one major drainage (HUC-4 representation
unit). The species historically occurred in Bayou Bartholomew in
Louisiana. Of the four extant MUs, one is currently in high condition,
one in medium condition, and two in low condition. The species appears
to be endemic to the Ouachita River basin. Although the species is
known from only one representation unit, half of the extant populations
are in high or medium condition. The species currently retains
redundancy to withstand and survive potential catastrophic events,
although there is no imminent catastrophic threat. Therefore, we
determined that the species is not in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range.
The following threats currently acting on the ``Ouachita'' fanshell
will likely continue into the foreseeable future and decrease the
condition of the species further over time: Habitat loss and
degradation from siltation, water quality degradation, altered flow,
landscape changes, and habitat fragmentation (Factor A). These threats
are reasonably expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization,
and threats of water quality (temperature) and flow are especially
exacerbated by climate change (Factor E). These threats will
[[Page 12349]]
continue to impact the species into the foreseeable future, and the
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are not adequately reducing
the impact of these threats on the species. The best available data do
not indicate that the ``Ouachita'' fanshell is currently impacted at
the population level by overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) or predation or disease
(Factor C), nor do the best available data indicate that the species
will be impacted by these factors in the future.
Given the projection of threats 40 years into the future, the
number of ``Ouachita'' fanshell populations will decline with the
projected loss of two MUs, reducing the species' redundancy. Resiliency
also declines with three to four populations projected to be in low
condition and zero to one population(s) in medium condition. No
populations are projected to be in high condition in the foreseeable
future. As the species occurs in only the Ouachita River basin,
representation is projected to remain, but the considerable loss of
redundancy and resiliency makes the species likely to become in danger
of extinction in the foreseeable future throughout its range. Thus,
after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
``Ouachita'' fanshell is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
``Ouachita'' Fanshell--Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its
Range
See above, under Western Fanshell--Status Throughout a Significant
Portion of Its Range, for a description of our evaluation methods and
our policy application.
In undertaking the analysis for the ``Ouachita'' fanshell, we
choose to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is endangered. We examined the following threats:
Water quality degradation, altered flow, landscape changes, and habitat
fragmentation, including cumulative effects. We evaluated multiple
factors--including various water quality parameters, land cover data,
road density, and barriers--that contribute to these primary threats.
These habitat factors are in a medium to high condition across the
species' range. Overall, we found that threats are acting similarly
across the species' range. We found no concentration of threats in any
portion of the ``Ouachita'' fanshell's range at a biologically
meaningful scale. Thus, there are no portions of the species' range
where the species has a different status from its rangewide status.
Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for
determining that the species is in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of its range, and we determine that the species is
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. This is consistent with the courts'
holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-
01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017).
``Ouachita'' Fanshell--Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the ``Ouachita'' fanshell meets the Act's
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the
``Ouachita'' fanshell as a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions. Revisions of the plan may be done to
address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and as a benchmark for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. When completed, the
recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will
be available on our website (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from
our Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office for ``Ouachita'' fanshell
or Missouri Ecological Services Field Office for western fanshell (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (for example, restoration of native vegetation), research,
captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Arkansas, Kansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma would be eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the
western fanshell and the States of Arkansas and
[[Page 12350]]
Louisiana would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the ``Ouachita''
fanshell. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell are only
proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if
you are interested in participating in conservation efforts for these
species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on
these species whenever it becomes available and any information you may
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include, but are not limited to, activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by the following agencies:
(1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (channel dredging and maintenance;
dam projects including flood control, navigation, hydropower, bridge
projects, stream restoration, and Clean Water Act permitting).
(2) U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency (technical and financial
assistance for projects) and the Forest Service (aquatic habitat
restoration, fire management plans, fuel reduction treatments, forest
plans, mining permits).
(3) U.S. Department of Energy (renewable and alternative energy
projects).
(4) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (interstate pipeline
construction and maintenance, dam relicensing, hydrokinetics).
(5) U.S. Department of Transportation (highway and bridge
construction and maintenance).
(6) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (issuance of section 10 permits
for enhancement of survival, habitat conservation plans, and safe
harbor agreements; National Wildlife Refuge planning and refuge
activities; Partners for Fish and Wildlife program projects benefiting
these species or other listed species; Wildlife and Sportfish
Restoration program sportfish stocking).
(7) Environmental Protection Agency (water quality criteria,
permitting).
(8) Office of Surface Mining (land resource management plans,
mining permits, oil and natural gas permits, renewable energy
development).
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. The discussion below regarding protective
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act complies with our policy.
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)).
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence
of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation
prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited
under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section
9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two
sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to
the specific conservation needs of the threatened species. The second
sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service when
adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or include a limited
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D.
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity,
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available
to him [or her] with regard to the permitted activities for those
species. He [or she] may, for example, permit taking, but not
importation of such species, or he [or she] may choose to forbid both
taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species''
(H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
Exercising this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a
proposed rule that is designed to address the western fanshell's and
``Ouachita'' fanshell's specific threats and conservation needs.
Although the statute does not require us to make a ``necessary and
advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of specific
prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a whole
satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. As
discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have
concluded that the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell are
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
primarily due to habitat loss and degradation from siltation, water and
sediment quality degradation, changes to flow, and impoundments. These
threats, which
[[Page 12351]]
are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization and the
effects of climate change, were central to our assessment of the future
viability of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. The
provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote conservation of the
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell by encouraging management of
the landscape in ways that meet both land management considerations and
the conservation needs of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita''
fanshell. The provisions of this proposed rule are one of many tools
that we would use to promote the conservation of the western fanshell
and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if
and when we make final the listing of the western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell as threatened species.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
This obligation does not change in any way for a threatened species
with a species-specific 4(d) rule. Actions that result in a
determination by a Federal agency of ``not likely to adversely affect''
continue to require the Service's written concurrence and actions that
are ``likely to adversely affect'' a species require formal
consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell by prohibiting the following
activities, except as otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or
exporting; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully taken
specimens; delivering, receiving, transporting, or shipping in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or
selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
multiple factors are affecting the status of western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell. A range of activities have the potential to
affect these species, including, for example, habitat loss and
degradation from siltation, water and sediment quality degradation,
changes to flow, and impoundments. These threats, which are expected to
be exacerbated by continued urbanization and the effects of climate
change, were central to our assessment of the future viability of
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. Therefore, we prohibit
actions resulting in the incidental take of western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell by altering or degrading the habitat. Regulating
incidental take resulting from these activities would help preserve the
species' remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and
decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally.
The proposed 4(d) rule would also provide for the conservation of
the species by allowing exceptions to actions and activities that,
while they may have some minimal level of disturbance to the western
fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell, are not expected to negatively
affect the species' conservation and recovery efforts. The proposed
exceptions to these prohibitions include: (1) Channel and bank
restoration projects; (2) silviculture and forest management that
implements best management practices; and (3) transportation projects
that avoid instream disturbance in waters occupied by the species.
The first exception is for incidental take resulting from channel
and bank restoration projects for creation of natural, physically
stable, ecologically functioning streams, taking into consideration
connectivity with floodplain and groundwater aquifers. This exception
includes a requirement that bank restoration projects require planting
appropriate native vegetation, including woody species appropriate for
the region and habitat. We also propose language that would require
surveys and relocation prior to commencement of restoration actions
(and, if applicable, monitoring after relocation) for western fanshell
and ``Ouachita'' fanshell that would otherwise be negatively affected
by the actions. Actions related to restoration activities that would
negatively affect western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell include:
Individual mussels being removed, dislodged, crushed and/or killed by
heavy equipment operations and rip-rap placement; removal, destruction
and/or replacement of habitat; increased turbidity from streambed
disturbance; and alterations to flow and turbidity from permanent
(weirs) or temporary (causeways) structures needed for construction.
The second exception is for incidental take resulting from
silviculture and forest management activities that use State-approved
best management practices to protect water and sediment quality and
stream and riparian habitat. Best management practices are designed to
reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank destruction, thereby protecting
instream habitat for these species.
The third exception is for incidental take resulting from
transportation projects that do not include activities that disturb
instream habitat. Bridge designs that include spanning the stream and
avoiding stream bank disturbance reduce sedimentation and erosion,
thereby protecting instream habitat for these species.
We reiterate that these actions and activities may have some
minimal level of take of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita''
fanshell, but any such take is expected to be rare and insignificant,
and is not expected to negatively impact the species' conservation and
recovery efforts. Rather, we expect they would have a net beneficial
effect on the species. Across the species' range, instream habitats
have been degraded physically by sedimentation and by direct and
indirect channel disturbance. The habitat restoration activities in the
proposed 4(d) rule are intended to
[[Page 12352]]
improve habitat conditions for the species in the long term.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for threatened
wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes
consistent with the purposes of the Act. The statute also contains
certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9
and 10 of the Act. In addition, we are considering, but have not
specifically proposed in this document, an exception from permitting
requirements for individuals conducting presence/absence surveys,
studies to document habitat use, population monitoring, and evaluations
of potential impacts to the fanshells, provided the individual holds a
valid scientific collecting permit for mussels from the appropriate
State agency. If we conclude that this measure would provide for the
conservation of the species, we may include a provision in the final
4(d) rule. We specifically request comments on this provision we are
considering.
We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist the Service in implementing all aspects of the Act.
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Service shall
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee
or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c)
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes,
would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve the western
fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell that may result in otherwise
prohibited take without additional authorization.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. However,
interagency cooperation may be further streamlined through planned
programmatic consultations for the species between Federal agencies and
the Service, where appropriate. We ask the public, particularly State
agencies and other interested stakeholders that may be affected by the
proposed 4(d) rule, to provide comments and suggestions regarding
additional guidance and methods that the Service could provide or use,
respectively, to streamline the implementation of this proposed 4(d)
rule (see Information Requested, above).
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (that is,
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 (for
example, migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used
periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals). Additionally, our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the word ``habitat,'' for the
purposes of designating critical habitat only, as the abiotic and
biotic setting that currently or periodically contains the resources
and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of a
species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However,
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific
[[Page 12353]]
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. The implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further
delineate unoccupied critical habitat by setting out three specific
parameters: (1) When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will
first evaluate areas occupied by the species; (2) the Secretary will
consider unoccupied areas to be essential only where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species; and (3) for an
unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
As the regulatory definition of ``habitat'' reflects (50 CFR
424.02), habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of these species. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be
prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
As discussed earlier in this document, there is currently no
imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B
for these species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat
is not expected to initiate any such threat. In our SSA and proposed
listing determination for the western fanshell and ``Ouachita''
fanshell, we determined that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to the
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell and that those threats can
be addressed in some way by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures.
These species occur wholly in the jurisdiction of the United States,
and we are able to identify areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat. Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met and because the
Secretary has not identified other circumstances for which this
designation of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell.
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
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
[[Page 12354]]
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific
data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the western fanshell and ``Ouachita''
fanshell.
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
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of or a particular
level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the
listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
As described above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell occur in large creeks and
rivers. Occasional or regular interaction among individuals in
different river reaches not interrupted by a barrier likely occurs, but
in general, interaction is strongly influenced by habitat fragmentation
and distance between occupied river or stream reaches. Once released
from their fish host, freshwater mussels are benthic (bottom-dwelling),
generally sedentary aquatic organisms and closely associated with
appropriate habitat patches within a river or stream.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell from studies of
these species' (or appropriate surrogate species') habitat, ecology,
and life history. The primary habitat elements that influence
resiliency of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell include
water quality, water quantity, substrate, habitat connectivity, and the
presence of host fish species to ensure recruitment. These features are
also described above as species needs under Summary of Biological
Status and Threats, and a full description is available in the SSA
report; the individuals' needs are summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1--Requirements for Life Stages of Western Fanshell and ``Ouachita'' Fanshell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life stage Resource needs--habitat requirements References
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Life Stages....................... Water Quality: Naturally clean, high Allen et al. 2007, pp. 80-85;
quality water with little or no harmful Augspurger et al. 2003, p.
pollutants (that is, pollutants occur 2569; Bringolf et al. 2007a,
below tolerance limits of mussels, fish p. 2094; 2007b, p. 2086; Cope
hosts, prey). The values below are et al. 2008, p. 455; Fuller
based on the best available science and 1974, pp. 240-246; Gillis et
assume mussels respond to average al. 2008, pp. 140-141; Gray
values of a constituent over time et al. 2002, pp. 155-156;
(acute or chronic exposure). Kolpin et al. 2002, pp. 1208-
[rtarr8] Dissolved oxygen >3 milligrams 1210; Spooner and Vaughn
per liter (mg/L). 2008, p. 311; Steingraeber et
[rtarr8] Low salinity/total dissolved al. 2007, p. 297; Wang et al.
solids. 2007a, 2007b, 2010, 2013,
[rtarr8] Low nutrient concentrations.... entire.
[rtarr8] Total ammonia nitrogen <0.3-1.0
mg/L at pH 8.0 & 25 [deg]C.
[rtarr8] Nitrate <2.0 mg/L..........
[rtarr8] Nitrite <55.8 mg/L.........
[rtarr8] Low concentrations of metals.
[rtarr8] Cadmium <0.014 mg/L at 50
mg/L calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
hardness.
[rtarr8] Zinc <0.120 mg/L at 50 mg/L
CaCO3 hardness.
[rtarr8] Lead <0.205 mg/L at 50 mg/L
CaCO3 hardness.
[rtarr8] Copper <0.005 mg/L in
moderately hard water.
[rtarr8] Natural, unaltered ambient
water temperature generally <27
[deg]C.
Water Quantity: Flowing water in Galbraith and Vaughn 2009, p.
sufficient quantity to support the life- 46; Allen and Vaughn 2010, p.
history requirements of mussels and 390; Peterson et al. 2011, p.
their fish hosts. 115; Daraio et al. 2010, p.
838.
[[Page 12355]]
Gamete (sperm, egg development, [rtarr8] Sexually mature males and Haag 2012, pp. 38-39;
fertilization). females with appropriate water Galbraith and Vaughn 2009,
Glochidia............................. temperatures for spawning, pp. 45-46; Barnhart et al.
fertilization, and brooding. 2008, p. 372.
[rtarr8] Presence of fish hosts (of
appropriate species) with sufficient
flow to allow attachment, encystment,
relocation, excystment, and dispersal
of glochidia..
Juvenile, sub-adult, and adult (from [rtarr8] Stable substrate comprised of Allen and Vaughn 2010, pp. 384-
excystment to maturity). mixed sand, gravel and cobble, and 385; Haag 2012, pp. 26-42;
appropriate for burrowing, pedal Eckert 2003, pp. 18-19, 33.
feeding, and survival.
[rtarr8] Appropriate food sources
(phytoplankton, zooplankton,
protozoans, detritus, dissolved organic
matter) in adequate supply..
[rtarr8] Presence and abundance of fish
hosts available for recruitment..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell from
studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described
below. Additional information can be found in chapter 2 of the SSA
report (Service 2020, pp. 9-15), which is available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2021-0061. We have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita''
fanshell:
(1) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, timing,
frequency, duration, rate of change, and overall seasonality of
discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the
species are found and to maintain stream connectivity, specifically
providing for the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of
the mussels' and fish hosts' habitat and food availability, maintenance
of spawning habitat for native host fishes, and the ability for newly
transformed juveniles to settle and become established in their
habitats. Adequate flows ensure delivery of oxygen, enable
reproduction, deliver food to filter-feeding mussels, and reduce
contaminants and fine sediments from interstitial spaces.
(2) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats,
characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (that
is, channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles,
and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed
elevation) with habitats that support a diversity of freshwater mussel
and native fish (such as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that provide
flow refuges consisting of silt-free gravel and coarse sand
substrates).
(3) Water and sediment quality necessary to sustain natural
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of
all life stages, including, but not limited to: Dissolved oxygen
(generally above 3 parts per million (ppm)) and water temperature
(generally below 80 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (27 degrees Celsius
([deg]C)). Additionally, water and sediment should be low in ammonia
(generally below 1.0 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen) and heavy metals, and
lack excessive total suspended solids and other pollutants.
(4) The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for
recruitment of the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell,
including logperch (Percina caprodes), rainbow darter (Etheostoma
caeruleum), slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala), fantail darter
(Etheostoma flabellare), or orangebelly darter (Etheostoma radiosum).
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 essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
The features essential to the conservation of the western fanshell
and ``Ouachita'' fanshell may require special management considerations
or protections to reduce the following threats: (1) Alteration of the
natural flow regime (modifying the natural hydrograph and seasonal
flows), including water withdrawals, resulting in flow reduction and
available water quantity; (2) urbanization of the landscape, including
(but not limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial use,
infrastructure (pipelines, roads, bridges, utilities), and urban water
uses (resource extraction activities, water supply reservoirs,
wastewater treatment, etc.); (3) significant alteration of water
quality and nutrient pollution from a variety of activities, such as
industrial and municipal effluents, mining, and agricultural
activities; (4) land use activities that remove large areas of forested
wetlands and riparian systems; (5) dam construction and culvert and
pipe installation that create barriers to movement for the western
fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell, or their host fishes; (6) changes
and shifts in seasonal precipitation patterns as a result of climate
change; and (7) other watershed and floodplain disturbances that
release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include,
but are not limited to: Use of best management practices designed to
reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank destruction; protection of
riparian corridors and woody vegetation; moderation of surface and
ground water withdrawals to maintain natural flow regimes; improved
stormwater management; and reduction of other watershed and floodplain
disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the
water.
In summary, we find that the occupied areas we are proposing to
designate as critical habitat contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
Special management considerations or protection may be required of the
Federal action agency to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible levels,
the threats affecting the physical and biological features of each
unit.
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
[[Page 12356]]
area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be
considered for designation as critical habitat.
We anticipate that recovery will require conserving the genetic
diversity of extant populations across the HUC-4 watersheds within the
species' current range and maintaining and, where necessary, improving
habitat and habitat connectivity to ensure the long-term viability of
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. We have determined that the
currently occupied MUs of western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell
would maintain each species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation
and are sufficient to conserve these two species. Therefore, we are not
currently proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species.
Methodology Used for Selection of Proposed Units
First, we included current populations with high or medium
resiliency. These populations show recruitment or varied age class
structure and could be used for recovery actions to augment other
populations through propagation activities or direct translocations
within their basins. We defined a population as ``current'' if it
contains live or recent dead individuals observed in surveys from 2000
to the present (Service 2020, p. 21).
Second, we evaluated spatial representation and redundancy across
the species' ranges, to include last remaining population(s) in major
river basins.
Third, we examined the overall contribution of populations in low
condition and threats to those populations. We considered adjacency and
connectivity to high and medium populations, as well as isolated
populations with potentially important genetic or adaptive traits, and
did not include populations that have potentially low likelihood of
recovery due to low abundance and limited distribution or populations
currently under high levels of threats.
Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat designation
include information from State agencies throughout the species' ranges
and numerous survey reports on streams throughout the species' ranges
(Service 2020, entire). We have also reviewed available information
that pertains to the habitat requirements of these species. Sources of
information on habitat requirements include studies conducted at
occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed articles, agency reports,
and data collected during monitoring efforts (Service 2020, entire).
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by these
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using a precise set of criteria. Specifically, we identified
river and stream reaches with observations from 2000 to present. We
determined it is reasonable to find these areas occupied, given the
variable data associated with timing and frequency of mussel surveys
conducted throughout the species' ranges and available State heritage
databases, and information supports the likelihood of both species'
continued presence in these areas within this timeframe. Specific
habitat areas were delineated, based on Natural Heritage Element
Occurrences, published reports, and unpublished survey data provided by
States. These areas provide habitat for western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell populations and are large enough to be self-
sustaining over time, despite fluctuations in local conditions. The
areas within the proposed units represent continuous river and stream
reaches of free-flowing habitat patches capable of sustaining host
fishes and allowing for seasonal transport of glochidia, which are
essential for reproduction and dispersal of western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell. We consider portions of the following rivers and
streams to be occupied by these species at the time of proposed
listing, and appropriate for critical habitat designation:
(1) Western fanshell--Black River, Fall River, Middle Fork Little
Red River, St. Francis River, South Fork Spring River, Spring River,
Strawberry River, and Verdigris River.
(2) ``Ouachita'' fanshell--Little Missouri River, Ouachita River,
and Saline River.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid inclusion of developed areas, such as lands
covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands
lack physical or biological features necessary for the western fanshell
and ``Ouachita'' fanshell. 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.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (that is, currently
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the
species.
We are proposing to designate as critical habitat nine units for
the western fanshell and four units for the ``Ouachita'' fanshell based
on one or more of the physical or biological features being present to
support the western fanshell's or ``Ouachita'' fanshell's life-history
processes. Some units contain all of the identified physical or
biological features and support multiple life-history processes. Some
units contain only some of the physical or biological features
necessary to support the western fanshell's and ``Ouachita'' fanshell's
particular use of that habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-
2021-0061 and on our internet sites https://www.fws.gov/midwest/ for
western fanshell and https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ for ``Ouachita''
fanshell.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate approximately 360 river miles (river
mi) (579 kilometers (km)) in nine units as critical habitat for western
fanshell and approximately 294 river mi (474 km) in four units for
``Ouachita'' fanshell. The critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for western fanshell and ``Ouachita''
fanshell. All units are occupied by their respective species. The nine
areas we propose as critical habitat for western fanshell are: (1)
Upper Black River, (2) Lower Black/Strawberry River, (3) Fall River,
(4)
[[Page 12357]]
Middle Fork Little Red River, (5) St. Francis River, (6) South Fork
Spring River, (7) Spring River (AR), (8) Spring River (MO/KS), and (9)
Verdigris River. The four areas we propose as critical habitat for
``Ouachita'' fanshell are: (1) Little Missouri River, (2) Ouachita
Headwaters, (3) Ouachita River, and (4) Saline River. Tables 2 and 3
show the proposed critical habitat units and the approximate area of
each unit.
Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Western Fanshell
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjacent riparian land River miles
Critical habitat unit ownership by type (kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WF 1. Upper Black River......... Public (Federal, 13.7 (22)
State).
Private............... 51 (82.1)
WF 2. Lower Black/Strawberry Public (State)........ 10.9 (17.5)
River.
Private............... 100.4 (161.6)
WF 3. Fall River................ Private............... 45.5 (73.2)
WF 4. Middle Fork Little Red Public (Federal)...... 3.5 (5.6)
River.
Private............... 30.6 (49.2)
WF 5. St. Francis River......... Public (Federal, 12.6 (20.2)
State).
Private............... 36.7 (59.1)
WF 6. South Fork Spring River... Private............... 13.4 (21.6)
WF 7. Spring River (AR)......... Private............... 14.2 (22.9)
WF 8. Spring River (MO/KS)...... Public (State)........ 1.0 (1.6)
Private............... 14.0 (22.5)
WF 9. Verdigris River........... Private............... 12.4 (20)
---------------
Totals...................... Public................ 41.7 (67.1)
---------------
Private............... 318.2 (512.1)
Total.............. 359.9 (579.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
Table 3--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for ``Ouachita'' Fanshell
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjacent riparian land River miles
Critical habitat unit ownership by type (kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OF 1. Little Missouri River..... Private............... 22.9 (36.9)
OF 2. Ouachita Headwaters....... Public (Federal)...... 2.8 (4.5)
Private............... 29.9 (48.1)
OF 3. Ouachita River............ Private............... 53.5 (86.1)
OF 4. Saline River.............. Public (State)........ 0.5 (0.8)
Private............... 184.8 (297.4)
---------------
Totals...................... Public................ 3.3 (5.3)
Private............... 291.1 (468.5)
---------------
Total.............. 294.4 (473.8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the western fanshell or
``Ouachita'' fanshell, below.
WF 1: Upper Black River
Unit WF 1 consists of 64.7 river mi (104.1 km) of Black River in
Butler and Wayne Counties, Missouri, from Clearwater Dam southwest of
Piedmont, Wayne County, extending downstream to Butler County Road 658
crossing southeast of Poplar Bluff, Butler County, and includes the
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Riparian lands that
border the unit include approximately 51 river mi (82.1 km; 79 percent)
in private ownership and 13.7 river mi (22 km; 21 percent) in public
(Federal or State) ownership. Approximately 2.7 miles of the public
ownership in this unit are State lands associated with Missouri
Department of Conservation's (MDC) Bradley A. Hammer Memorial
Conservation Area, Dan River Access, Hilliard Access, and Stephen J.
Sun Conservation Area. Eleven miles are Federal land associated with
the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) Mark Twain National Forest and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clearwater Recreation Area. General
land use within the adjacent riparian areas of this unit includes
forest, agriculture, several State-managed game lands, the town of Mill
Spring, and city of Poplar Bluff. Clearwater Dam is operated by the
USACE. Unit WF 1 is occupied by the species and contains all of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. There is no overlap with any designated critical habitat for
other listed species.
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from impoundments, channelization, and point and
nonpoint source water pollution, including siltation and pollution
associated with agriculture, development, and wastewater treatment
plants. Special management considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may include reducing water quality
degradation and
[[Page 12358]]
habitat loss associated with agriculture, development, and wastewater
treatment plants (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
WF 2: Lower Black/Strawberry River
Unit WF 2 consists of 111.3 river mi (179.1 km) of Black River and
Strawberry River in Independence, Jackson, Lawrence, and Sharp Counties
in Arkansas and includes the river channel up to the ordinary high
water mark. Black River makes up 54.6 river mi (87.9 km) from the mouth
of Spring River northeast of Black Rock, extending downstream to the
mouth of Strawberry River northeast of Dowdy, Independence County,
Arkansas. Strawberry River makes up 56.7 river mi (91.2 km) from the
mouth of Lave Creek north of Evening Shade, Sharp County, extending
downstream to the confluence with Black River northeast of Dowdy,
Independence County, Arkansas. Riparian lands that border the unit
include approximately 100.4 river mi (161.6 km; 90 percent) in private
ownership and 10.9 river mi (17.5 km; 10 percent) in public (State)
ownership. The public land ownership in this unit is associated with
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission's Shirey Bay Rainey Brake Wildlife
Management Area on Black River. The Nature Conservancy's Strawberry
River Preserve and Ranch on Strawberry River is also in this unit.
General land use within this unit includes forest, agriculture, State-
managed game lands, the town of Powhatan, and city of Black Rock. Unit
WF 2 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential to the species' conservation.
There is overlap of 70.3 river mi (113.1 km) of this unit with
designated critical habitat for rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica
cylindrica) (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from impoundments, channelization, and point and
nonpoint source water pollution, including siltation and pollution
associated with agriculture, development, unpaved roads, and wastewater
treatment plants. Special management considerations or protection
measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include reducing water
quality degradation and habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, and wastewater treatment plants (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 3: Fall River
Unit WF 3 consists of 45.5 river mi (73.2 km) of Fall River in
Greenwood and Wilson Counties, Kansas, from the Greenwood County Road
33/Merchants Avenue crossing at Fall River, Greenwood County, extending
downstream to the U.S. Route 400 crossing west of Neodesha, Wilson
County, and includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water
mark. Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border the
unit are in private ownership. General land use within the adjacent
riparian areas of this unit includes forest, agriculture, and the city
of Fall River. Unit WF 3 is occupied by the species and contains one or
more of the physical or biological features essential to the species'
conservation. There is overlap of 45.5 river mi (73.2 km) of this unit
with designated critical habitat for Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana) (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from impoundments and point and nonpoint source water
pollution, including siltation and pollution associated with
agriculture, development, unpaved roads, and wastewater treatment
plants. Special management considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may include reducing water quality
degradation and habitat loss associated with agriculture, development,
and wastewater treatment plants (see Special Management Considerations
or Protection, above).
WF 4: Middle Fork Little Red River
Unit WF 4 consists of 34.1 river mi (54.8 km) of Middle Fork Little
Red River in Cleburne, Stone, and Van Buren Counties, Arkansas, from
the mouth of Linn Creek east of Dennard, Van Buren County, extending
downstream to the mouth of Wild Goose Creek north of Fairfield Bay,
Cleburne and Van Buren Counties, and includes the river channel up to
the ordinary high water mark. Riparian lands that border the unit
include approximately 30.6 river mi (49.2 km; 90 percent) in private
ownership and 3.5 river mi (5.6 km; 10 percent) in public (Federal)
ownership. All of the public land ownership in this unit is Federal
land associated with the USACE's Greers Ferry Recreation Area. General
land use within the adjacent riparian areas of this unit includes
forest, pasture, the town of Shirley, and the city of Fairfield Bay.
Unit WF 4 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential to the species' conservation.
There is overlap of 34.1 river mi (54.9 km) of this unit with
designated critical habitat for yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei)
(see 50 CFR 17.95(e) and 77 FR 63604, October 16, 2012) and rabbitsfoot
(see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from impoundments and point and nonpoint source water
pollution, including siltation and pollution associated with
agriculture, development, unpaved roads, and wastewater treatment
plants. Special management considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may include reducing water quality
degradation and habitat loss associated with agriculture, development,
and wastewater treatment plants (see Special Management Considerations
or Protection, above).
WF 5: St. Francis River
Unit WF 5 consists of 49.3 river mi (79.3 km) of St. Francis River
in Madison and Wayne Counties, Missouri, extending from the mouth of
Wachita Creek west of Fredericktown, Madison County, downstream to the
mouth of Big Creek northwest of Silva, Wayne County, and includes the
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Riparian lands that
border the unit include approximately 36.7 river mi (59.1 km; 74
percent) in private ownership and 12.6 river mi (20.2 km; 26 percent)
in public (Federal or State) ownership. Approximately 2.4 river mi of
the public ownership in this unit are State lands associated with MDC's
Coldwater Conservation Area, Mill Stream Gardens, and Roselle Access.
Ten miles are Federal land associated with the USFS's Mark Twain
National Forest. General land use within the adjacent riparian areas of
this unit is predominantly forest and pasture with isolated occurrences
of developed areas. Unit WF 5 is occupied by the species and contains
one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the
species' conservation. There is overlap of 49.3 river mi (79.3 km) of
this unit with designated critical habitat for rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR
17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from impoundments and point and nonpoint source water
pollution, including siltation and pollution associated with
development, unpaved roads, and wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate
the threats may include reducing water quality degradation and habitat
loss associated with agriculture, development, and wastewater treatment
[[Page 12359]]
plants (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 6: South Fork Spring River
Unit WF 6 consists of 13.4 river mi (21.6 km) of South Fork Spring
River in Fulton County, Arkansas, from the mouth of Camp Creek east of
Salem, Fulton County, extending downstream to the Arkansas Highway 289
crossing northwest of Cherokee Village, Fulton and Sharp Counties, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership. General land use within the adjacent riparian
areas of this unit is predominantly forest, agriculture, and pasture
with isolated occurrences of developed areas. Unit WF 6 is occupied by
the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological
features essential to the species' conservation. There is no overlap
with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from point and nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, and wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate
the threats may include reducing water quality degradation and habitat
loss associated with agriculture, development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 7: Spring River (AR)
Unit WF 7 consists of 14.2 river mi (22.9 km) of Spring River in
Lawrence and Randolph Counties, Arkansas, from the mouth of Wells Creek
at Ravenden, extending downstream to the mouth of Stennitt Creek
southeast of Imboden, Lawrence County, and includes the river channel
up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in private ownership. General
land use within the adjacent riparian areas of this unit includes
forest, agriculture, pasture, and the towns of Imboden and Ravenden.
Unit WF 7 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential to the species' conservation.
There is overlap of 14.2 river mi (22.9 km) of this unit with
designated critical habitat for rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80
FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from point and nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, and wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate
the threats may include reducing water quality degradation and habitat
loss associated with agriculture, development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 8: Spring River (MO/KS)
Unit WF 8 consists of 15 river mi (24.1 km) of Spring River in
Jasper County, Missouri, and Cherokee County, Kansas, from the mouth of
North Fork Spring River east of Asbury, Jasper County, Missouri,
extending downstream through Cherokee County, Kansas, to the mouth of
Center Creek west of Carl Junction, Jasper County, Missouri, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Riparian
lands that border the unit include approximately 14.0 river mi (22.5
km; 94 percent) in private ownership and 1.0 river mi (1.6 km; 6
percent) in public (State) ownership. The public ownership of this unit
is State land associated with the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks
and Tourism's Spring River Wildlife Area. General land use within the
adjacent riparian areas of this unit is predominantly forest,
agriculture, pasture, and State-managed lands with isolated occurrences
of developed areas. Unit WF 8 is occupied by the species and contains
one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the
species' conservation. There is overlap of 15 river mi (24.1 km) of
this unit with designated critical habitat for Neosho mucket and
rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from point and nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, wastewater treatment plants, and historical
heavy metal mining. Special management considerations or protection
measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include reducing water
quality degradation and habitat loss associated with agriculture,
development, wastewater treatment plants, and heavy metal contamination
(see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
WF 9: Verdigris River
Unit WF 9 consists of 12.4 river mi (20 km) of Verdigris River in
Montgomery and Wilson Counties, Kansas, from the mouth of Fall River
south of Neodesha, Wilson County, extending downstream to the mouth of
Choteau Creek northeast of Independence, Montgomery County, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership. General land use within the adjacent riparian
areas of this unit is predominantly forest and agriculture with
isolated occurrences of developed areas. Unit WF 9 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features
essential to the species' conservation. There is overlap of 12.4 river
mi (20 km) of this unit with designated critical habitat for Neosho
mucket (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include degradation of habitat
and water quality from point and nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution associated with agriculture,
development, unpaved roads, and wastewater treatment plants. Special
management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate
the threats may include reducing water quality degradation and habitat
loss associated with agriculture, development, and wastewater treatment
plants (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
OF 1: Little Missouri River
Unit OF 1 consists of 22.9 river mi (36.9 km) of Little Missouri
River in Clark, Nevada, and Ouachita Counties, Arkansas, from the mouth
of Garland Creek northeast of Prescott, Nevada County, downstream to
the mouth of Horse Branch north of Red Hill, Ouachita County, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership. General land use within the adjacent riparian
areas of this unit includes forest and agriculture. Unit OF 1 is
occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or
biological features essential to the species' conservation. There is no
overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
Threats identified within the unit include dams, impoundments, and
point and nonpoint source water pollution, including siltation and
pollution associated with a variety of land uses. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include reducing water quality degradation and habitat loss
and
[[Page 12360]]
fragmentation (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
OF 2: Ouachita Headwaters
Unit OF 2 consists of 32.7 river mi (52.6 km) of Ouachita River in
Montgomery and Polk Counties, Arkansas, from the County Road 67
crossing south of Cherry Hill, Polk County, downstream to the U.S.
Route 270 crossing southeast of Pencil Bluff, Montgomery County, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Riparian
lands that border the unit include approximately 29.9 river mi (48.1
km; 91 percent) in private ownership and 2.8 river mi (4.5 km; 9
percent) in public (Federal) ownership. The public ownership in this
unit is Federal land associated with USFS's Ouachita National Forest.
General land use within the adjacent riparian areas of this unit
includes forest and agriculture. Unit OF 2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the physical or biological features
essential to the species' conservation. There is no overlap with any
designated critical habitat for other listed species.
Threats identified within the unit include impoundments and point
and nonpoint source water pollution, including siltation and pollution
associated with a variety of land uses. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include reducing water quality degradation and habitat loss
and fragmentation (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
OF 3: Ouachita River
Unit OF 3 consists of 53.5 river mi (86.1 km) of Ouachita River in
Clark, Dallas, and Ouachita Counties, Arkansas, from the mouth of L'Eau
Frais Creek southeast of Arkadelphia, Clark County, downstream to the
mouth of Ecore Fabre Bayou north of Camden, Ouachita County, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership. There is a Wetlands Reserve Program easement
within the unit. General land use within the adjacent riparian areas of
this unit includes forest, agriculture, and pasture. Unit OF 3 is
occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or
biological features essential to the species' conservation. There is
overlap of 22.8 river mi (36.7 km) of this unit with designated
critical habitat for rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR 24692,
April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include dams, impoundments, and
point and nonpoint source water pollution, including siltation and
pollution associated with a variety of land uses. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include reducing water quality degradation and habitat loss
and fragmentation (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
OF 4: Saline River
Unit OF 4 consists of 185.3 river mi (298.2 km) of Saline River in
Ashley, Bradley, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Grant, and Saline Counties,
Arkansas, from the mouth of North Fork Saline River north of Benton,
Saline County, downstream to the mouth of Mill Creek north of
Stillions, Ashley County, and includes the river channel up to the
ordinary high water mark. Approximately 100 percent of the riparian
lands that border the unit are in private ownership and less than 1
percent is in public ownership. The public ownership in this unit is
State-owned land associated with Jenkins Ferry State Park. General land
use within the adjacent riparian areas of this unit includes forest,
agriculture, pasture, the town of Tull, and the city of Benton. Unit OF
4 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical
or biological features essential to the species' conservation. There is
overlap of 185.3 river mi (298.2 km) of this unit with designated
critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot (see 50 CFR 17.95(f) and 80 FR
24692, April 30, 2015).
Threats identified within the unit include dams, impoundments,
mining, development, and point and nonpoint source water pollution,
including siltation and pollution associated with development in the
headwaters and a variety of other land uses. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include reducing water quality degradation and habitat loss
and fragmentation (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
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 rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
[[Page 12361]]
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation: (1) If the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected
by the identified action. In such situations, Federal agencies
sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but
the regulations also specify some exceptions to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after
subsequently listing a new species or designating new critical habitat.
See the regulations for a description of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to, actions that
would: (1) Alter the geomorphology of the species' stream and river
habitats (for example, instream excavation or dredging, impoundment,
channelization, sand and gravel mining, clearing riparian vegetation,
and discharge of fill materials); (2) significantly alter the existing
flow regime where these species occur (for example, impoundment, urban
development, water diversion, water withdrawal, water draw-down, and
hydropower generation); (3) significantly alter water chemistry or
water quality (for example, hydropower discharges, or the release of
chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated effluents into surface
water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed
release (nonpoint source)); and (4) significantly alter stream bed
material composition and quality by increasing sediment deposition or
filamentous algal growth (for example, construction projects, gravel
and sand mining, oil and gas development, coal mining, livestock
grazing, irresponsible logging practices, and other watershed and
floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the
water).
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense (DoD), 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. No DoD lands
with a completed INRMP are 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 designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant
impacts. In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing
[[Page 12362]]
regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers,
or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of
critical habitat (for example, under the Federal listing as well as
other Federal, State, and local regulations). Therefore, the baseline
represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the listing of the
species under the Act (that is, conservation of the species and its
habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated).
The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental
impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical
habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and
associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat,
above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when
evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas
from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to
conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell
(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2021, entire). We began by conducting a
screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in
order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to
result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening
analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of critical
habitat that are already subject to such protections and are,
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (that is,
absent critical habitat designation) and includes any probable
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening
analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific
areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts
as a result of the designation. If the proposed critical habitat
designation contains any unoccupied units, the screening analysis
assesses whether those units require additional management or
conservation efforts that may incur incremental economic impacts. This
screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM
constitute what we consider to be our draft economic analysis (DEA) of
the proposed critical habitat designations for the western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell; our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell, first we identified, in the IEM dated February
1, 2021, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the
following categories of activities: Instream excavation or dredging;
impoundments; channelization; sand and gravel mining; clearing riparian
vegetation; discharge of fill materials; urban development; water
diversion; water withdrawal; water draw-down; hydropower generation and
discharges; release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated
effluents into surface water or connected ground water at a point
source or by dispersed release (nonpoint); construction projects; oil
and gas development; coal mining; livestock grazing; timber harvest;
and other watershed or floodplain disturbances that release sediments
or nutrients into the water. We considered each industry or category
individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will
not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under
the Act, designation of critical habitat affects only activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we
list these species, in areas where the western fanshell or ``Ouachita''
fanshell are present, Federal agencies would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund,
permit, or implement that may affect the species. If, when we list
these species, we also finalize this proposed critical habitat
designation, consultations would include an evaluation of measures to
avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that would result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (that is, difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the
western fanshell's and ``Ouachita'' fanshell's critical habitat.
Because the designation of critical habitat for western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell is proposed concurrently with the listing, it has
been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which
conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and
those which would result solely from the designation of critical
habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case
help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or biological
features identified for critical habitat are the same features
essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions
that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute
jeopardy to the western fanshell or ``Ouachita'' fanshell would also
likely adversely affect the essential physical or biological features
of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this
proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the western fanshell
includes nine units, all of which are occupied by the species.
Ownership of riparian lands adjacent to the proposed units includes
318.2 river mi (512.1 km; 88 percent) in private ownership and 41.7
river mi (67.1 km; 12 percent) in public (Federal or State) ownership.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the ``Ouachita'' fanshell
includes four units, all of which are occupied by the species.
Ownership of riparian lands
[[Page 12363]]
adjacent to the proposed units includes 291.1 river mi (468.5 km; 99
percent) in private ownership and 3.3 river mi (5.3 km; 1 percent) in
public (Federal or State) ownership.
Total incremental costs of critical habitat designation for the
western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell are not expected to exceed
$79,000 (2021 dollars) per year. The costs are reflective of: (1) All
proposed units are considered occupied, (2) project modifications
requested to avoid adverse modification are likely to be the same as
those recommended to avoid jeopardy in occupied habitat for these
species, and (3) the proposed designations receive baseline protection
from the presence of critical habitat for co-occurring listed mussel
species with similar habitat needs in 60 percent of the proposed
western fanshell critical habitat and in 71 percent of the proposed
``Ouachita'' fanshell critical habitat. Because consultation would be
required as a result of the listing of the western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell and is already required in some of these areas as
a result of the presence of other listed species and critical habitats,
the economic costs of the critical habitat designation would likely be
primarily limited to additional administrative efforts to consider
adverse modification for these two species in section 7 consultations.
Based on the consultation history regarding historical projects and
activities overlapping the proposed critical habitat area for the
western fanshell, the number of future consultations, including
technical assistance efforts, is likely to be no more than 23 per year
across all nine units. Based on the consultation history regarding
historical projects and activities overlapping the proposed critical
habitat area for the ``Ouachita'' fanshell, the number of future
consultations, including technical assistance efforts, is likely to be
no more than 15 per year across all four units. Overall, transportation
and utilities activities are expected to result in the largest portion
of consultations for both the western and ``Ouachita'' fanshells and,
therefore, incur the highest costs. The geographic distribution of
future section 7 consultations and associated costs are likely to be
most heavily concentrated in western fanshell proposed Unit 2 and
``Ouachita'' fanshell proposed Unit 4. However, even assuming
consultation activity increases substantially, incremental
administrative costs are still likely to remain well under $100 million
per year.
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA
discussed above, as well as on all aspects of this proposed rule and
our required determinations. During the development of a final
designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and
any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the
public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we
receive credible information regarding the existence of a meaningful
economic or other relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion, we
will conduct an exclusion analysis for the relevant area or areas. We
may also exercise the discretion to evaluate any other particular areas
for possible exclusion. Furthermore, when we conduct an exclusion
analysis based on impacts identified by experts in, or sources with
firsthand knowledge about, impacts that are outside the scope of the
Service's expertise, we will give weight to those impacts consistent
with the expert or firsthand information unless we have rebutting
information. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits
of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of either species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (for example, a
DoD installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a
newly listed species or a species previously not covered). If a
particular area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then
national-security or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the
process of determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical
habitat.'' However, the Service must still consider impacts on national
security, including homeland security, on those lands or areas not
covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 4(b)(2) requires the
Service to consider those impacts whenever it designates critical
habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or
another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have
reason to consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides
credible information, including a reasonably specific justification of
an incremental impact on national security that would result from the
designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities,
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting
the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific
justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide
a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to
the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation.
If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the
expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1)
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing
the benefits of exclusion.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider whether a
national-security or homeland-security impact might exist on lands not
owned or managed by DoD or DHS. In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical
habitat for western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell are not owned or
managed by the DoD or DHS. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on
national security. However, if through the public comment period we
receive credible information regarding impacts on national security or
homeland security from designating particular areas as critical
habitat, then as part of
[[Page 12364]]
developing the final designation of critical habitat, we will conduct a
discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those
areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 17.90.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. Other relevant impacts may include, but are
not limited to, impacts to Tribes, States, local governments, public
health and safety, community interests, the environment (such as
increased risk of wildfire or pest and invasive species management),
Federal lands, and conservation plans, agreements, or partnerships. To
identify other relevant impacts that may affect the exclusion analysis,
we consider a number of factors, including whether there are permitted
conservation plans covering the species in the area--such as HCPs, safe
harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements with
assurances (CCAAs)--or whether there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that may be impaired by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether
Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or
government-to-government relationships of the United States with Tribal
entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any
State, local, public-health, community-interest, environmental, or
social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
We have not identified any areas to consider for exclusion from
critical habitat based on other relevant impacts. However, during the
development of a final designation, we will consider all information
currently available or received during the public comment period. If we
receive credible information regarding the existence of a meaningful
impact supporting a benefit of excluding any areas, we will undertake
an exclusion analysis and determine whether those areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under the
authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
17.90. We may also exercise the discretion to undertake exclusion
analyses for other areas as well, and we will describe all of our
exclusion analyses as part of a final critical habitat determination.
Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act
At this time, we are not considering any exclusions from the
proposed designation based on economic impacts, national security
impacts, or other relevant impacts--such as partnerships, management,
or protection afforded by cooperative management efforts--under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that
no HCPs or other management plans for western fanshell or ``Ouachita''
fanshell currently exist, 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 and thus, as described above, we are not
considering excluding any particular areas on the basis of the presence
of conservation agreements or impacts to trust resources.
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 17.90.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (that
is, small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will 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
[[Page 12365]]
than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing
less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses
with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designations. The
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designations will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designations
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designations 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. Facilities that provide energy supply, distribution,
or use occur within some units of the proposed critical habitat
designations (for example, dams, pipelines) and may potentially be
affected. We determined that consultations, technical assistance, and
requests for species lists may be necessary in some instances. In our
economic analysis, we did not find that this proposed critical habitat
designation would significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and
no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While 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 western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell 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
[[Page 12366]]
funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the
proposed designation of critical habitat for western fanshell and
``Ouachita'' fanshell, and it concludes that, if adopted, these
designations of critical habitat would not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designations.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of these proposed critical habitat designations
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designations may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of
designated critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed
rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However,
when the range of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit,
such as that of the western fanshell, under the Tenth Circuit ruling in
Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we undertake a NEPA analysis for
critical habitat designation. We invite the public to comment on the
extent to which this proposed regulation may have a significant impact
on the human environment, or fall within one of the categorical
exclusions for actions that have no individual or cumulative effect on
the quality of the human environment. We will complete our analysis, in
compliance with NEPA, before finalizing this proposed rule.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal
lands fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for
the western fanshell and ``Ouachita'' fanshell, so no Tribal lands
would be affected by the proposed designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Missouri Ecological Services Field Office for western fanshell and the
Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office for ``Ouachita'' fanshell
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the
Missouri and Arkansas Ecological Services Field Offices.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
[[Page 12367]]
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Fanshell, `Ouachita'''
and ``Fanshell, western'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in alphabetical order under CLAMS 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
* * * * * * *
Fanshell, ``Ouachita''.......... Cyprogenia cf. Wherever found.... T [Federal Register
aberti. citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.45(e); \4d\ 50 CFR
17.95(f).\CH\
Fanshell, western............... Cyprogenia aberti. Wherever found.... T [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.45(e); \4d\ 50 CFR
17.95(f).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Add Sec. 17.45 to read as follows:
Sec. 17.45 Special rules--snails and clams.
(a)-(d) [Reserved]
(e) ``Ouachita'' fanshell (Cyprogenia cf. aberti) and western
fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered wildlife also apply to the ``Ouachita'' fanshell and western
fanshell. Except as provided under paragraph (e)(2) of this section and
Sec. Sec. 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to
solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the
following acts in regard to this species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b) for endangered
wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1) for endangered
wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
(A) Channel and bank restoration projects for creation of natural,
physically stable, ecologically functioning streams, taking into
consideration connectivity with floodplain and groundwater aquifers.
These projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the
desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of
water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable
reconnection to the floodplain; connection of surface and groundwater
systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel; riffles and pools
comprised of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of large imported
materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent riparian areas; and
inclusion of riparian wetlands. For bank stabilization projects that
use bioengineering methods to replace preexisting, bare, eroding stream
banks with vegetated, stable stream banks, thereby reducing bank
erosion and instream sedimentation and improving habitat conditions for
the species, stream banks may be stabilized using native species live
stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in
a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow), native species
live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows, bound together
into long, cigar-shaped bundles), or native species brush layering
(cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species layered between
successive lifts of soil fill). Bank restoration projects require
planting appropriate native vegetation, including woody species
appropriate for the region and habitat. These projects will not include
the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or
gabion structures. To qualify under this exception, restoration
projects must include the following:
(1) Surveys to determine presence of ``Ouachita'' fanshell and
western fanshell prior to the commencement of restoration actions;
(2) If either mussel is present, coordination with the Service's
local Ecological Services field office for relocation of ``Ouachita''
fanshell and western fanshell mussels to suitable habitat outside of
the project footprint prior to project implementation; and
(3) If relocation of mussels occurs, monitoring of relocated
mussels post-implementation of restoration activities.
(B) Silviculture practices and forest management activities that
use State-approved best management practices to protect water and
sediment quality and stream and riparian habitat.
(C) Transportation projects that avoid or do not include instream
disturbance in waters occupied by the species.
(v) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
0
4. Amend Sec. 17.95(f) by adding entries for `` `Ouachita' Fanshell
(Cyprogenia cf. aberti)'' and ``Western Fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti)''
immediately following the entry for ``Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana)'', to read as follows:
[[Page 12368]]
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
``Ouachita'' Fanshell (Cyprogenia cf. aberti)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Ashley, Bradley, Clark,
Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Grant, Montgomery, Nevada, Ouachita, Polk, and
Saline Counties, Arkansas, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of ``Ouachita'' fanshell consist of the
following components:
(i) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, timing,
frequency, duration, rate of change, and overall seasonality of
discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the
species is found and to maintain stream connectivity, specifically
providing for the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of
the mussel's and fish hosts' habitat and food availability, maintenance
of spawning habitat for native host fishes, and the ability for newly
transformed juveniles to settle and become established in their
habitats. Adequate flows ensure delivery of oxygen, enable
reproduction, deliver food to filter-feeding mussels, and reduce
contaminants and fine sediments from interstitial spaces.
(ii) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats,
characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (that
is, channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles,
and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed
elevation) with habitats that support a diversity of freshwater mussel
and native fish (such as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that provide
flow refuges consisting of silt-free gravel and coarse sand
substrates).
(iii) Water and sediment quality necessary to sustain natural
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of
all life stages, including, but not limited to: Dissolved oxygen
(generally above 3 parts per million (ppm)) and water temperature
(generally below 80 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (27 degrees Celsius
([deg]C)). Additionally, water and sediment should be low in ammonia
(generally below 1.0 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen) and heavy metals, and
lack excessive total suspended solids and other pollutants.
(iv) The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for
recruitment of the ``Ouachita'' fanshell, including logperch (Percina
caprodes), slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala), or orangebelly
darter (Etheostoma radiosum).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created by overlaying
Natural Heritage Element Occurrence data and U.S. Geological Survey
hydrologic data for stream reaches using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software.
Critical habitat unit upstream and downstream limits were delineated at
the nearest road crossing or stream confluence of each occupied reach.
Data layers defining map units were created with U.S. Geological Survey
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Medium Flowline data. ArcGIS was
also used to calculate river kilometers and river miles from the NHD
dataset, and it was used to determine longitude and latitude
coordinates in decimal degrees. The projection used in mapping and
calculating distances and locations within the units was EPSG:4269-
NAD83 Geographic. Natural Heritage program and State mussel database
species presence data from Arkansas were used to select specific river
and stream segments for inclusion in the critical habitat layer. The
maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text,
establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R3-ES-2021-0061, and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 12369]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.003
(6) Unit OF 1: Little Missouri River; Clark, Nevada, and Ouachita
Counties, Arkansas.
(i) Unit OF 1 consists of 22.9 river miles (mi) (36.9 kilometers
(km)) of Little Missouri River in Clark, Nevada, and Ouachita Counties,
Arkansas, from the mouth of Garland Creek northeast of Prescott, Nevada
County, downstream to the mouth of Horse Branch north of Red Hill,
Ouachita County, and includes the river channel up to the ordinary high
water mark. Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border
the unit are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit OF 1 follows:
[[Page 12370]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.004
(7) Unit OF 2: Ouachita Headwaters; Montgomery and Polk Counties,
Arkansas.
(i) Unit OF 2 consists of 32.7 river mi (52.6 km) of Ouachita River
in Montgomery and Polk Counties, Arkansas, from the County Road 67
crossing south of Cherry Hill, Polk County, downstream to the U.S.
Route 270 crossing southeast of Pencil Bluff, Montgomery County, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Riparian
lands that border the unit include approximately 29.9 river mi (48.1
km; 91 percent) in private ownership and 2.8 river mi (4.5 km; 9
percent) in public (Federal) ownership. The public ownership in this
unit is Federal land associated with the U.S. Forest Service's Ouachita
National Forest.
(ii) Map of Unit OF 2 follows:
[[Page 12371]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.005
(8) Unit OF 3: Ouachita River; Clark, Dallas, and Ouachita
Counties, Arkansas.
(i) Unit OF 3 consists of 53.5 river mi (86.1 km) of Ouachita River
in Clark, Dallas, and Ouachita Counties, Arkansas, from the mouth of
L'Eau Frais Creek southeast of Arkadelphia, Clark County, downstream to
the mouth of Ecore Fabre Bayou north of Camden, Ouachita County, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership. There is a Wetlands Reserve Program easement
within the unit.
(ii) Map of Unit OF 3 follows:
[[Page 12372]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.006
(9) Unit OF 4: Saline River; Ashley, Bradley, Cleveland, Dallas,
Drew, Grant, and Saline Counties, Arkansas.
(i) Unit OF 4 consists of 185.3 river mi (298.2 km) of Saline River
in Ashley, Bradley, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Grant, and Saline
Counties, Arkansas, from the mouth of North Fork Saline River north of
Benton, Saline County, downstream to the mouth of Mill Creek north of
Stillions, Ashley County, and includes the river channel up to the
ordinary high water mark. Approximately 100 percent of the riparian
lands that border the unit are in private ownership and less than 1
percent is in public ownership. The public ownership in this unit is
State-owned land associated with Jenkins Ferry State Park.
(ii) Map of Unit OF 4 follows:
[[Page 12373]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.007
Western Fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cleburne, Fulton,
Independence, Jackson, Lawrence, Randolph, Sharp, Stone, and Van Buren
Counties, Arkansas; Cherokee, Greenwood, Montgomery, and Wilson
Counties, Kansas; and Butler, Jasper, Madison, and Wayne Counties,
Missouri, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of western fanshell consist of the
following components:
(i) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, timing,
frequency, duration, rate of change, and overall seasonality of
discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the
species is found and to maintain stream connectivity, specifically
providing for the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of
the mussel's and fish hosts' habitat and food availability, maintenance
of spawning habitat for native host fishes, and the ability for newly
transformed juveniles to settle
[[Page 12374]]
and become established in their habitats. Adequate flows ensure
delivery of oxygen, enable reproduction, deliver food to filter-feeding
mussels, and reduce contaminants and fine sediments from interstitial
spaces.
(ii) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats,
characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (that
is, channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles,
and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed
elevation) with habitats that support a diversity of freshwater mussel
and native fish (such as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that provide
flow refuges consisting of silt-free gravel and coarse sand
substrates).
(iii) Water and sediment quality necessary to sustain natural
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of
all life stages, including, but not limited to: dissolved oxygen
(generally above 3 parts per million (ppm)) and water temperature
(generally below 80 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (27 degrees Celsius
([deg]C)). Additionally, water and sediment should be low in ammonia
(generally below 1.0 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen) and heavy metals, and
lack excessive total suspended solids and other pollutants.
(iv) The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for
recruitment of the western fanshell, including logperch (Percina
caprodes), rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum), slenderhead darter
(Percina phoxocephala), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), or
orangebelly darter (Etheostoma radiosum).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created by overlaying
Natural Heritage Element Occurrence data and U.S. Geological Survey
hydrologic data for stream reaches using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software.
Critical habitat unit upstream and downstream limits were delineated at
the nearest road crossing or stream confluence of each occupied reach.
Data layers defining map units were created with U.S. Geological Survey
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Medium Flowline data. ArcGIS was
also used to calculate river kilometers and river miles from the NHD
dataset, and it was used to determine longitude and latitude
coordinates in decimal degrees. The projection used in mapping and
calculating distances and locations within the units was EPSG:4269-
NAD83 Geographic. Natural Heritage program and State mussel database
species presence data from Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri were used to
select specific river and stream segments for inclusion in the critical
habitat layer. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at the Service's internet site at
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R3-ES-2021-0061, and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
[[Page 12375]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.008
(6) Unit WF 1: Upper Black River; Butler and Wayne Counties,
Missouri.
(i) Unit WF 1 consists of 64.7 river miles (mi) (104.1 kilometers
(km)) of Black River in Butler and Wayne Counties, Missouri, from
Clearwater Dam southwest of Piedmont, Wayne County, extending
downstream to Butler County Road 658 crossing southeast of Poplar
Bluff, Butler County, and includes the river channel up to the ordinary
high water mark. Riparian lands that border the unit include
approximately 51 river mi (82.1 km; 79 percent) in private ownership
and 13.7 river mi (22 km; 21 percent) in public (Federal or State)
ownership. Approximately 2.7 miles of the public ownership in this unit
are State lands associated with Missouri Department of Conservation's
(MDC) Bradley A. Hammer Memorial Conservation Area, Dan River Access,
Hilliard Access, and Stephen J. Sun Conservation Area. Eleven miles are
Federal land associated with the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) Mark
Twain National Forest and U.S.
[[Page 12376]]
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clearwater Recreation Area.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.009
(7) Unit WF 2: Lower Black/Strawberry River; Independence, Jackson,
Lawrence, and Sharp Counties, Arkansas.
(i) Unit WF 2 consists of 111.3 river mi (179.1 km) of Black River
and Strawberry River in Independence, Jackson, Lawrence, and Sharp
Counties in Arkansas, and includes the river channel up to the ordinary
high water mark. Black River makes up 54.6 river mi (87.9 km) from the
mouth of Spring River northeast of Black Rock, extending downstream to
the mouth of Strawberry River northeast of Dowdy, Independence County.
Strawberry River makes up 56.7 river mi (91.2 km) from the mouth of
Lave Creek north of
[[Page 12377]]
Evening Shade, Sharp County, extending downstream to the confluence
with Black River northeast of Dowdy, Independence County. Riparian
lands that border the unit include approximately 100.4 river mi (161.6
km; 90 percent) in private ownership and 10.9 river mi (17.5 km; 10
percent) in public (State) ownership. The public land ownership in this
unit is associated with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission's Shirey Bay
Rainey Brake Wildlife Management Area on Black River. The Nature
Conservancy's Strawberry River Preserve and Ranch on Strawberry River
is also in this unit.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.010
(8) Unit WF 3: Fall River; Greenwood and Wilson Counties, Kansas.
(i) Unit WF 3 consists of 45.5 river mi (73.2 km) of Fall River in
Greenwood and Wilson Counties, Kansas, from the Greenwood County Road
33/Merchants
[[Page 12378]]
Avenue crossing at Fall River, Greenwood County, extending downstream
to the U.S. Route 400 crossing west of Neodesha, Wilson County, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.011
(9) Unit WF 4: Middle Fork Little Red River; Cleburne, Stone, and
Van Buren Counties, Arkansas.
(i) Unit WF 4 consists of 34.1 river mi (54.8 km) of the Middle
Fork Little Red River in Cleburne, Stone, and Van Buren Counties,
Arkansas, from the mouth of Linn Creek east of Dennard, Van Buren
County, extending downstream to the mouth of Wild Goose Creek north of
Fairfield Bay, Cleburne
[[Page 12379]]
and Van Buren counties, and includes the river channel up to the
ordinary high water mark. Riparian lands that border the unit include
approximately 30.6 river mi (49.2 km; 90 percent) in private ownership
and 3.5 river mi (5.6 km; 10 percent) in public (Federal) ownership.
All of the public land ownership in this unit is Federal land
associated with the USACE's Greers Ferry Recreation Area.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.012
(10) Unit WF 5: St. Francis River; Madison and Wayne Counties,
Missouri.
(i) Unit WF 5 consists of 49.3 river mi (79.3 km) of St. Francis
River in Madison and Wayne Counties, Missouri, extending from the mouth
of Wachita Creek west of Fredericktown, Madison County, downstream to
the mouth of Big Creek northwest of Silva, Wayne County, and includes
the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Riparian lands
that border the unit
[[Page 12380]]
include approximately 36.7 river mi (59.1 km; 74 percent) in private
ownership and 12.6 river mi (20.2 km; 26 percent) in public (Federal or
State) ownership. Approximately 2.4 river mi of the public ownership in
this unit are State lands associated with MDC's Coldwater Conservation
Area, Mill Stream Gardens, and Roselle Access. Ten miles are Federal
land associated with the USFS's Mark Twain National Forest.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.013
(11) Unit WF 6: South Fork Spring River; Fulton County, Arkansas.
(i) Unit WF 6 consists of 13.4 river mi (21.6 km) of South Fork
Spring River in Fulton County, Arkansas, from the mouth of Camp Creek
east of Salem, Fulton County, extending downstream to the Arkansas
Highway 289 crossing
[[Page 12381]]
northwest of Cherokee Village, Fulton and Sharp Counties, and includes
the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 100
percent of the riparian lands that border the unit are in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.014
(12) Unit WF 7: Spring River (AR); Lawrence and Randolph Counties,
Arkansas.
(i) Unit WF 7 consists of 14.2 river mi (22.9 km) of Spring River
in Lawrence and Randolph Counties, Arkansas, from the mouth of Wells
Creek at Ravenden, extending downstream to the mouth of Stennitt Creek
southeast of Imboden, Lawrence County, and includes the river channel
up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 100 percent of the
riparian lands that border the unit are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 7 follows:
[[Page 12382]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.015
(13) Unit WF 8: Spring River (MO/KS); Jasper County, Missouri, and
Cherokee County, Kansas.
(i) Unit WF 8 consists of 15 river mi (24.1 km) of Spring River in
Jasper County, Missouri, and Cherokee County, Kansas, from the mouth of
North Fork Spring River east of Asbury, Jasper County, Missouri,
extending downstream through Cherokee County, Kansas, to the mouth of
Center Creek west of Carl Junction, Jasper County, Missouri, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Riparian
lands that border the unit include approximately 14.0 river mi (22.5
km; 94 percent) in private ownership and 1.0 river mi (1.6 km; 6
percent) in public (State) ownership. The public ownership of this unit
is State land associated with the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks
and Tourism's Spring River Wildlife Area.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 8 follows:
[[Page 12383]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.016
(14) Unit WF 9: Verdigris River; Montgomery and Wilson Counties,
Kansas.
(i) Unit WF 9 consists of 12.4 river mi (20 km) of Verdigris River
in Montgomery and Wilson Counties, Kansas, from the mouth of Fall River
south of Neodesha, Wilson County, extending downstream to the mouth of
Choteau Creek northeast of Independence, Montgomery County, and
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark.
Approximately 100 percent of the riparian lands that border the unit
are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit WF 9 follows:
[[Page 12384]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR22.017
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02994 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C