Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Big Creek Crayfish and St. Francis River Crayfish and Designation of Critical Habitat, 25512-25542 [2023-08849]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 2023)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 25512-25542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2019-0020; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BD98


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the Big Creek crayfish (Faxonius peruncus) and 
the St. Francis River crayfish (Faxonius quadruncus), two crayfish 
species from southern Missouri. We also finalize a rule under the 
authority of section 4(d) of the Act that provides regulatory measures 
that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of 
these species. In addition, we designate critical habitat for the 
species; in total, approximately 1,069 river miles (1,720 river

[[Page 25513]]

kilometers) for the Big Creek crayfish and 1,043 river miles (1,679 
river kilometers) for the St. Francis River crayfish in Iron, Madison, 
St. Francois, Washington, and Wayne Counties, Missouri, fall within the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designations. This rule applies the 
protections of the Act to these species and their designated critical 
habitats.

DATES: This rule is effective May 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/midwest/. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in 
preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2019-0020.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the decision file for the critical habitat 
designations and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R3-ES-2019-0020, and at the field office responsible for the 
designations (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, below). Any 
additional tools or supporting information that we developed for the 
critical habitat designations will also be available at the Service's 
website and at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Weber, 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. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, 
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list 
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the 
Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish both meet the 
definition of threatened species; therefore, we are listing them as 
such and finalizing designations of critical habitat for both species. 
Both listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and 
designating critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule 
through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.
    What this document does. This rule lists the Big Creek crayfish 
(Faxonius peruncus) and the St. Francis River crayfish (Faxonius 
quadruncus) as threatened species and designates critical habitat for 
both species. We are designating approximately 1,069 river miles (1,720 
river kilometers) for the Big Creek crayfish and 1,043 river miles 
(1,679 river kilometers) for the St. Francis River crayfish in Iron, 
Madison, St. Francois, Washington, and Wayne Counties, Missouri. We are 
also finalizing a rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act 
that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of these species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that displacement (Factor E) by 
the woodland crayfish (Faxonius hylas) is the primary threat to both 
the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish. However, 
degraded water quality (Factor A) from heavy metal mining activities in 
the watershed is impacting the species and may act synergistically with 
the spread of the nonnative woodland crayfish and subsequent 
displacement of the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish. 
The existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequately addressing these 
threats such that the species do not warrant listing (Factor D).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the 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 consideration 
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

Previous Federal Actions

    On September 17, 2020, we published in the Federal Register (85 FR 
58192) a proposed rule to list the Big Creek crayfish and the St. 
Francis River crayfish as threatened species under the Act, to adopt a 
species-specific rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) 
rule'') that provides for the protection of the Big Creek crayfish and 
the St. Francis River crayfish, and to designate critical habitat for 
both species under the Act. Please refer to that proposed rule for a 
detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this 
species.
    During the public comment period for the September 17, 2020, 
proposed rule, we received a request for a public hearing. On April 27, 
2021, we published a document (86 FR 22127) reopening the September 17, 
2020, proposed rule's comment period for an additional 30 days and 
announcing a public informational meeting and public hearing on the 
proposed rule. We held the virtual public informational meeting 
followed by a public hearing on May 13, 2021.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    The final rule incorporates changes to our September 17, 2020, 
proposed rule (85 FR 58192) and our species status assessment report 
based on the comments we received, as discussed below under Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations. We have also revised our significant 
portion of the range analysis.
    Based on information we received in comments and our further 
consideration, in this rule, we refine the 4(d) rule for these species 
to more clearly define take prohibitions and to accurately regulate 
only those activities that are necessary and advisable for the 
protection of the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish 
(see

[[Page 25514]]

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule, below). The Missouri Department of 
Conservation (MDC) informed us that adopting two of the exceptions to 
the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule (the exceptions to the 
incidental take prohibitions for a person capturing crayfish for 
educational and observation purposes, and for a person capturing and 
possessing up to 25 of each species for use as bait) would conflict 
with the Wildlife Code of Missouri (Missouri Code). Under the Missouri 
Code, any species added to the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife is also added to Missouri's State list of 
endangered species. Because the Missouri Code also prohibits the 
purposeful take of any species listed by the State as endangered, 
allowing capture of the crayfishes for educational and observation 
purposes and for use as bait would be in direct conflict with the 
Missouri Code and hinder the MDC's ability to conserve the species. The 
MDC also expressed concerns that these two exceptions would hinder the 
enforcement of the prohibition on activities that may facilitate the 
introduction or spread of the invasive woodland crayfish. After 
reviewing the MDC's comment and further coordinating with the State of 
Missouri, we conclude that adopting those two exceptions to the 
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule would undermine the State's ability to 
provide conservation for the species, and we do not include them in 
this final rule.
    In this rule, we also expand the exception to the prohibitions in 
the proposed 4(d) rule concerning incidental take caused by restoration 
activities or other activities that will result in an overall benefit 
to one or both of the species. In this exception, we now include the 
additional restoration activity of replacing in-stream low water 
crossings that obstruct movement of aquatic organisms with crossings 
that facilitate the movement of species and materials. Replacing these 
crossings is expected to result in an overall benefit to one or both 
species and including it as an exception is an additional activity that 
we would expect to be beneficial to the conservation of the species. We 
removed mention of specific Federal agencies that we may consult with 
on these activities. We removed the list of Federal agencies to reduce 
confusion, as we would consult whenever a Federal nexus exists, not 
only with the Federal agencies we specifically named in the proposed 
4(d) rule. We also added ``surface and groundwater withdrawals'' to the 
list of prohibited activities that could impact the hydrological flows 
such that the species' reproduction or survival will be impacted, in an 
effort to provide a more detailed list of such activities.
    Lastly, in this critical habitat designation, we do not include 
``[s]paces under rocks or shallow burrows in gravel that provide 
refugia'' as a physical or biological feature. That physical and 
biological feature, which was included in the proposed designation, is 
redundant with the following physical or biological feature that 
remains in this designation: ``Adequately low stream embeddedness so 
that spaces under rocks and cavities in gravel remain available to the 
Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish.''

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish. The SSA team 
was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species 
experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific 
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, 
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both 
negative and beneficial) affecting the 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 solicited independent scientific 
review of the information contained in the SSA report. We sent the SSA 
report to four independent peer reviewers and received one response. 
The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. In 
preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these 
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation 
for the proposed rule and this final rule.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish is presented in 
the SSA report (Service 2022, entire).
    The Big Creek crayfish (Faxonius peruncus) is a small, olive-tan 
crayfish with blackish blotches and specks over the upper surface of 
pincers, carapace, and abdomen. Length of adult individuals ranges from 
1.1 to 2.2 inches (in) (2.8 to 5.6 centimeters (cm)). The St. Francis 
River crayfish (Faxonius quadruncus) is a small, dark brown crayfish 
with blackish blotches or specks over the upper surfaces of the 
pincers, carapace, and abdomen. Lengths of adult individuals of St. 
Francis River crayfish have been observed to be similar to adult Big 
Creek crayfish.
    Both the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish have 
localized distributions in the Upper St. Francis River watershed 
upstream of Wappapello Dam in Iron, Madison, St. Francois, Washington, 
and Wayne Counties in southeastern Missouri (see figure 1, below). The 
Big Creek crayfish appears most abundant in Big Creek and other streams 
on the west side of the watershed, as well as in the Twelvemile Creek 
subwatersheds on the east side; the St. Francis River crayfish mainly 
inhabits the upper St. Francis River tributaries on the upper end of 
the Upper St. Francis River watershed. Despite occupying the Upper St. 
Francis River watershed at a coarse spatial scale, these two species 
have been observed at the same location only seven times and exhibit 
mostly discrete distributions (Westhoff 2011, pp. 34-36).
    Big Creek crayfish are generally found in streams with widths less 
than 33 feet (ft) (10 meters (m)) under small rocks or in shallow 
burrows in headwater streams and small rocky creeks in shallow depths. 
St. Francis River crayfish are generally found in swiftly moving 
streams under rocks and boulders in small headwater streams and up to 
moderately larger rivers. St. Francis River crayfish may prefer pool/
backwater areas and run macrohabitats over faster riffles.
    Given that both the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River 
crayfish are habitat generalists (Westhoff 2017, pers. comm.) and not 
all reaches of streams within the watershed have been sampled, it is 
likely that the species occur at more locations in the watershed. 
Therefore, we defined the species' ranges as the streams within 
subwatersheds (12-digit hydrologic units) known to be occupied by each 
species. We consider these ranges to be a more accurate depiction of 
the actual ranges of the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River 
crayfish than using only known locations. Within the St. Francis River 
mainstem (where it is a 5th order stream), the Big Creek crayfish also 
intermittently occurs in 86 river miles (rmi) (139 river kilometers 
(km)), and the St. Francis River crayfish occurs in 99 rmi (159 km). 
Thus, the Big Creek crayfish is found in 1,069 rmi (1,720 km) and the 
St. Francis River Crayfish is found in 1,043 rmi (1,679 km) in the 
Upper St. Francis watershed.

[[Page 25515]]

    Individuals of the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River 
crayfish mate in the fall. Big Creek crayfish females generate an 
average of 61 eggs, and St. Francis River crayfish females generate an 
average of 43 to 81 eggs (Pflieger 1996, pp. 116, 122). The normal 
lifespan for both the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River 
crayfish appears to be about 2 years (Pflieger 1996, pp. 116, 122). We 
presume that both species' feeding habits are similar to those of other 
crayfish species in the region, and their diets likely consist of plant 
detritus, periphyton, and invertebrates.
    Based on genetic analyses (Fetzner and DiStefano 2008, pp. 12-15), 
we consider the Big Creek crayfish species to consist of two 
populations (referred to as the Main and Twelvemile Creek populations), 
whereas the St. Francis River crayfish species consists of a single 
population (see figure 1, below). We have no evidence to indicate that 
there has been a reduction in the number of populations for either 
species from historical conditions. For analytical purposes and for 
better representation of groups of individuals that occupy the same 
area and are subject to the same environmental pressures, we defined 
finer-scale subpopulations. We consider a subpopulation to be those 
individuals that are able to interbreed and occur within the same 
stream reach of occupied habitat. Therefore, multiple subpopulations 
make up the single population (and species) of the St. Francis River 
crayfish, and multiple subpopulations make up the two populations of 
the Big Creek crayfish. For Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River 
crayfish subpopulations to be healthy, they require a population size 
and growth rate sufficient to withstand natural environmental 
fluctuations and habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to support 
all life stages (specific details of each of these requirements remains 
unclear). Healthy subpopulations of each species also require gene flow 
among subpopulations and a native community structure free from 
nonnative crayfish species that may outcompete and ultimately displace 
the two species (for more information, see chapter 2 of the SSA 
report).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27AP23.150

Figure 1. Range of the Big Creek crayfish (left) and St. Francis River 
crayfish (right) in Missouri.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species 
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the 
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to 
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies 
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    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;

[[Page 25516]]

    (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 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 
Services 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 the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be listed 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.
    To assess the viability of the Big Creek crayfish and the St. 
Francis River crayfish, 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 the 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.
    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-2019-0020 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.
    The primary threat to the future viability of the Big Creek 
crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish is displacement by a 
nonnative crayfish species (woodland crayfish). Currently, no means to 
slow or stop the spread of the woodland crayfish exist. Contamination 
from heavy metal mining and habitat degradation from sedimentation also 
affect the species' viabilities. A brief summary of these stressors is 
presented below; for a full description of these stressors, refer to 
chapter 3 of the SSA report for each species (USFWS 2022, pp. 13-22).

Nonnative Crayfish

    The introduction of nonnative crayfish is one of the primary 
factors contributing to declining crayfish populations (Taylor et al. 
2007, p. 374). Nonnative crayfish species can displace native 
crayfishes through competition, differential predation, reproductive 
interference or hybridization, disease transmission, or a combination 
of these mechanisms (Lodge et al. 2000, pp. 9, 12).

[[Page 25517]]

    Reproductive interference in the form of hybridization may be the 
main mechanism driving the displacement of the Big Creek crayfish and 
the St. Francis River crayfish. Woodland crayfish have been observed 
engaging in mating behavior with St. Francis River crayfish (Westhoff 
2011, p. 117). There is also genetic evidence of hybridization between 
the woodland crayfish and the Big Creek crayfish, as well as between 
the woodland crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish (Fetzner et 
al. 2016 pp. 19-26). Alleles from both parental species have been 
detected in individuals in areas invaded by the woodland crayfish, 
which suggest that both native species readily hybridize with the 
woodland crayfish (Fetzner et al. 2016, p. 28). Genetic swamping (a 
process by which the local genotype is replaced) appears to be the 
mechanism that leads to the eventual full displacement of the native 
species of crayfish, as at least some of the hybrid young appear to be 
viable (Fetzner et al. 2016, p. 29).
    In 1984, the woodland crayfish, endemic to southeastern Missouri, 
was first documented in the Upper St. Francis River watershed, which is 
outside of its native range (Pflieger 1996, p. 82). It is estimated 
that by 2008 (22 years later), the crayfish had invaded 5 to 20 percent 
of the total 3,225 rmi in the watershed (DiStefano and Westhoff 2011, 
p. 40). Within areas invaded by the woodland crayfish, the distribution 
and abundance of the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish 
have been substantially impacted. In one stream, the Big Creek crayfish 
constituted 87 percent of the crayfish community in areas not invaded 
by the woodland crayfish, but only 27 percent in invaded areas 
(DiStefano and Westhoff 2011, p. 40). Similarly, the St. Francis 
crayfish constituted 50 percent of the crayfish community in uninvaded 
areas, but only 13 percent in invaded areas of the stream. In the 
invaded areas of these streams, the woodland crayfish had become the 
dominant species, constituting 57 to 86 percent of the crayfish 
community (DiStefano and Westhoff 2011, p. 40).
    The woodland crayfish's impact on abundance of the Big Creek 
crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish has resulted in the range 
contraction of both of the native species. In one stream, the range of 
the Big Creek crayfish contracted 9.1 rmi (14.7 km) from 2004 to 2009, 
simultaneously with the woodland crayfish's expansion in the stream 
(DiStefano and Westhoff 2011, p. 40). In three other streams, the range 
of the St. Francis River crayfish contracted in conjunction with the 
woodland crayfish's invasion (Riggert et al. 1999, p. 1999; DiStefano 
2008, p. 419).
    The known locations of the woodland crayfish are likely an under-
representation of where the species is present in the watershed, given 
that: (1) The majority of locations were documented prior to 2010, and 
the species can expand at a rate as high as 745 yards (yd) per year 
(681 meters (m) per year) in the upstream direction and 2,499 yd per 
year (2,285 m per year) in the downstream direction (DiStefano and 
Westhoff 2011, pp. 38, 40); and (2) the woodland crayfish has already 
been introduced at several locations throughout the watershed and has 
likely been introduced at additional, undocumented locations (it is not 
feasible to survey every stream throughout the watershed).

Contamination by Heavy Metal Mining

    Approximately 22 percent of the Big Creek crayfish's range and 16 
percent of the St. Francis River crayfish's range occur in areas with 
contaminated soil. Southeastern Missouri has been a primary producer of 
lead since the early 1700s, in an area referred to as the Old Lead 
Mining Belt, and more recently in an area referred to as the New Lead 
Mining Belt. Although most mining ceased in the 1970s, waste from 
mining operations is still present in the landscape, resulting in 
contamination of fish and other aquatic biota, alteration of fish and 
invertebrate communities, and public health advisories against human 
consumption of lead-contaminated fish (Czarneski 1985, pp. 17-23; 
Schmitt et al. 1993, pp. 468-471). The relocation of mine waste (chat) 
throughout the area as topsoil, fill material, and aggregate for roads, 
railroads, concrete, and asphalt has further expanded the area of 
contamination, as has aerial deposition from heavy metal smelters and 
the use of lead mining tailings for agricultural purposes due to their 
lime content (NASEM 2017, pp. 25-37). All of these uses have 
contributed to contamination of streams in portions of the Upper St. 
Francis River watershed. As a result, 24.2 rmi (38.9 km) of the Little 
St. Francis River are currently included in the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) 303(d) list of impaired waters for not 
meeting water quality standards for lead (EPA 2020, p. 28; MDNR 2020, 
p. 8). In 2012, a portion of Big Creek (34.1 rmi; 54.9 km) was added to 
the EPA's 303(d) list for not meeting water quality standards for lead 
and cadmium. That stream reach recently was removed from the 303(d) 
list for lead (in sediment) due to remediation efforts, but 1.8 rmi 
(2.9 km) remain listed for cadmium (EPA 2020, p. 16).
    Studies conducted in southeastern Missouri and other areas 
demonstrate that heavy metal contamination adversely affects riffle-
dwelling crayfish. In a study conducted in a watershed adjacent to that 
of the Upper St. Francis River, metal concentrations in crayfish at 
sites downstream of mining activities were significantly higher than 
those at reference sites (Allert et al. 2008, pp. 100-101). 
Significantly lower crayfish densities were observed at sites 
downstream of mining activities than those at reference sites, 
indicating that metals associated with mining activities have negative 
impacts on crayfish populations in Ozark streams (Allert et al. 2008, 
p. 100). Similar results were observed in other areas impacted by 
mining wastes (including sites in the Upper St. Francis River 
watershed), with sites downstream of mining activities having 
significantly higher metal concentrations in crayfish, reduced 
densities of crayfish (from 80 to 100 percent) (Allert et al. 2008, pp. 
100-101; Allert et al. 2013, p. 567), and significantly lower 
survivorship. The mechanisms by which crayfish can be impacted by heavy 
metal contamination include interference with orienting (Hubschman 
1967, pp. 144-147; Lahman et al. 2015, pp. 443-444), inhibition of 
respiration or aerobic metabolism, and increased susceptibility to 
predation.

Sedimentation

    Crayfish presence is dependent on rocks embedded in little or no 
sediment and open interstitial spaces (Loughman et al. 2016, p. 645; 
Loughman et al. 2017, p. 5). There is little gravel accumulation in the 
Upper St. Francis River watershed due to the surrounding geology. 
Streambank soils also are less likely to erode than in most Ozark 
streams because of these lower densities of gravel. Thus, stream 
channel substrates contain a significant proportion of stable cobble, 
stone, and boulders, which provide habitat for crayfishes (Boone 2001, 
p. GE1). However, similar to many Ozark streams, streams within the 
Upper St. Francis River watershed may experience increased 
sedimentation in the future if land uses change or if riparian 
corridors are cleared. Three streams within the watershed have 
experienced excessive sedimentation due to eroding or breached mine 
tailings (Boone 2001, p. WQ4; DiStefano 2008, p. 191). Breaches can 
allow a large volume of tailings to enter a stream, such as the 1,500 
cubic yd (1,200 cubic m) spilled into a stream

[[Page 25518]]

in 1992 (Boone 2001, p. WQ4), and it can take multiple years for the 
aquatic community to begin to recover following a breach. Excessive 
deposition of fine sediment from tailings or other sources can cover 
rocks and cavities used by the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River 
crayfish as refugia (an area in which a population of organisms can 
survive through a period of unfavorable conditions). The loss of 
refugia likely results in reduced foraging habitat, thereby reducing 
carrying capacity and the density of subpopulations. The loss of 
refugia may also increase competition with the woodland crayfish and 
potentially facilitate displacement of the Big Creek crayfish and St. 
Francis River crayfish. The loss of refugia, caused by sedimentation, 
likely also increases predation risk.

Cumulative Effects

    In addition to individually affecting the species, it is likely 
that several of the risk factors summarized above are acting 
synergistically or additively on both species. The combined impact of 
multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor acting 
alone. For example, in areas affected by lead mining contamination, the 
rate of displacement of Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River 
crayfish by woodland crayfish may increase. Although lead contamination 
may have negative effects on woodland crayfish as well, we anticipate 
cumulative synergistic effects in areas where woodland crayfish have 
invaded and lead mining contamination is present. Additionally, in 
areas invaded by the woodland crayfish, the loss of refugia from 
sedimentation may increase competition between the native species and 
the woodland crayfish. The combination of stressors acting on the Big 
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish will likely impact 
them more severely in combination than any one factor alone.
    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.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Monitoring and research on the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis 
River crayfish have been conducted by the Missouri Department of 
Conservation (MDC) and various other organizations. Multiple 
evaluations of effects from lead mining contamination on crayfish, 
including the St. Francis River crayfish, have been conducted by the 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Monitoring efforts benefit conservation 
efforts of the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish by 
providing information on population health and trends and on the 
magnitude and extent of threats; research efforts provide information 
on mechanisms by which threats may impact the native crayfishes.
    To help curtail the spread of nonnative crayfish in Missouri, MDC 
amended the Wildlife Code of Missouri (Missouri Code) in 2011-2012, to 
increase regulations pertaining to the sale, purchase, and import of 
live crayfishes. While the virile crayfish (Faxonius virilis) may still 
be commercially sold in the State for live bait, all other live 
crayfishes can be imported, sold, or purchased in Missouri only for the 
purposes of human consumption or as food for captive animals kept by 
authorized entities (for example, research institutions/agencies, 
publicly owned zoos) (Missouri Code of State Regulations 2018b, pp. 6-
7). This State regulation effectively bans the sale and purchase of 
live crayfish for bait, the import and sale of live crayfishes in pet 
stores, and the purchase and import of live crayfishes by schools for 
classroom study, all of which are vectors for crayfish invasions. It is 
also illegal in Missouri to release any baitfish or crayfish into 
public waters, except as specifically permitted by the MDC (Missouri 
Code of State Regulations 2018a, p. 3). These State regulations may 
help reduce the likelihood of future invasions of nonnative crayfishes 
within the Upper St. Francis River watershed. However, as the woodland 
crayfish has already been introduced at several locations in the 
watershed, these State regulations will not affect the inevitable 
spread of that species within the Upper St. Francis River watershed.
    Approximately 41 percent of the Upper St. Francis River watershed 
is in Federal and State ownership, with the majority managed by the 
U.S. Forest Service as part of the Mark Twain National Forest. The U.S. 
Forest Service's management efforts benefit stream health by focusing 
on riparian protection and control and reduction of sediment entering 
streams. Other major public landowners in the watershed include the 
MDC, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Missouri Department of 
Natural Resources. Additionally, 5.3 rmi (8.5 km) of Big Creek are 
designated an ``Outstanding State Resource Water.'' Missouri 
Outstanding State Resource Waters are high-quality waters with 
significant aesthetic, recreational, or scientific value and receive 
special protection against degradation in quality (Missouri Code of 
State Regulations 2018c, pp. 14, 16). These protections help maintain 
water quality and minimize additional sedimentation; therefore, these 
protections may maintain the quantity and quality of habitat of the Big 
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish.
    The EPA has conducted, and has plans to continue, extensive 
remediation efforts in areas of southeastern Missouri impacted by lead 
mining, including the Upper St. Francis River watershed (EPA 2017, 
entire; EPA 2018b, entire). These efforts include sediment, soil, and 
mine waste removal. The EPA also has funded the development of a 
watershed master plan for the Little St. Francis River, located in the 
upper end of the watershed (EPA 2018a, entire). This plan will identify 
sources of pollution (related to lead mining) and measures to reduce 
the pollution.

Current Condition of Species

    To evaluate the current (and future viability) of the Big Creek 
crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish, we assessed a range of 
conditions to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy. For the purposes of this assessment, 
populations were delineated using known locations and expanded to a 
subwatershed scale As previously stated, we scaled down to a 
subpopulation level for analytical purposes, as both species have a 
limited number of populations. In the case of the St. Francis River 
crayfish, population-level ecology is also species-level ecology 
because genetic analyses indicate the entire species exists as a single 
population. Scaling down to the subpopulation level allowed us to 
better represent and compare groups of individuals at a finer scale. A 
summary of the current condition of each species

[[Page 25519]]

is given at the end of this section (Table 1 and Table 2).
    The Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish currently 
occur in 16 subwatersheds. In 2008, it was estimated that the woodland 
crayfish occupied 103 to 403 rmi (166 to 649 km) or 5 to 20 percent of 
the total 2,004 rmi (3,225 km) in the Upper St. Francis River watershed 
(DiStefano and Westhoff 2011, p. 40). Based on known locations of the 
woodland crayfish, we know that 5 of the 16 Big Creek crayfish 
subwatersheds have been invaded (31 percent) and 4 of the 16 St. 
Francis River subwatersheds have been invaded (25 percent). We also 
know that the invasion has resulted in extirpation of the Big Creek 
crayfish in 9.1 rmi (14.7 km) and of the St. Francis River crayfish in 
8.5 rmi (13.7 stream km) (Figure 2). This is likely a sizable 
underestimate of the actual extent of both range contractions, given 
that data for known native range contractions represent conditions in 
only 2 of the 11 streams known to be invaded by the woodland crayfish 
(the range contractions for each species occurred in different 
streams).
    In addition, the known locations of the woodland crayfish depicted 
in Figure 2 are likely an under-representation of where the species is 
present in the watershed given that (1) the majority of locations were 
documented prior to 2010, (2) the species can expand at a rate as high 
as 745 yards (y) per year (681 m per year) in the upstream direction 
and 2,499 y per year (2,285 m year) in the downstream direction 
(DiStefano and Westhoff 2011, pp. 38, 40) and (3) the woodland crayfish 
has already been introduced at several locations throughout the 
watershed and has likely been introduced at additional, undocumented 
locations (it is not feasible to survey every stream throughout the 
watershed). Finally, there is currently no means to slow or stop the 
spread of the woodland crayfish.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27AP23.151

Figure 2. Known locations (as of 2018) of the Woodland Crayfish and 
stream segments from which the Big Creek Crayfish (BCC; left) and St. 
Francis River Crayfish (SFRC; right) have been extirpated due to the 
Woodland Crayfish invasion.

    To evaluate the current condition of the Big Creek crayfish and St. 
Francis River crayfish in terms of the 3Rs, we reviewed available 
information on health of the subpopulations and queried species experts 
on the species' representation and redundancy. The full explanation of 
this analysis can be found in the SSA report; a summary of our 
conclusions is given below.
Resiliency
    Although the Twelvemile Creek population of the Big Creek crayfish 
has not been invaded by the woodland crayfish, the woodland crayfish 
has been documented at 30 locations within the Main population, with 5 
of the 14 (36 percent) of the population's subwatersheds invaded. Based 
on the Big Creek crayfish's range contractions

[[Page 25520]]

and the rate at which the woodland crayfish can expand, we expect that 
range contractions are happening throughout the other invaded 
subwatersheds. We also conclude that it is likely that St. Francis 
River crayfish abundance in the Main population has been substantially 
reduced from heavy metal contamination given that 208 rmi (335 km) of 
the 940 rmi (1,514 km), or 22 percent, of the population occurs in 
areas with heavy metal surface contamination. Studies conducted in 
nearby watersheds demonstrate that heavy metal contamination reduces 
abundance. These impacts have reduced resiliency of the Main population 
and thus resiliency of the Big Creek crayfish has been reduced.
    Four of the 16 subwatersheds occupied by the St. Francis River 
crayfish (25 percent) have been invaded by the woodland crayfish. 
Similar to the Big Creek crayfish, we expect that contractions of the 
St. Francis River crayfish are occurring in these areas based on range 
contractions documented elsewhere and the rate at which the woodland 
crayfish can expand. Resiliency of the St. Francis River crayfish has 
been further reduced due to impacts from heavy metal contamination, 
with 16 percent of the range occurring in areas with heavy metal 
contamination.
    The narrow ranges of both the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis 
River crayfish also inherently make them vulnerable to environmental 
variation and stochastic events that could affect their entire range 
(for example, extreme drought or flooding).
Representation
    We consider Big Creek crayfish representation as having healthy 
subpopulations in both the Twelvemile Creek population and the Main 
population, to maintain the full breadth of adaptive diversity (and, 
thus, adaptive capacity). There appears to be gene flow throughout most 
of the Big Creek crayfish's range (Fetzner and DiStefano 2008, p. 12). 
However, the Big Creek crayfish in the Twelvemile Creek population 
contain unique haplotypes (a group of alleles that are inherited from a 
single parent) that were not found anywhere else in the watershed 
(Fetzner and DiStefano 2008, p. 12). Although the Twelvemile Creek 
population is currently not impacted by the woodland crayfish, the 
range of the Main population has been reduced due to woodland crayfish 
invasion, with 36 percent of the subwatersheds invaded (Table 1 and 
Table 2). Therefore, the species may have lost some level of 
representation. For the St. Francis River crayfish, we consider 
representation as having multiple, healthy subpopulations distributed 
across the range of the species to maintain the breadth of adaptive 
diversity (that is, throughout its range in the Upper St. Francis River 
watershed). Similar to the Big Creek crayfish, some level of 
representation of the St. Francis River crayfish may have been lost due 
to documented and undocumented range contractions, with 4 of the 16 (25 
percent) of the St. Francis River subwatersheds invaded.
Redundancy
    For the purposes of the SSA, we define a catastrophic event as a 
biotic or abiotic event that causes significant impacts at the 
population level such that the population cannot rebound from the 
effects or the population becomes highly vulnerable to normal 
population fluctuations or stochastic events.
    Based on expert input (further described in the SSA report), we do 
not consider extreme drought or chemical spills as catastrophic events 
that are likely to have catastrophic effects on the Big Creek crayfish 
and St. Francis River crayfish at the species-level. While these events 
may not have the devastating effects of a catastrophic event, the 
occurrence of extreme droughts or chemical spills would reduce 
resiliency of the species acting as a stressor on a more localized 
scale. These stressors may potentially extirpate or compromise 
subpopulations throughout the impacted area (see chapter 3 of the SSA 
report). However, both species are inherently vulnerable to extreme 
events or large-scale stressors given their small range, and there has 
been some reduction of in-population redundancy due to the extirpation 
of individuals (and subpopulations) in some areas because of woodland 
crayfish invasion.

       Table 1--Summary of Big Creek Crayfish's Current Condition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Assessment of current condition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Occupied Stream      Occurs in approximately 983 rmi (1,581
 Distance.                      km) within 16 subwatersheds. However,
                                this does not account for documented and
                                undocumented range contractions that we
                                expect are occurring in 31 percent of
                                the species' subwatersheds due to the
                                woodland crayfish invasion. In addition,
                                86 rmi (139 km) of stream reaches are
                                likely occupied intermittently by the
                                species due to movement among occupied
                                watersheds.
Health of Subpopulations.....  In areas invaded by the woodland crayfish
                                (31 percent of occupied subwatersheds),
                                abundance is substantially reduced, with
                                the species completely extirpated in
                                some invaded areas. In areas impacted by
                                lead mining contamination (22 percent of
                                the range), abundance is also likely
                                reduced. In areas not invaded by the
                                woodland crayfish or impacted by lead
                                mining contamination, we presume
                                subpopulations are healthy.
Health of Populations........  We presume the Twelvemile Creek
                                population is currently healthy because
                                it does not appear that the woodland
                                crayfish has invaded the population and
                                the population is outside of the area of
                                lead mining contamination. The health of
                                the Main population, however, has been
                                impacted due to documented and
                                undocumented range contractions from the
                                woodland crayfish invasion in 36 percent
                                of the population's subwatersheds.
                                Abundance has also likely been reduced
                                in 22 percent of the Main population due
                                to heavy metal contamination.
Resiliency...................  Reduced due to documented and
                                undocumented range contractions in 31
                                percent of the Big Creek crayfish's
                                subwatersheds and expected reduced
                                abundance in 22 percent of the range due
                                to heavy metal contamination.
Representation...............  Somewhat reduced ecological diversity due
                                to documented and undocumented range
                                contractions in 25 percent of the Big
                                Creek crayfish's subwatersheds.
Redundancy...................  Somewhat reduced due to documented and
                                undocumented range contractions in 36
                                percent of subwatersheds in the Main
                                population. The species is also
                                inherently vulnerable to some extreme
                                events given its small range, However,
                                both populations of the species have a
                                high level of redundancy relative to
                                extreme events that affect areas
                                downstream of the source of the event
                                (for example, chemical spills) due to
                                the number of tributaries that they
                                occupy that would not be downstream of
                                the event.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 25521]]


   Table 2--Summary of St. Francis River Crayfish's Current Condition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Assessment of current condition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Occupied Stream      Occurs in approximately 944 rmi (1,519
 Distance.                      km) within 16 subwatersheds. However,
                                this does not account for documented and
                                undocumented range contractions that we
                                expect are occurring in 25 percent of
                                the species' subwatersheds due to the
                                woodland crayfish invasion. In addition,
                                99 rmi (159 km) of stream reaches are
                                likely occupied intermittently by the
                                species due to movement among occupied
                                watersheds.
Health of Subpopulations.....  In areas invaded by the woodland crayfish
                                (25 percent of occupied subwatersheds),
                                abundance is substantially reduced, with
                                the species completely extirpated in
                                some invaded areas. In areas impacted by
                                lead mining contamination (16 percent of
                                the range), abundance is also likely
                                reduced. In areas not invaded by the
                                woodland crayfish or impacted by lead
                                mining contamination, we presume
                                subpopulations are healthy.
Resiliency...................  Reduced due to documented and
                                undocumented range contractions in 25
                                percent of the St. Francis River
                                crayfish's subwatersheds. Also reduced
                                due to reduced abundance in 16 percent
                                of the range due to heavy metal
                                contamination.
Representation...............  Somewhat reduced ecological diversity due
                                to documented and undocumented range
                                contractions in 25 percent of the St.
                                Francis River crayfish's subwatersheds.
Redundancy...................  Somewhat reduced due to documented and
                                undocumented range contractions in 25
                                percent of the St. Francis River
                                crayfish's subwatersheds. The species is
                                also inherently vulnerable to some
                                extreme events given the species' small
                                range, and there has been some reduction
                                in redundancy due to reduction of the
                                range. However, the species have a high
                                level of redundancy relative to extreme
                                events that affect areas downstream of
                                the source of the event (for example,
                                chemical spills) due to the number of
                                tributaries that they occupy that would
                                not be downstream of the event.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Future Scenarios

    For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the 
ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time. To 
evaluate future conditions of the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis 
River crayfish, we predicted the expansion of the nonnative woodland 
crayfish within the ranges of the native crayfishes. We asked 
biologists with expertise on crayfishes to estimate the future 
expansion rate in the Upper St. Francis River watershed, the impact on 
Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish abundances, and the 
length of time for those impacts to be fully realized. A full 
description of the expert elicitation meeting methodology and results 
are available in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 36-47 & 64-70). As a 
way to characterize uncertainty in predicting future conditions and to 
capture the entire breadth of plausible future conditions, we developed 
``reasonable best,'' ``reasonable worst,'' and ``most likely'' 
scenarios that represent the plausible range of the Big Creek 
crayfish's and St. Francis River crayfish's future conditions (see 
Table 3, below). Each of the scenarios is based on the expert-elicited 
estimates of the woodland crayfish's expansion rates, impacts of the 
invasion, and time for impacts to be fully realized. For each of the 
scenarios, we predicted the extent of future expansion of the woodland 
crayfish at 10, 25, and 50 years into the future. We then calculated 
the extent of the Big Creek crayfish's and St. Francis River crayfish's 
ranges that would be affected under each scenario and described effects 
to abundance based on the experts' projections. Because we used a finer 
scale data, we present results in river miles invaded, rather than 
subwatersheds invaded (as we did to assess current conditions). 
Additional details on the expert elicitation and a summary of results 
can be found in appendix B of the SSA report. Below is a summary of the 
results from the SSA; for further details on the methods, assumptions, 
and results, see chapter 5 of the SSA report. A summary of predicted 
impacts in 50 years for both species is summarized in Tables 4 and 5 
below.

 Table 3--Explanation of Scenarios Used To Predict the Future Condition
          of Big Creek Crayfish and St. Francis River Crayfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Scenario                          Estimates used
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasonable Best..............   Lowest plausible expansion rate
                                of the woodland crayfish
                                 Lowest level of predicted
                                impact on abundance of Big Creek
                                crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish
                                Highest number of years for
                                impacts to be fully realized
Reasonable Worst.............   Highest plausible expansion rate
                                of the woodland crayfish
                                Highest level of predicted
                                impact on abundance of Big Creek
                                crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish
                                Lowest number of years for
                                impacts to be fully realized
Most Likely..................   Most likely expansion rate of
                                the woodland crayfish
                                Most likely level of predicted
                                impact on abundance of Big Creek
                                crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish
                                Most likely number of years for
                                impacts to be fully realized
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Creek Crayfish

    Under the ``reasonable best'' scenario, we expect the woodland 
crayfish invasion will expand to 25 percent of the Big Creek crayfish 
Main population in 10 years, constituting 24 percent of the species' 
range. In 25 years, 35 percent of the Big Creek crayfish Main 
population will have been invaded, constituting 33 percent of the 
species' range. In 50 years, 49 percent of the Main population will be 
invaded, constituting 46 percent of the species' range. The Twelvemile 
Creek population is not predicted to be invaded in 25 or 50 years under 
this scenario. In areas invaded by the woodland crayfish, abundance is 
predicted to be reduced by over 50 percent in 10 to 20 years.
    Under the ``reasonable worst'' scenario, we expect 44 percent of 
the Main population and 0.2 percent of the Twelvemile Creek population 
will be invaded by the woodland crayfish in 10 years, constituting 42 
percent of the Big Creek crayfish's total range. In 25 years, 70 
percent of the Main population and 81 percent of the Twelvemile Creek 
population will be invaded by the woodland crayfish, constituting 70 
percent of the Big Creek crayfish's total range. In 50 years, 90 
percent of the Main population and 100 percent of the Twelvemile Creek 
population will be invaded, constituting 91 percent of the species' 
range. In areas invaded by the woodland crayfish, abundance is

[[Page 25522]]

predicted to be reduced by approximately 100 percent (that is, 
extirpation) in less than 10 years.
    Under the ``most likely'' scenario, we expect 28 percent of the Big 
Creek crayfish Main population will be invaded by the woodland crayfish 
in 10 years, constituting 27 percent of the species' range. In 25 
years, 44 percent of the Main population and 6 percent of the 
Twelvemile Creek population will be invaded by the woodland crayfish, 
constituting 42 percent of the Big Creek crayfish's total range. In 50 
years, 64 percent of the Main population and 56 percent of the 
Twelvemile Creek population will be invaded, constituting 64 percent of 
the species' range. The best available information indicates that once 
an area is invaded by the woodland crayfish, the Big Creek crayfish 
will be extirpated within 10 years.
    Given that there are currently no known feasible measures to 
curtail the woodland crayfish invasion for the long term, we consider 
it extremely likely that the invasion will continue. Based on our use 
of expert-elicited estimates of the rate of expansion and the resulting 
impacts on the Big Creek crayfish, we are also reasonably certain that 
we can predict the plausible range of future conditions within 50 
years. Here, we discuss the species' future condition in terms of the 
next 50 years (Summarized below in Table 4.); 10- and 25-year future 
conditions are discussed (beyond what was stated above) in the SSA 
report. As previously stated, resiliency of the Big Creek crayfish has 
already been reduced from historical conditions due to range 
contractions in 31 percent of occupied subwatersheds caused by invasion 
of the woodland crayfish. Resiliency also has likely been reduced due 
to lead mining contamination in 22 percent of the crayfish's range. 
Using the modeling results (that represent the range of all future 
scenarios), we predict that within 50 years resiliency of the species 
will continue to be reduced due to a 50 to 100 percent reduction in 
abundance in 49 to 90 percent of the Main population and 0 to 100 
percent of the Twelvemile Creek population. In addition, if other 
threats (aside from woodland crayfish invasion and lead mining 
contamination) such as drought, flood events, disease, and degraded 
water quality, remain the same or increase, resiliency will be further 
reduced by these threats. Thus, our modeled results represent the 
minimum amount of the species' range that is expected to be impacted 
within 50 years because the decline in resiliency only considers 
impacts of the woodland crayfish invasion and none of the other 
stressors mentioned above that affect the Big Creek crayfish.
    We predict that the Big Creek crayfish will continue to lose 
ecological diversity, given the expected expansion of the woodland 
crayfish and the resulting impact on subpopulations in both the Main 
and Twelvemile Creek populations. Both populations are expected to 
experience a 50 to 100 percent reduction in abundance in invaded areas. 
For the Twelvemile Creek population, in 50 years there may be as much 
as 100 percent of the population's range invaded, whereas up to 90 
percent of the Main population's range may be invaded in the same time. 
Given the unique haplotypes contained in the Twelvemile Creek 
population, the reduced abundance of subpopulations in the majority of 
that population, or especially the complete loss of that population, 
would represent an appreciable reduction in the species' 
representation.
    The Big Creek crayfish is inherently vulnerable to extreme events 
and other stressors, given the species' small range. There has been 
already been some reduction in redundancy due to documented and 
undocumented range contractions in 36 percent of subwatersheds in the 
Main population. Based on results of the future scenario modeling, we 
expect that within 50 years, redundancy of the Big Creek crayfish will 
be further reduced by the predicted 50 to 100 percent reduction in 
abundance in 49 to 90 percent of the range of the Main population and 0 
to 100 percent of the range of the Twelvemile Creek population. Because 
the Twelvemile Creek population consists of only one subwatershed, it 
will be more vulnerable to extreme events if multiple sub-tributaries 
are impacted by the woodland crayfish invasion.

St. Francis River Crayfish

    Under the ``reasonable best'' scenario, we expect 12 percent of the 
St. Francis River crayfish's range will be invaded by the woodland 
crayfish in 10 years. In 25 years, 21 percent of the range will have 
been invaded, and 33 percent of the range will have been invaded in 50 
years. In areas where the woodland crayfish has invaded, abundance is 
predicted to be reduced by over 10 to 50 percent in 30 to 40 years.
    Under the ``reasonable worst'' scenario, we expect 30 percent of 
the St. Francis River crayfish's range will be invaded by the woodland 
crayfish in 10 years. In 25 years, 56 percent of the range will have 
been invaded, and 81 percent of the range will have been invaded in 50 
years. In areas where the woodland crayfish has invaded, abundance is 
predicted to be reduced by approximately 100 percent (that is, 
extirpation) in less than 10 years.
    Under the ``most likely'' scenario, we expect 18 percent of the St. 
Francis River crayfish's range will be invaded by the woodland crayfish 
in 10 years. In 25 years, 32 percent of the range will have been 
invaded, and 50 percent of the range will have been invaded in 50 
years. In areas where the woodland crayfish has invaded, abundance is 
predicted to be reduced by 50 to 100 percent in 10 to 30 years (Table 
5).
    Similar to the Big Creek crayfish, we are also reasonably certain 
that we can predict the plausible range of future conditions for the 
St. Francis River crayfish within 50 years because there are no known 
feasible measures to curtail the spread of the woodland crayfish. Here, 
we discuss the species' future condition over the next 50 years; 10- 
and 25-year future conditions are discussed (beyond what was stated 
above) in the SSA report. As previously stated, resiliency of the St. 
Francis River crayfish has already been reduced from historical 
conditions due to effects of the woodland crayfish invasion in 25 
percent of subwatersheds occupied by the St. Francis River crayfish and 
also from lead mining contamination in 22 percent of the species' 
range. Based on the modeling results (the range of all future 
scenarios), we predict that resiliency of the species will continue to 
be reduced due to the woodland crayfish invasion and resulting 10 to 
100 percent reduction in abundance in an estimated 33 to 81 percent of 
the range within 50 years. If threats other than the woodland crayfish 
and lead mining contamination, such as drought, flood events, disease 
and degraded water quality remain the same or increase, resiliency will 
be further reduced. Like the Big Creek crayfish, our modeled results 
represent the minimum amount of the species' range that is expected to 
be impacted within 50 years because the decline in resiliency only 
considers impacts of the woodland crayfish invasion and none of the 
other stressors mentioned above that affect the St. Francis River 
crayfish.
    There has already been some loss in St. Francis River crayfish's 
representation due to the loss of the subpopulations (and therefore 
ecological diversity) impacted by the woodland crayfish invasion and 
impacts of lead mining contamination. The reduction in representation 
is expected to continue given the predicted 10 to 100 percent reduction 
in abundance in 33 to 81 percent of the species' range,

[[Page 25523]]

based on the results of all future scenarios.
    The St. Francis River crayfish is inherently vulnerable to extreme 
events and stressors, given the species' small range and single 
population, and there has been some reduction in redundancy due to 
range reduction and reduced abundance of subpopulations due to the 
woodland crayfish invasion and lead mining contamination. Similar to 
representation, we expect that redundancy of the St. Francis River 
crayfish will be further reduced by the predicted 10 to 100 percent 
reduction in abundance in 33 to 81 percent of the species' range within 
50 years as more tributaries are invaded and subpopulations are 
extirpated.

 Table 4--The Range of Predicted Impacts to the Big Creek Crayfish From the Woodland Crayfish at 50 Years Based
                                                 on Expert Input
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Reasonable best      Most likely      Reasonable worst
                                                             (percent)          (percent)          (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Main population invaded.....................               48.7               64.1               90.4
Percent of Twelvemile Creek population invaded.........                  0               55.6                100
Percent of total range invaded.........................               46.2               63.7               90.9
Percent reduction in abundance in invaded areas........                >50               ~100               ~100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 5--The Range of Predicted Impacts to the St. Francis River Crayfish From the Woodland Crayfish at 50 Years
                                              Based on Expert Input
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Reasonable best      Most likely      Reasonable worst
                                                             (percent)          (percent)          (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of range invaded...............................               33.2               49.5               81.0
Percent reduction in abundance in invaded areas........           10 to 50          50 to 100               ~100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on September 17, 2020 (85 FR 58192), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by November 16, 2020. We also contacted appropriate Federal 
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. 
Newspaper notices inviting public comment were published in the 
Democratic News (October 7, 2020) and the Farmington Press (October 1, 
2020). After receiving a request for a public hearing, we reopened the 
public comment period on April 27, 2021 (86 FR 22127) and requested 
that all interested parties submit their comments by May 27, 2021. We 
held a virtual public informational meeting followed by a public 
hearing on May 13, 2021. All substantive information received during 
both comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this 
final determination or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Supporting Documents, above, we received comments 
from one peer reviewer. We reviewed all comments we received from the 
peer reviewer for substantive issues regarding the information 
contained in the SSA report and new information about the species. The 
peer reviewer generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the final SSA report. Peer reviewer comments were incorporated 
into the final SSA report as appropriate.

Public Comments

    (1) Comment: Commenters stated that the Service should consider 
best management practices (BMPs) for forestry activities in the 
assessment of conservation efforts benefitting the species and account 
for these beneficial actions in any analyses conducted on the species' 
status.
    Our Response: To assess the conservation benefit provided by the 
forestry BMPs, we considered the extent to which the BMPs are 
implemented within the two crayfishes' ranges. Based on information 
from surrounding States, the implementation rate of BMPs in Missouri is 
estimated to be 82 percent, with the rate representing the number of 
sites at which forestry BMPs were applied correctly or where major 
water quality impacts were avoided (Ice et al. 2010, p. 272). However, 
actual rates for Missouri are not available, as implementation of 
forestry BMPs is not required or monitored (NASF 2019, p. 3). In 
particular, we have no information to determine whether the estimate in 
Ice et al. (2010, p. 272) is applicable within the ranges of the two 
crayfishes. Because we are not able to confidently assess the extent to 
which implementation of forestry BMPs is benefitting the species, we 
did not factor the conservation benefits of BMPs into the analysis 
conducted on the species' status. Should we obtain data on BMP 
implementation rates within the species' ranges, we will include that 
information in the next revision of the species' SSA report.
    (2) Comment: Commenters stated that because the woodland crayfish 
is native to other watersheds in Missouri, it should not be referred to 
as a nonnative species and should not be considered a threat to the Big 
Creek crayfish or St. Francis River crayfish.
    Our Response: Because the woodland crayfish is not endemic (native) 
to the Upper St. Francis River watershed, we consider it accurate to 
refer to the species as nonnative in the watershed. We also consider it 
accurate to characterize the woodland crayfish as a threat to the Big 
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish given the documented 
declines in their abundance in stream reaches invaded by the woodland 
crayfish.
    (3) Comment: Commenters believe there are no data to support that 
hybridization with the woodland crayfish is detrimental to the Big 
Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish.
    Our Response: Although some of the hybrid individuals appear to be 
viable, alleles (versions of a gene) from the Big Creek crayfish and 
St. Francis River crayfish are typically absent at most or all of the 
loci (specific physical locations of genes or other DNA sequences on a 
chromosome) of the hybrid individuals (Fetzner et al. 2016, p. 29). The 
low frequency of alleles from

[[Page 25524]]

the native crayfishes indicates that individuals with the native 
crayfish alleles are experiencing lower survivorship and/or 
reproduction than crayfish with the woodland crayfish alleles. Thus, 
the distribution of alleles within stream reaches invaded by the 
woodland crayfish is expected to shift towards the alleles of the 
woodland crayfish and away from those of the Big Creek crayfish and St. 
Francis River crayfish.
    (4) Comment: Historical mining activities within the Upper St. 
Francis River watershed are not negatively affecting crayfish if the 
woodland crayfish is expanding its range within the watershed.
    Our Response: The woodland crayfish's expansion in the watershed 
has been documented in areas other than those with heavy metal 
contamination. Therefore, it is possible for woodland crayfish 
abundance to be reduced in contaminated stream reaches while 
simultaneously expanding its range within the rest of the watershed.
    (5) Comment: A commenter said remediation activities for heavy 
metal contamination have improved water quality in certain areas of the 
crayfishes' ranges from historical conditions. Therefore, the Service's 
assertion that heavy metal mining activities have affected crayfish 
abundance is not supported.
    Our Response: Remediation activities have improved water quality in 
some areas of the crayfishes' ranges. However, we expect that abundance 
is still lower in these areas due to the time required for crayfishes 
to repopulate the affected stream reaches. In addition, heavy metal 
contamination is still present in more than 24 miles of the Little St. 
Francis River due to lead and 1.8 miles of Big Creek due to cadmium, as 
evidenced by the inclusion of these areas on the EPA's 303(d) list of 
impaired waterbodies (EPA 2020, pp. 16, 28).
    (6) Comment: A commenter stated results of studies evaluating 
effects to crayfish from heavy metal exposure cannot be extrapolated to 
areas outside of where the studies were conducted.
    Our Response: Various water chemistry parameters, such as water 
hardness and alkalinity, can influence bioavailability (the extent to 
which a chemical is absorbed) and toxicity of metals. However, heavy 
metal concentrations in tissue are representative of bioavailability 
since the concentrations represent the amount to heavy metals absorbed 
by crayfish. In the northeast portion of the Upper St. Francis River 
watershed (within the two crayfishes' ranges), Allert et al. (2016) 
documented heavy metal concentrations in crayfish tissue that were 
either higher than or comparable to the crayfish tissue concentrations 
documented in several of the other studies cited in the SSA report and 
the proposed rule (Allert et al. 2008, 2009, 2012). Total chronic toxic 
unit scores in the Upper St. Francis River watershed study also were 
either higher than or comparable to those in most of the other studies 
(Allert et al. 2009, 2012, 2013), with the scores representing the 
combined toxicity of metals given water hardness and the extent to 
which the metals dissolve in water (making the metals available for 
absorption by aquatic species). Lastly, Allert et al. (2016) documented 
significantly reduced densities of crayfish, including the St. Francis 
River Crayfish, downstream of mining sites and in some areas, a 
complete absence of crayfish, providing direct evidence that heavy 
metal exposure is negatively affecting crayfish in the Upper St. 
Francis River watershed.
    (7) Comment: One commenter asserted that contamination due to heavy 
metal mining should not be considered a primary threat to the two 
crayfishes and that activities related to heavy metal mining should not 
be included in the list of prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the 
species because the commenter does not consider it appropriate to use 
results of two studies (Allert et al. 2009 and Allert et al. 2010) to 
assess impacts to the Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish 
from heavy metal exposure for reasons detailed below in (7a)-(7e) 
Comments. We address this commenter's specific assertions regarding the 
use of those two studies below.
    (7a) Comment: Physical conditions such as substrate coarseness, 
water depth, and current velocity differed between reference and study 
sites and could explain the differences in crayfish densities observed.
    Our Response: In a separate study, Allert et al. (2008, p. 105), 
documented significantly lower crayfish densities at mining sites, 
despite mining and reference sites having similar temperature, physical 
habitat, and organic matter. Crayfish densities did not correlate with 
any of the physical habitat variables that were measured (Allert et al 
2008, p. 104). In addition, Allert et al. (2009, pp. 1209, 1213) 
documented significantly reduced crayfish survival downstream of mining 
sites when caging crayfish in situ (in the wild as opposed to a 
laboratory setting) with the same substrate and organic material as 
reference sites. These results are consistent with other studies 
documenting reduced crayfish densities and survival downstream of 
mining sites.
    (7b) Comment: Two of the study sites were downstream of a city, and 
contaminants other than heavy metals were not assessed. Instead of 
heavy metal exposure, inputs from the city's residential, commercial, 
and industrial activities, as well as the agricultural uses surrounding 
the city, may have caused the reduced crayfish abundance.
    Our Response: Multiple studies have demonstrated that, regardless 
of proximity to cities, crayfish have elevated heavy metal 
concentrations, reduced densities, and reduced survival downstream of 
mining sites (Allert et al. 2008, pp. 100-105; Allert et al. 2009, pp. 
1210-1213; Allert et al. 2013, pp. 512-515). These results provide 
multiple lines of evidence that heavy metal exposure does negatively 
affect crayfish, regardless of proximity to cities.
    (7c) Comment: Because macroinvertebrate populations vary 
significantly over small spatial scales, it cannot be concluded that 
heavy metal exposure caused the reduced crayfish abundance at study 
sites.
    Our Response: As noted above, multiple lines of evidence 
demonstrate that heavy metal exposure negatively affects crayfish. The 
large number of studies documenting reduced macroinvertebrate 
populations downstream of mining sites, combined with heavy metal 
concentrations in macroinvertebrates downstream of mining sites, 
indicates that heavy metal exposure is responsible for the reduced 
crayfish densities downstream of mining sites documented by Allert et 
al. (2008, pp. 100-104; 2012, p. 569; 2013, p. 512).
    (7d) Comment: Heavy metal levels were measured in fine sediment 
obtained from depositional areas. However, crayfish predominantly 
occupy riffles. Therefore, it is not appropriate to correlate heavy 
metal concentrations in fine sediment with crayfish densities.
    Our Response: Allert et al. (2009, p. 1210) and Allert et al. 
(2010, p. 8) evaluated heavy metal concentrations in riffle crayfish 
tissue as well as in sediment. For both studies, heavy metal 
concentrations were higher in sediment and in crayfish tissue 
downstream of mining sites, with crayfish downstream of mining sites in 
the 2010 study having 100 to 200 times higher concentrations of lead 
than crayfish at reference sites (Allert et al. 2010, p. 19). Crayfish 
densities were significantly lower in areas with higher heavy metal 
concentrations in sediment and also in areas with higher heavy metal

[[Page 25525]]

concentrations in crayfish tissue (Allert et al. 2010, p. 28).
    (7e) Comment: To assess heavy metal concentrations in sediment, 
Allert et al. (2009 and 2010) sieved the sediment to remove particles 
larger than 2 millimeters. The process of sieving the sample to 
concentrate sediments biased the sampling results.
    Our Response: As noted above, Allert et al. 2010 (entire) assessed 
heavy metal concentrations in crayfish as well as in sediment and found 
a significant negative correlation of both with crayfish density 
(Allert et al. 2010, p. 28). Allert et al. 2009 (p. 1213) also found a 
significant negative correlation between heavy metal concentrations in 
crayfish and crayfish survival. These results are consistent with other 
studies documenting reduced crayfish density in areas downstream of 
mining sites. Therefore, negative effects from heavy metal exposure can 
be concluded even without the sediment data.
    (8) Comment: A public commenter stated that lead is no longer a 
concern in Big Creek, and lead is not listed as a pollutant for the 
stream on the EPA's current list of impaired streams under section 
303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Although 1.8 
miles of the stream is currently listed for cadmium, the listing is 
predominantly based on older data ranging from 2008-2012, and values 
only slightly exceed the chronic water quality standard. Therefore, 
heavy metal mining should not be included in the list of prohibitions 
in the 4(d) rule for the species.
    Our Response: We have noted that the extent of Big Creek listed as 
impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act is only 1.8 miles 
and that lead is no longer listed as a pollutant for the waterbody. 
Because heavy metal contamination remains a factor influencing the 
crayfishes elsewhere in the watershed, however, we are retaining heavy 
metal mining in the list of prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the 
species.
    (9) Comment: A commenter stated the Service should add an exception 
to the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule for the discharge or 
other introduction of heavy metals conducted in compliance with 
relevant Federal and State permits.
    Our Response: Under the Act's section 4(d), whenever a species is 
listed as a threatened species, the Secretary issues regulations as she 
deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the 
listed species. As we discuss above, mining activities can increase 
heavy metal exposure in downstream stream reaches, and results of 
multiple studies indicate that the heavy metal exposure significantly 
reduces crayfish survival and abundance (Allert et al. 2008, pp. 100-
104; 2012, p. 569; 2013, p. 512). Thus, we consider regulating take 
from mining activities as necessary and advisable for conserving the 
Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish. As such, we 
include a prohibition on activities that lead to the introduction of 
heavy metals into streams, such as heavy metal mining, in the 4(d) rule 
for these species.
    (10) Comment: A public commenter stated because the declines of 
these two crayfishes appear to be directly attributed to the woodland 
crayfish, most of the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule should be removed, 
except for those directly aimed at slowing the spread of the woodland 
crayfish.
    Our Response: Although invasion by the woodland crayfish is the 
primary factor causing the species' population declines, additional 
stressors that affect crayfishes' reproduction or survival make the 
species less viable. Lowered viability, in turn, results in the 
crayfishes being more susceptible to displacement by the woodland 
crayfish. Therefore, prohibiting take from these additional stressors 
will maximize the species' ability to withstand woodland crayfish 
invasion. As such, prohibiting take from these additional stressors is 
considered necessary and advisable, and these prohibitions are included 
in the 4(d) rule for the species.
    (11) Comment: One commenter stated that because the woodland 
crayfish is the primary factor impacting the two crayfish species, the 
critical habitat designation will not help to conserve the species. 
Another commenter asserted that, given the economic impact of 
designating critical habitat and the minimal conservation benefit, the 
Service should not designate critical habitat.
    Our Response: Under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Secretary 
shall, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, concurrently 
with making a determination that a species is an endangered species or 
a threatened species, designate critical habitat for that species. We 
have determined that designating critical habitat is both prudent and 
determinable for the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River 
crayfish. Therefore, as required by the Act, we proposed to designate 
as critical habitat those areas occupied by the species at the time of 
listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential 
for the conservation of the species, which may require special 
management considerations or protection.
    We are making a determination based on the best scientific data 
available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the 
impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat, as required by 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Our consideration of the economic impacts 
of the designation are laid out in our economic analysis, as summarized 
in a memorandum produced by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 
(IEc 2019, entire).
    We are not relieved of our statutory obligation to designate 
critical habitat based on the contention that it will not provide 
additional conservation benefit. We also do not agree with the 
assertion that critical habitat will not help conserve the species. 
Habitat-based threats have been identified as affecting the current and 
future conditions of these species. Consultations with Federal agencies 
(and those projects with a Federal nexus) will provide additional 
conservation benefit. For more information, see the discussion under 
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, above. If any area provides 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species, that area qualifies as critical habitat under the 
statutory definition of that term (see section 3(5)(A) of the Act) if 
special management considerations or protection are needed.
    (12) Comment: One commenter believes the economic analysis for the 
proposed designation of critical habitat does not address all of the 
incremental costs from the designation, particularly costs to those who 
currently discharge to streams occupied by the two species.
    Our Response: In our economic analysis, we incorporated the 
incremental costs from section 7 consultations associated with the 
regulation of discharges in our discussion of the Clean Water Act and 
how discharges are regulated. Regardless of the listing status or 
designation of critical habitat for the Big Creek crayfish and St. 
Francis River crayfish, anyone who wishes to discharge dredge or fill 
material into Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish habitat 
must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 
Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA also implements pollution control 
programs, such as setting standards for wastewater and other point 
sources discharges and sets water quality standards for all 
contaminants in surface waters. Under section 7 of the Act, Federal 
agencies are required to consult with the Service to ensure that

[[Page 25526]]

any action the agencies authorize, fund, 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 habitat of such species that is determined by the Secretary to be 
critical habitat. Issuance of permits by the Corps, implementation of 
pollution control programs by the EPA, and creation of water quality 
standards by the EPA all constitute Federal actions and thus require 
section 7 consultation on the effects on the species, regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated. The incremental costs (costs 
beyond those attributable to a species' listing) associated with 
section 7 consultations on critical habitat were found to be limited to 
administrative costs. A further explanation of the incremental costs of 
section 7 consultations can be found in the screening analysis 
memorandum for the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River 
crayfish (IEc 2019, section 3).

Determination of Big Creek Crayfish's and St. Francis River Crayfish's 
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 an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species' as a species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires 
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered 
species or threatened species because of any of the following factors: 
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or 
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we found that both the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis 
River crayfish face threats from a nonnative crayfish invasion (Factor 
E) and declines in water quality (due to heavy metal mining, 
sedimentation, etc.) (Factor A). These threats continue to impact the 
species despite the existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and on-
going conservation efforts. Given current and predicted future 
decreases in resiliency, populations will become more vulnerable to 
extirpation from stochastic events, thereby resulting in concurrent 
losses in representation and redundancy. The range of plausible future 
scenarios for the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish 
suggests significant reductions in viability into the future (USFWS 
2022, pp. 39-43).
    In 2008, the woodland crayfish, which is not native to the Upper 
St. Francis River watershed, was estimated to occupy between 103 and 
403 rmi (166 to 649 km) in 5 to 20 subwatersheds. Based on known 
locations of the woodland crayfish, we know that 5 of the 16 Big Creek 
crayfish subwatersheds (31 percent) and 4 of the 16 St. Francis River 
crayfish subwatersheds (25 percent) have been invaded. We also know 
that the invasion has resulted in extirpation of the Big Creek crayfish 
in 9.1 rmi (14.7 km) and the St. Francis River crayfish in 8.5 rmi 
(13.7 km). This is likely an underestimate of the actual extent of both 
range contractions, given that this represents conditions in only 2 of 
the 21 streams and 3 of 9 subwatersheds known to be invaded by the 
woodland crayfish (not all known invaded streams and subwatersheds were 
surveyed; MDC 2018, unpublished data). In addition, the known locations 
of the woodland crayfish are likely an under-representation of where 
the species is present in the watershed given that: (1) The majority of 
locations were documented prior to 2010; (2) the species can expand at 
a rate as high as 745 yd per year (681 m per year) in the upstream 
direction and 2,499 yd per year (2,285 m year) in the downstream 
direction (DiStefano and Westhoff 2011, pp. 38, 40); (3) the woodland 
crayfish has likely been introduced at additional, undocumented 
locations (it is not feasible to survey every stream throughout the 
watershed); and (4) the invasion has likely progressed since the 
development of the SSA report and this final rule because there is 
currently no means to slow or stop the spread of the woodland crayfish.
    The range of plausible future scenarios for the Big Creek crayfish 
and St. Francis River crayfish suggests reduced viability into the 
future. Under the ``most likely'' scenarios for both species, 
resiliency is expected to decline within 50 years, given that more than 
50 percent of streams occupied by the species are predicted to be 
invaded by the woodland crayfish. As additional subpopulations become 
extirpated, this expected reduction in both the number and distribution 
of healthy (and thus sufficiently resilient) subpopulations is likely 
to make the species vulnerable to extreme disturbances and 
environmental and demographic stochasticity.
    Our analysis of the Big Creek crayfish's and the St. Francis River 
crayfish's current and future conditions based on the increasing threat 
of woodland crayfish invasion and the continuing threat of 
contamination, as well as the consideration of conservation efforts 
discussed above, indicates that viability for both the Big Creek 
crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish will continue to decline 
such that they are likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges.
    We considered whether these species are presently in danger of 
extinction and determined that endangered status is not appropriate. 
The current conditions as assessed in the SSA indicate that the species 
are abundant in areas not invaded by the woodland crayfish and the 
nonnative woodland crayfish has displaced only a portion of both 
species in their ranges. Although there are documented declines in 
areas that have been invaded by woodland crayfish, both species are 
presumed present in over 99 percent of their historical ranges and 
these areas are relatively small in comparison to the whole occupied 
area (Service 2022, pp. 27-28). Although the species' representation 
has declined by some small amount, ecological diversity (and, 
therefore, adaptive capacity) likely remains at a level that is 
currently adequate. Redundancy has also slightly declined from 
historical conditions from a reduction in subpopulations. In short, 
while the primary threats are currently acting on the species and many 
of those threats are expected to continue or increase into the future, 
we did not find that either species is currently in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range.
    These declines in the species' viability that are predicted to 
occur in the future will put the species in danger of extinction in the 
foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available 
information, we determine that Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River 
crayfish are not currently in danger of extinction but are likely to 
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout 
all of their ranges.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant

[[Page 25527]]

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, 435 F. 
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), 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'' (Final Policy; 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 Everson, we now consider whether 
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the 
species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 
undertaking these analyses for Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis 
River crayfish, we chose to address the status question first--we 
considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of 
both the species and the threats that the species faces to identify 
portions of the range where the species may be endangered.
    We evaluated the range of the Big Creek crayfish and the St. 
Francis River crayfish to determine if either species is in danger of 
extinction now in any portion of their ranges.

St. Francis River Crayfish

    The St. Francis River Crayfish is a narrow endemic that functions 
as a single population. Thus, there is no biologically meaningful way 
to break this limited range into portions, and the threats that this 
species faces affect the species throughout its entire range. As a 
result, there are no portions of the species' range where the species 
has a different biological status from its rangewide biological status. 
Therefore, we conclude that there are no portions of this species' 
range that warrant further consideration, and the St. Francis River 
crayfish is not in danger of extinction in any significant portion of 
its range, and we determine that this species is likely to become in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of 
its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert 
Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 
1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 
248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this 
conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy, including 
the definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be 
invalid.

Big Creek Crayfish

    We evaluated the range of the Big Creek crayfish to determine if 
the species is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its range. 
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an 
infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the 
species' range that may meet the definition of an endangered species. 
For Big Creek crayfish, we considered whether the threats or their 
effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful 
portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the 
species is in danger of extinction now in that portion.
    The statutory difference between an endangered species and a 
threatened species is the time frame in which the species becomes in 
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction 
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but 
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, we reviewed the 
best scientific and commercial data available regarding the time 
horizon for the threats that are driving the Big Creek crayfish to 
warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of its range. We 
then considered whether these threats or their effects are occurring in 
any portion of the species' range such that the species is in danger of 
extinction now in that portion of its range. We examined the following 
threats: effects from the invasion of nonnative crayfish, contamination 
by heavy metal mining, and sedimentation, including cumulative effects.
    As discussed above, the Big Creek crayfish functions as two 
populations: the Main and the Twelvemile populations. The woodland 
crayfish has invaded part of (approximately 31 percent) the range of 
the Big Creek crayfish but not the Twelvemile population. Because of 
this difference in the threats, we evaluated whether or not the Main 
population may have a different status from the rest of the range.
    Within the Main population, the woodland crayfish has invaded 
approximately 36 percent of the range and effects to the species have 
begun in those areas. However, declines have not been observed in 64 
percent of this population (Table 1) and the woodland crayfish will not 
be impacting those areas until the foreseeable future. Abundance in the 
Main population has also likely been reduced from heavy metal 
contamination given that 22 percent of the population occurs in areas 
with heavy metal surface contamination. However, as discussed above, 
there are currently multiple healthy subpopulations within the Main 
population.
    The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the 
time horizon on which the woodland crayfish threat to the species and 
the species' responses to this threat are likely to occur is the 
foreseeable future. In addition, while there are ongoing threats of 
heavy metal contamination within a small area of the Main population, 
these combined threats are not causing the Big Creek Crayfish to be in 
danger of extinction in the Main population, now. The best scientific 
and commercial data available do not indicate that any of the species' 
responses to those threats are more immediate in any portions of the 
species' range.
    Instead, the Big Creek Crayfish is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future due to the demonstrated threat 
of the woodland crayfish (and cumulative impacts of other identified 
threats) in the future for the Main population and the anticipated 
arrival of the woodland crayfish into the Twelvemile population.
    Therefore, we determine, that the Big Creek crayfish is likely to 
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in 
Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 
1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching 
this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy, 
including the definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions 
held to be invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available 
indicates that the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River 
crayfish meet the Act's definition of threatened species.

[[Page 25528]]

Therefore, we are listing the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis 
River crayfish as 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 as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of 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, 
including the Service, 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 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 this final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available.
    The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of 
when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to 
threatened (``downlisting'') or removal from protected status 
(``delisting''), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery 
plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their 
recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing 
recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal 
and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other 
conservation partners) are often established to develop recovery plans. 
When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the 
final recovery plan will be available on our website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/) by searching for each species of crayfish, or from 
our Missouri Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their ranges 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.
    When this listing becomes effective, funding for recovery actions 
will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, 
State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Missouri will be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Big Creek crayfish and the St. 
Francis River crayfish. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River 
crayfish. 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 listed as an endangered or 
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat. 
Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the 
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 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 any endangered or threatened 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 us.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph may include, but are not limited to, management and any other 
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the 
Service, or U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water 
Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    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 final listing 
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed 
species. The discussion below regarding protective regulations under 
section 4(d) of the Act complies with our policy.

II. Final 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

[[Page 25529]]

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 [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. 
[She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such 
species, 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 our authority under section 4(d), we have developed a 
rule that is designed to address the Big Creek crayfish's and the St. 
Francis River crayfish's specific threats and conservation needs. 
Although the statute does not require 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 Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River 
crayfish. As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats, we have concluded that the Big Creek crayfish and the St. 
Francis River crayfish are likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future primarily due to invasion by the woodland 
crayfish, but additionally from the impacts from heavy metal 
contamination and sedimentation. The provisions of this 4(d) rule will 
promote conservation of the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis 
River crayfish by discouraging the spread of the woodland crayfish (and 
other invasive species) and encouraging management of the landscape in 
ways that maintains the health of Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis 
River crayfish and conserves the species by maximizing their ability to 
withstand the woodland crayfish invasion. The provisions of this rule 
are one of many tools that we will use to promote the conservation of 
the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish.
    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.
    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 4(d) Rule

    This 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of the Big Creek 
crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish by prohibiting the 
following activities, except as otherwise authorized or permitted: 
Import or export; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully taken 
specimens; delivery, receipt, transport, or shipment in interstate or 
foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; and sale or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. The 4(d) rule will 
also provide for the conservation of the species by the use of other 
protective regulations as follows:
    As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, 
the spread of nonnative crayfish (Factor E) and declines in water 
quality (due to mining, sedimentation, etc.) (Factor A) are affecting 
the status of the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River 
crayfish. A range of activities have the potential to impact these 
species, including, but not limited to: Recreational activities that 
promote the spread of the woodland crayfish; mining (heavy metal and 
gravel); wastewater effluent discharge; agricultural activities; 
construction of low-water crossings and bridge construction; and 
destruction of bank habitat that increases rates of sedimentation. 
Regulating take from these activities would help preserve these 
species, 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. Regulating 
incidental and intentional take will help discourage the spread of the 
woodland crayfish and will maintain or increase water quality to 
preserve the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish, 
slow their rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects 
from other stressors.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued 
for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance 
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological 
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for 
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. The statute 
also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found 
in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State 
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of 
listed species. State

[[Page 25530]]

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 us in 
implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the 
Act provides that we 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 us in accordance 
with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency 
for such purposes, will be able to conduct activities designed to 
conserve Big Creek crayfish or St. Francis River crayfish that may 
result in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization. 
Additionally, this 4(d) rule also allows a person to take a Big Creek 
crayfish or a St. Francis River crayfish if that person is conducting 
research or education under a valid Missouri Department of Conservation 
Wildlife Collector's permit.
    Along with State (and State-sponsored) conservation efforts, a 
person may take, incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, a Big 
Creek crayfish or a St. Francis River crayfish during restoration 
activities or other activities that will result in an overall benefit 
to one or both of the species or their habitat. Such activities 
include, but are not limited to, heavy metal remediation efforts and 
habitat restoration efforts.
    Our full 4(d) rule for the Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis 
River crayfish, including all of the prohibitions and exceptions to 
prohibitions for these species, is provided below, under Regulation 
Promulgation.
    Nothing in this 4(d) rule will change in any way the recovery 
planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation 
requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service 
to enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the Big 
Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish. However, interagency 
cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic 
consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service.

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 (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation 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 will 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).
    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.
    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.

[[Page 25531]]

    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, the primary sources of information are generally 
referenced in the SSA report and also include information developed 
during the listing process for the species. Additional information 
sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or 
outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan 
for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented 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 this species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, 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 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.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish 
from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history, and 
describe them below. Additional information can be found in the SSA 
report (Service 2022, entire) or the proposed rule (85 FR 58192), both 
documents are available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R3-ES-2019-0020). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of Big Creek 
crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish:
    (1) Stream flow velocity generally between 0 and 1.1 feet per 
second (ft/s) (0 and 0.35 meters per second (m/s)).
    (2) Stream depths generally between 0.2 and 1.6 ft (0.06 and 0.49 
m) for the Big Creek crayfish, and stream depths generally between 0.2 
and 1.7 ft (0.06 and 0.52 m) for the St. Francis River crayfish.
    (3) Water temperatures between 34 and 84 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) (1.1 and 28.9 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)).
    (4) Adequately low stream embeddedness so that spaces under rocks 
and cavities in gravel remain available to the Big Creek crayfish and 
St. Francis River crayfish.
    (5) An available forage and prey base consisting of invertebrates, 
periphyton, and plant detritus.
    (6) Connectivity among occupied stream reaches of the Big Creek 
crayfish (both within and among occupied subwatersheds), and 
connectivity among occupied stream reaches of the St. Francis River 
crayfish (both within and among occupied subwatersheds).
    (7) Ratios or densities of nonnative species low enough to allow 
for maintaining the populations of the Big Creek crayfish and St. 
Francis River crayfish.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Big Creek 
crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish may require special management 
considerations or protections to reduce the following threats: (1) 
Facilitated movement of nonnative crayfish (for example, bait bucket 
dumping); (2) nutrient pollution that impacts water quantity and 
quality, including, but not limited to, agricultural runoff and 
wastewater effluent; (3) significant alteration of water quality (for 
example, heavy metal contamination); (4) forest management

[[Page 25532]]

or silviculture activities that do not implement State-approved best 
management practices (BMPs) such that riparian corridors are impacted 
or sedimentation is increased; (5) sedimentation from construction of 
dams, culverts, and low water crossings that do not allow for the 
passage of species or materials, and pipeline and utility installation 
that creates barriers to movement; and (6) other watershed and 
floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the 
water.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to: Education to encourage responsible and legal 
bait use and proper disposal of unused bait; use of BMPs designed to 
reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank side destruction; protection of 
riparian corridors and retention of sufficient canopy cover along 
banks; moderation of surface and ground water withdrawals to maintain 
natural flow regimes; increased use of stormwater management and 
reduction of stormwater flows into the systems; remediation of 
contaminated stream reaches and eroding stream banks; and reduction of 
other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments, 
pollutants, or nutrients into the water.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not designating any areas 
outside the geographical areas occupied by the species because we have 
not identified any unoccupied areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat and we have determined that designating the occupied 
areas is sufficient to conserve the Big Creek crayfish and the St. 
Francis River crayfish.
    We anticipate that recovery will require continued protection of 
existing populations and habitat, as well as ensuring there are 
adequate numbers of Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish 
in stable subpopulations and that these subpopulations occur over a 
wide geographic area. This strategy will help to ensure that extreme 
events, such as the effects of flooding (for example, flooding that 
causes excessive sedimentation, nutrients, and debris to disrupt stream 
ecology), droughts, or chemical spills, cannot simultaneously affect 
all known subpopulations. The following rangewide potential recovery 
actions were considered in formulating this designation of critical 
habitat: (1) Mitigating or minimizing the effects of the spread of 
woodland crayfish, preventing additional introductions of woodland 
crayfish (and other nonnative species), investigating methods to slow 
or halt the expansion of woodland crayfish, and investigating methods 
of eradicating woodland crayfish; (2) maintaining the quality and 
quantity of habitat (including, but not limited to, preventing 
increased sedimentation rates); (3) preventing additional heavy metal 
contamination and remediating previous heavy metal contamination; (4) 
investigating other water quality issues that may impact crayfish 
abundance; and (5) minimizing loss of rangewide genetic diversity by 
maintaining adequate population sizes, distribution, and connectivity.
    Sources of data for these designations of critical habitat include 
the Missouri Department of Conservation, National Hydrography Dataset 
Plus (for mapping purposes), published literature, survey reports on 
water quality in various streams within the species' ranges (for more 
information, see the SSA report), and the proposed rule (85 FR 58192; 
September 17, 2020). We have also reviewed available information that 
pertains to the habitat requirements of this species. Sources of 
information on habitat requirements include studies conducted at 
occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed articles, agency reports, 
and data collected during monitoring efforts (see the SSA report: 
Service 2022). We have also reviewed all comments submitted by the 
public during two public comment periods on the proposed rule (see 85 
FR 58192, September 17, 2020, and 86 FR 22127, April 27, 2021).
    We consider the areas occupied at the time of listing to include 
all streams within occupied subwatersheds (at the 12-digit hydrologic 
unit level). Occupied watersheds were determined using data from the 
Missouri Department of Conservation. For the purposes of designating 
critical habitat, we also consider stretches of the St. Francis River 
between subwatersheds as occupied migratory corridors, based on genetic 
analyses that indicate there is gene flow among subwatersheds.
    Based on this information, we consider all streams within the 
following subwatersheds in the Upper St. Francis River watershed to be 
currently occupied by the Big Creek crayfish at the time of this final 
listing (numbers in parentheses represent the 12-digit hydrologic 
codes): Big Lake Creek-St. Francis River (080202020503), Blankshire 
Branch-St. Francis River (080202020204), Captain Creek-St. Francis 
River (080202020405), Cedar Bottom Creek-St. Francis River 
(080202020402), Clark Creek (080202020407), Cedar Bottom Creek 
(080202020501), Crane Pond Creek (080202020303), Headwaters St. Francis 
River (080202020201), Headwaters Twelvemile Creek (080202020403), 
Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River (080202020406), Lower Big Creek 
(080202020304), Middle Big Creek (080202020302), Saline Creek-Little 
St. Francis River (080202020102), Turkey Creek-St. Francis River 
(080202020210), Twelvemile Creek (080202020404), and Upper Big Creek 
(080202020301). We also consider the entire St. Francis River upstream 
of 37.091254N, 90.447212W to be occupied, as genetic analyses indicate 
gene flow among the subwatersheds.
    For the St. Francis River crayfish, we consider all streams within 
the following subwatersheds to be currently occupied at the time of 
listing: Blankshire Branch-St. Francis River (80202020204), Captain 
Creek-St. Francis River (80202020405), Cedar Bottom Creek-St. Francis 
River (80202020402), Headwaters St. Francis River (80202020201), 
Headwaters Stouts Creek (80202020207), Hubble Creek-St. Francis River 
(80202020502), Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River (80202020406), 
Little St. Francis River (80202020103), Lost Creek (80202020507), 
Marble Creek (80202020401), Musco Creek-Little St. Francis River 
(80202020101), O'Bannon Creek-St. Francis River (80202020206), Saline 
Creek-Little St. Francis River (80202020102), Stouts Creek 
(80202020208), Turkey Creek-St. Francis River (80202020210), and 
Wachita Creek-St. Francis River (80202020209). We also consider the 
entire St. Francis River upstream of 36.982104N, 90.335400W to be 
currently occupied, given that genetic analyses indicate gene flow 
among subwatersheds. The final critical habitat designation for each 
species includes all known currently occupied streams within the 
historical range, as well as those that connect occupied streams that 
contain the physical or biological features that will allow for the 
maintenance and expansion of existing populations and movement between 
them. See Final Critical Habitat

[[Page 25533]]

Designations, below, for a more detailed explanation of the units.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, 
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or 
biological features necessary for Big Creek crayfish and the St. 
Francis River crayfish. The scale of the maps we prepared under the 
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may 
not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands 
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps 
of this rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not 
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving 
these lands will not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action will affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are designating as critical habitat areas that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., 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 designating one critical habitat unit for each species, for 
a total of two units for both species, based on one or more of the 
physical or biological features being present to support the Big Creek 
crayfish or St. Francis River crayfish's life-history processes. All 
units are occupied and contain one or more of the identified physical 
or biological features and support multiple life-history processes.
    The critical habitat designations are defined by the map or maps, 
as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end 
of this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of each 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-
2019-0020 and at the field office responsible for the designation (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Final Critical Habitat Designations

    We are designating one unit for each species, for a total of two 
units for both species, as critical habitat for the Big Creek crayfish 
and the St. Francis River crayfish. The critical habitat areas we 
describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Big Creek crayfish and St. 
Francis River crayfish. We are designating approximately 1,069 rmi 
(1,720 km) of critical habitat in one unit for Big Creek crayfish. We 
are designating approximately 1,043 rmi (1,679 km) of critical habitat 
in another unit for the St. Francis River crayfish. Tables 6 and 7 
provide information on the approximate area of each unit and the 
adjacent land ownership. Because all streambeds are navigable waters, 
both critical habitat units are managed by the State of Missouri. The 
units include stream habitat up to bank full height. We are not 
designating any adjacent land as critical habitat.

          Table 6--Critical Habitat Unit for Big Creek Crayfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Stream miles
                 Adjacent land ownership                   (kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal.................................................       296 (476)
State...................................................         42 (68)
Private.................................................     730 (1,175)
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................   1,069 (1,720)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.


      Table 7--Critical Habitat Unit for St. Francis River Crayfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Stream miles
                 Adjacent land ownership                   (kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal.................................................       329 (529)
State...................................................         22 (35)
Private.................................................     693 (1,115)
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................   1,043 (1,679)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of both units, and reasons why each 
one meets the definition of critical habitat for Big Creek crayfish or 
St. Francis River crayfish, below.

Big Creek Crayfish Unit

    The Big Creek crayfish unit consists of approximately 1,069 rmi 
(1,720 km) in the Upper St. Francis River watershed upstream of 
Wappapello Dam in Iron, Madison, St. Francois, Washington, and Wayne 
Counties in Missouri. The unit consists of all of the streams in the 
following 12-digit hydrologic units: Big Lake Creek-St. Francis River 
(080202020503), Blankshire Branch-St. Francis River (080202020204), 
Captain Creek-St. Francis River (080202020405), Cedar Bottom Creek-St. 
Francis River (080202020402), Clark Creek (080202020407), Cedar Bottom 
Creek (080202020501), Crane Pond Creek (080202020303), Headwaters St. 
Francis River (080202020201), Headwaters Twelvemile Creek 
(080202020403), Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River (080202020406), 
Lower Big Creek (080202020304), Middle Big Creek (080202020302), Saline 
Creek-Little St. Francis River (080202020102), Turkey Creek-St. Francis 
River (080202020210), Twelvemile Creek (080202020404), and Upper Big 
Creek (080202020301). The unit also consists of the entire St. Francis 
River upstream of 37.091254N, 90.447212W. The unit does not include any 
areas of adjacent land. A large portion of the riparian land adjacent 
to streams in this unit is privately owned (68 percent), with 28 
percent in Federal ownership and 4 percent in State ownership.

St. Francis River Crayfish Unit

    The St. Francis River crayfish unit consists of approximately 1,043 
rmi (1,679 km) in the Upper St. Francis River watershed upstream of 
Wappapello Dam in Iron, Madison, St. Francois, Washington, and Wayne 
Counties in Missouri. The unit consists of all of the streams in the 
following 12-digit hydrologic units: Blankshire Branch-St. Francis 
River (80202020204), Captain Creek-St. Francis River (80202020405), 
Cedar Bottom Creek-St. Francis River (80202020402), Headwaters St. 
Francis River (80202020201), Headwaters Stouts Creek (80202020207), 
Hubble Creek-St. Francis River (80202020502), Leatherwood Creek-St. 
Francis River (80202020406), Little St. Francis River (80202020103), 
Lost Creek (80202020507), Marble Creek (80202020401), Musco Creek-
Little St. Francis River (80202020101), O'Bannon Creek-St. Francis 
River (80202020206), Saline Creek-Little St. Francis River 
(80202020102), Stouts Creek (80202020208), Turkey Creek-St. Francis 
River (80202020210), and Wachita Creek-St. Francis River (80202020209). 
The unit also consists of the entire St. Francis River upstream of 
36.982104N, 90.335400W. The unit does not include any areas of adjacent 
land. A large portion of the riparian land adjacent to streams in this 
unit is privately owned (66 percent), with 32 percent in Federal 
ownership and 2 percent in State ownership.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.

[[Page 25534]]

    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 
or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that 
involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal 
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed 
species or critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out 
by a Federal agency--do not require section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the 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 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: (a) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) 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; (c) 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 written 
concurrence; or (d) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. The 
reinitiation requirement applies only to actions that remain subject to 
some discretionary Federal involvement or control. As provided in 50 
CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new species 
listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to certain 
agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the Bureau of 
Land Management in certain circumstances.

Application of the ``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.
    At this time, we are not aware of any activities that are likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. However, during each 
consultation under section (7a)(2) of the Act, we will evaluate whether 
proposed activities are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat.

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 Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a), 
if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a 
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation. There are no DoD lands with a completed INRMP within the 
final critical habitat designations.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the 
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that 
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and 
how much weight to give to any factor. In this final rule, we have not 
considered any areas for exclusion from critical habitat.
    On December 18, 2020, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (85 FR 82376) revising portions of our regulations pertaining 
to exclusions of critical habitat. These final regulations became 
effective on January 19, 2021, and apply to critical habitat rules for 
which a proposed rule was published

[[Page 25535]]

after January 19, 2021. Consequently, these new regulations do not 
apply to this final rule.

Exclusions Based on 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 consider economic impacts, we prepared an 
incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis, which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider 
our economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designations and 
related factors (IEc 2019, entire). The analysis, dated March 28, 2019, 
was made available for public review from September 17, 2020, through 
November 16, 2020 (see 85 FR 58192; September 17, 2020) and from April 
27, 2021, to May 27, 2021 (see 86 FR 22127; April 27, 2021). The 
economic analysis addressed probable economic impacts of critical 
habitat designation for Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River 
crayfish. Following the close of the comment periods, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment periods that may 
pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic 
impacts of these critical habitat designations.
    Our analysis concluded that these costs will not reach the 
threshold of ``significant'' under E.O. 12866. For the critical habitat 
designations for both species, we anticipate a maximum of 115 section 7 
consultations annually at a total incremental cost of approximately 
$135,000 per year (IEc 2019, entire).
    As we stated earlier, we solicited data and comments from the 
public on the economic analysis, as well as all aspects of the proposed 
rule and our required determinations. We did not receive any comments 
or additional data that would necessitate a revision of our IEM or 
screening analysis. Therefore, we are adopting our draft economic 
analysis as our final economic analysis.
    We considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designations. The Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude 
any areas from these designations of critical habitat for the Big Creek 
crayfish and the St. Francis River crayfish based on economic impacts.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    In preparing this final rule, we have determined that the lands 
within the designations of critical habitat for Big Creek crayfish and 
St. Francis River crayfish are not owned or managed by the DoD or 
Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no 
impact on national security or homeland security. We did not receive 
any additional information during the public comment period for the 
proposed designation regarding impacts of the designation on national 
security or homeland security that would support excluding any specific 
areas from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security as discussed above. 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 would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at the existence of Tribal conservation plans and 
partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of 
the United States with Tribal entities. We also consider any social 
impacts that might occur because of the designations.
    In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for Big Creek crayfish and 
St. Francis River crayfish, and the designations do not include any 
Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal 
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from the critical habitat designations. 
Additionally, as described above, we are not excluding any particular 
areas on the basis of impacts to national security or economic impacts 
because there are no national security areas in the critical habitat 
designations.
    During the development of these final designations, we considered 
all additional information received through the public comment periods 
regarding other relevant impacts to determine whether any specific 
areas should have been excluded from the final critical habitat 
designations under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. As stated above, the Secretary is not 
exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final critical 
habitat designations.

Required Determinations

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 final rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining

[[Page 25536]]

concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with 
fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than 
$5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses 
with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade 
contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and 
agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To 
determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are 
significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger 
regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project 
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant 
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's 
business operations.
    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 will be directly 
regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to 
evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. 
Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because 
no small entities will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, we 
certify that the final critical habitat designations will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the final critical habitat 
designations will 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 the final critical 
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the 
critical habitat designations will significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. The critical habitat designations for 
Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish are unlikely to 
generate costs exceeding $100 million in a single year (IEc 2019, p. 
2). 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 rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
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 will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because the lands within the critical habitat 
designations are primarily Federally or privately owned and are managed 
by the State of Missouri and, therefore, do not fall within the 
jurisdiction of small governments. Therefore, a Small Government Agency 
Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish in a 
takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service 
to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private 
property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any 
closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. 
Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect 
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor 
does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or 
issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require

[[Page 25537]]

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 designation of 
critical habitat for Big Creek crayfish and the St. Francis River 
crayfish, and it concludes that the designations of critical habitat do 
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected 
by the designations.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this 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 the critical habitat designations with, 
appropriate State resource agencies and incorporated comments when 
applicable into this final rule. From a federalism perspective, the 
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties 
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have 
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The 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 will 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 will not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this rule 
identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical habitat 
are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the 
interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if 
desired.

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

    This rule does not contain 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 (32 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations 
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a 
species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position (e.g., 
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical 
habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) 
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 federally recognized 
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 final critical habitat 
designation for the Big Creek crayfish or for the St. Francis River 
crayfish, so no Tribal lands will be affected by the designations.

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 (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Missouri 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we 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, in paragraph (h), by adding, in alphabetical 
order under CRUSTACEANS, entries for ``Crayfish, Big Creek'' and 
``Crayfish, St. Francis

[[Page 25538]]

River'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name       Where listed        Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Crustaceans
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Crayfish, Big Creek.............  Faxonius peruncus..  Wherever found....            T   88 FR [insert Federal
                                                                                          Register page where
                                                                                          the document begins],
                                                                                          4/27/2023; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.46(c);\4d\ 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.95(h).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Crayfish, St. Francis River.....  Faxonius quadruncus  Wherever found....            T   88 FR [insert Federal
                                                                                          Register page where
                                                                                          the document begins],
                                                                                          4/27/2023; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.46(c);\4d\ 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.95(h).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.46 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.46  Special rules--crustaceans.

* * * * *
    (c) Big Creek crayfish (Faxonius peruncus) and St. Francis River 
crayfish (Faxonius quadruncus).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to the Big Creek crayfish and the St. 
Francis River crayfish. Except as provided under paragraph (c)(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. Activities that could result in take are those that:
    (A) Impact crayfish habitat, riparian areas adjacent to crayfish 
sites, or habitat between connecting sites such that the species' 
reproduction or survival will be impacted or the effects of woodland 
crayfish invasion will be exacerbated. Such activities include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Construction of instream low-water crossings;
    (2) Destruction of riparian habitat that results in excessive 
sedimentation;
    (3) Bridge construction; and
    (4) Gravel mining.
    (B) Lead to the introduction of heavy metals into streams. Such 
activities include, but are not limited to, heavy metal mining.
    (C) Appreciably negatively affect water quality, chemistry, or 
quantity such that the species' reproduction or survival will be 
impacted. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, the 
release of wastewater effluent and agricultural runoff.
    (D) Impact hydrological flows such that the species' reproduction 
or survival will be impacted. Such activities include, but are not 
limited to, construction of dams, modification of stream channels, and 
surface and groundwater withdrawals.
    (E) Facilitate the spread of woodland crayfish or introduce 
additional woodland crayfish in occupied Big Creek crayfish or St. 
Francis River crayfish stream reaches. Such activities may include, but 
are not limited to, bait bucket dumping.
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at 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) Restoration activities or other activities that will result in 
an overall benefit to one or both of the species or their habitat that 
are completed in coordination with the Missouri Ecological Services 
Field Office. Such activities include, but are not limited to, stream 
bank stabilization, habitat restoration, heavy metal remediation, and 
replacement of low water crossings that obstruct movement of aquatic 
organisms with crossings that facilitate the movement of aquatic 
species (aquatic organism passages).
    (B) A person conducting research or education under a valid 
Missouri Department of Conservation Wildlife Collector's permit.
    (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. In Sec.  17.95 amend paragraph (h), by:
0
a. Adding an entry for ``Big Creek Crayfish (Faxonius peruncus)'' 
following the entry for ``Pecos amphipod (Gammarus pecos)''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``St. Francis River Crayfish (Faxonius 
quadruncus)'' following the entry for ``Slenderclaw Crayfish (Cambarus 
cracens)''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) Crustaceans.
* * * * *
    Big Creek Crayfish (Faxonius peruncus)
    (1) The critical habitat unit is depicted for Iron, Madison, St. 
Francois, Washington, and Wayne Counties in Missouri, on the map in 
this entry.
    (2) Within the critical habitat unit, the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the Big Creek crayfish 
consist of the following components:
    (i) Stream flow velocity generally between 0 and 1.1 feet per 
second (ft/s) (0 and 0.35 meters per second (m/s)).
    (ii) Stream depths generally between 0.2 and 1.6 feet (0.06 and 
0.49 meters).
    (iii) Water temperatures between 34 and 84 [deg]F (1.1 and 28.9 
[deg]C).
    (iv) Adequately low stream embeddedness so that spaces under rocks 
and cavities in gravel remain available to the Big Creek crayfish.

[[Page 25539]]

    (v) An available forage and prey base consisting of invertebrates, 
periphyton, and plant detritus.
    (vi) Connectivity among occupied stream reaches of the Big Creek 
crayfish (both within and among occupied subwatersheds).
    (vii) Adequately low ratios or densities of nonnative species that 
allow for maintaining populations of the Big Creek crayfish.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
May 30, 2023.
    (4) The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) was the 
geospatial data used to delineate critical habitat. NHDPlus is a 
national geospatial surface water framework that integrates the 
National Hydrography Dataset with the National Elevation Dataset and 
the Watershed Boundary Dataset. NHDPlus uses medium resolution 
(1:100,000-scale) data with a geographic projection and NAD83 datum. 
Critical habitat was delineated by including all streams within 
subwatersheds (at the 12-digit hydrologic unit level) occupied by the 
Big Creek crayfish. Occupied watersheds were defined using data from 
the Missouri Department of Conservation; the entire St. Francis River 
upstream of 37.091254N, 90.447212W is also considered occupied as a 
migratory route. The map in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establishes the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which the map is 
based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2019-0020 and at the Missouri Ecological Services 
Field Office. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Big Creek Crayfish Unit--Iron, Madison, St. Francois, 
Washington, and Wayne Counties, Missouri.
    (i) The unit consists of all of the streams (approximately 1,069 
river miles (1,720 kilometers)) upstream of Wappapello Dam in the 
following subwatersheds (numbers in parentheses represent the 12-digit 
hydrologic codes): Big Lake Creek-St. Francis River (080202020503), 
Blankshire Branch-St. Francis River (080202020204), Captain Creek-St. 
Francis River (080202020405), Cedar Bottom Creek-St. Francis River 
(080202020402), Clark Creek (080202020407), Cedar Bottom Creek 
(080202020501), Crane Pond Creek (080202020303), Headwaters St. Francis 
River (080202020201), Headwaters Twelvemile Creek (080202020403), 
Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River (080202020406), Lower Big Creek 
(080202020304), Middle Big Creek (080202020302), Saline Creek-Little 
St. Francis River (080202020102), Turkey Creek-St. Francis River 
(080202020210), Twelvemile Creek (080202020404), and Upper Big Creek 
(080202020301). The unit also consists of the entire St. Francis River 
upstream of 37.091254N, 90.447212W. The unit does not include any areas 
of adjacent land. This unit includes stream habitat up to bank full 
height.
    (ii) Map of Big Creek Crayfish Unit of Big Creek crayfish critical 
habitat follows:

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
Figure 1 for Big Creek Crayfish (Faxonius peruncus) paragraph (5)(ii)

[[Page 25540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27AP23.152

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
St. Francis River Crayfish (Faxonius quadruncus)
    (1) The critical habitat unit is depicted for Iron, Madison, St. 
Francois, Washington, and Wayne Counties in Missouri, on the map in 
this entry.
    (2) Within the critical habitat unit, the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the St. Francis River 
crayfish consist of the following components:
    (i) Stream flow velocity generally between 0 and 1.1 feet per 
second (ft/s) (0 and 0.35 meters per second (m/s)).
    (ii) Stream depths generally between 0.2 and 1.7 feet (0.06 and 
0.52 meters).
    (iii) Water temperatures between 34 and 84 [deg]F (1.1 and 28.9 
[deg]C).
    (iv) Adequately low stream embeddedness so that spaces under rocks 
and cavities in gravel remain available to the St. Francis River 
crayfish.
    (v) An available forage and prey base consisting of invertebrates, 
periphyton, and plant detritus.
    (vi) Connectivity among occupied stream reaches of the St. Francis 
River

[[Page 25541]]

crayfish (both within and among occupied subwatersheds).
    (vii) Adequately low ratios or densities of nonnative species that 
allow for maintaining populations of the St. Francis River crayfish.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
May 30, 2023.
    (4) The National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) was the 
geospatial data used to delineate critical habitat. NHDPlus is a 
national geospatial surface water framework that integrates the 
National Hydrography Dataset with the National Elevation Dataset and 
the Watershed Boundary Dataset. NHDPlus uses medium resolution 
(1:100,000-scale) data with a geographic projection and NAD83 Datum. 
Critical habitat was delineated by including all streams within 
subwatersheds (at the 12-digit hydrologic unit level) occupied by the 
St. Francis River crayfish. Occupied watersheds were defined using data 
from the Missouri Department of Conservation; the entire St. Francis 
River upstream of 36.982104N, 90.335400W is also considered occupied as 
a migratory route. The map in this entry, as modified by any 
accompanying regulatory text, establishes the boundaries of the 
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on 
which the map is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2019-0020 and at the 
Missouri Ecological Services Field Office. You may obtain field office 
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices, 
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) St. Francis River Crayfish Unit--Iron, Madison, St. Francois, 
Washington, and Wayne Counties, Missouri.
    (i) The unit consists of all of the streams (approximately 1,043 
river miles (1,679 kilometers)) upstream of Wappapello Dam in the 
following subwatersheds (numbers in parentheses represent the 12-digit 
hydrologic codes): Blankshire Branch-St. Francis River (80202020204), 
Captain Creek-St. Francis River (80202020405), Cedar Bottom Creek-St. 
Francis River (80202020402), Headwaters St. Francis River 
(80202020201), Headwaters Stouts Creek (80202020207), Hubble Creek-St. 
Francis River (80202020502), Leatherwood Creek-St. Francis River 
(80202020406), Little St. Francis River (80202020103), Lost Creek 
(80202020507), Marble Creek (80202020401), Musco Creek-Little St. 
Francis River (80202020101), O'Bannon Creek-St. Francis River 
(80202020206), Saline Creek-Little St. Francis River (80202020102), 
Stouts Creek (80202020208), Turkey Creek-St. Francis River 
(80202020210), and Wachita Creek-St. Francis River (80202020209). The 
unit also consists of the entire St. Francis River upstream of 
36.982104N, 90.335400W. The unit does not include any areas of adjacent 
land. The Upper St. Francis River Watershed Unit includes stream 
habitat up to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of St. Francis River Crayfish Unit of St. Francis River 
crayfish critical habitat follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
Figure 1 for St. Francis River Crayfish (Faxonius quadruncus) paragraph 
(5)(ii)

[[Page 25542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27AP23.153

* * * * *

Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-08849 Filed 4-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C