Proposed Rule2024-20106
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Black Creek Crayfish and Designation of Critical Habitat
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 10, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Black Creek crayfish (Procambarus pictus), a crayfish species from Florida, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also propose to designate critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish under the Act. In total, approximately 1,056 kilometers (656 miles) of streams in Clay, Duval, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species and its designated critical habitat. We also announce the availability of an economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Black Creek crayfish.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73512-73554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20106]
[[Page 73511]]
Vol. 89
Tuesday,
No. 175
September 10, 2024
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Black Creek Crayfish and Designation of Critical Habitat;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 73512]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH96
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Black Creek Crayfish and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Black Creek crayfish (Procambarus pictus), a crayfish species
from Florida, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). We also propose to designate critical
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish under the Act. In total,
approximately 1,056 kilometers (656 miles) of streams in Clay, Duval,
Putnam, and St. Johns Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of
the proposed critical habitat designation. If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species and its
designated critical habitat. We also announce the availability of an
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the
Black Creek crayfish.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 12, 2024. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 25, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gian Basili, Deputy State Supervisor,
Florida Ecological Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200,
Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; telephone 904-731-3079. 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.
Please see Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), 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 an endangered species 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 Black Creek crayfish
meets the definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are
proposing to list it as such and proposing a designation of its
critical habitat. Both listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species and making a critical habitat designation can be completed only
by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking
process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose to list the Black Creek
crayfish as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose to
designate critical habitat for the species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the Black Creek crayfish
is endangered primarily due to the invasion of the white tubercled
crayfish (Procambarus spiculifer) through competition for food and
shelter, and possibly through direct predation (Factors C and E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
designate critical habitat for the species concurrently with listing
the species. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species
and (II) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, 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.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
[[Page 73513]]
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
(4) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Black Creek crayfish habitat;
(b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species
in the Lower St. Johns River Basin in Clay, Duval, Putnam, and St.
Johns Counties in northeastern Florida that should be included in the
designation because they (i) are occupied at the time of listing and
contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations or protection, or (ii) are unoccupied at the time of
listing and are essential for the conservation of the species;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) Whether areas not occupied at the time of listing qualify as
habitat for the species and are essential for the conservation of the
species.
(5) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(7) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of
the likely economic impacts and any additional information regarding
probable economic impacts that we should consider.
(8) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think we should exclude any
additional areas, please provide information supporting a benefit of
exclusion.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2)
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Our final determinations may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not include
all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we find
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. In our
final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our
final decisions, including why we made changes, if any, that differ
from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
For a detailed description of Federal actions concerning the Black
Creek crayfish that occurred prior to September 2021, please refer to
the document we published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2021
(86 FR 53933).
On November 20, 2023, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center)
sent the Service a notice of intent to sue, alleging violations of the
Act and Administrative Procedure Act by denying protections to the
Black Creek crayfish. The Center
[[Page 73514]]
filed a complaint on February 16, 2024 (Center v. Service, No. 1:24-cv-
00457 (D.D.C.)). In May 2024, the court granted a stay in the case
through August 30, 2024, to allow the Service to consider new
information on the Black Creek crayfish and issue a new status
determination. However, we are effectively mooting the action by
publishing this proposed rule, which proposes to list the Black Creek
crayfish as an endangered species, and proposes to designate critical
habitat for the species, under the Act.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Black Creek 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 in
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent
scientific review of the information contained in the Black Creek
crayfish SSA report (version 2.0). We sent the SSA report to six
independent peer reviewers and received four responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report,
which is the foundation for this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from four
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions,
including clarifications in using terminology and other editorial
suggestions. All comments regarding Black Creek crayfish survey records
were further clarified in the SSA report. Otherwise, no substantive
changes to our analysis and conclusions in the SSA report were deemed
necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed in version 2.0 of
the SSA report (Service 2024, entire).
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Black Creek crayfish is presented in the SSA report (version 2.0,
Service 2024, pp. 9-16).
The Black Creek crayfish is endemic to the Lower St. Johns River
Basin in four northeastern Florida counties (Clay, Duval, Putnam, and
St. Johns). This small to medium-sized crayfish has dark claws and a
dark carapace with a white or yellowish mid-dorsal stripe, white spots
or streaks on its sides, and a rust-colored abdomen. The Black Creek
crayfish lives for approximately 16 months and reproduces once during
its life cycle. The Black Creek crayfish occurs in flowing, sand-
bottomed, tannic-stained streams that contain cool, clean water, and
maintain a constant flow of highly oxygenated water (greater than 5
parts per million). Within these streams, Black Creek crayfish require
aquatic vegetation and debris for shelter, with alternating shaded and
open canopy cover where they eat aquatic plants, dead plant and animal
material, and detritus.
When version 1.0 of the SSA report was completed in 2019, the
effects of the co-occurring white tubercled crayfish were uncertain,
but it is now known that wherever white tubercled crayfish is found, it
displaces Black Creek crayfish through competition or predation.
Monitoring surveys in 2019-2023 documented expansion of the white
tubercled crayfish, with 47 percent of the Black Creek crayfish's range
facing inevitable extirpation due to white tubercled crayfish invasion,
and 42 percent of the range at high risk of imminent invasion. The
expansion of white tubercled crayfish and its apparent displacement of
Black Creek crayfish led the Service to reassess the species in 2024.
The Service updated the SSA report, resulting in version 2.0, and
subjected the SSA report to peer review. As noted above, the Service
considered peer review comments on the updated SSA report. The Service
used the updated SSA report to make a new status determination for the
Black Creek crayfish, resulting in this proposed rule.
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. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, we 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 what criteria we apply when
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same
day, we published a final rule revising our protections for endangered
species and threatened species at 50 CFR part 17 (89 FR 23919). These
final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the current
regulations.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
[[Page 73515]]
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response 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.
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 which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
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 proposed for listing as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards within the Act and its
implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the Black Creek crayfish's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events);
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). 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, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
version 2.0 of the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resource needs, and the threats that influence the
species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species'
overall viability.
At an individual level, Black Creek crayfish require aquatic
vegetation, leaf litter, and tree roots or undercut banks for shelter,
as well as aquatic plants, dead plant and animal material, and detritus
for food. Additionally, individuals need clean and cool, highly
oxygenated, flowing water to survive. For populations of Black Creek
crayfish to persist, the needs of individuals (suitable shelter, food
sources, mates) must be met at a larger scale. Connected areas of
habitat must be large enough to support a reservoir of potential mates
for breeding and to avoid inbreeding depression. For Black Creek
crayfish, suitable habitat depends on the absence of competitors (e.g.,
white tubercled crayfish) and maintenance of sand-bottomed, highly
oxygenated, tannic headwater streams.
Species viability requires adequate redundancy. Redundancy is
sustained by resilient populations (natural or reintroduced)
distributed across the species' range, and connectivity allows nearby
populations to expand their range, rescue and recolonize areas after
catastrophic events, or both. Representation can be maintained through
heterogeneity of occupied habitats and sustained resilient populations
spread across the range of genetic and/or ecological diversity for the
species. The Black Creek crayfish occupies similar habitat (primarily
high-quality headwater streams) throughout its range. Long-term
viability requires resilient populations to be sustained into the
future. For this species, long-term viability means protecting and
maintaining high-quality headwater streams and excluding or minimizing
impacts from nonindigenous and invading competitors.
Influences on Black Creek crayfish viability vary by location, but
the most imminent threat to the species is competition and potential
predation from the nonindigenous and invading white tubercled crayfish
(Factors C and E), which is now being regularly detected across the
Black Creek crayfish's range in addition to other crayfish competitors.
Other threats include disease (Factor C), habitat degradation and water
quality
[[Page 73516]]
impairment (Factor A), and a changing climate (Factor E) and are
described in more detail in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 18-39).
White Tubercled Crayfish
The white tubercled crayfish, a crayfish from an adjacent
watershed, was introduced to the Black Creek crayfish's range and is
influencing Black Creek crayfish through competition for food and
shelter and possibly through direct predation (Service 2024, pp. 18-
25). The white tubercled crayfish is native to the United States and is
broadly distributed across the Southeast. In Florida, white tubercled
crayfish historically only occurred in the St. Mary's and Suwannee
basins in the northern part of the State, as well as in panhandle
basins (NatureServe 2023, unpaginated). The first detection of white
tubercled crayfish in areas known to be historically occupied by Black
Creek crayfish was in 2008 (Franz et al. 2008, p. 16). While it is
unclear if the white tubercled crayfish expanded its range in Florida
from the north and west, Trail Ridge, a sandy dune geologic feature
running north to south from South Georgia through North Florida, was
likely a barrier to white tubercled crayfish expansion (G. Warren 2020,
pers. comm.; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1989, entire).
Analysis of the pattern of white tubercled crayfish and Black Creek
crayfish presence/absences suggests that the white tubercled crayfish
was introduced into the Black Creek Basin rather than spreading
naturally from the north (Fralick et al. 2021, p. 18). One explanation
for introduction is through live bait release from fishing, which is
one of the main methods for crayfish invasions (DiStefano et al. 2015,
p. 404). Other mechanisms for introductions include personal aquarium
releases, planting of infested aquatic plants, intentional stocking,
and the potential release of crayfish for educational purposes (Nagy et
al. 2022, unpaginated; Donahou et al. 2024, unpaginated). Commercial
sales of white tubercled crayfish are legal in Florida. The first
record of white tubercled crayfish in the Black Creek Basin was in an
urbanized portion of Bull Creek in the Lower South Fork of Black Creek
subwatershed that is located near the center of the Black Creek Basin
(Franz et al. 2008, p. 17).
From 2012-2018, the white tubercled crayfish was detected at two
sites in the Black Creek Basin. A 2021 basin-wide evaluation of the
population status of Black Creek crayfish comparing 2018-2023 surveys
with sites historically occupied by Black Creek Crayfish between 1976-
2016 indicated a substantial decline in Black Creek crayfish
occurrences and a corresponding increase in the number of sites
inhabited by white tubercled crayfish (Fralick et al. 2023, unpublished
data). Surveys from 2018-2023 across 75 sites historically occupied by
Black Creek crayfish documented 51 total sites (68 percent) occupied by
white tubercled crayfish, 33 of which (44 percent) it has replaced
Black Creek crayfish. Black Creek crayfish occurrence was reduced to
only 36 (48 percent) of the 75 historical sites; however, white
tubercled crayfish has been detected in 18 of these sites, leaving only
18 (24 percent) of the historical sites unoccupied by white tubercled
crayfish. While we do not have a rate of extirpation calculated, the
replacement of Black Creek crayfish by white tubercled crayfish has
been dramatic since its initial detection in 2008. Given these recent
trends, the 18 sites with both Black Creek crayfish and white tubercled
crayfish present will likely transition to only white tubercled
crayfish occupation in the future.
Some barriers, such as natural or artificial waterfalls, culverts,
or salinity, seem to prevent or at least slow down the spread of white
tubercled crayfish (Reisinger et al. 2023, p. 2). Within the Black
Creek Basin, all the Black Creek crayfish sites where white tubercled
crayfish have not been found are in the headwaters behind barriers or
in Peter's Creek, a tributary near Black Creek's terminus where it
meets the brackish St. Johns River. The remainder of the Black Creek
crayfish sites with no white tubercled crayfish present are located
outside of the Black Creek basin or are on the east side of the St.
Johns River.
Preliminary data suggest that the white tubercled crayfish
tolerates a wider range of stream temperatures than the Black Creek
crayfish (Warren et al. 2019, pp. 8-9). Both crayfish species require
high dissolved oxygen levels and generally overlap in many aspects of
their resource needs. White tubercled crayfish reach a larger size than
Black Creek crayfish, have a higher growth rate, and outcompete Black
Creek crayfish when they have a size advantage (Reisinger et al. 2023,
p. 12). White tubercled crayfish likely have a size advantage over
Black Creek crayfish during much of the lifecycle due to higher growth
rates and culmination in a larger overall maximum size (Reisinger et
al. 2023, p. 11). In an enclosure experiment, there were no observed
impacts of white tubercled crayfish on the growth or survival of Black
Creek crayfish, but Black Creek crayfish used the shelter less
frequently in the presence of white tubercled crayfish (Reisinger et
al. 2023, pp. 11-12) This suggests that competition for shelter may be
a key mechanism by which the white tubercled crayfish is replacing the
Black Creek crayfish (Reisinger et al. 2023, p. 12). Several other
studies have found that introduced crayfish can outcompete native
crayfish for shelter and lead to displacement (Hill and Lodge 1994,
entire; Usio et al. 2001, entire; Chucholl et al. 2008, entire).
Additional research is needed to fully understand the life
histories and resource needs for both species, the extent of their
interspecific competition for resources, and their behavioral ecology.
It is theorized that white tubercled crayfish may have an advantage
over Black Creek crayfish because they have a longer lifespan and
likely reproduce multiple times over a lifetime, whereas female Black
Creek crayfish only reproduce once during their life cycle (Franz 1994,
p. 212; Hightower and Bechler 2013, pp. 86-87). Although not yet
documented for Black Creek crayfish and white tubercled crayfish
interactions, reproductive interference is also a potential mechanism
for species replacement (M. Ellis 2023, pers. comm.). In some systems,
nonindigenous male crayfish have tried to mate with native females,
producing no offspring, but effectively eliminating the female's
reproductive capacity for the season (J. Cook 2023, pers. comm.; Butler
and Stein 1985, p. 14; Ellis 1999, pp. 108-109). It is also possible
that changing environmental factors are enhancing the white tubercled
crayfish's ability to move into and dominate areas once occupied by
Black Creek crayfish. There is anecdotal evidence that after a severe
drought, white tubercled crayfish recolonized rehydrated streams more
rapidly than Black Creek crayfish (Smith-Hicks 2020, p. 1).
Overall, the white tubercled crayfish can be considered both a
stochastic threat, depending on the timing of invasion and interaction
with the Black Creek crayfish, and a catastrophic threat, because of
the likelihood of human-mediated introduction as well as their ability
to outcompete and displace the Black Creek crayfish, thus making the
entire Black Creek crayfish species vulnerable to extirpation
throughout its range.
Other Influencing Factors
There are several influences that individually and synergistically
impact Black Creek crayfish viability. These include other crayfish
competitors,
[[Page 73517]]
disease, habitat degradation and water quality impairment, and climate
change.
Other Crayfish Competitors
Other crayfish species, including both native and nonnative
species, can pose a threat if they are aggressive, are resilient to
more extreme conditions, or compete for food and cover, thus starving
other crayfish species and forcing them out of refugia where other
animals can more easily prey upon them. In addition to the
nonindigenous and invading white tubercled crayfish (Procambarus
spiculifer), Black Creek crayfish are occasionally found with other
native crayfish species, including slough crayfish (P. fallax),
peninsula crayfish (P. paeninsulanus), brushpalm crayfish (P.
pubischelae), and Seminole crayfish (P. seminolae), which may compete
with them for resources (Franz 1994, p. 212; Franz et al. 2008, pp. 14,
16; Nelson and Floyd 2011, pp. 5-6). While not known to occur within
the range of the Black Creek crayfish, there is a small, introduced
population of highly aggressive and invading red swamp crayfish (P.
clarkii) in the Doctors Lake subwatershed, which borders the Black
Creek Basin. This population is limited to a small retention pond and a
few drainage ditches. Eradication efforts in 2022 were unsuccessful, as
surveys in 2023 continued to find red swamp crayfish (Gestring 2023,
pers. comm.).
Disease
Microsporidian diseases have been attributed to Black Creek
crayfish declines (Reisinger et al. 2023, pp. 10-11; Service 2024, pp.
25-28). Microsporidia are spore-forming, obligate, intracellular
parasites whose numerous hosts include crayfish. In crayfish, the
disease usually causes the deterioration of muscle tissue, lethargy,
and eventually death (Freeman et al. 2010, pp. 217-218), or can alter
the habitat use or body condition and increase susceptibility to
infection (Reisinger and Bolds 2022, p. 3). Visual signs of the disease
are white streaks or white opaque abdominal tissue, lending to the name
``porcelain disease'' or ``cotton tail,'' that usually becomes more
pronounced as the infection progresses. Black Creek crayfish with
microsporidian disease have been reported in several studies (Franz et
al. 2008, p. 13; Nelson and Floyd 2011, p. 6; Smith-Hicks 2020, p.
1;Reisinger et al. 2023, pp. 10-11).
Habitat Degradation and Water Quality Impairment
Within the range of the Black Creek crayfish, pollution from
nonpoint sources stemming from urbanization, mining, and other
activities has been documented in the past (Brody 1990, p. 21; Franz
and Franz 1990, p. 294; Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2001, p.
2; Franz et al. 2008, pp. 17-18; Nelson and Floyd 2011, pp. 6-7). Not
only can these impacts cause direct mortality to crayfish, but they can
also degrade habitat used for foraging, sheltering, and spawning.
Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the SSA report provide additional details about
the effects of water withdrawals and other development-related, mining,
and agricultural/silvicultural activities that affect water quality
within the Black Creek Basin (Service 2024, pp. 29-33). Implementation
of construction, agricultural, and silvicultural best management
practices (BMPs) has alleviated many past threats associated with
siltation and other water quality impacts in recent years and have
improved overall habitat conditions within the Black Creek crayfish's
range (Service et al. 2017, p.24; Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC) 2018, p. 4;).
Climate Change
Effects of climate change, such as increasing temperatures,
increased catastrophic storm and/or extreme drought events, and sea
level rise, pose ongoing risks to habitat suitability for the Black
Creek crayfish. The climate in the southeastern United States has
warmed approximately 1 degree Celsius ([deg]C) (approximately 2 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) since the 1970s and is expected to continue to
rise (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 398-399; Carter et al. 2018, pp. 749-
750). Various emissions scenarios suggest that, by the end of the 21st
century, average global temperatures are expected to increase 2 to >4
[deg]C (3.6 to >7.2 [deg]F) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) 2022, entire). By the end of 2100, it is extremely likely that
there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes
over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales, and it is very
likely that heat waves and extreme precipitation events may occur with
higher frequency and intensity (IPCC 2014, pp. 15-16; Carter et al.
2018, pp. 750-752).
Projections for future precipitation trends in the Southeast are
less certain than those for temperature, but suggest that overall
annual precipitation may decrease, and that tropical storms may occur
less frequently, but with more force (more category 4 and 5 hurricanes)
than historical averages (Carter et al. 2014, p. 398). Projected warmer
temperatures and decreased precipitation may increase water
temperatures and concurrently decrease dissolved oxygen levels; change
runoff regimes; and increase frequency, duration, and intensity of
droughts in the southeastern United States (Carter et al. 2018, pp.
746, 773, 775). Droughts cause decreases in water flow and dissolved
oxygen levels and increases in temperature in stream systems; droughts
can also lead to increases in the concentration of pollutants. These
issues may be exacerbated by increases in groundwater withdrawals that
likely coincide with human population increases.
The restricted range of the Black Creek crayfish may indicate a
narrow tolerance for temperature increases resulting from climate
change in northeastern Florida. The direct influence of temperature
changes to crayfish habitat depends on the species' thermal range,
geographical distribution, and general ability to acclimate (Carmona-
Osalde et al. 2003, p. 306). Previous research indicates increased
temperature can lead to decreased survival, growth rates, and
reproduction (Carmona-Osalde et al. 2003, pp. 308-313), as well as
behavioral modifications (Seals et al. 1997, pp. 136-137) in other
Procambarus species. There are no direct studies to indicate the impact
higher water temperatures would have on Black Creek crayfish
populations; however, there are some early indications that Black Creek
crayfish are disappearing from previously occupied streams, and
congeners such as slough crayfish, peninsula crayfish, and Seminole
crayfish are replacing them in streams above 31[deg]C (88 [deg]F) and
with dissolved oxygen levels below 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
(Fralick et al. 2021, p. 16).
Sea level rise may cause saltwater intrusion of groundwater within
the range of the Black Creek crayfish, increasing salinity and
decreasing oxygen levels, even in areas not directly impacted by higher
tide levels and inundation. Prior to surface inundation, habitat may
undergo vegetation shifts triggered by changes to hydrology (wetter),
salinity (higher), and more frequent storm surge and king tide events
(pulse events causing massive erosion and salinization of soils) (Saha
et al. 2011, pp. 181-182).
[[Page 73518]]
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Habitat Protection and Management
In 2013, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) indicated that
40 percent of Black Creek crayfish habitat was protected (FNAI 2013, p.
D-7). The range of the Black Creek crayfish largely overlaps public
lands managed by the Florida Army National Guard (Camp Blanding Joint
Training Center (Camp Blanding)), St. Johns River Water Management
District, and the Florida Forest Service, specifically three State
forests: Belmore, Jennings, and Etoniah Creek (Service 2024, p. 37).
Resource management activities occur on these public lands. Additional
Black Creek crayfish are known to occur on mitigation bank parcels.
Land managers of public conservation lands do not necessarily manage
stream habitat or the fauna that live in streams, although these areas
likely benefit from management of adjacent uplands. Black Creek
crayfish populations on public lands may receive some protection, but
no rangewide conservation actions have yet been undertaken for the
species.
Florida statutes require managers of lands that contain imperiled
species to consider the habitat needs of these species during
preparation of management plans and require that all land management
plans include short-term and long-term goals to serve as the basis for
land management activities; these goals include measurable objectives
for imperiled species habitat maintenance, enhancement, restoration, or
population restoration (Florida Statutes, title XVIII, section
253.034(5)).
As part of the implementation of the Sikes Improvement Act (1997;
16 U.S.C. 670 et seq), the Secretaries of the military departments are
required to prepare and implement an integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) for each military installation in the United
States. The INRMP must be prepared in cooperation with the Service and
State fish and wildlife agencies and must reflect the mutual agreement
of these parties concerning conservation, protection, and management of
wildlife resources (16 U.S.C. 670a). The Department of Defense (DoD)
must conserve and maintain native ecosystems, viable wildlife
populations, Federal and State listed species, and habitats as vital
elements of its natural resource management programs on military
installations, to the extent that these requirements are consistent
with the military mission (DoD Instruction 4715.3).
Camp Blanding, the property with the largest known occurrence of
Black Creek crayfish, is owned by the State of Florida and managed by
the Florida Army National Guard. In 2017, Camp Blanding entered into a
15-year candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA) to
protect Federal candidate and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC) listed species, including Black Creek crayfish
(Service et al. 2017, entire). Enrolled lands include 46,507 acres of
the total 73,000-acre installation (Service et al. 2017, p. 2) and
encompass 121 miles of streams, many of which are occupied by the Black
Creek crayfish. Surveys have found white tubercled crayfish co-
occurring with Black Creek crayfish in several locations; however, some
headwaters are protected from white tubercled crayfish invasion by
barriers. The objectives for the Camp Blanding CCAA are to: (1)
maintain or enhance the quality of habitat for the covered species on
the enrolled lands, (2) reduce or eliminate disease transmission to the
covered species on the enrolled lands, and (3) reduce or eliminate
exotic and invasive species on the enrolled lands. During the
implementation of the CCAA, hydrologic measurements will be taken, and
invasive (including nonindigenous and invading) species will be
monitored in areas known to be occupied by Black Creek crayfish on Camp
Blanding lands (Service et al. 2017, p. 24). Additionally, Black Creek
crayfish will be surveyed at least once every 5 years to evaluate the
success of conservation actions and implementation of BMPs for improved
water quality, reduction and/or elimination of disease transmission,
and control of exotic and invasive species (Service et al. 2017, p.
24). In addition to the CCAA and existing INRMP, Camp Blanding has an
ongoing program to purchase lands within 3 miles of the installation to
create a buffer for the localized effects of loud training exercises.
These lands would not fall within the purview of the CCAA, and Black
Creek crayfish habitat in streams surrounded by these lands would not
be afforded the same protections as those that occur on the
installation.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
coordinates development and implementation of basin management action
plans (BMAPs) to assess, monitor, and improve the water quality of
water bodies in the basin that are considered ``impaired'' by
pollution. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) are water quality targets
for specific pollutants (such as fecal coliforms) that are established
for impaired waterbodies that do not meet their designated uses based
on Florida water quality standards (DEP 2008, p. 1). A BMAP prepared
for tributaries to the lower St. Johns River (DEP 2008, entire)
addresses water quality issues for some drainages in or near the range
of the Black Creek crayfish. Two streams in urbanizing areas, Big Davis
Creek and Durbin Creek, in southeastern Duval and northwestern St.
Johns Counties are locations where TDMLs were established (DEP 2008, p.
87), and subsequently were met so that they are no longer considered
impaired waters and could provide habitat for Black Creek crayfish
(FDEP 2022, entire).
State Conservation Measures
The Black Creek crayfish was listed by the State of Florida as a
State threatened species in 2018 (FWC 2018, p. 8) and is afforded
protections under Florida Administrative Code section 68A-27.003(2)(a),
which makes it illegal to take, possess, or sell Black Creek crayfish
except as authorized by permit from FWC. Florida Administrative Code
section 68A-27.001(4) defines the term ``take'' for the purpose of this
prohibition. Subsequently, FWC has also drafted Species Conservation
Measures and Permitting Guidelines for the Black Creek crayfish (see
Florida Administrative Code section 68A-27.003(2)(b)3 and FWC 2019,
entire). Intentional take permits authorizing the take of State-
designated threatened species are issued for scientific or conservation
purposes that will benefit the survival potential of the species, as
described in Florida Administrative Code section 68A-27.007(2)(a).
Incidental take permits are issued when there is a scientific or
conservation benefit and only after showing that the permitted activity
will not negatively impact the species, as described in Florida
Administrative Code section 68A-27.007(2)(b).
The FWC has also drafted a Species Action Plan (SAP; FWC 2013,
entire) to guide conservation actions for the benefit of the Black
Creek crayfish across its range. The Black Creek crayfish SAP details
the actions deemed necessary to improve the species' conservation
status, including: (1) working with land managers and landowners to
protect, monitor, and enhance the habitat quality of known crayfish
sites; (2) drafting and disseminating stream-centered habitat
management recommendations to reduce threats and safeguard crayfish and
riparian corridors; and (3) continuing to survey to determine the
extent of occupied stream reaches and
[[Page 73519]]
to identify additional occupied drainages to extend the known range of
the species, decentralize its vulnerability to threats, and reduce its
overall risk of extinction.
Forestry and Agriculture BMPs
To avoid activities that could degrade or alter riparian zones
adjacent to areas inhabited by the Black Creek crayfish, as well as to
prevent upland erosion into streams and rivers, some actions require
measures to avoid take of the species. These include following
guidelines for activities that do not require FWC permits, including
avoidance of degradation of Black Creek crayfish habitat through the
State of Florida BMPs for stormwater runoff and the FDACS silviculture
BMPs. Modern forestry operations in Florida have a (self-reported)
compliance rate of 100 percent for following Wildlife Best Management
Practices (WBMPs) for State-imperiled species, including the Black
Creek crayfish. Forestry protection of special management zones (SMZs)
may reduce contribution of nonpoint source pollution (FDACS and FWC
2018, p. 4). SMZs are meant to provide shade for temperature
regulation, a natural vegetation strip, intact ground cover, large and
small woody debris, leaf litter, and a variety of tree species and age
classes; most of these habitat components benefit Black Creek crayfish
(FDACS 2014, p. 5). For the sites following WBMPs across the State of
Florida in 2017, 19 percent were located on private nonindustrial
forestlands, 64 percent on forest industry lands, and 17 percent on
public lands (FDACS and FWC 2018, p. 4). According to Florida's BMPs
for forestry, SMZs should be 35 ft wide (200 ft for Outstanding Florida
Waters (OFWs)), but selective logging is permitted in this zone (FDACS
2008, p. 9).
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant 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.
Current Condition
Black Creek crayfish analysis units were delineated using HUC 12
(12-digit hydrologic unit code) subwatersheds from the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Watershed Boundary Dataset (USGS 2024, unpaginated).
There may be genetic separation of Black Creek crayfish on the east and
west side of the St. Johns River based on limited samples (Breinholt
and Crandall 2010, entire); therefore, we separated the Black Creek
crayfish into two representation units: one on the east side of the St.
Johns River and one on the west side of the St. Johns River. There are
no meaningful ecological distinctions between these representation
units. We identified 19 analysis units across the range of the Black
Creek crayfish; three units are located in the eastern representation
unit, and 16 units are located in the western representation unit (see
figure 1, below).
[[Page 73520]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.004
Figure 1. Black Creek crayfish analysis units, defined by HUC 12
hydrologic units.
We assessed resiliency at the analysis unit (HUC 12 subwatershed)
scale. Due to the local impact of white tubercled crayfish on Black
Creek crayfish occupancy, units with only white tubercled crayfish
present were assigned no resiliency and not evaluated further, as Black
Creek crayfish in these watersheds are considered at high risk of
extirpation, given recent evidence of rapid community replacement as
detailed above. ``No resiliency'' is an indication of functional
extirpation, as Black Creek crayfish have been documented in each
analysis unit in the past 12 years (Fralick 2023, entire), but the
rapid replacement by white tubercled crayfish currently nullifies any
ability for the Black Creek crayfish to persist.
Table 1--Analysis Unit Status Based on Initial Screening of White
Tubercled Crayfish Presence and Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence/absence white tubercled
crayfish Unit status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence of white tubercled crayfish Status = no resiliency. High
with evidence of decline in occupancy risk of extirpation. No
of Black Creek crayfish. further evaluation of
resiliency.
Absence of white tubercled crayfish.... Status = extant. Evaluated for
resiliency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Black Creek crayfish are still present, nine analysis units
(47 percent) in the western representation unit (i.e., west of the St.
Johns River) were assigned no resiliency (or functionally extirpated)
due to the presence of white
[[Page 73521]]
tubercled crayfish that we assume will imminently extirpate Black Creek
crayfish. To assess resiliency in the remaining 10 analysis units
without white tubercled crayfish presence, we evaluated three metrics
to determine resiliency for each analysis unit: (1) the risk of white
tubercled crayfish invasion, (2) the amount of suitable habitat
available for Black Creek crayfish, and (3) riparian condition.
White Tubercled Crayfish Invasion Risk
Due to potential release and expansion through various mechanisms,
the risk of white tubercled crayfish invasion is high across the range
of the Black Creek crayfish. We did not explicitly measure the risk of
invasion of newly introduced white tubercled crayfish; rather, we
evaluated the risk that nonindigenous and invading crayfish from
currently occupied areas may spread to nearby locations (see table 2,
below). Seven units (44 percent) located in the western representation
unit are at high risk of white tubercled crayfish invasion due to
proximity to areas with current white tubercled crayfish presence with
no barriers to prevent white tubercled crayfish invasion. These units
were assigned low resiliency and were not assessed further.
Table 2--Analysis Unit Invasion Risk of White Tubercled Crayfish Based
on Proximity to Areas Currently Occupied by White Tubercled Crayfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If: Then:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjacent to unit with white tubercled High risk of white tubercled
crayfish present. crayfish invasion.
Not adjacent to unit with white Low risk of white tubercled
tubercled crayfish present. crayfish invasion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining three units, which are all located in the eastern
representation unit, have lower risk of white tubercled crayfish
invasion; therefore, we proceeded to evaluate the amount of suitable
habitat and riparian condition to assess resiliency for those units.
Note that low risk does not mean zero risk; the analysis units east of
the St. Johns River are still at risk of white tubercled crayfish
invasion.
Suitable Habitat
Suitable habitat was determined from an available habitat
suitability model (HSM) (Appendix B of SSA report (Service 2024, pp.
72-80) that uses stream attributes (gradient and sinuosity), forest
conditions, geology type, and water quality to calculate potential
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish (Service 2020, pp. 53, 55). To
conservatively estimate suitable Black Creek crayfish habitat,
potential habitat was limited to stretches in the HSM as having ``Fair-
Good'' or better habitat index values (greater than or equal to (>=)
4). Only including habitat indices of >=4 limits predictions to the 10-
percentile threshold, which generally provides a good cutoff for
indicating potential habitat. There are currently no data indicating
how much habitat is needed within the range of a population to maintain
sufficient resiliency levels. However, it can be inferred that, in the
absence of other limiting factors (e.g., stochastic events, unknown
alterations to water quality, interspecific competitors), the greater
the amount of suitable linear habitat within an analysis unit, the
greater the likelihood of both occurrence and high abundance of the
species. Therefore, we used the amount of habitat available within a
unit to determine a suitable habitat ranking for the Black Creek
crayfish. We considered analysis units with greater than 50 kilometers
(km) (31 miles (mi)) of available suitable habitat as high, 20-50 km
(12-31 mi) of available suitable habitat as moderate, and less than 20
km (12 mi) of available suitable habitat as low (see table 3, below;
Service 2020, pp. 54-55).
Table 3--Habitat Ranking Categories Assigned Based on Amount of Suitable
Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat ranking Amount of suitable habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low........................ Less than 20 km suitable habitat available.
Moderate................... 20-50 km suitable habitat available.
High....................... More than 50 km suitable habitat available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riparian Condition
Intact, undisturbed riparian areas are needed to sustain habitat
features to meet the life history needs of the Black Creek crayfish. To
assess whether these conditions are currently sufficient to sustain the
species, we analyzed current riparian condition for each analysis unit
by combining percentage of urban development within 100 meters (m) (328
feet (ft)) of streams (Kawula and Redner 2018, entire) and total
riparian disturbance (see table 4, below; Service 2024, pp. 46-48).
Table 4--Overall Riparian Condition Assigned to Each Analysis Unit Based on Combination of Land Cover
Percentages of Developed Land Cover and Total Riparian Disturbance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total riparian disturbance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<15% 15-28% >28%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developed Land Cover:
<6%.............................. High................... High................... Moderate.
6-12%............................ Moderate............... Moderate............... Low.
>12%............................. Low.................... Low.................... Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73522]]
Current Condition Summary
For analysis units with low risk of white tubercled crayfish
invasion risk, resiliency was determined by a combination of suitable
habitat and riparian condition (see table 5, below).
Table 5--Overall Resiliency Condition Calculation Methodology for Analysis Units Without White Tubercled
Crayfish Occupancy Based on a Combination of White Tubercled Crayfish Invasion Risk, Amount of Suitable Habitat,
and Riparian Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Combination of suitable habitat and riparian Current
tubercled condition resiliency
crayfish
invasion risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High......................... Not assessed............ Not assessed............ Low.
Low.......................... High.................... High.................... High.
Low.......................... High.................... Moderate................ High.
Low.......................... High.................... Low..................... Moderate.
Low.......................... Moderate................ Moderate................ Moderate.
Low.......................... Moderate................ Low..................... Low.
Low.......................... Low..................... Low..................... Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Black creek crayfish has a total of 19 analysis units across
its narrow range. Nine units (47 percent) have no resiliency, or are
considered functionally extirpated, eight units (42 percent) have low
resiliency, one unit (5 percent) has moderate resiliency, and one unit
(5 percent) has high resiliency (see table 6, below). White tubercled
crayfish have been detected in nine analysis units (47 percent of
range), all located in the western representation unit. These nine
units are considered at high risk of extirpation due to the risk of
community replacement by the white tubercled crayfish and are
considered as having no resiliency or functionally extirpated. Overall,
eight units (42 percent of range) have low resiliency. The seven units
in the western representation unit on the west side of the St. Johns
River that are not currently occupied by the white tubercled crayfish
are considered low resiliency due to the high risk of invasion of the
white tubercled crayfish. The Julington Creek unit in the eastern
representation unit on the east side of the St. Johns River ranked low
resiliency due to the combination of a moderate amount of suitable
habitat and poor riparian condition. The Durbin Creek unit has high
resiliency, while the Trout Creek-St. Johns River unit has moderate
resiliency. Both moderate and high units (10 percent of range) are
located in the eastern representation unit on the east side of the St.
Johns River and have a low risk of invasion of white tubercled crayfish
due to the St. Johns River acting as a barrier to dispersal into these
units. These two units, despite having suitable instream and riparian
habitat condition to sustain the species and a large barrier (St. Johns
River) to natural white tubercled crayfish movement, are still
susceptible to white tubercled crayfish invasion through various
mechanisms, including bait bucket introduction, which is a plausible
risk to the species.
Table 6--Current Condition Parameters and Overall Resiliency Results for All Analysis Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence of White
white tubercled Suitable Riparian Current
Analysis unit tubercled crayfish habitat condition resiliency
crayfish invasion risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Representation Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ates Creek................... Yes NA NA NA None.
Black Creek-St. Johns River.. Yes NA NA NA None.
Clarkes Creek................ No High Risk NA NA Low.
Governors Creek.............. No High Risk NA NA Low.
Greens Creek................. Yes NA NA NA None.
Kingsley Lake................ Yes NA NA NA None.
Lake Geneva.................. No High Risk NA NA Low.
Lower Etonia Creek........... No High Risk NA NA Low.
Lower North Fork-Black Creek. Yes NA NA NA None.
Lower South Fork-Black Creek. Yes NA NA NA None.
Peters Creek................. No High Risk NA NA Low.
Simms Creek.................. No High Risk NA NA Low.
Upper Etonia Creek........... No High Risk NA NA Low.
Upper North Fork-Black Creek. Yes NA NA NA None.
Upper South Fork-Black Creek. Yes NA NA NA None.
Yellow Water Creek........... Yes NA NA NA None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Representation Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durbin Creek................. No Low Risk Moderate High High.
Julington Creek.............. No Low Risk Moderate Low Low.
[[Page 73523]]
Trout Creek-St. Johns River.. No Low Risk Low High Moderate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value of `NA' in a column means ``Not Assessed,'' either because the white tubercled crayfish is present in
that analysis unit or because the risk of white tubercled crayfish invading that unit is high and, therefore,
we did not further evaluate the unit.
For the Black Creek crayfish, redundancy was assessed by mapping
the number and distribution of high and moderate resiliency analysis
units across the species' range in order to describe how the species
will respond to catastrophic events. Of the 19 analysis units, only two
have moderate or high resiliency (Durbin Creek and Trout Creek-St.
Johns River), and both units are located in the eastern representation
unit on the east side of the St. Johns River. In the past 5 years,
Black Creek crayfish redundancy has been greatly reduced on the west
side of the St. Johns River due to the catastrophic invasion of white
tubercled crayfish, and the remaining low resiliency units make the
species vulnerable to additional stochastic and catastrophic events,
such as catastrophic storm and/or extreme drought events (Service 2020,
entire; Service 2024, entire). Overall, the Black Creek crayfish has
low redundancy with only two analysis units with moderate to high
resiliency located in one part of the species' range, thus leaving the
species extremely vulnerable to any catastrophic event, especially
catastrophic storm and/or extreme drought events.
As described earlier, we identified representation units based on
measured genetic separation between samples on the eastern and western
sides of the St. Johns River (Breinholt and Crandall 2010, entire). For
the Black Creek crayfish, current representation is best understood as
the remaining adaptive capacity within the high and moderate resiliency
analysis units that represent remaining genetic diversity across the
species' range. Representation for the species is naturally limited due
to the narrow range, but the entire western representation unit is on
the verge of extirpation and is not considered to contribute to
species' viability. Further, the remaining populations in the eastern
representation unit will not be able to naturally disperse or colonize
areas in the western representation unit, thus indicative of the
reduced adaptive capacity of the species. Overall, the Black Creek
crayfish currently has extremely limited representation, with moderate
to high resiliency currently being restricted to the eastern
representation unit, and therefore all genetic representation for the
species is confined to one small area of the former species' range.
With all of the species' representation confined to one small part of
the historical range, the Black Creek crayfish is not likely to adapt
and track suitable habitat and climate over time.
As part of the SSA, we also developed future-condition scenarios to
capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the
projected responses by the Black Creek crayfish. Our scenarios examined
two urbanization futures and three sea level rise futures out to 2070.
Because we determined that the current condition of the Black Creek
crayfish is consistent with that of an endangered species (see
Determination of Black Creek Crayfish's Status, below), we are not
presenting the results of the future scenarios in this proposed rule.
Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 52-55) for the full
analysis of future scenarios.
Determination of Black Creek 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 in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
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 have determined the Black Creek crayfish to be an
endangered species throughout all of its range. Our review of the best
available information indicates that there are currently 19 populations
(analysis units) occurring in a narrow range of northeastern Florida.
Since 2019, there has been documentation of decline of the Black Creek
Crayfish, with 16 populations (84 percent) in the western part of the
range having low to no resiliency, the latter being considered
functionally extirpated given the presences of white tubercled
crayfish. Of the three populations in the eastern part of the range,
one has low resiliency, one has moderate resiliency, and one has high
resiliency. Therefore, 17 populations (89 percent) of Black Creek
crayfish are currently at high risk of extirpation. The Black Creek
crayfish exhibits low redundancy given its narrow range, and given the
imminent risk of extirpation across the majority of populations, the
species' redundancy will be further reduced.
While influences on the Black Creek crayfish's viability vary by
location, the most imminent threat to the species is competition and
possible predation from the nonindigenous and invading white tubercled
crayfish (Factors C and E), which has been detected across the western
part of the Black Creek crayfish's range and could easily be introduced
into the eastern part of the Black Creek crayfish's range. The white
tubercled crayfish is a larger crayfish, is a strong competitor and
potential predator, and tends to expand its range. This larger crayfish
has been attributed to declines of the Black Creek crayfish. It has
been documented that once white tubercled crayfish is established at a
site, it will outcompete or displace Black Creek crayfish. This
catastrophic threat is currently impacting the Black Creek crayfish to
such a degree that the species is currently at high risk of
[[Page 73524]]
extirpation across the majority of its range. Additional threats of
competition from other crayfishes (Factor E), disease (Factor C),
habitat degradation and water quality impairment (Factor A), and
climate change (Factor E) act together to further reduce the Black
Creek crayfish's ability to withstand stochastic events. In addition,
given the current low resiliency and high risk of extirpation of all
but two populations in the eastern part of the species' range, the
species is also at risk of extirpation due to potential catastrophic
climatic events such as storm and/or extreme drought events. While the
moderate to high resiliency populations are limited to just two
watersheds in the eastern part of the species' range, all threats
listed above (competition from other crayfishes, disease, habitat
degradation and water quality impairment, climate change) are currently
influencing the viability of the species in these areas as well.
Thus, we have determined that the Black Creek crayfish is currently
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. A threatened
species status is not appropriate because the species is currently at
high risk of extirpation due to the imminent impacts of white tubercled
crayfish invasion combined with the impacts of other threats as
described above.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We have determined that the Black Creek crayfish is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range.
Because the Black Creek crayfish warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Black Creek crayfish meets the Act's
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the
Black Creek crayfish as an endangered species in accordance with
sections 3(6) 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, foreign
governments, 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.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan 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. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species">https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species</a>), or from our Florida Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Black Creek crayfish. Information on
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be
found at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
Although the Black Creek crayfish is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action
[[Page 73525]]
they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal
agency shall review its action at the earliest possible time to
determine whether it may affect listed species or critical habitat. If
a determination is made that the action may affect listed species or
critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)),
unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a
formal consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion,
containing its determination of whether the Federal action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Black Creek crayfish that
may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section
7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities 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. Federal agencies should coordinate
with the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7
consultation and conference requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct)
within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United
States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the
course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these
prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22,
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
II. 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 each Federal action agency 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 designated 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. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service
[[Page 73526]]
even absent the designation because of the requirement to ensure that
the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species. Even if the Service were to conclude after consultation that
the proposed activity is likely to result in destruction or adverse
modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the
landowner are not required to abandon the proposed activity, or to
restore or recover the species; instead, they must implement
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific 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.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information compiled in the SSA report and information developed during
the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented 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 the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best scientific data
available at the time of designation will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs),
or other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of 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.
The SSA report (Service 2024, p. 18) lists the Black Creek
crayfish's individual, species, and population needs as: (1) streams
with aquatic vegetation, leaf litter, tree roots, or undercut banks for
shelter; (2) aquatic plants, dead plant and animal material, and
detritus for food; (3) clean and cool, highly oxygenated, flowing water
for all life-history functions; (4) sand-
[[Page 73527]]
bottomed, tannic-stained headwater streams for habitat; (5) absence of
white tubercled crayfish; and (6) connected suitable streams.
Black Creek crayfish rely on cool, flowing, sand-bottomed, and
tannic-stained streams that are highly oxygenated (Franz and Franz
1979, p. 14; Franz 1994, p. 212). These high-quality streams typically
originate in Sandhills and may flow through swampy terrain (Franz and
Franz 1979, p. 14; Brody 1990, pp. 8-11; FNAI 2001, p. 102; Nelson and
Floyd 2011, p.1). Preliminary data suggest that Black Creek crayfish
have not been found in water with temperatures over 30 [deg]C (86
[deg]F; Warren et al. 2019, unpublished data). Locations that fulfill
the species' habitat requirements are typically headwater sections of
streams that maintain a constant flow; however, Black Creek crayfish
are found in small and large tributary streams that fulfill other
habitat criteria (e.g., high oxygen levels, sandy bottom) (Franz and
Franz 1979, p. 14). Within these streams, Black Creek crayfish require
aquatic vegetation and debris for shelter with alternation of shaded
and open canopy cover. In forested sections of habitat, surrounding
riparian areas provide bank stability and shade, which cools the air
and water temperature and provides woody detritus that serves as refuge
and a food source (Franz et al. 2008, p. 16; FWC 2013, pp. 2, 19). In
open stretches of habitat, Black Creek crayfish rely on aquatic
vegetation for cover.
Overall, the primary habitat characteristics that are important to
the Black Creek crayfish include water quantity and flow, water
quality, substrate, forested streambanks, and instream plant and animal
material that allow for normal feeding, breeding, and sheltering in an
area with no white tubercled crayfish.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish from studies of the
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below.
Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2024,
entire; available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2024-0090). We have determined that the following physical or
biological features are essential to the conservation of Black Creek
crayfish:
(1) Small to medium flowing streams with sandy bottom substrate and
with sufficient water quantity and velocity to support normal behavior,
growth, and viability of all life stages.
(2) Moderate amounts of instream aquatic cover, such as woody
debris, overhanging terrestrial vegetation, and aquatic plants, for
refugia, prey, and temperature moderation.
(3) Stream banks with intact riparian cover to maintain stream
morphology and reduce erosion.
(4) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated water
temperatures (maximum of 30 [deg]C (86 [deg]F)) and physical and
chemical parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen >= 4 mg/L) sufficient for
the normal behavior, growth, reproduction, and viability of all life
stages.
(5) Adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community
structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates and plant matter
(e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus).
(6) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the
physical or biological features described in 1 through 5, above, that
allow for movement of individual crayfish in response to environmental,
physiological, or behavioral drivers.
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 which 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 Black
Creek crayfish may require special management considerations or
protection to reduce the effects from the following threats: (1)
Impacts from nonindigenous and invading species, including the white
tubercled crayfish; (2) impacts from disease; (3) nutrient pollution
from agricultural activities that impact water quantity and quality;
(4) significant alteration of water quantity, including water
withdrawals; and (5) other watershed and floodplain disturbances, such
as development and extractive land uses that release sediments or
nutrients into the water.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include,
but are not limited to: control and removal of introduced and invading
species; 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; and
reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat. The occupied areas identified
encompass the habitat needed and provide sufficient habitat to allow
for maintaining the populations.
We consider the areas occupied at the time of listing to include
all suitable streams within occupied subwatersheds (HUC 12). Occupied
subwatersheds have a documented occurrence through recent surveys.
While many sites within the Black Creek crayfish's range are considered
extirpated, all critical habitat units have occupied sites within them.
We identified suitable streams using a habitat suitability model (HSM)
developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute that
includes variables related to stream gradient and sinuosity, geology,
forest condition (e.g., canopy cover), and water quality (see appendix
B of the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 73-81)).
Sources of data for this critical habitat designation include the
SSA report (Service 2024, entire); records maintained by the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC); university and museum
collections; gray papers by researchers involved in wildlife biology
and conservation activities; peer-reviewed articles on this species,
its relatives, or both; State agency reports; and regional Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) coverages. GIS sources include the USGS
National Hydrography Dataset, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute HSM,
and ESRI ArcPro basemaps.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by the Black Creek
crayfish at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) We identified subwatersheds within the geographical area
occupied at
[[Page 73528]]
the time of listing (i.e., with Black Creek crayfish occurrence records
from 2008 to 2023).
(2) We then selected those streams categorized as suitable by the
2018 Fish and Wildlife Research Institute HSM (e.g., good, good-best,
or best).
(3) We delineated end points of stream units by evaluating the
presence or absence of suitable habitat.
(4) We also considered stream segments between suitable streams to
provide migratory corridors.
(5) We refined these areas to eliminate any unsuitable or less
suitable areas that are unlikely to contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species based on the
Black Creek crayfish's biology (e.g., stream length or size) and aerial
imagery.
When determining proposed 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
the physical or biological features necessary for the Black Creek
crayfish. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in
the adjacent critical habitat.
Units are proposed for designation based on one or more of the
physical or biological features being present to support the Black
Creek crayfish's life-history needs. All units contain all of the
identified physical or biological features to support Black Creek
crayfish life-history processes.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate approximately 1,056 kilometers (km)
(656 miles (mi)) in 15 units as critical habitat for the Black Creek
crayfish. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish. The 15 areas we propose as
critical habitat are: (1) Julington Creek, (2) Durbin Creek, (3) Trout
Creek, (4) Governors Creek, (5) Clarks Creek, (6) Black Creek, (7)
Peters Creek, (8) Yellow Water Creek, (9) North Fork of Black Creek,
(10) South Fork of Black Creek, (11) Greens Creek, (12) Simms Creek,
(13) Kingsley Lake, (14) Ates Creek, and (15) Etonia Creek. Table 7
shows the proposed critical habitat units and the approximate area of
each unit; please note, however, that the table does not include
streams that flow through Camp Blanding, as these areas are exempted
under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. While many units may have very
few remaining Black Creek crayfish present, all proposed units are
considered occupied.
Table 7--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Black Creek Crayfish
[Stream segment estimates reflect all waters at bankfull within critical habitat unit boundaries]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership adjacent to streams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit State & Local & Total length *
State km [mi] private km Local km [mi] private km Private km km [mi]
[mi] [mi] [mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Julington Creek............................................ 4.4 [2.7] ........... 1.9 [1.2] 1.2 [0.7] 34.2 [21.3] 41.7 [25.9]
2. Durbin Creek............................................... 5.6 [3.5] 6.1 [3.7] 0.3 [0.2] ........... 11.9 [7.4] 23.9 [14.8]
3. Trout Creek................................................ .............. ........... .............. ........... 13.7 [8.5] 13.7 [8.5]
4. Governors Creek............................................ 2.5 [1.5] 0.2 [0.1] .............. ........... 45.8 [28.5] 48.5 [30.1]
5. Clarks Creek............................................... 18.2 [11.3] ........... .............. ........... 55.9 [34.8] 74.1 [46.1]
6. Black Creek................................................ .............. ........... .............. ........... 23.7 [14.7] 23.7 [14.7]
7. Peters Creek............................................... .............. ........... .............. ........... 35.1 [21.8] 35.1 [21.8]
8. Yellow Water Creek......................................... 33.3 [20.7] ........... 25.0 [15.5] 1.6 [1.0] 32.6 [20.3] 92.5 [57.5]
9. North Fork of Black Creek.................................. 89.0 [55.3] ........... 2.6 [1.6] ........... 125.0 [77.7] 216.6 [134.6]
10. South Fork of Black Creek................................. 21.0 [13.0] ........... .............. ........... 119.0 [74.0] 140.0 [87.0]
11. Greens Creek.............................................. .............. ........... .............. ........... 91.8 [57.0] 91.8 [57.0]
12. Simms Creek............................................... .............. ........... .............. ........... 58.1 [36.1] 58.1 [36.1]
13. Kingsley Lake............................................. 8.4 [5.2] ........... .............. ........... 15.9 [9.9] 24.3 [15.1]
14. Ates Creek................................................ 25.6 [15.9] 1.7 [1.1] .............. ........... 47.5 [29.5] 74.8 [46.5]
15. Etonia Creek.............................................. 21.4 [13.3] ........... .............. ........... 76.7 [47.7] 98.1 [61.0]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 229.4.0 8.0 [4.9] 29.8 [18.5] 2.8 [1.7] 786.9 [489.2] 1,056.9
[142.4] [656.7]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Total lengths may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish,
below.
Unit 1: Julington Creek
Unit 1 includes 41.7 km (25.9 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Julington Creek, Oldfield Creek, Flora Branch, and
Cormorant Branch and their tributaries and other unnamed streams that
contain all of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the Julington Creek
(HUC 12: 030801031302) subwatershed in Duval and St. Johns Counties,
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border
the unit are in State, local government, and private ownership.
Approximately 11 percent (4.4 km (2.7 mi)) are State lands: the
Julington-Durbin Preserve, managed by the St. Johns Water Management
District; and the Freedom Commerce Center, managed by the City of
Jacksonville. The Lower St. Johns Mitigation Bank (8 percent; 3.5 km
(2.2 mi)) is a privately owned conservation area adjacent to the
Freedom Commerce Center.
The physical and biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
climate change, development, extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel
pits, rock quarries), and agricultural and silvicultural activities.
[[Page 73529]]
Unit 2: Durbin Creek
Unit 2 includes 23.9 km (14.8 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Durbin Creek and its tributaries that contain all of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Black Creek crayfish within the Durbin Creek (HUC 12: 030801031301)
subwatershed in Duval and St. Johns Counties, Florida. This unit is
considered occupied. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State,
local government, and private ownership. Approximately 49 percent (11.7
km (7.2 mi)) are State lands managed by the St. Johns River Water
Management District as the Twelve-mile Swamp Conservation Area, Gourd
Island Conservation Area, and Julington-Durbin Preserve.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
climate change, development, and agricultural and silvicultural
activities.
Unit 3: Trout Creek
Unit 3 includes 13.7 km (8.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Trout Creek and its tributaries and Molasses Branch that
contain all of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the Trout Creek-St.
Johns River (HUC 12: 030801031202) subwatershed in St. Johns County,
Florida. This unit is considered occupied, and adjacent riparian lands
are in private ownership.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
climate change, development, and agricultural and silvicultural
activities.
Unit 4: Governors Creek
Unit 4 includes 48.5 km (30.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Governors Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed
streams that contain all of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the
Governors Creek (HUC 12: 030801031204) subwatershed in Clay County,
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border
the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 6 percent
(2.7 km (1.6 mi)) are State lands managed by the St. Johns River Water
Management District as the Bayard Conservation Area.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development,
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 5: Clarks Creek
Unit 5 includes 74.1 km (46.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Clarks Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed streams
that contain all of the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the Clarks Creek
(HUC 12: 030801030804) subwatershed in Clay and Putnam Counties,
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border
the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 25 percent
(18.2 km (11.3 mi)) are State lands managed by the St. Johns River
Water Management District as the Bayard Conservation Area. A portion of
this unit (4 percent; 3.2 km (2.0 mi)) is in private conservation as
the Sundew Mitigation Bank.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development,
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 6: Black Creek
Unit 6 includes 23.7 km (14.7 mi) stream/river habitat in portions
of Pecks Branch, Mill Log Creek, Bradley Creek, and their tributaries
and other unnamed streams that contain all of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Black Creek
crayfish within the Black Creek-St. Johns River (HUC 12: 030801031103)
subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. This unit is considered occupied,
and adjacent riparian lands are in private ownership.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 7: Peters Creek
Unit 7 includes 35.1 km (21.8 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Peters Creek and its tributaries that contain all of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Black Creek crayfish within the Peters Creek (HUC 12: 030801031102)
subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. This unit is considered occupied,
and adjacent riparian lands are in private ownership.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 8: Yellow Water Creek
Unit 8 includes 92.5 km (57.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Yellow Water Creek and its tributaries that contain all of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the Black Creek crayfish within the Yellow Water Creek (HUC 12:
030801031003) subwatershed in Clay and Duval Counties, Florida. This
unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border the unit are in
State, local government, and private ownership. Jennings State Forest,
managed by the FDACS, encompasses approximately 36 percent (33.3 km
(20.7 mi)) of adjacent lands. Approximately 33 percent (30.8 km (19.2
mi)) are in local government or private conservation. The Cecil Field
Conservation Corridor, Loblolly Mitigation Preserve, Loblolly Park, Sal
Taylor Creek Preserve, and Yellow Water Branch Trail Head are co-owned
by Duval County and the City of Jacksonville (25.0 km (15.5 mi)).
Private conservation lands include the Peterson Tract (3.8 km (2.4
mi)), managed by the Jacksonville Electric Authority, and the Normandy
Mitigation Bank. A portion of the Moore Branch (1.6 km (1.0 mi)) forms
the border between the Normandy Mitigation Bank and the Loblolly
Mitigation Preserve.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 9: North Fork of Black Creek
Unit 9 includes 216.6 km (134.6 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the North Fork Black Creek, Dillaberry Branch, Grog Branch,
and their tributaries and other unnamed streams that contain all of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Black Creek crayfish within the Upper North Fork of Black Creek (HUC
12: 030801031002) and Lower North Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12:
030801031004) subwatersheds in Clay and Duval Counties, Florida. This
unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border the unit are in
State, local government, and private ownership. Approximately 40
percent of adjacent lands (88.2 km (54.8 mi)) are
[[Page 73530]]
within the Jennings State Forest managed by the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services. Private conservation lands (0.4
percent; 0.9 km (0.6 mi)) include the Trail Ridge and Rideout Point
Preserves managed by the North Florida Land Trust.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development,
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 10: South Fork of Black Creek
Unit 10 includes 140.0 km (87.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the South Fork Black Creek and its tributaries and other
unnamed streams that contain all of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the
Upper South Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 030801030903) and Lower South
Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 030801030904) subwatersheds in Clay
County, Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that
border the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 15
percent (21 km (13 mi)) are State lands within the Belmore State
Forest, managed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services. Approximately 7 percent (9.7 km (6 mi)) are within three
private conservation easements managed by the St. Johns River Water
Management District: Longbranch Crossing Conservation Easement,
Halloran Conservation Area, and Arahatchee Conservation Easement. Due
to the Florida Army National Guard's Camp Blanding Joint Training
Center (FLARNG-CBJTC) INRMP (see Exemptions, below), 98.9 km (61.4 mi)
of this unit are exempted from the critical habitat designation.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development,
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 11: Greens Creek
Unit 11 includes 91.8 km (57.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Greens Creek and its tributaries that contain all of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Black Creek crayfish within the Greens Creek (HUC 12: 030801030902)
subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. This unit is considered occupied,
and adjacent lands are in private ownership.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 12: Simms Creek
Unit 12 includes 58.1 km (36.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Simms Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed streams
that contain all of the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the Simms Creek
(HUC 12: 030801030603) subwatershed in Clay and Putnam Counties,
Florida. This unit is considered occupied, and adjacent lands are in
private ownership.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 13: Kingsley Lake
Unit 13 includes 24.3 km (15.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the North Fork Black Creek and its tributaries and other
unnamed streams that contain all of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the
Kingsley Lake (HUC 12: 030801031001) subwatershed in Clay County,
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border
the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 34 percent
(8.4 km (5.2 mi)) are State lands within the Jennings State Forest,
managed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Private conservation lands (44 percent; 10.8 km (6.7 mi)) include the
Trail Ridge Preserve, managed by the North Florida Land Trust, and the
Highlands Ranch Mitigation Bank. Due to the FLARNG-CBJTC INRMP (see
Exemptions, below), 60.5 km (37.6 mi) of this unit are exempted from
the critical habitat designation.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development,
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 14: Ates Creek
Unit 14 includes 74.8 km (46.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the Ates Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed
streams that contain all of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the
Ates Creek (HUC 12: 030801030901) subwatershed in Clay County, Florida.
This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border the unit
are in State and private ownership. Approximately 34 percent (25.6 km
(15.9 mi)) are State lands within the Belmore State Forest, managed by
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Approximately 20 percent (15.3 km (9.5 mi)) of lands adjacent to Ates
Creek are within three private conservation easements: the Longbranch
Crossing Conservation Easement managed by the St. Johns River Water
Management District and the McArthur Trust; and two Bear Bay
conservation easements managed by the North Florida Land Trust. Due to
the FLARNG-CBJTC INRMP (see Exemptions, below), 16.1 km (10 mi) of this
unit are exempted from the critical habitat designation.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
Unit 15: Etonia Creek
Unit 15 includes 98.1 km (61.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the Etonia Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed
streams that contain all of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the
Lower Etonia Creek (HUC 12: 030801030601) and Upper Etonia Creek
(HUC12: 030801030504) subwatersheds in Clay and Putnam Counties,
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border
the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 22 percent
(21.4 km (13.3 mi)) are State lands within the Etoniah State Forest,
managed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
and the Palatka to Lake Butler State Trail, managed by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Private conservation lands (8
percent; 7.6 km (4.7 mi)) include the Highbrighton Conservation
Easement, managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District, and
the Nochaway Mitigation Bank.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special
[[Page 73531]]
management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and
agricultural and silvicultural activities.
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 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 designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
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 (50 CFR 402.02).
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 formal 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 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. Reinitiation of consultation is
required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been
retained or is authorized by law and: (1) if the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written
concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the identified action. 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).
Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat
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 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 that our Federal Register
notices ``shall, to the maximum extent practicable also include a brief
description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or
private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may
adversely modify [critical] habitat, or may be affected by such
designation.'' Activities that may be affected by designation of
critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish include those that may
affect the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Black Creek crayfish in the subject areas (see
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species, above).
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that
such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat
is proposed for designation.
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for Black Creek crayfish to
determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical
[[Page 73532]]
habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are
Department of Defense (DoD) lands with completed, Service-approved
INRMPs within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
Florida Army National Guard's Camp Blanding Joint Training Center
(FLARNG-CBJTC) (Lake Geneva subwatershed, and areas within Unit 10
(South Fork of Black Creek), Unit 13 (Kingsley Lake), Unit 14 (Ates
Creek), and), 186 km (116 mi))
As described in Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms,
above, Camp Blanding, the property with the largest known population of
the Black Creek crayfish, is owned by the State of Florida and managed
by the Florida Army National Guard. The FLARNG-CBJTC INRMP explains
that the management of Camp Blanding must be conducted in a way that
provides for sustainable, healthy ecosystems; complies with applicable
environmental laws and regulations; and provides for support of the
military mission of the installation, including goals to manage rare
species using an ecosystem approach. The 2021 update to the 2014
FLARNG-CBJTC INRMP incorporates updated natural resources data (CBJTC
2021, p. ES-1). The INRMP is a living document, and the majority of the
tasks discussed are short-term (less than 5 years) and medium-term (6
to 10 years) natural resources management tasks. Goals, objectives, and
tasks will be revised over time to reflect evolving environmental
conditions, adaptive management, and the completion of tasks as the
INRMP is implemented (CBJTC 2021, p. 117).
Objective TE7 is to maintain populations of the Black Creek
crayfish and other rare species by protecting riparian and wetland
habitats (CBJTC 2021, p. 93). The INRMP also details goals for water
resource management (CBJTC 2021, pp. 66-72), as well as soil
conservation and sediment management (CBJTC 2021, pp. 63-66) that will
benefit Black Creek crayfish habitats.
During the implementation of the INRMP and the CCAA (see
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts, below), hydrologic
measurements will be taken, and invasive (including nonindigenous and
invading) species monitored, in areas known to be occupied by Black
Creek crayfish on Camp Blanding lands (Service et al. 2017, p. 24).
Additionally, Black Creek crayfish will be surveyed at least once every
5 years to evaluate the success of conservation actions and
implementation of best management practices (BMPs; Service et al. 2017,
p. 24).
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Camp Blanding Joint Training Center INRMP and that
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP are being implemented and
will provide a benefit to Black Creek crayfish. Therefore, lands within
this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 186 km
(116 mi) of stream habitat in this proposed critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226,
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016).
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. In our final rules, we explain any decision to exclude
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to make clear the rational
basis for our decision. We describe below the process that we use for
taking into consideration each category of impacts and any initial
analyses of the relevant impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends and reaffirms E.O. 12866 and
E.O. 13563 and directs Federal agencies to assess
[[Page 73533]]
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities.
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 identifies four criteria when a regulation
is considered a ``significant regulatory action'' and requires
additional analysis, review, and approval if met. The criterion
relevant here is whether the designation of critical habitat may have
an economic effect of $200 million or more in any given year (section
3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094). Therefore, our
consideration of economic impacts uses a screening analysis to assess
whether a designation of critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish
is likely to exceed the economically significant threshold.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish (IEc 2024, entire). We
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of
the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographical areas
of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and
are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e.,
absent critical habitat designation) and includes any probable
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, BMPs, or
regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal
listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis
allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or
sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a
result of the designation. The presence of the listed species in
occupied areas of critical habitat means that any destruction or
adverse modification of those areas is also likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Therefore, designating occupied
areas as critical habitat typically causes little if any incremental
impacts above and beyond the impacts of listing the species. As a
result, we generally focus the screening analysis on areas of
unoccupied critical habitat (unoccupied units or unoccupied areas
within occupied units). Overall, the screening analysis assesses
whether designation of critical habitat is likely to result in any
additional management or conservation efforts that may incur
incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the
information contained in our IEM constitute what we consider to be our
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the
Black Creek crayfish and is summarized in the narrative below.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish, first we
identified, in the IEM dated March 4, 2024, probable incremental
economic impacts associated with the following categories of
activities: (1) bridge maintenance/repair (U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); (2) dam maintenance
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); (3) wastewater permit applications or
renewals (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency); (4) Clean Water Act
quality standards of review (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency); and
(5) road widening/construction/repair (U.S. Department of
Transportation). We considered each industry or category individually.
Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal
involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act,
designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we list the
species, in areas where the Black Creek crayfish is present, Federal
agencies would be required to consult with the Service under section 7
of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may
affect the species. If, when we list the species, we also finalize this
proposed critical habitat designation, Federal agencies would be
required to consider the effects of their actions on the designated
habitat, and if the Federal action may affect critical habitat, our
consultations would include an evaluation of measures to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that would result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Black
Creek crayfish's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish is being proposed concurrently
with the listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult
to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species
being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of
critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this
case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same
features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any
actions that would likely adversely affect the essential physical or
biological features of occupied critical habitat are also likely to
adversely affect the Black Creek crayfish itself. The IEM outlines our
rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline
conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of
critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of the incremental
effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental
economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Black Creek
crayfish totals approximately 1,056 km (656 mi), of which 100 percent
is currently occupied by the species. In these areas, any actions that
may affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated
critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation
efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification
standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid
jeopardizing the continued existence of the Black Creek crayfish.
Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in the proposed
critical habitat designation. While this additional analysis will
require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the
Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would
predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
[[Page 73534]]
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to
section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some
cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities.
Activities we expect would be subject to consultations that may involve
private entities as third parties are residential and commercial
development that may occur on private lands. However, based on
coordination efforts with State and local agencies, the cost to private
entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor
(administrative costs of $2,700 to $5,700 per consultation, depending
on type (IEc 2024, p. 20)); therefore, they would not be significant.
The probable incremental economic impacts of the Black Creek
crayfish critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to
additional administrative effort. This limitation is due to:
(1) All of the proposed critical habitat designation is considered
occupied by the Black Creek crayfish. In occupied habitat areas,
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated, all projects with
a Federal nexus would be subject to section 7 requirements.
(2) In these occupied habitat areas, conservation efforts requested
to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species are likely
to be substantially similar to those that would be recommended to avoid
adverse modification; thus, no additional conservation efforts are
anticipated to be necessary to address the adverse modification
standard over and above those that would be recommended to avoid
jeopardizing the continued existence of the Black Creek crayfish.
(3) In addition, in some areas proposed as critical habitat for the
Black Creek crayfish, conservation efforts for other listed species
with ranges and/or proposed critical habitat areas that overlap the
proposed designation are likely to provide protections to the Black
Creek crayfish even absent critical habitat designation.
Our analysis anticipates approximately fewer than one new formal
consultation and nine informal consultations each year in the proposed
critical habitat areas will consider the Black Creek crayfish. The
anticipated average annual administrative costs for these efforts are
approximately $29,800 per year for all units. The designation is
unlikely to trigger additional requirements under State or local
regulations. Thus, the annual administrative burden is relatively low.
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the economic
analysis discussed above. During the development of a final
designation, we will consider the information presented in the economic
analysis and any additional information on economic impacts we receive
during the public comment period to determine whether any specific
areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation
under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and the 2016 Policy. We may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of
excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area,
provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this
species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.''
However, we must still consider impacts on national security, including
homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to
consider those impacts whenever we designate critical habitat.
Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another
Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have
reason to consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides
information, including a reasonably specific justification of an
incremental impact on national security that would result from the
designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities,
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting
the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific
justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide
a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to
the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation.
If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the
expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1)
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing
the benefits of exclusion.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider whether a
national security or homeland security impact might exist on lands
owned or managed by DoD or DHS. In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that, other than the land exempted under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act based upon the existence of an approved INRMP
(see Exemptions, above), the lands within the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish are not owned or managed
by DoD or DHS. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security
or homeland security.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that may
affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors,
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the
species in the area--such as safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or CCAAs or
``conservation benefit agreements'' or ``conservation agreements''
(CBAs) (CBAs are a new type of agreement replacing SHAs and CCAAs in
use after April 2024 (89 FR 26070; April 12, 2024)) or HCPs--or whether
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that
would be encouraged by designation of, or
[[Page 73535]]
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether
Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or
government-to-government relationships of the United States with Tribal
entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any
State, local, social, or other impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that no HCPs or
other management plans for Black Creek crayfish currently exist, and
the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust
resources or any lands for which designation would have any economic or
national security impacts. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on Tribal
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat
designation and thus, as described above, we are not considering
excluding any particular areas on the basis of the presence of
conservation agreements or impacts to trust resources.
However, if through the public comment period we receive
information that we determine indicates that there are potential
economic, national security, or other relevant impacts from designating
particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of developing the
final designation of critical habitat, we will evaluate that
information and may conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to
determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of section
4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we
receive a request for exclusion of a particular area and after
evaluation of supporting information we do not exclude, we will fully
describe our decision in the final rule for this action.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and
14094)
Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends and reaffirms the principles of
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should
facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public
interest, advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O.
12866, and E.O. 13563. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the
extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking
process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of
ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and amended by
E.O. 14094, 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 proposed rule is not
significant.
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; title II of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 1996), whenever an
agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to
provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. The
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a
significant
[[Page 73536]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects ``to the extent
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a
``significant energy action'' as an action that (i) is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order; and (ii) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; April
11, 2023). Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action,
and there is no requirement to prepare a statement of energy effects
for this action.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action,
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in
any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Further, only stream habitats owned
in the public trust by the State of Florida are involved in the
proposed designation. Therefore, a small government agency plan is not
required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Services to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Black Creek
crayfish, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of
critical habitat does not pose significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism 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 this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
[[Page 73537]]
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
State and local governments in long-range planning because they no
longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule would not unduly
burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides
several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed
location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
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. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this
position.
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, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5,
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal lands fall within the
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for the Black Creek
crayfish, so no Tribal lands would be affected by the proposed
designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and upon request from
the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida
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.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to revise part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Crayfish, Black Creek'' in
alphabetical order under CRUSTACEANS 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, Black Creek........... Procambarus pictus Wherever found.... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.95(h).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73538]]
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (h) by adding an entry for ``Black
Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus)'' following the entry for ``Big
Sandy Crayfish (Cambarus callainus)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) Crustaceans.
* * * * *
Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Clay, Duval, Putnam,
and St. Johns Counties, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Black Creek crayfish consist of the
following components:
(i) Small to medium flowing streams with sandy bottom substrate and
with sufficient water quantity and velocity to support normal behavior,
growth, and viability of all life stages.
(ii) Moderate amounts of instream aquatic cover, such as woody
debris, overhanging terrestrial vegetation, and aquatic plants, for
refugia, prey, and temperature moderation.
(iii) Stream banks with intact riparian cover to maintain stream
morphology and reduce erosion.
(iv) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated water
temperatures (maximum of 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit))
and physical and chemical parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen greater
than or equal to 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L)) sufficient for the
normal behavior, growth, reproduction, and viability of all life
stages.
(v) Adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community
structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates and plant matter
(e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus).
(vi) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the
physical or biological features described in paragraphs (2)(i) through
(v) of this entry that allow for movement of individual crayfish in
response to environmental, physiological, or behavioral drivers.
(3) Critical habitat does not include human-made 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
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using Esri ArcGIS
Pro mapping software, version 3.1.4, with U.S. Geological Survey's
National Hydrography Dataset flowline data and Watershed Boundary
Dataset watershed data, on a base map of county boundaries from the
University of Florida GeoPlan Center. Critical habitat units were
mapped using the Geodetic coordinate system for North America
projection and North American 1983 (NAD83) datum. The maps in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is based are available to the public
at the Service's internet site at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services">https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services</a>, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2024-0090, and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus); paragraph (5)
[[Page 73539]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.005
(6) Unit 1: Julington Creek; Duval and St. Johns Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 1 includes 41.7 km (25.9 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Julington Creek, Oldfield Creek, Flora Branch, and
Cormorant Branch and their tributaries and other unnamed streams within
the Julington Creek (12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC 12):
030801031302) subwatershed in Duval and St. Johns Counties, Florida.
Riparian lands that border the unit are in State, local government, and
private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
Figure 2 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph (6)(ii)
[[Page 73540]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.006
(7) Unit 2: Durbin Creek; Duval and St. Johns Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 2 includes 23.9 km (14.8 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Durbin Creek and its tributaries within the Durbin Creek
(HUC 12: 030801031301) subwatershed in Duval and St. Johns Counties,
Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State, local
government, and private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
Figure 3 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph (7)(ii)
[[Page 73541]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.007
(8) Unit 3: Trout Creek; St. Johns County, Florida.
(i) Unit 3 includes 13.7 km (8.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Trout Creek and its tributaries and Molasses Branch within
the Trout Creek--St. Johns River (HUC 12: 030801031202) subwatershed in
St. Johns County, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in
private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
Figure 4 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph (8)(ii)
[[Page 73542]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.008
(9) Unit 4: Governors Creek; Clay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 4 includes 48.5 km (30.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Governors Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed
streams within the Governors Creek (HUC 12: 030801031204) subwatershed
in Clay County, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in
State and private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
Figure 5 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph (9)(ii)
[[Page 73543]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.009
(10) Unit 5: Clarks Creek; Clay and Putnam Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 5 includes 74.1 km (46.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Clarks Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed streams
within the Clarks Creek (HUC12: 030801030804) subwatershed in Clay and
Putnam Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in
State and private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
Figure 6 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(10)(ii)
[[Page 73544]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.010
(11) Unit 6: Black Creek; Clay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 6 includes 23.7 km (14.7 mi) stream/river habitat in
portions of Pecks Branch, Mill Log Creek, Bradley Creek, and their
tributaries and other unnamed streams within the Black Creek--St. Johns
River (HUC 12: 030801031103) subwatershed in Clay County, Florida.
Riparian lands that border this unit are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
Figure 7 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(11)(ii)
[[Page 73545]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.011
(12) Unit 7: Peters Creek; Clay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 7 includes 35.1 km (21.8 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Peters Creek and its tributaries within the Peters Creek
(HUC 12: 030801031102) subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. Riparian
lands that border this unit are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
Figure 8 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(12)(ii)
[[Page 73546]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.012
(13) Unit 8: Yellow Water Creek; Clay and Duval Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 8 includes 92.5 km (57.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Yellow Water Creek and its tributaries within the Yellow
Water Creek (HUC 12: 030801031003) subwatershed in Clay and Duval
Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State,
local government, and private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
Figure 9 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(13)(ii)
[[Page 73547]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.013
(14) Unit 9: North Fork of Black Creek; Clay and Duval Counties,
Florida.
(i) Unit 9 includes 216.6 km (134.6 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the North Fork Black Creek, Dillaberry Branch, Grog Branch,
and their tributaries and other unnamed streams within the Upper North
Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 030801031002) and Lower North Fork of
Black Creek (HUC 12: 030801031004) subwatersheds in Clay and Duval
Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State,
local government, and private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:
Figure 10 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(14)(ii)
[[Page 73548]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.014
(15) Unit 10: South Fork of Black Creek; Clay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 10 includes 140.0 km (87.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the South Fork Black Creek and its tributaries and other
unnamed streams within the Upper South Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12:
030801030903) and Lower South Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12:
030801030904) subwatersheds in Clay County, Florida. Riparian lands
that border the unit are in State and private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:
Figure 11 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(15)(ii)
[[Page 73549]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.015
(16) Unit 11: Greens Creek; Clay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 11 includes 91.8 km (57.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Greens Creek and its tributaries within the Greens Creek
(HUC 12: 030801030902) subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. Riparian
lands that border this unit are in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
Figure 12 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(16)(ii)
[[Page 73550]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.016
(17) Unit 12: Simms Creek; Clay and Putnam Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 12 includes 58.1 km (36.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of Simms Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed streams
within the Simms Creek (HUC 12: 030801030603) subwatershed in Clay and
Putnam Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border this unit are in
private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:
Figure 13 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(17)(ii)
[[Page 73551]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.017
(18) Unit 13: Kingsley Lake; Clay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 13 includes 24.3 km (15.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the North Fork Black Creek and its tributaries and other
unnamed streams within the Kingsley Lake (HUC 12: 030801031001)
subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. Riparian lands that border the
unit are in State and private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:
Figure 14 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(18)(ii)
[[Page 73552]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.018
(19) Unit 14: Ates Creek; Clay County, Florida.
(i) Unit 14 includes 74.8 km (46.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the Ates Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed
streams within the Ates Creek (HUC 12: 030801030901) subwatershed in
Clay County, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State
and private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 14 follows:
Figure 15 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(19)(ii)
[[Page 73553]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.019
(20) Unit 15: Etonia Creek; Clay and Putnam Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 15 includes 98.1 km (61.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in
portions of the Etonia Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed
streams within the Lower Etonia Creek (HUC 12: 030801030601) and Upper
Etonia Creek (HUC 12: 030801030504) subwatersheds in Clay and Putnam
Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State and
private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 15 follows:
Figure 16 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph
(20)(ii)
[[Page 73554]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.020
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-20106 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 10, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.