[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59232-59268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25315]



[[Page 59231]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 225

November 21, 2018

Part IV





 Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for the Candy Darter; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 59232]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2018-0050; 4500090023]
RIN 1018-BD15


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Candy Darter

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the candy darter (Etheostoma osburni) 
under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In total, approximately 596 
stream kilometers (370 stream miles), in Virginia and West Virginia, 
fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the 
Act's protections to this species' critical habitat. We also announce 
the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the candy darter. Elsewhere in the 
Federal Register today, we published a final rule listing the candy 
darter as an endangered species under the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments on the proposed rule or DEA that are 
received or postmarked on or before January 22, 2019. Comments 
submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the 
closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, 
at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by January 7, 
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule or DEA by one 
of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2018-0050, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the 
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by 
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2018-0050, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 
22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
    Document availability: The DEA is available at https://www.fws.gov/northeast/candydarter, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R5-ES-2018-0050, at the West Virginia Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), and at the Southwestern 
Virginia Ecological Services Field Office (330 Cummings Street, 
Abingdon, VA 24210-3208).
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at https://www.fws.gov/northeast/candydarter, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-
2018-0050, and at the West Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or Southwestern Virginia 
Ecological Services Field Office (address provided above). Any 
additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for this 
critical habitat designation will also be available at the Fish and 
Wildlife Service website and Field Offices set out above, and may also 
be included in the preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schmidt, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Ecological Services Field 
Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241-9475; telephone 304-636-
6586. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call 
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, 
any species that is determined to be endangered or threatened requires 
critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can be 
completed only by issuing a rule.
    This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for the candy 
darter (Etheostoma osburni). Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we 
published a rule to list the candy darter as an endangered species 
under the Act.
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, any 
species that is determined to be an endangered or a threatened species 
shall, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, have habitat 
designated that is considered to be critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) 
of the Endangered Species 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, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary 
may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on 
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such 
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
    We prepared an economic analysis of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat. To consider economic impacts, we prepared an analysis 
of the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation. 
We hereby announce the availability of the draft economic analysis and 
seek public review and comment.
    In the near future. We intend to reestablish populations within the 
candy darter's historical range under section 10(j) of the Act in a 
future publication, and we are seeking public input on other potential 
recovery tools and on areas currently unoccupied by the candy darter 
within the historical range that contain essential physical and 
biological features (see Exclusions, below, for more detail).

Information Requested

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific data available and be as accurate 
and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or 
information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this 
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of

[[Page 59233]]

designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of candy darter habitat;
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the candy darter and proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may 
be impacted.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis (DEA) is a reasonable 
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
    (7) 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.
    (8) 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.
    (9) Information about currently unoccupied areas within the 
historical range of the species that contain the essential physical or 
biological features that would aid in the reestablishment of 
populations under section 10(j) of the Act.
    (10) Information regarding the need for other recovery tools such 
as safe harbor agreements, in addition to, or instead of, the 
designation of critical habitat, and why.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    All comments submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov will be presented on the website in their entirety 
as submitted. For comments submitted via hard copy, we will post your 
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--on 
http://www.regulations.gov. You may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold personal information such as your street address, 
phone number, or email address from public review; however, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive and supporting documentation we 
used in preparing this proposed rule will be available for public 
inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during 
normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West 
Virginia Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    See the candy darter proposed listing rule (82 FR 46197; October 4, 
2017) for a history of previous Federal actions prior to today's 
publication of this proposed rule.
    Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we published a final rule to 
list the candy darter as an endangered species under the Act.

Critical Habitat

Background

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

[[Page 59234]]

essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or 
biological features within an area, we focus on the specific features 
that support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not 
limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, 
prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may 
be a single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of 
habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics 
that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also 
be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, 
such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. We will determine whether unoccupied areas are essential for 
the conservation of the species by considering the life-history, 
status, and conservation needs of the species. This will be further 
informed by any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species to provide a substantive 
foundation for identifying which features and specific areas are 
essential to the conservation of the species and, as a result, the 
development of the critical habitat designation. For example, an area 
currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time 
of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may 
be included in the critical habitat designation.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the species status assessment (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; 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) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available data at the time of designation will not control the 
direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation 
plans (HCPs), or other species' conservation planning efforts if new 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical 
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of 
the following situations exist:
    (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or
    (2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    There is no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or 
vandalism identified under Factor B for this species (82 FR 46197; 
October 4, 2017), and identification and mapping of critical habitat is 
not expected to initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding 
that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a 
species, we next determine whether such designation of critical habitat 
would not be beneficial to the species. In our proposed listing rule 
(82 FR 46197; October 4, 2017), that was informed by the SSA (Service 
2017, entire), we determined that there are habitat-based threats to 
the candy darter species identified under Factor A (82 FR 46197, pp. 
46200-46201). Therefore, we find that the designation of critical 
habitat would be beneficial to the candy darter through the provisions 
of section 7 of the Act. Because we have determined that the 
designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of 
threat to the species and would be beneficial, we find that designation 
of critical habitat is prudent for the candy darter.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the candy 
darter is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''

[[Page 59235]]

    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the 
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species 
are located (Service 2018, entire). This and other information 
(Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2018, entire) represent the best 
scientific data available and led us to conclude that the designation 
of critical habitat is determinable for the candy darter (see below).

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as 
critical habitat, 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. For example, physical 
features might include gravel of a particular size required for 
spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective cover for 
migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains 
necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological 
features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 
ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular 
level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the 
listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic needed to 
support the life history of the species. In considering whether 
features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service 
may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal 
arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-
history needs, condition, and status of the species. These 
characteristics include, but are not limited to, space for individual 
and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, 
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or 
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
    We derive the specific physical or biological features (PBFs) 
essential to the conservation of the candy darter from studies of this 
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. 
Additional information can be found in the final listing rule published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. We have determined that the 
following physical or biological features are essential to the 
conservation of the candy darter:
    (1) Ratios or densities of nonnative species that allow for 
maintaining populations of candy darters.
    (2) A blend of unembedded gravel and cobble that allows for normal 
breeding, feeding, and sheltering behavior.
    (3) Adequate water quality characterized by seasonally moderated 
temperatures and physical and chemical parameters (e.g., pH, dissolved 
oxygen levels, turbidity) that support normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages of the candy darter.
    (4) An abundant, diverse benthic macroinvertebrate community (e.g., 
mayfly nymphs, midge larvae, caddisfly larvae) that allows for normal 
feeding behavior.
    (5) Sufficient water quantity and velocities that support normal 
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages of the candy darter.

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 overall habitat characteristics that are important for 
the candy darter include sufficiently stabilized forest stream banks 
throughout the watersheds such that water quality allows for normal 
feeding, breeding, and sheltering in an area with sufficiently low 
numbers of nonnative species (Service 2018, pp. 15-17, 22-25, 32-34). 
The features essential to the conservation of the candy darter may 
require special management considerations or protections to reduce the 
following threats: (1) Hybridization with the nonnative variegate 
darter (Etheostoma variatum); (2) general increase in water 
temperature, primarily attributed to land use changes; (3) changes in 
water chemistry, including, but not limited to, changes in pH levels 
and contamination with coliform bacteria; (4) habitat fragmentation 
primarily due to construction of barriers and impoundments; (5) 
excessive sedimentation and stream bottom embeddedness (the degree to 
which gravel, cobble, rocks, and boulders are surrounded by, or covered 
with, fine sediment particles); and (6) competition for habitat and 
other instream resources and predation from nonnative fishes.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to: Use of best management practices (BMPs) 
designed to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bankside destruction; 
protection of riparian corridors and retention of sufficient canopy 
cover along banks; reduction of other watershed disturbances that 
release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water; public 
outreach requesting the public's assistance with stopping the movement 
of nonnative aquatic species; increased enforcement and/or outreach 
regarding existing regulations prohibiting the movement of bait fish; 
survey and monitoring to further characterize the extent and spread of 
hybridization with variegate darters; research to determine whether 
some environmental factors or set of factors might allow candy darters 
to persist in particular areas despite variegate darter introductions; 
research characterizing habitat conditions in historically extirpated 
candy darter sites to facilitate successful reintroduction efforts; 
research and development of tools and techniques that can be used to 
address the competitive behavior that allows for variegate darters to 
dominate candy darters, which leads to hybridization; and re-
introductions of candy darters to historically extirpated areas and/or 
population augmentation of candy darters in sufficient numbers to 
outcompete variegate darters.

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 did not find any areas that were essential for the 
conservation of the species.

[[Page 59236]]

    The current distribution of the candy darter is much reduced from 
its historical distribution. We anticipate that recovery will require 
continued protection of existing populations and habitat, in addition 
to establishing populations in additional streams that more closely 
approximate its historical distribution to ensure there are adequate 
numbers of fish in stable populations and that these populations occur 
over a wide geographic area. These actions will help to ensure that 
catastrophic events, such as flooding or a contamination spill event, 
cannot simultaneously affect all known populations.
    Sources of data for this species include the West Virginia 
Department of Natural Resources, Virginia Department of Game and Inland 
Fisheries, U.S. Geological Survey, published scientific literature and 
government reports, and unpublished data from researchers at the 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, West Virginia University, and the 
University of Missouri. A complete list of specific sources is provided 
in the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 68-74) and available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2018-0050.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
    The proposed critical habitat designation does not include all 
streams known to have been historically occupied by the species; 
instead, it focuses on occupied streams within the historical range 
that retain the necessary PBFs that allow for the maintenance and 
expansion of existing populations. The following streams have sections 
that meet the definition of areas occupied by the species (Service 
2018, pp. 13, 56) at the time of listing:
     In the Greenbrier River watershed of West Virginia (WV)--
the East and West Forks of the Greenbrier River, Little River of the 
West Fork, Little River of the East Fork, the ``Upper'' Greenbrier 
River (between Knapps Creek and the confluences of East and West 
Forks), Deer Creek, North Fork Deer Creek, Sitlington Creek, and Knapp 
Creek;
     In the Middle New River watershed of Virginia (VA)--Dismal 
Creek, Stony Creek, and Laurel Creek;
     In the Lower Gauley River watershed of WV--the ``Lower'' 
Gauley River;
     In the Upper New River watershed of VA--Cripple Creek; and
     In the Upper Gauley River watershed of WV--the headwaters 
of the Gauley River, Straight Creek, ``Upper'' Gauley River, Panther 
Creek, Williams River, Tea Creek, Cranberry River, Cherry River, North 
and South Forks of the Cherry River, and Laurel Creek.
    There are no developed areas within the wetted portion of these 
streams.
Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing
    We are not proposing to designate any areas outside of the 
geographic range at the time of listing. However, in line with our 
conservation strategy, we intend to reestablish populations within the 
candy darter's historical range under section 10(j) of the Act or 
through other applicable voluntary conservation tools (e.g., safe 
harbor agreements). Areas within the historical range that may be 
considered for repatriation include sections of Reed Creek, Pine Run, 
and Sinking Creek in VA; and sections of Indian Creek, Bluestone River, 
and Camp Creek in WV. We may consider these areas for repatriation 
because the candy darter is no longer present in these areas, these 
areas do not currently contain the variegate darter, the land use-based 
threats previously responsible for the candy darter's extirpation have 
been ameliorated, and repopulation of the candy darter in these areas 
would not be possible without human assistance because they are 
isolated from other currently occupied candy darter streams. We are 
seeking public input during the open comment period regarding other 
areas that are currently unoccupied within the historical range of the 
candy darter, contain the essential physical and biological features 
that support the candy darter's life-history processes, and/or could 
facilitate the reestablishment of populations under section 10(j) of 
the Act.
Summary of Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
    In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we propose critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following approach:
    (1) We delineated areas within the historical range that had 
positive survey data between the year 2000 and the time of listing (see 
Service 2018).
    (2) We terminated stream segments at barriers, confluences, areas 
where genetically pure candy darters have been extirpated, other 
obvious unsuitable habitat, or a location selected based on expert 
knowledge of a lack of presence.
    (3) We included connecting stream segments between occupied stream 
segments as long as the inclusion does not disagree with criterion (2) 
and there are no data to suggest that the candy darter is not present.
    (4) If there are no data points (positive or negative occurrence), 
we did not include the segment.
    (5) In the absence of other biologically meaningful termini, we 
established a buffer approximately 1-mile long from the last known 
positive survey point.
    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 
physical or biological features necessary for the candy darter. The 
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication 
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of 
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been 
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for 
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is 
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not 
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would 
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical 
habitat.
    We are proposing for designation as critical habitat lands that we 
have determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain one or 
more of the PBFs to support life-history processes essential to the 
conservation of the candy darter. Some units contain all of the 
identified PBFs and support multiple life-history processes. Some units 
contain only some of the PBFs necessary to support the candy darter's 
particular use of that habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-
2018-0050, on https://www.fws.gov/northeast/candydarter/, and at the 
field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate approximately 596 stream kilometers 
(skm) (370 stream miles (smi)) in five units as critical habitat for 
the candy

[[Page 59237]]

darter. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our 
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
for the candy darter. The five areas we propose as critical habitat 
are: (1) Greenbrier Unit, (2) Middle New Unit, (3) Lower Gauley Unit, 
(4) Upper New Unit, and (5) Upper Gauley Unit. All stream reaches 
within each watershed that are proposed for designation were occupied 
at the time of listing. The approximate area of each proposed critical 
habitat unit is shown in the table below.

                          Table of Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Candy Darter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Unit size (stream length)
             Critical habitat unit                       Land ownership          -------------------------------
                                                                                       Miles        Kilometers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Greenbrier.................................  Federal.........................              78             126
                                                State...........................               6              10
                                                Private.........................              70             113
                                                                                 -------------------------------
    Unit Total................................  ................................             154             248
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Middle New.................................  Federal.........................              14              22
                                                State...........................               0               0
                                                Private.........................              13              21
                                                                                 -------------------------------
    Unit Total................................  ................................              27              43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Lower Gauley...............................  State...........................               0               0
                                                State...........................               0               0
                                                Private.........................               0               0
                                                                                 -------------------------------
    Unit Total................................  ................................               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Upper New..................................  Federal.........................               0               0
                                                State...........................               0               0
                                                Private.........................               5               8
                                                                                 -------------------------------
    Unit Total................................  ................................               5               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Upper Gauley...............................  Federal.........................              90             145
                                                State...........................               0               0
                                                Private.........................              92             148
                                                                                 -------------------------------
    Unit Total................................  ................................             182             293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Grand Total...........................  ................................             370             596
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for candy darter, below. In all 
instances, the units are occupied (see Areas Occupied at the Time of 
Listing, above); the State of VA or WV, as applicable, owns the stream 
water and stream bottoms; and the lands described below are those 
adjacent to the designated critical habitat stream areas.

Unit 1: Greenbrier

    The Greenbrier Unit consists of six subunits in Pocahontas County, 
WV. The occupied streams are adjacent to primarily Federal land, with 
some private land and one State owned parcel. Candy darter have been 
surveyed in the Greenbrier Unit as recently as 2014 (Service 2018, p. 
48). See details below.

Unit 1a: East Fork of the Greenbrier River, Pocahontas County, WV

    Unit 1a includes approximately 31.2 skm (19.4 smi) of the East Fork 
of the Greenbrier River from a point approximately 3.2 skm (2.0 smi) 
upstream of the Bennett Run confluence, downstream to the confluence of 
the East Fork and West Fork of the Greenbrier River at Durbin, WV; and 
approximately 12.2 skm (7.6 smi) of the Little River from a point 3.2 
skm (2.0 smi) upstream of the power line right-of-way, downstream to 
the confluence of the Little River and the East Fork of the Greenbrier 
River. The land adjacent to this unit is mostly forested interspersed 
with small communities, low density residences, and agricultural fields 
along the lower portion of the East Fork of the Greenbrier River. 
Approximately 26.2 skm (16.3 smi) of Unit 1a is within the Monongahela 
National Forest with the remainder located almost entirely adjacent to 
private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the 
form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like. Candy darters 
occur at multiple sites in this unit (Service 2018, p. 28) . Unit 1a 
contributes to the redundancy of the Greenbrier metapopulation.

Unit 1b: West Fork of the Greenbrier River, Pocahontas County, WV

    Unit 1b includes approximately 29.9 skm (18.6 smi) of the West Fork 
of the Greenbrier River from the Public Road 44 crossing, downstream to 
the confluence of the East Fork and West Fork of the Greenbrier River 
at Durbin, WV; and approximately 14.2 skm (8.8 smi) of the Little River 
from a point approximately 1.6 skm (1.0 smi) upstream of the Lukins Run 
confluence, downstream to the confluence of the Little River and the 
West Fork of the Greenbrier River. The land adjacent to this unit is 
almost entirely forested interspersed with a few residences and 
agricultural fields along the lower portion of the West Fork of the 
Greenbrier River near the town of Durbin, WV. Approximately 43.2 skm 
(26.8 smi) of Unit 1b is within the

[[Page 59238]]

Monongahela National Forest with the remainder adjacent to almost 
entirely private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned 
in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like. Surveys 
found candy darters at multiple sites in this unit (Service 2018, p. 
28). Unit 1b contributes to the redundancy of the Greenbrier 
metapopulation.

Unit 1c: Upper Greenbrier River, Pocahontas County, WV

    Unit 1c includes approximately 69.3 skm (43.1 smi) of the 
Greenbrier River from the confluence of the East Fork and West Fork of 
the Greenbrier River at Durbin, WV, downstream to the confluence of 
Knapp Creek at Marlinton, WV. The land adjacent to this unit is mostly 
forested; however, several small communities with residences and light 
commercial development, along with scattered rural residences and 
agricultural fields, occur at various locations. Approximately 47.5 skm 
(29.5 smi) of Unit 1c is within the Monongahela National Forest and the 
Seneca State Forest, with the remainder adjacent to almost entirely 
private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the 
form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like. Survey data 
indicate candy darters are present in the upper and lower portions of 
this unit (Service 2018, p. 28). While survey data for the intervening 
section are lacking, candy darters may occur where suitable habitat is 
present. Unit 1c contributes to the redundancy of the Greenbrier 
metapopulation and provides connectivity between the other Greenbrier 
watershed populations.

Unit 1d: Deer Creek, Pocahontas County, WV

    Unit 1d includes approximately 21.2 skm (13.2 smi) of Deer Creek 
from the confluence of Deer Creek and Saulsbury Run, downstream to the 
confluence with the Greenbrier River; and approximately 16.3 skm (10.1 
smi) of North Fork from a point approximately 1.6 skm (1.0 smi) 
upstream of the Elleber Run confluence, downstream to the confluence of 
North Fork and Deer Creek. The lower half of the land adjacent to this 
unit is mostly forested, while the upper portion contains low density 
residences and agricultural fields. Approximately 10.0 skm (6.2 smi) of 
Unit 1d is within the Monongahela National Forest, with the remainder 
adjacent to almost entirely private land, except for a small amount 
that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, 
and the like. Surveys collected candy darters at two locations in this 
unit (Service 2018, p. 28). Unit 1d contributes to the redundancy of 
the Greenbrier metapopulation.

Unit 1e: Sitlington Creek, Pocahontas County, WV

    Unit 1e includes approximately 10.1 skm (6.3 smi) of Sitlington 
Creek from the confluence of Galford Run and Thorny Branch, downstream 
to the confluence with the Greenbrier River. Some of the riparian area 
of Unit 1e is forested; however, the majority of the land adjacent to 
this unit is agricultural fields and widely scattered residences. 
Approximately 1.2 skm (0.7 smi) of Unit 1e is within the Monongahela 
National Forest, with the remainder adjacent to almost entirely private 
land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the form of 
bridge crossings, road easements, and the like. Candy darters at 
several locations in this unit (Service 2018, p. 28). Unit 1e 
contributes to the redundancy of the Greenbrier metapopulation.

Unit 1f: Knapp Creek, Pocahontas County, WV

    Unit 1f includes approximately 43.9 skm (27.3 smi) of Knapp Creek 
from a point approximately (0.1 smi) west of the WV Route 84 and Public 
Road (PR) 55 intersection, downstream to the confluence with the 
Greenbrier River at Marlinton, WV. The land adjacent to this unit is 
largely forested; however, low density residential and agricultural 
fields occur in much of the upstream portions. The land surrounding the 
lowest section of Unit 1f is dominated by residential and commercial 
development. Approximately 7.2 skm (4.5 smi) of Unit 1f is within the 
Monongahela National Forest, with the remainder adjacent to almost 
entirely private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned 
in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like. Surveys 
indicate candy darters at several locations in this unit (Service 2018, 
p. 28). Unit 1f contributes to the redundancy of the Greenbrier 
metapopulation.

Unit 2: Middle New

    The Middle New Unit comprises three stream subunits in Bland and 
Giles Counties, VA. The occupied streams are adjacent to a mix of 
Federal and private land. Candy darter have been surveyed in the Middle 
New Unit as recently as 2016 (Service 2018, p. 48). See details below.

Unit 2a: Dismal Creek, Bland and Giles Counties, VA

    Unit 2a includes approximately 4.2 skm (2.6 smi) of Dismal Creek 
from the confluence with Standrock Branch, downstream to the confluence 
of Dismal Creek and Walker Creek. The land adjacent to this unit is 
almost entirely forested, with some scattered residences and small 
agricultural fields. Approximately 3.2 skm (2.0 smi) of Unit 2a is 
within the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest, with the 
remainder adjacent to almost entirely private land, except for a small 
amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road 
easements, and the like. Surveys indicate a small candy darter 
population that contributes to the representation and redundancy of the 
species (Service 2018, p. 28).

Unit 2b: Stony Creek, Giles County, VA

    Unit 2b includes approximately 34.1 skm (21.2 smi) of Stony Creek 
from a point approximately 2.4 skm (1.5 smi) upstream of North Fork 
Mountain Road, downstream to the confluence with the New River. The 
land adjacent to this unit is almost entirely forested, with some 
scattered residences, a large underground lime mine, a processing 
plant, and a railroad spur line along the downstream portion. 
Approximately 19.2 skm (11.9 smi) of Unit 2b is within the George 
Washington and Jefferson National Forest, with the remainder adjacent 
to almost entirely private land, except for a small amount that is 
publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the 
like. Surveys indicate candy darters at multiple locations within this 
unit. Unit 2b is the most robust population in Virginia and contributes 
to the representation and redundancy of the species (Service 2018, p. 
28).

Unit 2c: Laurel Creek, Bland County, VA

    Unit 2c includes approximately 5.1 skm (3.2 smi) of Laurel Creek 
from a point approximately 0.8 skm (0.5 smi) upstream of the unnamed 
pond, downstream to the confluence of Laurel Creek and Wolf Creek. The 
unit passes through a forested gap in a ridgeline; however, the 
riparian zone is dominated by Interstate Highway 77, U.S. Highway 52, 
and residential and commercial development. Unit 2c is adjacent to 
almost entirely private land, except for a small amount that is 
publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the 
like. Surveys found candy darters at several locations within this unit 
(Service 2018, p. 28). Unit 2c contributes to the representation and 
redundancy of the species.

Unit 3: Lower Gauley, ``Lower'' Gauley River, Nicholas County, WV

    Unit 3 includes approximately 2.9 skm (1.8 smi) of the Gauley River 
from

[[Page 59239]]

the base of the Summersville Dam, downstream to the confluence of 
Collison Creek. The land adjacent to this unit is entirely forested, 
with the exception of parking areas and infrastructure at the base of 
the Summersville Dam. The entirety of Unit 3 is within the National 
Park Service's (NPS') Gauley River National Recreation Area and the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's (Corps') Summersville Recreation Area. 
Candy darters are abundant in the tailwaters of the dam. Unit 3 
maintains the only candy darter population remaining in the Lower 
Gauley watershed and contributes to the representation and redundancy 
of the species and candy darters were surveyed as recently as 2014 
(Service 2018, pp. 28 & 48).

Unit 4: Upper New, Cripple Creek, Wythe County, VA

    Unit 4 includes approximately 7.9 skm (4.9 smi) of Cripple Creek 
from a point approximately (2.0 smi) upstream of the State Road 94 
bridge, downstream to the confluence of Cripple Creek and the New 
River. The land adjacent to this unit is primarily low density 
residences and agricultural fields, although some small segments pass 
through wooded parcels. The stream in Unit 4 is adjacent to almost 
entirely private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned 
in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like. Surveys 
found candy darters at several locations within this unit as recently 
as 2016 (Service 2018, pp. 28 & 48). This is the only known candy 
darter population in the Upper New River watershed, and this unit 
contributes to the representation and redundancy of the species.

Unit 5: Upper Gauley

    The Upper Gauley Unit consists of six stream subunits in Nicholas, 
Greenbrier, Pocahontas, and Webster Counties, WV. The occupied streams 
are adjacent to a mix of Federal and private land. Candy darter have 
been surveyed in the Upper Gauley Unit as recently as 2014 (Service 
2018, p. 48). See details below.

Unit 5a: Gauley Headwaters, Webster County, WV

    Unit 5a includes approximately 23.2 skm (37.3 smi) of the Gauley 
River from the North and South Forks of the Gauley River, downstream to 
the confluence of the Gauley River and the Williams River at Donaldson, 
WV; and 2.9 skm (1.8 smi) of Straight Creek from its confluence with 
the Gauley River to a point approximately 2.9 skm (1.8 smi) upstream of 
the confluence. The land adjacent to this unit is mostly forested; 
however, aerial imagery (Environmental Systems Research Institute 
(ESRI) 2015; ESRI 2016; ESRI 2017) shows forest clearings with varying 
degrees of regrowth, indicating ongoing timber harvests in some 
tributary stream systems. Other human development in the watershed 
consists primarily of scattered residences and roads, mostly in the 
valley adjacent to the Gauley River. Approximately 9.0 skm (5.6 smi) of 
Unit 5a is within the Monongahela National Forest. The remainder of the 
unit is adjacent to almost entirely private land, except for a small 
amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road 
easements, and the like. Surveys of Unit 5a captured candy darters at 
multiple locations (Service 2018, p. 28). The unit contributes to the 
redundancy of the Upper Gauley metapopulation.

Unit 5b: Upper Gauley River, Nicholas and Webster Counties, WV

    Unit 5b includes approximately 43.8 skm (27.2 smi) of the Gauley 
River from the confluence of the Gauley and Williams Rivers at 
Donaldson, WV, downstream to a point approximately 1.6 skm (1.0 smi) 
upstream of the Big Beaver Creek confluence. The land adjacent to this 
unit is mostly forested; however, aerial imagery (ESRI 2015; ESRI 2016; 
ESRI 2017) show forest clearings with varying degrees of regrowth, 
indicating ongoing timber harvests in some areas. Other human 
development consists primarily of low-density residential areas and 
small communities with some commercial facilities. Small agricultural 
fields are associated with some of the scattered residences. 
Approximately 14.6 skm (9.2 smi) of Unit 5b is within the Monongahela 
National Forest and/or adjacent to land owned by the Corps. The streams 
in the remainder of the unit are adjacent to almost entirely private 
land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the form of 
bridge crossings, road easements, and the like. Surveys of Unit 5b 
captured candy darters at several locations (Service 2018, p. 28). The 
unit provides connectivity between other candy darter streams in the 
Upper Gauley watershed and contributes to the redundancy of the Upper 
Gauley metapopulation.

Unit 5c: Panther Creek, Nicholas County, WV

    Unit 5c includes approximately 16.3 skm (10.1 smi) of Panther Creek 
from a point approximately 1.1 skm (0.7 smi) upstream of the Grassy 
Creek Road crossing, downstream to the confluence with the Gauley 
River. The unit is mostly forested; however, aerial imagery (ESRI 2015; 
ESRI 2016; ESRI 2017) show forest clearings with varying degrees of 
regrowth, indicating ongoing timber harvests in much of the upland 
areas. Other human development consists of the occasional residence and 
small agricultural field in the creek valley, and the Richwood 
Municipal Airport located on an adjacent ridge. The streams in Unit 5c 
are adjacent to almost entirely private land, except for a small amount 
that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, 
and the like. While survey data are sparse for this unit, candy darters 
occur within Panther Creek, and the stream maintains suitable habitat 
for the species; thus, this unit contributes to the redundancy of the 
Upper Gauley metapopulation (Service 2018, p. 28).

Unit 5d: Williams River, Pocahontas and Webster Counties, WV

    Unit 5d includes approximately 52.4 skm (32.6 smi) of the Williams 
River from the confluence with Beaverdam Run, downstream to the 
confluence of the Williams River and the Gauley River at Donaldson, WV; 
and 5.1 skm (3.2 smi) of Tea Creek from a point on Lick Creek 
approximately 2.7 skm (1.7 smi) upstream of the Lick Creek confluence, 
downstream to the Tea Creek confluence with the Williams River. The 
land adjacent to this unit is almost entirely forested with just a few 
residences and small agricultural fields at the lower portion of the 
river. The streams in Unit 5d are entirely within the Monongahela 
National Forest. Survey data indicate candy darters are present at the 
upper and lower portions of this unit. While data are sparse for the 
majority of the intervening stretch, we assume, based on the available 
evidence, that the habitat is suitable for the species (Service 2018, 
p. 28). Unit 5d contributes to the redundancy of the Upper Gauley 
metapopulation.

Unit 5e: Cranberry River, Nicholas and Webster Counties, WV

    Unit 5e includes approximately 39.3 skm (24.4 smi) of the Cranberry 
River from the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Cranberry 
River, downstream to the confluence of the Cranberry River and the 
Gauley River. The land adjacent to this unit is almost entirely 
forested, and the stream is entirely within the Monongahela National 
Forest. Survey data indicate candy darters are present at the upper and 
lower portions of this unit. While survey are sparse for the 
intervening stretch, we assume, based on the available evidence, that 
the habitat is suitable for the species (Service 2018, p. 28). Unit 5e 
contributes to the

[[Page 59240]]

redundancy of the Upper Gauley metapopulation.

Unit 5f: Cherry River, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV

    Unit 5f includes approximately 16.7 skm (10.4 smi) of Cherry River 
from the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Cherry River, 
downstream to the confluence of the Cherry River and the Gauley River; 
approximately 28.0 skm (17.4 smi) of the North Fork Cherry River from 
the Pocahontas Trail crossing, downstream to the confluence of the 
North and South Forks of the Cherry River; approximately 26.2 skm (16.3 
smi) of the South Fork Cherry River from a point approximately 0.5 skm 
(0.3 smi) south of County Road 29/4 in VA, downstream to the confluence 
of the North and South Forks of the Cherry River; and approximately 
24.9 skm (15.5 smi) of Laurel Creek from a point approximately 0.3 skm 
(0.2 smi) west of Cold Knob Road, downstream to the confluence of 
Laurel Creek the Cherry River. The land adjacent to this unit is mostly 
forested with scattered residences along the lower portion of the 
Cherry River. The town of Richwood, WV, with residential and commercial 
development and an industrial sawmill, is at the confluence of the 
North and South Forks of the Cherry River. The North and South Forks of 
the Cherry River are almost entirely forested; however, aerial imagery 
(ESRI 2015; ESRI 2016; ESRI 2017) show forest clearings with varying 
degrees of regrowth, indicating ongoing timber harvests in several 
locations. There are scattered residences on Laurel Creek and some 
evidence of recent timber harvests; otherwise, the land adjacent to 
this section of Unit 1f is mostly forested. Approximately 29.1 skm 
(18.1 smi) of Unit 5f is within the Monongahela National Forest. The 
remainder is adjacent to almost entirely private land, except for a 
small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, 
road easements, and the like. Survey data indicate candy darters are 
well distributed throughout most of this unit (Service 2018, p. 28). 
Unit 5f contributes to the redundancy of the Upper Gauley 
metapopulation.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action 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.
    We published a final rule adopting a new definition of 
``destruction or adverse modification'' on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 
7214). Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, 
but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or 
significantly delay development of such features.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
Corps 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 or authorized, do not 
require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that result in a direct or 
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical 
habitat for the conservation of the candy darter. Such alterations may 
include, but are not limited to, those that alter the PBFs essential to 
the conservation of these species or that preclude or significantly 
delay development of such features. As discussed above, the role of 
critical habitat is to support PBFs essential to the conservation of a 
listed species and provide for the conservation of the species.

[[Page 59241]]

    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the candy darter. These activities include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would promote or facilitate the movement of 
variegate darters (or other nonnative aquatic species). Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to, the transfer of surface water 
across watershed boundaries and the modification or removal of dams 
that are currently limiting the spread of variegate darters where they 
have been introduced. These activities could further decrease the 
abundance of the candy darter through hybridization with the nonnative 
variegate darter.
    (2) Actions that would significantly increase water temperature or 
sedimentation and stream bottom embeddedness. Such activities could 
include, but are not limited to, land use changes that result in an 
increase in sedimentation, erosion, and bankside destruction or the 
loss of the protection of riparian corridors and leaving insufficient 
canopy cover along banks.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, release of chemicals, 
biological pollutants, or heated effluents into the surface water or 
connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release 
(nonpoint source). These activities could alter water conditions to 
levels that are beyond the tolerances of the candy darter and result in 
direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their 
life cycles.
    (4) Actions that would contribute to further habitat fragmentation. 
Such activities include, but are not limited to, construction of 
barriers that impede the instream movement of the candy darter (e.g., 
dams, culverts, or weirs). These activities can isolate populations 
that are more at risk of decline or extirpation as a result of genetic 
drift, demographic or environmental stochasticity, and catastrophic 
events.
    (5) Actions that would contribute to nonnative competition for 
habitat and other instream resources and to predation. Possible actions 
could include, but are not limited to, stocking of nonnative fishes or 
other related actions. These activities can introduce predators or 
affect the growth, reproduction, and survival of the candy darter 
through competition for resources.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face and the 
legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion 
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any 
factor.
    We have not considered any areas for exclusion from critical 
habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas 
will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the 
final designation, including information we obtain during the comment 
period and information about the economic impact of designation. 
Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) 
concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is 
available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES, above).

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 and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The 
baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable 
to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 
species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat 
is designated). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the 
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts 
and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs 
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, 
above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when 
evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas 
from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to 
conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat (Service 2018b). 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 candy darter (Industrial 
Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2018). 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 the geographic areas in which the critical habitat 
designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic 
impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs 
(i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable 
economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to 
conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, 
or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal 
listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out 
particular areas of critical habitat that are already

[[Page 59242]]

subject to such protections and are therefore unlikely to incur 
incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows 
us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors 
that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the 
designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are 
unoccupied by the species and may require additional management or 
conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation 
for the species, because the additional management or conservation 
efforts may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening 
analysis, combined with the information contained in our IEM, is what 
we consider our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical 
habitat designation for the candy darter and is summarized in the 
narrative below.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O.s' regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As 
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the candy darter, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated April 18, 2018, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) Watershed and stream restoration activities (Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 
Service, Corps, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)); (2) timber harvest and vegetation 
management (USFS); (3) prescribed fire (USFS); (4) construction and 
management of recreation improvement activities (USFS, NPS); (5) coal 
mining (Office of Surface Mining (OSM)); (6) pipeline and utility 
crossings (Corps, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)); (7) 
road and bridge construction and maintenance (Corps, Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA)); (8) pesticide use (USFS, FERC, FHWA); (9) 
abandoned mine reclamation (OSM); (10) emergency response activities 
(FEMA); and (11) oil and gas exploration (Corps). We considered each 
industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether 
their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any 
Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat 
affects only activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. In areas where the candy darter is present, Federal 
agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 
7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may 
affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat 
designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the 
existing consultation process.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that will result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the candy 
darter's critical habitat. The following specific circumstances in this 
case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential PBFs identified 
for critical habitat are the same features essential for the life 
requisites of the species, and (2) any actions that would result in 
sufficient harm to constitute jeopardy to the candy darter would also 
likely adversely affect the essential PBFs of critical habitat. The IEM 
outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between 
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the 
designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of 
the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the 
probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of 
critical habitat.
    We have identified and delineated five proposed critical habitat 
units, totaling approximately 596 skm (370 smi), that are currently 
(i.e., at the time of listing) occupied by the candy darter. These 
units are considered occupied year-round for the purposes of 
consultation based on current survey data. 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 candy darter. Because we 
are proposing only the designation of occupied critical habitat, we 
anticipate a relatively small increase in administrative costs related 
to 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.
    The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to 
section 7 consultations, in this case, only Federal action agencies. We 
do not anticipate any costs to State or local agencies, or impacts on 
property values related to the public's perception of additional 
regulation, because we do not expect the designation of critical 
habitat for the candy darter to result in changes to Virginia or West 
Virginia fishing regulations, or other local regulations (IEc 2018, pp. 
14-15).
    The probable incremental economic impacts of the candy darter 
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional 
administrative effort resulting from a small number of future section 7 
consultations. This is due to the fact that (1) All proposed critical 
habitat stream reaches are considered to be occupied by the species; 
(2) within occupied habitat, regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated, all projects with a Federal nexus will already be subject 
to the section 7 requirement; and (3) during section 7 consultation, 
project modifications that would be recommended to avoid adverse 
modification would already be requested to avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the species. There are no forecasted incremental 
costs associated with project modifications (IEc 2018, p. 8).
    At approximately $10,000 or less per consultation, to reach the 
threshold of $100 million of incremental administrative impacts in a 
single year, critical habitat designation would have to result in more 
than 11,000 consultations in a single year (IEc 2018, p. 11). No more 
than 91 candy darter consultations (31 technical assistance, 55 
informal, 1 formal, 2 reinitiated formal, and 1 programmatic) are 
anticipated in any given year (IEc 2018, pp. 12-13). Units 1 
(Greenbrier Watershed) and 5 (Upper Gauley Watershed) have the highest 
potential costs, due in part to the higher densities of occupied candy 
darter streams relative to the other units and the anticipated 
consultation workload

[[Page 59243]]

associated with the Monongahela National Forest (Unit 1) and planned 
road construction (Unit 5). However, the estimated incremental costs of 
critical habitat designation for the candy darter in the first year are 
unlikely to exceed $200,000 (2018 dollars) (IEc 2018, p. 15). Thus, the 
annual administrative burden will not reach $100 million.
    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the 
public on the DEA and all aspects of the proposed rule and our required 
determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents 
to incorporate or address information we receive during the public 
comment period. In particular, 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.

Exclusions

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. To consider 
economic impacts, we prepared an analysis of the probable economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors.
    During the development of a final designation, we will consider any 
additional economic impact information we receive through the public 
comment period, and as such areas may be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security 
Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national 
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have 
determined that the lands adjacent to the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for candy darter are not owned or managed by the 
Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and, 
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently, 
the Secretary is not intending to exercise his discretion to exclude 
any areas from the final designation based on impacts on national 
security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are 
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as 
HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with 
assurances, or whether there are nonpermitted conservation agreements 
and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or 
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence 
of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the 
government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal 
entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because 
of the designation.
    Although we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or 
other management plans for the candy darter and the proposed 
designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources, we 
are aware of management plans within the candy darter's range such as 
the Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 
forest plans for the George Washington and Thomas Jefferson National 
Forests. At this time, we anticipate no impact on tribal lands, 
partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. 
Accordingly, the Secretary does not intend to exercise his discretion 
to exclude any areas from the designation based on other relevant 
impacts.

Consideration of Reestablishing Populations Within the Historical Range 
Under Section 10(j) of the Act

    We believe that the best way to facilitate reintroductions of candy 
darter within the historical range where the essential PBFs can be 
found will be to use the authorities under section 10(j) of the Act. We 
have developed a conservation strategy for the candy darter, part of 
which identified the need to reestablish candy darter populations 
within areas of its historical range. These areas could include Reed 
Creek, Pine Run, and Sinking Creek in VA; and sections of Indian Creek, 
Bluestone River, and Camp Creek in WV. Because the candy darter is 
extirpated from these areas and natural repopulation is not possible 
without human assistance, use of a 10(j) rule may be one appropriate 
tool to achieve this recovery objective. An overview of the process to 
establish an experimental population under section 10(j) of the Act is 
described below.
    Section 10(j) of the Act enables us to designate certain 
populations of federally listed species that are released into the wild 
as ``experimental.'' The circumstances under which this designation can 
be applied are: (1) The population is geographically separate from 
nonexperimental populations of the same species (e.g., the population 
is reintroduced outside the species' current range but within its 
probable historical range); and (2) we determine that the release will 
further the conservation of the species. Section 10(j) is designed to 
increase our flexibility in managing an experimental population by 
allowing us to treat the population as threatened, regardless of the 
species' status elsewhere in its range. Threatened status gives us more 
discretion in developing and implementing management programs and 
special regulations for a population, and allows us to develop any 
regulations we consider necessary to provide for the conservation of a 
threatened species. In situations where we have experimental 
populations, certain section 9 prohibitions (e.g., harm, harass, 
capture) that apply to endangered and threatened species may no longer 
apply, and a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act can be developed 
that contains the prohibitions and exceptions necessary and appropriate 
to conserve that species. This flexibility allows us to manage the 
experimental population in a manner that will ensure that current and 
future land, water, or air uses and activities will not be 
unnecessarily restricted and that the population can be managed for 
recovery purposes.
    When we designate a population as experimental, section 10(j) of 
the Act requires that we determine whether that population is either 
essential or nonessential to the continued existence of the species, 
based on the best available information. Nonessential experimental 
populations located outside National Wildlife Refuge System or National 
Park System lands are treated, for the purposes of section 7 of the 
Act, as if they are proposed for listing. Thus, for nonessential 
experimental populations, only two provisions of section 7 would apply 
outside National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park System lands: 
Section 7(a)(1), which requires all Federal agencies to use their 
authorities to conserve listed species, and section 7(a)(4), which 
requires Federal agencies to informally confer with the Service on 
actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
proposed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, which requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of a listed species, would not apply except

[[Page 59244]]

on National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park System lands. 
Experimental populations determined to be ``essential'' to the survival 
of the species would remain subject to the consultation provisions of 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
    To establish an experimental population, we must issue a proposed 
rule and consider public comments on the proposed rule prior to 
publishing a final rule. In addition, we must comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Also, our 
regulations require that, to the extent practicable, a rule issued 
under section 10(j) of the Act represent an agreement between the 
Service, the affected State and Federal agencies, and persons holding 
any interest in land that may be affected by the establishment of the 
experimental population (see 50 CFR 17.81(d)).
    The flexibility gained by establishment of a nonessential 
experimental population through section 10(j) would be reduced if there 
is a designation of critical habitat that overlaps it. This is because 
Federal agencies would still be required to consult with us on any 
actions that may adversely modify critical habitat. In fact, section 
10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not be 
designated under the Act for any experimental population determined to 
be not essential to the continued existence of a species.
    We wish to reestablish the candy darter in areas of its historical 
range. We strongly believe that to achieve recovery for the candy 
darter we would need the flexibility provided for in section 10(j) of 
the Act to help ensure the success of reestablishing the candy darter 
in suitable unoccupied areas within the historical range. Use of 
section 10(j) is meant to encourage local cooperation through 
management flexibility. Critical habitat is often viewed negatively by 
the public because it is not well understood and there are many 
misconceptions about how it affects private landowners. It is important 
for recovery of this species that we have the support of the public 
when we move towards meeting the recovery goals. Therefore, we conclude 
that the best way to facilitate reintroduction into unoccupied portions 
of the candy darter range is to garner support of private landowners 
adjacent to potential reintroduction areas through the management 
flexibility provided by 10(j) of the Act.
    In summary, we believe that establishing nonessential experimental 
populations under Section 10(j) of the Act within the historical range 
will be the most effective means of achieving recovery for the candy 
darter. Establishing nonessential experimental populations will greatly 
benefit the overall recovery of the candy darter by allowing us to move 
forward using the flexibility and greater public acceptance of section 
10(j) of the Act to reestablish the candy darter in other portions of 
its historical range where it no longer occurs. This is likely one of 
the most important steps in reaching recovery of this species, and we 
believe that section 10(j) is the best tool to achieve this objective. 
Thus, we believe that establishing a nonessential experimental 
population in unoccupied areas will be beneficial in conserving the 
species within historical range. We intend to initiate rulemaking 
regarding a section 10(j) rule for the candy darter in the near future.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of six 
individuals (and received responses from four) with expertise in 
darters; fisheries, population, or landscape ecology; genetics and 
conservation genetics; and/or speciation and conservation biology, 
regarding the species status assessment (SSA) report (Service 2018), 
which informed this proposed rule. The SSA report for the candy darter 
is a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the species, including the past, present, and 
future threats to this species. A team of Service biologists prepared 
the SSA report. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our 
designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation 
of a final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ 
from this proposal.

Public Hearings

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

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is 
not significant.
    Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 
while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to 
promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, 
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory 
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory 
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of 
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, 
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available 
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public 
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this 
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Executive Order 13771

    This rule is not an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) 
regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 
12866.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not

[[Page 59245]]

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the 
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory 
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is 
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation 
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement 
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical 
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal 
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There 
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly 
regulated if we adopt this rule as proposed, the Service certifies 
that, if made final, the proposed critical habitat designation will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed 
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the 
designation of this proposed critical habitat would significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is 
not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In 
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or 
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this proposed rule would significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments because the waters being proposed 
for critical habitat designation are owned by the States of Virginia 
and West Virginia. These government entities do not fit the definition 
of ``small government jurisdiction.'' 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 candy darter in a takings implications assessment. The 
Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on 
private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical 
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership, or establish any closures or restrictions

[[Page 59246]]

on use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the 
designation of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that 
do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude 
development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental 
take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or 
permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from 
carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. A takings implications assessment 
has been completed and concludes that this designation of critical 
habitat for the candy darter would 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 request information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies in Virginia and West 
Virginia. 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 would not have substantial direct effects 
either on the States, or on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The 
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological 
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species 
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and 
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist 
these local governments in long-range planning (because these local 
governments would no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule 
identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical 
habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides several 
options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location 
information, if desired.

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

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes. We determined that there are no tribal 
lands that were occupied by the candy darter at the time of listing 
that contain the features essential for conservation of the species, 
and no tribal lands unoccupied by the candy darter that are essential 
for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to 
designate critical habitat for the candy darter on any tribal lands.

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the

[[Page 59247]]

internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the West 
Virginia Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Service's Species Assessment Team, the West Virginia Ecological 
Services Field Office, and the Southwest Virginia Ecological Services 
Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
 2. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``Candy 
Darter (Etheostoma osburni)'' immediately following the entry for 
``Amber Darter (Percina antesella),'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Candy Darter (Etheostoma osburni)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bland, Giles, and Wythe 
Counties, Virginia, and Nicholas, Pocahontas, Greenbrier, and Webster 
Counties, West Virginia, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the candy darter consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Ratios or densities of nonnative species that allow for 
maintaining populations of candy darters.
    (ii) Blend of unembedded gravel and cobble that allows for normal 
breeding, feeding, and sheltering behavior.
    (iii) Adequate water quality characterized by seasonally moderated 
temperatures and physical and chemical parameters (e.g., pH, dissolved 
oxygen levels, turbidity) that support normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages of the candy darter.
    (iv) Abundant, diverse benthic macroinvertebrate community (e.g., 
mayfly nymphs, midge larvae, caddisfly larvae) that allows for normal 
feeding behavior.
    (v) Sufficient water quantity and velocities that support normal 
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages of the candy darter.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. The provided maps were made using 
the geographic projection GCS_North_American_1983 coordinate system. 
Four spatial layers are included as background layers. We used two 
political boundary layers indicating the State and county boundaries 
within the United States available through ArcMap Version 10.5 software 
by ESRI. The roads layer displays major interstates, U.S. highways, 
State highways, and county roads in the Census 2000/TIGER/Line dataset 
provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, and available through ArcMap 
Version 10.5 software. Lastly, the hydrologic data used to indicate 
river and stream location are a spatial layer of rivers, streams, and 
small tributaries from the National Hydrology Database (NHD) Plus 
Version 2 database. This database divides the United States into a 
number of zones, and the zones that include the area where candy darter 
critical habitat is indicated are the Ohio-05 hydrologic zone and the 
Mid Atlantic-02 hydrologic zone. The maps provided display the critical 
habitat in relation to State and county boundaries, major roads and 
highways, and connections to certain rivers and streams within the 
larger river network. 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 https://www.fws.gov/northeast/candydarter/, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R5-ES-2018-0050, 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.

[[Page 59248]]

    (5) Note: Index map of candy darter critical habitat units follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.130


[[Page 59249]]


    (6) Index map of Unit 1--Greenbrier follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.131
    
    (7) Unit 1a: East Fork of Greenbrier River, Pocahontas County, West 
Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 1a consists of approximately 31.2 
stream kilometers (skm) (19.4 stream miles (smi)) of the East Fork of 
the Greenbrier River from a point approximately 3.2 skm (2.0 smi) 
upstream of the Bennett Run confluence, downstream to the confluence of 
the East Fork and West Fork of the Greenbrier River at Durbin, West 
Virginia; and approximately 12.2 skm (7.6 smi) of the Little River from 
a point 3.2 skm (2.0 smi) upstream of the power line right-of-way, 
downstream to the confluence of the Little River and the East Fork of 
the Greenbrier River. Approximately 26.2 skm (16.3 smi) of Unit 1a is 
within the Monongahela National Forest with the remainder adjacent to 
almost entirely private land, except for a small amount that is 
publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the 
like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1a, East Fork of Greenbrier River, follows:

[[Page 59250]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.132

    (8) Unit 1b: West Fork of Greenbrier River, Pocahontas County, West 
Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 1b includes approximately 29.9 skm 
(18.6 smi) of the West Fork of the Greenbrier River from the Public 
Road 44 crossing, downstream to the confluence of the East Fork and 
West Fork of the Greenbrier River at Durbin, West Virginia; and 
approximately 14.2 skm (8.8 smi) of the Little River from a point 
approximately 1.6 skm (1.0 smi) upstream of the Lukins Run confluence, 
downstream to the confluence of the Little River and the West Fork of 
the Greenbrier River. Approximately 43.2 skm (26.8 smi) of Unit 1b is 
within the Monongahela National Forest with the remainder adjacent to 
almost entirely private land, except for a small amount that is 
publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the 
like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1b, West Fork of Greenbrier River, follows:

[[Page 59251]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.133

    (9) Unit 1c: Upper Greenbrier River, Pocahontas County, West 
Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 1c includes approximately 69.3 skm 
(43.1 smi) of the Greenbrier River from the confluence of the East Fork 
and West Fork of the Greenbrier River at Durbin, West Virginia, 
downstream to the confluence of Knapp Creek at Marlinton, West 
Virginia. Approximately 47.5 skm (29.5 smi) of Unit 1c is within the 
Monongahela National Forest and the Seneca State Forest, with the 
remainder adjacent to located almost entirely on private land, except 
for a small amount that is publicly owned in the form of bridge 
crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1c, Upper Greenbrier River, follows:

[[Page 59252]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.134

    (10) Unit 1d: Deer Creek, Pocahontas County, West Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 1d includes approximately 21.2 skm 
(13.2 smi) of Deer Creek from the confluence of Deer Creek and 
Saulsbury Run, downstream to the confluence with the Greenbrier River; 
and approximately 16.3 skm (10.1 smi) of North Fork from a point 
approximately 1.6 skm (1.0 smi) upstream of the Elleber Run confluence, 
downstream to the confluence of North Fork and Deer Creek. 
Approximately 10.0 skm (6.2 smi) of Unit 1d is within the Monongahela 
National Forest, with the remainder adjacent to almost entirely on 
private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the 
form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1d, Deer Creek, follows:

[[Page 59253]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.135

    (11) Unit 1e: Sitlington Creek, Pocahontas County, West Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 1e includes approximately 10.1 skm 
(6.3 smi) of Sitlington Creek from the confluence of Galford Run and 
Thorny Branch, downstream to the confluence with the Greenbrier River. 
Approximately 1.2 skm (0.7 smi) of Unit 1e is within the Monongahela 
National Forest, with the remainder adjacent to almost entirely on 
private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the 
form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1e, Sitlington Creek, follows:

[[Page 59254]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.136

    (12) Unit 1f: Knapp Creek, Pocahontas County, West Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 1f includes approximately 43.9 skm 
(27.3 smi) of Knapp Creek from a point approximately (0.1 smi) west of 
the WV Route 84 and Public Road 55 intersection, downstream to the 
confluence with the Greenbrier River at Marlinton, West Virginia. 
Approximately 7.2 skm (4.5 smi) of Unit 1f is within the Monongahela 
National Forest, with the remainder adjacent to almost entirely private 
land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the form of 
bridge crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1f, Knapp Creek, follows:

[[Page 59255]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.137

    (13) Index map of Unit 2--Middle New follows:

[[Page 59256]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.138

    (14) Unit 2a: Dismal Creek, Bland and Giles Counties, Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 2a includes approximately 4.2 skm 
(2.6 smi) of Dismal Creek from the confluence with Standrock Branch, 
downstream to the confluence of Dismal Creek and Walker Creek. 
Approximately 3.2 skm (2.0 smi) of Unit 2a is within the George 
Washington and Jefferson National Forest, with the remainder adjacent 
to almost entirely private land, except for a small amount that is 
publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the 
like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2a, Dismal Creek, follows:

[[Page 59257]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.139

    (15) Unit 2b: Stony Creek, Giles County, Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 2b includes approximately includes 
approximately 34.1 skm (21.2 smi) of Stony Creek from a point 
approximately 2.4 skm (1.5 smi) upstream of North Fork Mountain Road, 
downstream to the confluence with the New River. Approximately 19.2 skm 
(11.9 smi) of Unit 2b is within the George Washington and Jefferson 
National Forest, with the remainder adjacent to almost entirely private 
land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the form of 
bridge crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2b, Stony Creek, follows:

[[Page 59258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.140

    (16) Unit 2c: Laurel Creek, Bland County, Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 2c includes approximately 5.1 skm 
(3.2 smi) of Laurel Creek from a point approximately 0.8 skm (0.5 smi) 
upstream of the unnamed pond, downstream to the confluence of Laurel 
Creek and Wolf Creek. Unit 2c is adjacent to almost entirely private 
land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the form of 
bridge crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2c, Laurel Creek, follows:

[[Page 59259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.141

    (17) Unit 3: Lower Gauley, ``Lower'' Gauley River, Nicholas County, 
West Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 3 includes approximately 2.9 skm (1.8 
smi) of the Gauley River from the base of the Summersville Dam, 
downstream to the confluence of Collison Creek. The entirety of Unit 3 
is within the National Park Service's Gauley River National Recreation 
Area and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Summersville Recreation 
Area.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3, Lower Gauley, follows:

[[Page 59260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.142

    (18) Unit 4: Upper New, Cripple Creek, Wythe County, Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 4 includes approximately 7.9 skm (4.9 
smi) of Cripple Creek from a point approximately (2.0 smi) upstream of 
the State Road 94 bridge, downstream to the confluence of Cripple Creek 
and the New River. The stream in Unit 4 is adjacent to almost entirely 
private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the 
form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4, Upper New, follows:

[[Page 59261]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.143

    (19) Index map of Unit 5--Upper Gauley follows:

[[Page 59262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.144

    (20) Unit 5a: Gauley Headwaters, Webster County, West Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 5a includes approximately 23.2 skm 
(37.3 smi) of the Gauley River from the North and South Forks of the 
Gauley River, downstream to the confluence of the Gauley River and the 
Williams River at Donaldson, West Virginia; and 2.9 skm (1.8 smi) of 
Straight Creek from its confluence with the Gauley River to a point 
approximately 2.9 skm (1.8 smi) upstream of the confluence. 
Approximately 9.0 skm (5.6 smi) of Unit 5a is within the Monongahela 
National Forest. The remainder of the unit is adjacent to almost 
entirely private land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned 
in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5a, Gauley Headwaters, follows:

[[Page 59263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.145

    (21) Unit 5b: Upper Gauley River, Nicholas and Webster Counties, 
West Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 5b includes approximately 43.8 skm 
(27.2 smi) of the Gauley River from the confluence of the Gauley and 
Williams Rivers at Donaldson, West Virginia, downstream to a point 
approximately 1.6 skm (1.0 smi) upstream of the Big Beaver Creek 
confluence. Approximately 14.6 skm (9.2 smi) of Unit 5b is within the 
Monongahela National Forest and/or adjacent to land owned by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. The streams in the remainder of the unit are 
adjacent to almost entirely private land, except for a small amount 
that is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, 
and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5b, Upper Gauley River, follows:

[[Page 59264]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.146

    (22) Unit 5c: Panther Creek, Nicholas County, West Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 5c includes approximately 16.3 skm 
(10.1 smi) of Panther Creek from a point approximately 1.1 skm (0.7 
smi) upstream of the Grassy Creek Road crossing, downstream to the 
confluence with the Gauley River. The streams in Unit 5c are adjacent 
to almost entirely private land, except for a small amount that is 
publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings, road easements, and the 
like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5c, Panther Creek, follows:

[[Page 59265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.147

    (23) Unit 5d: Williams River, Pocahontas and Webster Counties, West 
Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 5d includes approximately 52.4 skm 
(32.6 smi) of the Williams River from the confluence with Beaverdam 
Run, downstream to the confluence of the Williams River and the Gauley 
River at Donaldson, West Virginia; and 5.1 skm (3.2 smi) of Tea Creek 
from a point on Lick Creek approximately 2.7 skm (1.7 smi) upstream of 
the Lick Creek confluence, downstream to the Tea Creek confluence with 
the Williams River. The streams in Unit 5d are entirely within the 
Monongahela National Forest.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5d, Williams River, follows:

[[Page 59266]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.148

    (24) Unit 5e: Cranberry River, Nicholas and Webster Counties, West 
Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 5e includes approximately 39.3 skm 
(24.4 smi) of the Cranberry River from the confluence of the North and 
South Forks of the Cranberry River, downstream to the confluence of the 
Cranberry River and the Gauley River. This stream is entirely within 
the Monongahela National Forest.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5e, Cranberry River, follows:

[[Page 59267]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.149

    (25) Unit 5f: Cherry River, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West 
Virginia.
    (i) General description: Unit 5f includes approximately 16.7 skm 
(10.4 smi) of Cherry River from the confluence of the North and South 
Forks of the Cherry River, downstream to the confluence of the Cherry 
River and the Gauley River; approximately 28.0 skm (17.4 smi) of the 
North Fork Cherry River from the Pocahontas Trail crossing, downstream 
to the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Cherry River; 
approximately 26.2 skm (16.3 smi) of the South Fork Cherry River from a 
point approximately 0.5 skm (0.3 smi) south of County Road 29/4 in 
Virginia, downstream to the confluence of the North and South Forks of 
the Cherry River; and approximately 24.9 skm (15.5 smi) of Laurel Creek 
from a point approximately 0.3 skm (0.2 smi) west of Cold Knob Road, 
downstream to the confluence of Laurel Creek the Cherry River. 
Approximately 29.1 skm (18.1 smi) of Unit 5f is within the Monongahela 
National Forest. The remainder is adjacent to almost entirely private 
land, except for a small amount that is publicly owned in the form of 
bridge crossings, road easements, and the like.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5f, Cherry River, follows:

[[Page 59268]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO18.150

* * * * *

    Dated: August 14, 2018.
James W. Kurth
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the 
Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Note: This document was received for publication by the Office 
of Federal Register on November 15, 2018.

[FR Doc. 2018-25315 Filed 11-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C