[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24987-25009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010; 4500090023]
RIN 1018-BD54


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Spring Pygmy Sunfish

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma alabamae) under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In total, 
approximately 10.9 kilometers (6.7 miles) of streams and 1,330 acres 
(538 hectares) in Limestone and Madison Counties, Alabama, fall within 
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation.

DATES: This rule is effective July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/daphne. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we used 
in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation 
that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, 
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Alabama Ecological Services Field Office, 1208 Main Street, Daphne, AL 
36526; telephone 251-441-5184.
    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 http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010, and at the Alabama Ecological Services 
Field Office (https://www.fws.gov/daphne) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we 
developed for this critical habitat designation will also be available 
at the Fish and Wildlife Service website and Field Office identified 
above, and may also be included in the preamble and at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Pearson, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone 251-441-5184. 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 of 
1973 (Act), as amended, if we determine that a species is an endangered 
or threatened species, we must designate critical habitat to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We listed the spring pygmy 
sunfish as a threatened species on October 2, 2013 (78 FR 60766). 
Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a 
rule.
    Basis for this rule. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 
Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best 
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic 
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
    This rule designates critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish. 
The critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule constitute 
our current best

[[Page 24988]]

assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
for spring pygmy sunfish. This rule designates approximately 10.9 
kilometers (6.7 miles) of streams and 1,330 acres (538 hectares) of 
adjacent lands as critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish in 
three units.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical 
assumptions, analysis, and whether or not we had used the best 
scientific data available. These peer reviewers generally concurred 
with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information 
we received from peer review is incorporated into this final 
designation of critical habitat. We also considered all comments and 
information we received from the public during the comment periods for 
the proposed designation.

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 2, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 
60180) a proposed rule to list the spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma 
alabamae) as threatened under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 
Together with the proposed listing, we proposed designation of two 
critical habitat units in Limestone County, Alabama.
    On April 29, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 
25033) a document that: (1) Reopened the comment period on the October 
2, 2012, proposed rule for an additional 30 days, ending May 29, 2013; 
and (2) proposed a small reduction to the size of critical habitat Unit 
1 based on public input.
    On October 2, 2013, we published the final rule listing the species 
as threatened (78 FR 60766).
    On February 5, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 
6871) a document that: (1) Reopened the comment period on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish for an 
additional 30 days, ending March 7, 2014; and (2) described potential 
exclusions to the proposed critical habitat designation for lands 
covered by candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs).
    On November 5, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 
55341) a document that: (1) Reopened the comment period on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish for an 
additional 30 days, ending December 5, 2018; and (2) proposed to add 
Unit 3, an area where a population of the spring pygmy sunfish was 
discovered in 2015, in Madison County, Alabama, to the critical habitat 
designation.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish during 
four comment periods, totaling 150 days (see Previous Federal Actions, 
above). We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposed rule and draft economic 
analysis during these comment periods.
    During the comment periods, we received 31 comments in response to 
the proposed critical habitat designation. We did not receive any 
requests for a public hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology. We received responses from all three peer 
reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for 
the spring pygmy sunfish. Two peer reviewers that commented on critical 
habitat concurred with our proposed designation of Unit 2 (Pryor 
Spring), which was unoccupied at the time of listing. All substantive 
information provided to us during comment periods has either been 
incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
    (1) Comment: There are three areas under candidate conservation 
agreements with assurances (CCAAs) specifically designed for the spring 
pygmy sunfish (Belle Mina Farms Ltd., McDonald Farms, and Horton Farm), 
all in proposed Unit 1. One peer reviewer and five public commenters 
stated that these areas should not be excluded from the critical 
habitat designation, because exclusion would be less protective of the 
sunfish and its habitat.
    Our Response: Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may 
exclude any 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 and commercial data available, that the failure to 
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction 
of the species concerned.
    We find that the areas under the three CCAAs meet the above 
criteria for exclusion. Under the CCAAs, the landowners implement 
conservation measures to address threats to the species' habitat from 
agriculture, which is the land use adjacent to a majority of the 
habitat in Unit 1. These measures (described in greater detail in our 
final rule listing the spring pygmy sunfish as a threatened species at 
78 FR 60766 (October 2, 2013)) include maintaining vegetated buffer 
zones; restricting timber harvest and cattle grazing; and refraining 
from any deforestation, industrial or residential development, 
aquaculture, temporary or permanent ground-water removal installations, 
and other potentially damaging actions without prior consultation with 
the Service. With a critical habitat designation but without CCAAs in 
place, conservation of the species' habitat on private lands would not 
be assured except when projects that are federally authorized, funded, 
or carried out (those with a Federal nexus) occur within the area of 
the critical habitat designation. In practice, projects with a Federal 
nexus occur primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by 
Federal agencies. Because projects in spring pygmy sunfish habitat on 
private lands are not likely to have a Federal nexus, the benefit of 
the CCAAs outweighs the designation of critical habitat (see discussion 
under Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts, below).
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer, as well as several other 
commenters, noted that the CCAAs were voluntary and of short duration 
(20 to 25 years), and landowners could opt out of the agreements at any 
time, which could diminish protection of spring pygmy sunfish habitat.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that the CCAAs are voluntary and could 
be terminated by the landowners at any time, although there are no 
current plans to terminate any of the agreements prior to their 
expiration date. Should termination of a CCAA occur, the area 
previously covered by that CCAA could be reproposed for addition to the 
critical habitat designation. We acknowledge that, in the absence of a 
critical habitat designation or a CCAA, private

[[Page 24989]]

landowners may not actively conserve critical habitat as they would if 
a CCAA were in place. However, habitat would still be protected through 
sections 7 and 9 of the Act. Because the habitat currently under the 
CCAAs is occupied by the species, any consultation prompted by Federal 
actions will need to ensure minimization of take and that the species 
will not be likely to become extinct as a result of those activities, 
which will require measures to protect the habitat that supports the 
species. It would not be legal for private landowners to intentionally 
destroy the occupied habitat because that would result in take 
prohibited by section 9 of the Act.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer and one other individual commented 
that the list of plant species identified as providing important 
habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish in our October 2, 2012, proposed 
rule was incorrect. The peer reviewer stated that information indicates 
that the nonindigenous parrot feather, Myriophyllum spp., may be 
detrimental to the spring pygmy sunfish and should not be considered 
important habitat for the species. The other commenter suggested we 
should emphasize the importance of fine filamentous-leaved vegetation 
and its use by the spring pygmy sunfish for foraging, spawning, and 
providing protection from predators.
    Our Response: We have made corrections in the discussion under 
Physical or Biological Features (which were also referred to as primary 
constituent elements in our October 2, 2012, proposed rule), below, and 
in all discussions related to suitable plant habitat for the spring 
pygmy sunfish, based on these comments. We revised the list of plant 
species and identified those most important to the sunfish, including 
Ceratophyllum echinatum (spineless hornwort), Myriophyllum 
heterophyllum (two-leaf water milfoil), and Hydrilla verticillata 
(native hydrilla), and we removed the reference to Myriophyllum spp., 
which could be mistakenly referenced to the nonindigenous parrot 
feather that is in the same genus as the native two-leaf water milfoil. 
We also noted the importance of the presence of fine filamentous-leaved 
vegetation to the spring pygmy sunfish for breeding, rearing young, 
foraging, and providing protection from predators in our discussion of 
habitat (see Physical or Biological Features, below, for more 
information).
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned our use of 80 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) as the upper limit of a suitable water temperature 
for the spring pygmy sunfish in the description of physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The 
commenter stated that prolonged exposure to such high temperatures can 
shorten the spring pygmy sunfish's lifespan, to the point of 
potentially interfering with successful reproduction and recruitment.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer, and we have removed 
the reference to 80 [deg]F from our description of physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species (see 
Physical or Biological Features, below).

Public Comments

    (5) Comment: One commenter asserted that the spring pygmy sunfish 
would likely become extinct if the CCAA areas were not included in the 
critical habitat designation, as omitting these areas from the critical 
habitat designation would not adequately protect the species' habitat.
    Our Response: We have concluded that the existing protections under 
the Act, plus the protections afforded by the CCAAs, will be sufficient 
to prevent extinction of the spring pygmy sunfish. As discussed above 
(see Peer Review), in currently occupied habitat, even in the absence 
of a critical habitat designation, the species is protected through 
sections 7 and 9 of the Act because it is listed as a threatened 
species. The CCAAs provide additional protections because conservation 
measures to protect habitat are implemented for the duration of the 
CCAA; without a CCAA, measures to protect the species' habitat in 
designated critical habitat or in occupied habitat occur only when 
there is a project with Federal nexus, which will be a rare occurrence 
on private lands. Additionally, the entire population in Blackwell 
Swamp and a portion of the population in Beaverdam Creek, adjacent to 
the CCAA areas, will remain within designated critical habitat.
    (6) Comment: One commenter was concerned that the draft economic 
analysis ``concedes key uncertainties which would result in a major 
underestimation of costs particularly if additional restrictions such 
as groundwater or surface water withdrawal limits are included.''
    Our Response: As described in section 2.3 of the final economic 
analysis (FEA), there is currently limited information regarding the 
regional hydrology of the study area. In order for the Service to 
determine whether a particular withdrawal may affect the sunfish or its 
critical habitat, and to subsequently recommend how adverse 
modification of the critical habitat can be avoided, additional 
information would be required clarifying how the location and volume of 
withdrawals affects the hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency, 
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) within the streams 
and springs designated as critical habitat. As described in the text 
box titled ``Incremental Effects of Critical Habitat on Water 
Extraction Activities'' in section 2.3 of the FEA, until such a time 
that this information is available, the Service does not anticipate 
that the listing or this critical habitat designation for the sunfish 
will result in limitations on water withdrawals within the study area. 
Considering this, attempting to monetize costs associated with 
limitations on water withdrawals would be speculative.
    (7) Comment: One commenter provided information on the potential 
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation, stating that the 
Service should take into consideration the economic benefits of 
protecting habitat for the sunfish, such as ecosystem services and 
preservation of riparian buffers.
    Our Response: As detailed in section 2.5 of the FEA, the Service 
does not forecast additional conservation efforts being implemented due 
to critical habitat designation for the sunfish. As a result, no 
changes in economic activity or land or water management are expected 
to result from this critical habitat designation. Absent these changes, 
the FEA does not forecast incremental economic benefits from this 
rulemaking.

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary [of the Interior] 
shall submit to the State agency a written justification for his 
failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or 
petition.'' We received two comments from individuals who are employees 
of a State agency (Geological Survey of Alabama). One of these 
individuals was also a peer reviewer (see ``Peer Reviewer Comments,'' 
above). The State provided additional information on the species' 
habitat, specifically related to hydrology, but did not state a 
position on the critical habitat designation. State comments regarding 
the species' habitat in general and the efficacy of CCAAs as a 
conservation instrument given the threat of urban growth were addressed 
in our final listing rule published on October 2, 2013 (78 FR 60766).

[[Page 24990]]

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments from the public and peer reviewers that we received concerning 
the proposed critical habitat designation. Based on information we 
received from a private landowner and the discovery of a boundary error 
in Unit 1, followed by further biological examination of the land, we 
removed approximately 67.6 acres (ac) (27.3 hectares (ha)) from 
proposed Unit 1. The rationale for this change is described in more 
detail in our April 29, 2013, Federal Register publication (78 FR 
25033).
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are excluding from critical 
habitat designation areas in Unit 1 that are covered under the Belle 
Mina Farms Ltd., McDonald Farms, and Horton Farm CCAAs, as proposed in 
our February 5, 2014, Federal Register document (79 FR 6871), because 
the Secretary finds that the benefits of excluding these areas outweigh 
the benefits of including them in the critical habitat designation. In 
total, these three exclusions reduce the critical habitat in Unit 1 
from approximately 546 ha (1,348 ac) to 342 ha (845 ac).
    Based on discovery of a previously unknown population of the spring 
pygmy sunfish in Blackwell Swamp, we are designating as critical 
habitat an additional unit, Unit 3, as we proposed on November 5, 2018 
(83 FR 55341). Unit 3 contains 123 ha (303 ac) wholly within the 
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge.
    We have revised two of the physical or biological features 
(formerly primary constituent elements) based on information we 
received from peer reviewers and other commenters. In the physical or 
biological feature concerning water quality, we changed the temperature 
parameters for the spring pygmy sunfish as a result of comments we 
received from a peer reviewer who stated that the upper temperature 
range was incorrect (see Comment 4, above, for more information). We 
also removed the conductivity measurement from this physical or 
biological feature because, upon further analysis, we determined it did 
not accurately reflect the life parameters for the species. In 
addition, we have revised the associated vegetation described under the 
relevant physical or biological feature to identify plant species most 
important to spring pygmy sunfish habitat, as a result of comments from 
a peer reviewer and another commenter (see Comment 3, above, for more 
information). Finally, for clarity, we present the prey base, or food, 
for the spring pygmy sunfish as a separate physical or biological 
feature in this final rule rather than grouping it with the vegetation 
feature.

Background

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

[[Page 24991]]

    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

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 
(PBFs) 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.
    We derived the specific PBFs for the spring pygmy sunfish from 
studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as 
described in the final listing rule (78 FR 60766; October 2, 2013) and 
in the information presented below. There is limited information on 
this species' specific habitat requirements, other than that it 
requires springs and connecting spring-fed reaches and wetlands; an 
adequate groundwater and surface water hydrology; and clean, cool water 
and associated vegetation and invertebrates. To identify the physical 
and biological needs of the species, we have relied on current 
conditions at the locations where the species exists today and the 
limited information we have on historical sites available on this 
species and its close relatives, and factors associated with the 
decline and extirpation of this and other spring-associated fish 
species. We have determined that the spring pygmy sunfish requires the 
following PBFs.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    Spring pygmy sunfish depend on geomorphically stable spring systems 
including the spring head (water source), spring run, and spring pools. 
The spring systems used by the species also include transition zones 
between these features on moderately low-gradient topographic slopes 
that feather out into spring-fed wetland pools. The spring pygmy 
sunfish inhabits spring pools, spring runs, and spring-fed streams and 
pools with substrates of silt, sand, and gravel.
    The current range of the spring pygmy sunfish is reduced to 
localized sites due to fragmentation of the spring systems on which it 
depends. Fragmentation of the species' habitat has changed the aquatic 
vegetation composition of the species' habitat; has isolated 
populations; and has reduced available space for spawning, rearing of 
young, concealment, and foraging. As a result, the spring pygmy 
sunfish's adaptive capability has been reduced, and the possibility of 
local extinctions has increased (Burkhead et al. 1997, pp. 397-399; 
Hallerman 2003, pp. 363-364). Connectivity of spring systems maintains 
spawning, foraging, and resting sites, and allows for gene flow 
throughout the population. The spring pygmy sunfish exhibits greatest 
relative abundance nearest the spring emergence, and reproduction is 
restricted, or closely tied, to localized conditions at spring 
emergences (Sandel et al. 2008, pp. 7-15). Genetic variation and 
diversity within a species are essential for recovery, adaptation to 
environmental changes, and long-term viability (capability to live, 
reproduce, and develop) (Harris 1984, pp. 93-107; Noss and Cooperrider 
1994, pp. 282-297; Fluker et al. 2007, p. 2). Long-term viability is 
founded on space for numerous interbreeding, local populations 
throughout the range (Harris 1984, pp. 93-107).

[[Page 24992]]

    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify springs and 
connecting spring-fed reaches and wetlands of geomorphically stable, 
relatively low-gradient, headwater springs with spring heads (water 
sources), spring runs, and spring pools that filter into shallow 
vegetated wetlands to be an essential PBF for the spring pygmy sunfish. 
The connectivity of these habitats is essential in accommodating 
feeding, breeding, growth, and other normal behaviors of the spring 
pygmy sunfish and in promoting gene flow within the populations.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

Water Quality
    Exceptional water quality at the spring heads (water source) and 
pools, and adequate water quality throughout the habitat, maintained by 
unobstructed water flow through connected spring habitats, are 
essential for normal behavior, growth, and viability during all life 
stages of the spring pygmy sunfish. Suitable habitat conditions for the 
spring pygmy sunfish have not been investigated thoroughly; however, 
some data specific to the species are available for the following water 
quality parameters: pH, water temperature, and alkalinity (capacity of 
solutes in an aqueous system to neutralize acid as bicarbonate (HCO3)). 
Spring pygmy sunfish males establish territories and begin spawning in 
March and April, when water quality parameters are within a suitable pH 
range of 6.0 to 7.7, and water temperatures are from 57.2 to 68[deg] F 
(14 and 20[deg] C) (Sandel 2007, p. 2; Mettee 2008, p. 36; Petty et al. 
2011, p. 4).
    Essential water quality attributes for the spring pygmy sunfish may 
be inferred from those of other fish species living in medium water 
flow streams along with baseline spring and subsurface water quality 
information obtained from systems within Limestone County, adjacent 
counties, and elsewhere. Based on yearly averages, which may not 
reflect optimal conditions, these include: (1) Dissolved oxygen levels 
greater than 6 parts per million (ppm); (2) water temperatures of 57.2 
to 68 [deg]F (15 to 20 [deg]C); and (3) water clarity (particulates in 
water column) less than 15 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) and 20 
milligrams per liter (mg/l) total suspended solids (TSS) (Teels et al. 
1975, pp. 8-9; Ultschet et al. 1978, pp. 99-101; Ingersoll et al. 1984, 
pp. 131-138; Chandler et al. 1987, pp. 56-57; Kundell and Rasmussen 
1995, pp. 211-212; Henley et al. 2000, pp. 125-139; Meyer and 
Sutherland 2005, pp. 43-64; Sandel 2007, p. 2; McGregor et al. 2008, 
pp. 7-9; Mettee 2008, p. 36; Knight 2011, pp. 3-8; Rakes et al. 2011, 
p. 4).
    Temperature greatly influences the form and toxicity of ammonia and 
chlorine. Higher temperatures result in a shift from the nontoxic 
ammonium ion (NH4\+\) to highly toxic ammonia (NH3). Chlorine is also 
more toxic at higher temperatures (Hoffman et al. 2003, p. 681). Thus, 
higher temperatures during the summer, along with drought and reduced 
spring flows, may intensify impacts from these two chemicals on the 
life stages and habitats of the spring pygmy sunfish.
    Therefore, we identify the following water quality parameters to be 
an essential PBF for the spring pygmy sunfish, based on yearly 
averages: Optimal temperatures of 57.2 to 68 [deg]F (14 to 20 [deg]C); 
pH of 6.0 to 7.7; dissolved oxygen of 6.0 ppm or greater; and low 
concentrations of free or suspended solids with turbidity measuring 
less than 15 NTU and 20 mg/l TSS.
Water Quantity
    Water flow and water quantity may also vary according to season, 
precipitation events, and human activities, such as groundwater and 
surface water extraction, within the recharge area of the spring 
system. Agriculture, industrial or human consumption, silviculture, 
maintenance of roadways and utilities, and urbanization and 
industrialization projects are activities that may use water that would 
otherwise recharge spring systems. Connectivity of spring systems is 
also important for maintaining water quality. Adequate groundwater and 
recharge rates, and spring water outflow, are important to the 
conservation of the spring pygmy sunfish.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify a hydrologic 
flow regime (magnitude, frequency, duration, and seasonality of 
discharge overtime) necessary to maintain spring habitats to be an 
essential PBF for the spring pygmy sunfish. The instream flow from 
groundwater sources (spring and seep) maintains a velocity and a 
continuous daily discharge from the aquifer that allows for 
connectivity between habitats. Instream flow is stable and does not 
vary during water extraction, and the aquifer recharge maintains 
adequate levels to supply water flow to the spring head. The flow 
regime does not significantly change during storm events.
Food
    All pygmy sunfish species stalk invertebrates by using the dense 
submergent vegetation within the spring system to conceal their 
foraging activity (Walsh and Burr 1984, pp. 45-46). The aquatic 
vegetation provides a ready source of food (Petty et al. 2011, p. 2) 
and habitat for invertebrates. Daphnia, amphipods, chironomid larvae, 
and small snails are the major components of the spring pygmy sunfish's 
diet (Slate 1993, p. 3; Sandel 2009, p. 9). Therefore, we identify 
these food items as a PBF for the species.

Cover or Shelter and Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing

    The spring pygmy sunfish relies heavily on aquatic and emergent 
vegetation in the shallow water within the runs and pools of the spring 
systems. The species has an affinity for patches of dense filamentous 
submergent vegetation for breeding, reproduction and growth of 
offspring; concealment from predators; and foraging (Sandel 2008, pp. 
3-4; Kuhajda in litt. 2012). Important species of aquatic filamentous 
submergent vegetation include Ceratophyllum echinatum (spineless 
hornwort), Myriophyllum heterophyllum (two-leaf water milfoil), and 
Hydrilla verticillata (native hydrilla); emergent vegetation includes 
clumps and stands of Sparganium spp. (bur reed), Polygonum spp. 
(smartweed), Nasturtium officinale (watercress), Juncus spp. (rush), 
and Carex spp. (sedges); semi-emergent vegetation includes Nuphar 
luteum (yellow pond lily), Utricularia spp. (bladderwort), and 
Callitriche spp. (water starwort) (Mayden 1993, p. 11; Jandebeur 1997, 
pp. 42-44; Sandel 2011, pp. 3-5, 9-11). Sandel (2009, p. 14) noted that 
the concentration of spring pygmy sunfish was greatest in association 
with thick and abundant Ceratophyllum echinatum within the spring pool 
and that the species' abundance decreased as the distances from the 
spring pools increased.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify aquatic, 
emergent and semi-emergent vegetation within the spring runs and 
submergent vegetation that is adequate for breeding, reproducing, and 
rearing young; providing cover and shelter from predators; and 
supporting the prey base of aquatic macroinvertebrates eaten by spring 
pygmy sunfish to be an essential PBF for the spring pygmy sunfish.

[[Page 24993]]

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We have determined that the following PBFs are essential to the 
conservation of the spring pygmy sunfish:
    (1) Spring system. Springs, and connecting spring-fed reaches and 
wetlands, that are geomorphically stable and relatively low-gradient. 
This includes headwater springs with spring heads (water source), 
spring runs, and spring pools that filter into shallow, vegetated 
wetlands.
    (2) Water quality. Yearly averages of water quality with optimal 
temperatures of 57.2 to 68 [deg]F (14 to 20 [deg]C); pH of 6.0 to 7.7; 
dissolved oxygen of 6.0 parts per million (ppm) or greater; low 
concentrations of free or suspended solids with turbidity measuring 
less than 15 NTU and 20 mg/l TSS.
    (3) Hydrology. A hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency, 
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain 
spring habitats. The instream flow from groundwater sources (springs 
and seeps) maintains an adequate velocity and a continuous daily 
discharge from the aquifer that allows for connectivity between 
habitats. Instream flow is stable and does not vary during water 
extraction, and the aquifer recharge maintains adequate levels to 
supply water flow to the spring head. The flow regime does not 
significantly change during storm events.
    (4) Prey base, or food. Macroinvertebrates including Daphnia spp., 
amphipods, chironomids (non-biting midges), or small snails.
    (5) Vegetation. Aquatic, emergent and semi-emergent vegetation 
along the margins of spring runs and submergent vegetation that is 
adequate for breeding, reproducing, and rearing young; providing cover 
and shelter from predators; and supporting the macroinvertebrate prey 
base. Important species include:
    (a) Submergent filamentous vegetation such as Ceratophyllum 
echinatum (spineless hornwort), Myriophyllum heterophyllum (two-leaf 
water milfoil), and Hydrilla verticillata (native hydrilla);
    (b) Emergent vegetation such as Sparganium spp. (bur reed), 
Polygonum spp. (smartweed), Nasturtium officinale (watercress), Juncus 
spp. (rush), and Carex spp. (sedges); and
    (c) Semi-emergent vegetation such as Nuphar luteum (yellow pond 
lily), Utricularia spp. (bladderwort), and Callitriche spp. (water 
starwort).

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    The above-described PBFs may require special management 
considerations or protection to reduce the following threats or 
potential threats: Reduced groundwater/surface flow from water 
extraction; changes in the composition and abundance of vegetation in 
the spring system; alteration of the bottom substrate and normal 
sinuosity stream channels from fill material within the spring system 
and spring-fed wetlands for development projects; degradation of water 
quality from uncontrolled discharge of stormwater draining agricultural 
fields, roads, bridges, and urban areas; careless agricultural 
practices, including unmanaged livestock grazing; and road, bridge, and 
utility easement maintenance (e.g., use of herbicides and resurfacing 
or sealant materials).
    Special management considerations or protection are required within 
critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities 
that could ameliorate these threats include (but are not limited to) 
the following: Establishing permanent conservation easements or land 
acquisition to protect the species on private lands; minimizing habitat 
disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction by maintaining suitable 
fish passage structures under roads; providing significant buffers 
around the spring components such as the spring head (water source), 
spring pool, and spring run; monitoring and regulating the withdrawal 
and use of groundwater and surface water; preserving recharge areas by 
increasing the permeable area for percolation of rainfall back into the 
aquifer; limiting impervious substrates; and minimizing water quality 
degradation by stormwater runoff with catchment basins, vegetated 
buffers along streams, and other appropriate best management practices.

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 designating critical 
habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time of listing in 2013. We also are designating specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing (in Pryor Spring), which were historically occupied, but are 
presently unoccupied, because we have determined that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    We began our determination of which areas to propose for critical 
habitat with an assessment of the critical life-history components of 
the spring pygmy sunfish, as they relate to habitat. We then evaluated 
current and historical sites to establish what areas are currently 
occupied and contain the PBFs that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection, as well as unoccupied sites that might be essential for the 
conservation of the species. We reviewed the available information 
pertaining to historical and current distributions, life histories, and 
habitat requirements of this species. Our sources included surveys, 
unpublished reports, and peer-reviewed scientific literature prepared 
by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 
Alabama Geological Survey, Limestone County Revenue Office, Athens 
State University, University of Alabama, the Service, and spring pygmy 
sunfish researchers and others, as well as information available on the 
Virtual Alabama website (https://virtual.alabama.gov/) and Geographic 
Information System (GIS) data (such as species occurrence data, habitat 
data, land use topography, digital aerial photography, and ownership 
maps).
    Currently, occupied habitat is confined to two populations in 
Alabama: One in the upper Beaver Dam Spring/Creek complex in Limestone 
County, and one in Blackwell Swamp in Madison County. These two areas 
contain all of the PBFs to support life-history functions essential to 
the conservation of the species. However, these populations are at risk 
of extirpation from stochastic events such as periodic droughts and 
from existing or potential human-induced events (i.e., development, 
excessive water extraction, chemical contamination). To reduce the risk 
of losing either population through these processes, it is

[[Page 24994]]

important to establish and re-establish additional populations in areas 
where suitable habitat exists. Therefore, we attempted to identify 
unoccupied spring/stream reaches that could be essential for the 
conservation of the spring pygmy sunfish. In doing so, we first 
considered the availability of potential habitat throughout the 
historical range that may be suitable for the survival and persistence 
of the species. We eliminated from consideration spring/stream reaches 
without any historical records of spring pygmy sunfish occurrences. We 
identified two sites with recorded historical occurrences of the spring 
pygmy sunfish: One in Pryor Springs in Limestone County, Alabama, and a 
second in Cave Springs in Lauderdale County, Alabama. The Cave Spring 
site was excluded from consideration because it was inundated with the 
formation of Wheeler Reservoir in 1939. However, the Pryor Spring/
Branch site, which, prior to 2007, supported a population of spring 
pygmy sunfish west of Highway 31, was determined to have habitat 
sufficient to support the species' life-history functions and the only 
portion of the historical range in a position to support a 
reintroduction.
    The currently unoccupied Pryor Spring/Branch system provides 
habitat for population reintroduction into a separate geographic area, 
which would increase population redundancy. Establishment of a third 
population would reduce the level of threat from stochastic events, 
thereby decreasing the risk of extinction and contributing toward the 
species' eventual recovery. Accordingly, we determined that the Pryor 
Spring/Branch is essential for the conservation of the species and 
designate it as critical habitat.
    We delineated the critical habitat unit boundaries by determining 
the appropriate length within these streams by identifying the upper 
spring head (water source), spring pool, spring run, spring-fed 
wetlands, seeps, and ephemeral streams draining into the spring 
systems. We digitized the area boundary based upon visual 
interpretation of wetland vegetation using ARCGIS. The high water mark 
in springs indicates stable flow under normal conditions. As defined at 
33 CFR 329.11, the ordinary high water mark on nontidal rivers and 
streams is the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of 
water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, 
natural water line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the 
character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence 
of litter and debris; or other appropriate means that consider the 
characteristics of the surrounding areas. For the spring pools and 
associated spring-fed wetlands, the area was determined and delineated 
by the presence of emergent vegetation patterns and topography as noted 
on aerial photographs and topographical maps, and during field visits. 
In order to set the upstream and downstream limits of these critical 
habitat units, we used the spring head (water source) as the uppermost 
point, identified by topographic maps, field visits, and available 
landmarks (i.e., bridges and road crossings). Locations of the spring 
pygmy sunfish below or downstream of the spring head (water source) 
were included in order to ensure incorporation of all potential sites 
of occurrence. These stream reaches were then digitized using 7.5' 
topographic maps and ARCGIS to produce the critical habitat maps.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, 
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or 
biological features for spring pygmy sunfish. 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 final rule have been excluded by 
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 
a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger a 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 designating as critical habitat lands that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing, contain sufficient 
physical or biological features to support life-history processes 
essential for the conservation of the species and may require special 
management, and lands outside of the geographical area occupied at the 
time of listing that we have determined are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
this 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 at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010, on our 
website, https://www.fws.gov/daphne, and at the Alabama Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating three units as critical habitat for spring pygmy 
sunfish. Those three units are: (1) Beaverdam Spring/Creek, (2) Pryor 
Spring/Branch, and (3) Blackwell Swamp/Run. Units 1 and 3 were occupied 
at the time of listing, and Unit 2 was not occupied at the time of 
listing. Table 1 shows the approximate size and ownership of the units 
designated as critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish.

             Table 1--Ownership of the Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Spring Pygmy Sunfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Private         Federal
                                                   ownership skm   ownership skm   Total length    Total area ha
           Unit                   Location          (smi);  ha      (smi);  ha       skm (smi)         (ac)
                                                       (ac)            (ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                          Beaverdam............      0.8 (0.5);      4.4 (2.7);       5.2 (3.2)       342 (845)
                           Spring/Creek.........        41 (101)       301 (744)
2                          Pryor Spring/Branch..     0.2 (0.15);      3.1 (1.9);       3.4 (2.1)        73 (182)
                                                        8.1 (20)      65.6 (162)
3                          Blackwell............          0 (0);      2.3 (1.4);       2.3 (1.4)       123 (303)
                           Swamp/Run............           0 (0)       123 (303)
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24995]]

 
    Total                  .....................      1.0 (0.7);      9.8 (6.0);      10.9 (6.7)     538 (1,330)
                                                      49.1 (121)   489.6 (1,209)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Sizes may not sum due to rounding; ``skm'' means stream kilometers, and ``smi'' means stream miles.

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

Unit 1: Beaverdam Spring/Creek, Limestone County, Alabama

    Unit 1 includes a total of 5.2 km (3.2 mi) of Beaverdam Spring/
Creek, northeast of Greenbrier, Alabama, from the spring head (water 
source), 5.6 km (3.5 mi) north of Interstate 565, to 3.9 km (2.4 mi) 
south of Interstate 565. Unit 1 encompasses Moss, Horton, and Thorsen 
springs. This unit includes a total of 342 ha (845 ac). A majority of 
this unit is composed of 4.4 km (2.7 mi) of stream and 301 ha (744 ac) 
of spring/creek complex owned by the Service as part of the Wheeler 
National Wildlife Refuge. A portion of Unit 1, consisting of 0.8 km 
(0.5 mi) of stream and a total area of 41 ha (101 ac), is privately 
owned.
    To describe the layout of Unit 1, we have separated it into three 
subunits. Subunit A is a small, narrow strip of wetlands in an area of 
7.2 ha (17.9 ac) on the northeastern side of the Unit 1. Subunit B 
covers 69 ha (170.4 ac) just to the north of I-565, and Subunit C 
covers 265.7 ha (656.6 ac) just to the south of I-565.
    Unit 1 is currently occupied by the species and contains all of the 
PBFs essential to its conservation. This unit provides habitat for the 
spring pygmy sunfish with adequate numbers of spring pools, spring fed 
wetlands, and spring runs (PBF 1). Submergent, emergent, and semi-
emergent types of aquatic vegetation are present in this unit (PBF 5), 
providing sites for shelter, spawning, and other essential life-history 
processes for the spring pygmy sunfish, as well as for the prey items 
for the species, which also are present in the unit (PBF 4). All water 
quality parameters (PBF 2) and instream flow levels (PBF 3) in Unit 1 
are within a suitable range to support the species' needs for survival.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within Unit 1 to address reduced groundwater or surface flows, 
degradation of water quality, and sedimentation, which can change the 
composition and reduce abundance of native vegetation, alter bottom 
substrates, and, through deposition over time, modify the natural 
sinuosity or form of stream channels within the spring system. Sources 
of these stressors to spring pygmy sunfish are encroaching 
urbanization, industrialization activities, inadequate stormwater 
management, water diversion, construction projects and maintenance 
activities, culvert and pipe installation, and other watershed and 
floodplain disturbances that increase erosion and release sediments or 
nutrients into the water.

Unit 2: Pryor Spring/Branch, Limestone County, Alabama

    Unit 2 includes 3.4 km (2.1 mi) of Pryor Spring and Pryor Branch 
from the spring head, about 3.7 mi (5.9 km) south of Tanner, Alabama, 
and just east of Highway 31, downstream to the bridge where it 
intersects with Harris Station/Thomas L. Hammons Road. This also 
includes a total of 73.6 ha (182 ac) in area. Within this unit, almost 
3.1 km (1.9 mi) of the stream reach (93 percent), and 65.6 ha (162 ac) 
of the land area (89 percent), are federally owned by the Tennessee 
Valley Authority and managed by the State as the Swan Creek Wildlife 
Management Area. The remaining 0.2 km (0.15 mi) of stream reach (7 
percent) and 8.1 ha (20 ac) (11 percent) of land are privately owned.
    Unit 2 is currently unoccupied but historically was a location for 
the spring pygmy sunfish. The Pryor Spring/Branch system contains 
scattered spring-influenced wetlands, spring pools, spring runs, and 
shallow water wetlands on the margins of small tributaries. Populations 
of spring pygmy sunfish were historically noted as small and isolated 
within specific habitat sites of Pryor Spring/Branch.
    A portion of the spring head has been mechanically deepened and the 
banks steepened in order to promote water extraction for cropland 
irrigation. Nevertheless, there is significant flow of groundwater 
entering the system throughout the year from the springhead. Adequate 
aquatic vegetation occurs in areas throughout this spring system, 
providing potential habitat for the normal life stages and behavior of 
the spring pygmy sunfish and the species' prey sources. Water flow from 
the main springhead (water source), along with other unidentified 
springs and seeps within the system, provides sufficient water quantity 
to allow for connectivity between spawning, rearing, foraging, and 
resting sites, promoting gene flow throughout the spring system. While 
the existence of PBFs is not necessary for the designation of 
unoccupied habitat, the presence of PBFs, even though not all are in 
optimal form, in portions of Unit 2 indicates Pryor Spring/Branch is a 
valuable site that can contribute toward conservation of the spring 
pygmy sunfish. Further, as this species is only known from two 
populations, it is important that additional populations be established 
as a buffer against extirpation at either known site from stochastic 
events, such as drought, or a catastrophic event, such as an accidental 
contaminant spill.
    Therefore, we have determined this unit is essential for the 
conservation of the species because it provides potential for the re-
establishment of an additional population of the spring pygmy sunfish, 
thereby reducing this species' risk of extinction and contributing its 
eventual recovery.

Unit 3: Blackwell Swamp/Run, Madison County, Alabama

    Unit 3 includes a total of 123 ha (303 ac) of land and 2.3 stream 
km (1.4 stream mi), all of which is federally owned within the Wheeler 
National Wildlife Refuge in Madison County, Alabama. This unit is 
located about 4.3 km (2.7 mi) due west of the town of Triana. This unit 
is 0.96 km (0.6 mi) north of Blackwell Run's confluence with the 
Tennessee River; approximately 1 km (0.5 mi) south of Swancott Road SW; 
about 1 km (0.5 mi) west of Landess Circle; and just to the east of B. 
Road/County Line Road SW. Unit 3 is currently occupied by spring pygmy 
sunfish. The spring pygmy sunfish was not known from Blackwell Swamp 
until it was captured during surveys in 2015. Based on the proximity of 
Blackwell Swamp to other localities

[[Page 24996]]

where the species occurs or did occur, and the shared connection of 
these localities to the Tennessee River, we presume that the spring 
pygmy sunfish was present at the time of listing and that the 
population is native to the site. Unit 3 provides habitat for the 
spring pygmy sunfish via the spring systems of Blackwell Swamp, which 
include spring runs and a large spring-fed pool that was enlarged after 
Blackwell Spring Run was impounded.
    Unit 3 contains all of the PBFs essential to the species' survival 
and eventual recovery. It is a spring system (PBF1) with adequate water 
quality (PBF 2), water quantity and flow (PBF 3), and a diversity of 
aquatic vegetation (PBF 5) to support the normal life stages and 
behavior of the spring pygmy sunfish and its prey sources (PBF 4). 
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge actively manages water levels in Unit 
3 to enhance use by waterfowl. The water in the unit is replenished by 
surface flow from runoff, a small stream in the northeast corner, and 
numerous spring seeps of the Blackwell Spring system. The Tennessee 
River does not influence the spring pool unless allowed to enter the 
pool through a water control structure, which may occur in the course 
of waterfowl management.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required in 
Unit 3 to address degradation of water quality, and sedimentation, 
which can change the composition and reduce abundance of native 
vegetation, alter bottom substrates, and, through deposition over time, 
modify the natural sinuosity or form of stream channels within the 
spring system. Potential stressors to the spring pygmy sunfish and its 
habitat in this unit include structures, such as boat ramps; an 
unpaved, gravel-maintained, refuge road (11.7 km; 7.3 mi) circling the 
unit; and sewer, gas, and water easements, including a City of 
Huntsville sewer line right-of-way to the east. Additional stressors 
outside and adjacent to the unit are the same as described for Unit 1.

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 with 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 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
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 spring pygmy sunfish. Such 
alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the 
physical or biological features 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 physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of a listed species and provide for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any

[[Page 24997]]

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 spring pygmy sunfish. These activities include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would alter the geomorphology of the spring system 
and its associated habitats. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, instream excavation or dredging, impoundment, 
channelization, and discharge of fill materials. These activities could 
cause aggradation or degradation of the channel bed elevation or 
significant bank erosion and result in entrainment or burial of this 
species, destruction of associated aquatic vegetation, and other direct 
or cumulative adverse effects to this species and its life cycle.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter the existing flow 
regime, related aquifer, and recharge areas. Such activities could 
include, but are not limited to, impoundments; water diversion; channel 
constriction or widening; placement of pipes, culverts, or bridges; and 
groundwater and surface water extraction. These activities could 
eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for growth, reproduction, and 
connectivity of spring pygmy sunfish populations.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or water 
quality (e.g., temperature, pH, contaminants, and excess nutrients). 
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, the 
unsustainable use or release of chemicals, such as pesticides and 
fertilizers and biological pollutants, into surface water or 
groundwater. These activities could alter water conditions that are 
beyond the tolerances of this species and result in direct or 
cumulative adverse effects to the species and its life cycle.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter streambed material 
composition and quality by increasing sediment deposition or 
filamentous algal growth. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, construction and maintenance projects of subdivisions, 
roads, bridges, stormwater systems, and utility easements; 
unsustainable livestock grazing and timber harvest; off-road vehicle 
use; and other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release 
sediments or nutrients into the water through stormwater runoff. These 
activities could eliminate or reduce habitats necessary for the growth 
and reproduction of the spring pygmy sunfish by causing excessive 
sedimentation and a decrease in water quality for the species and 
associated vegetation and prey base by nitrification, leading to 
excessive filamentous algal growth, turbidity, and an increase in water 
temperatures.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat 
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the 
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to 
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no 
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the final 
critical habitat designation.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the 
protection from destruction of adverse modification as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation, and the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement 
of partnerships.
    In the case of the spring pygmy sunfish, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the presence of the species and the 
importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, 
increased habitat protection for the spring pygmy sunfish due to the 
protection from destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Additionally, continued implementation of an ongoing 
management plan that provides conservation equal to or greater than a 
critical habitat designation reduces the benefits of including that 
specific area in the critical habitat designation.
    We evaluate existing conservation plans when considering the 
benefits of exclusion. We consider a variety of factors including, but 
not limited to, whether the plan is finalized, how it provides for the 
conservation of the essential physical or biological features, whether 
there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation management 
strategies and actions contained in a management plan will be 
implemented into the future, whether the conservation strategies in the 
plan are likely to be effective, and whether the plan contains a 
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in 
response to new information.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two to determine whether the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis indicates 
that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, we 
then determine whether exclusion would result in extinction of the 
species. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result in 
extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.

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. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, constituted 
our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat 
designation and related factors (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 
2013a).

[[Page 24998]]

The analysis, dated March 14, 2013, was made available for public 
review and comment from April 29, 2013, through May 29, 2013 (78 FR 
25033; April 29, 2013). The DEA addressed probable economic impacts of 
critical habitat designation for the spring pygmy sunfish. Following 
the close of the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all 
information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our 
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. Additional information relevant to the 
probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation 
for the spring pygmy sunfish is summarized below and available in the 
final economic analysis (FEA, or screening analysis) for the spring 
pygmy sunfish (IEc 2013b), available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    The intent of the FEA is to quantify the economic impacts generated 
by the critical habitat designation for the spring pygmy. The economic 
impact of the final 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, considering protections 
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and 
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, 
represents the costs 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 are those not expected to occur absent 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 consider in the final designation of critical habitat.
    The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to 
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group 
or economic sector. The FEA considers those costs likely to occur in 
the 20 years following the designation of critical habitat, which was 
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited 
planning information was available for most activities to forecast 
activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA 
quantifies economic impacts of the spring pygmy sunfish's conservation 
efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) 
Residential, commercial, and industrial development; (2) transportation 
and utilities; (3) groundwater and surface water extraction; (4) 
silviculture, agriculture, and grazing; and (5) dredging, impoundment, 
and channelization.
    The FEA estimates the present value of the total incremental cost 
of critical habitat designation is $160,000 over the next 20 years 
(assuming a 7 percent discount rate), or $15,000 on an annualized 
basis. The incremental impacts of critical habitat designation in Units 
1 and 2 (Unit 3 is discussed below) will be limited to additional 
administrative costs to the Service, Federal agencies, and private 
third parties. Transportation and utility activities are likely to be 
subject to the greatest incremental administrative impacts (forecast to 
be $85,000), followed by development ($62,000) and silviculture, 
agriculture, and grazing ($18,000) (all estimates expressed as present 
values over 20 years, assuming a 7 percent discount rate). No 
incremental impacts are anticipated for dredging, impoundment, and 
channelization, as these activities have not occurred within the study 
area for the past 10 years and are not forecast to occur in the future.
    The overarching uncertainty in this analysis is the potential 
future effect of the critical habitat designation on water withdrawals. 
There is currently insufficient hydrological information to link 
particular withdrawal events (e.g., irrigated agriculture or municipal 
and industrial uses) with the PBFs of the critical habitat for the 
spring pygmy sunfish. As such, we are unable to determine the potential 
for a withdrawal to generate adverse modification of critical habitat 
at this time.
    After the spring pygmy sunfish was discovered in Blackwell Swamp on 
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, we proposed to add Unit 3 to the 
critical habitat designation (83 FR 55341; November 5, 2018), which 
occurred after the FEA was complete. In areas where the spring pygmy 
sunfish is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult 
with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the species. Therefore, 
the FEA prepared for Units 1 and 2 is not significantly affected by the 
addition of Unit 3 to critical habitat.
    A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting documents 
may be obtained by contacting the Alabama Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    The Service considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation. The Secretary is not exercising his discretion to exclude 
any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the spring 
pygmy sunfish based on economic impacts.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see above) may not cover all 
Department of Defense (DoD) lands or areas that pose potential 
national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is in the 
process of revising its INRMP for a newly listed species or a species 
previously not covered). If a particular area is not covered under 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), national security or homeland security concerns 
are not a factor in the process of determining which areas meet the 
definition of ``critical habitat.'' Nevertheless, when designating 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2), the Service must consider 
impacts on national security, including homeland security, on lands or 
areas not covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always 
consider for exclusion from the designation areas for which DoD, 
Department of Homeland Security, or another Federal agency has 
requested exclusion based on an assertion of national-security or 
homeland-security concerns. No such requests have been made for this 
species. Consequently, the Secretary is not exerting his discretion to 
exclude any areas from the final designation based on impacts on 
national security or homeland-security concerns.

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

[[Page 24999]]

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 (CCAAs), or whether there are 
non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and 
partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of 
the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits 
Under Section 10 of the Act
    CCAAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve candidate and 
listed species on non-Federal lands. In exchange for actions that 
contribute to the conservation of species on non-Federal lands, 
participating property owners are covered by an ``enhancement of 
survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which 
authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may result from 
implementation of conservation actions and specific land uses The 
Service also provides enrollees assurances that we will not impose 
further land, water, or resource-use restrictions, or require 
additional commitments of land, water, or finances, beyond those agreed 
to in the agreements.
    When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis, we will always consider areas covered by an approved CCAA, 
and generally exclude such areas from a designation of critical habitat 
if three conditions are met:
    (1) The permittee is properly implementing the CCAA, and is 
expected to continue to do so for its entire term. A CCAA is properly 
implemented if the permittee is, and has been, fully implementing the 
commitments and provisions in the CCAA, implementing agreement, and 
permit.
    (2) The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a 
covered species in the CCAA, or very similar in its habitat 
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Service 
extends to an agreement for a similar species depends on the degree to 
which the conservation measures undertaken in the CCAA would also 
protect the habitat features of the similar species.
    (3) The CCAA specifically addresses the habitat of the species for 
which critical habitat is being designated and meets the conservation 
needs of the species in the planning area.
    We have determined that three CCAAs (Belle Mina Farms Ltd., 
McDonald Farms, and Horton Farm) fulfill all the above criteria, and 
thus, we are excluding from critical habitat designation non-Federal 
lands covered by these plans that provide for the conservation of the 
spring pygmy sunfish. These CCAAs cover 37 percent of the habitat for 
the species in the Beaverdam Spring/Creek complex (Unit 1). They ensure 
that, as long as the CCAAs are in existence, about 88 percent of the 
recently delineated recharge zone for Beaverdam Spring will remain in 
its present state as agricultural lands. The CCAAs outline a variety of 
conservation measures that are being implemented, ranging from 
restriction of cattle access to protection of the riparian buffer 
adjacent to the spring and spring run habitat.
Benefits of Inclusion
    By being included in critical habitat, the areas would be subject 
to consultation for Federal actions under the adverse modification 
standard. Activities with a Federal nexus outside of the purview of the 
CCAA activities would require section 7 consultation. These could 
include activities carried out by parties other than the permit 
holders, and projects such as road and right-of-way construction, 
stream channelization, and culvert construction. As previously noted, 
the spring pygmy sunfish faces threats from water withdrawal, and from 
potential large-scale industrial urbanization and residential 
development planned adjacent to its habitat from entities other than 
the CCAA permit holders. The use of best management practices outlined 
in the CCAA is an important measure in conserving the spring pygmy 
sunfish, particularly in situations of agricultural land use within the 
watershed and with the current landowners. However, if and when land 
use changes to industrialization and urbanization, as is planned in 
part of this area, the best management practices included in these 
CCAAs by themselves are inadequate to address the complex issues that 
can impact the spring pygmy sunfish and its habitat such as aquifer 
recharge, stormwater management, and chemical transport in association 
with development. Therefore, the primary benefit of section 7 
consultation and any critical habitat designation is to address actions 
outside the scope of the CCAAs and the control of the permit holders 
(e.g., industrial and residential development adjacent to CCAA 
controlled lands, utility line and road development, and adjacent water 
withdrawal).
    As mentioned earlier in this document and in the FEA, the Service 
does not anticipate additional requirements for critical habitat beyond 
those required for the species being listed. However there could be an 
incremental benefit to the species from the resultant section 7 
consultation required by projects other than those conducted in 
accordance with the CCAAs. Any additional benefits of critical habitat 
inclusion in the CCAA areas would be small, because those benefits 
would be added to the benefits of the best management practices already 
required by the CCAAs, and a section 7 consultation within a CCAA area 
will be, at most, a rare occurrence (see our response to comment 1, 
under Peer Review Comments).
    An additional benefit of inclusion of CCAA-enrolled lands in 
critical habitat is that the critical habitat (and its incremental 
benefit under section 7) will remain in place regardless of whether or 
not the CCAAs persist. Final critical habitat designation becomes 
Federal regulation, while these CCAAs can be terminated with 30-days' 
written notice. If the CCAAs are terminated, the associated permit 
would no longer be valid, and the full protection of sections 7 and 9 
of the Act would be in effect in the areas currently covered. However, 
there would nonetheless be a slight incremental benefit to having 
critical habitat in this scenario through the benefits critical habitat 
provides under section 7 of the Act.
    An additional benefit of including these CCAA-enrolled lands in a 
critical habitat designation is that the designation could serve to 
educate landowners, State and local governments, and the public 
regarding the importance of this area to spring pygmy sunfish 
conservation. Critical habitat designation, including the CCAA-enrolled 
lands, and publication of the maps identifying the area that contains 
the physical and biological features needed for the species' life-
history processes, could be beneficial as we work with our partners to 
avoid and minimize the impact of any development on this species and 
its habitat early in the process. However, through the publication of 
the proposed critical habitat rule and this final critical habitat 
rule, we have publicly identified the areas that are essential to the 
conservation of the spring pygmy sunfish, and we will continue to work 
closely with the City of Huntsville and project applicants.

[[Page 25000]]

Benefits of Exclusion
    The large majority of occupied habitat for this species remains on 
privately owned lands enrolled under these CCAAs. Partnership with 
these landowners is absolutely essential to conserving the spring pygmy 
sunfish. The benefits of excluding the CCAA-enrolled lands from 
critical habitat can strengthen the existing relationship between these 
landowners and the Service, which, as outlined above, has already led 
to many conservation benefits for the species. Exclusion will likewise 
improve the potential to enroll other landowners who own land essential 
to the spring pygmy sunfish.
    Additionally, the designation of critical habitat could have an 
unintended negative effect on the Service's relationship with other 
non-Federal landowners that own areas identified as essential to the 
spring pygmy sunfish but that are not enrolled in CCAAs due to the 
perceived imposition of redundant government regulation. If lands 
within the area covered by the CCAA for the benefit of the species are 
designated as critical habitat, it could have a dampening effect on our 
continued ability to form new partnerships with future participants, 
including States, counties, local jurisdictions, conservation 
organizations, and private landowners, which together can implement 
various conservation actions (such as CCAAs) and other conservation 
plans (particularly large, regional conservation plans that involve 
numerous participants or address landscape-level conservation of 
species and habitats) that we would be unable to accomplish otherwise.
    When we evaluate whether a current land management or conservation 
plan provides adequate management or protection, we consider a variety 
of factors, including, but not limited to, whether the plan is 
finalized, how it provides for the conservation of the essential 
physical or biological features, whether there is reasonable 
expectation that the conservation management strategies actions 
contained in a management plan are likely to be effective, and whether 
the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure 
that the conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the 
future in response to new information. These CCAAs actively protect the 
spring pygmy sunfish from many of the current threats the species 
faces. The CCAAs have been in place for approximately 5 years, and thus 
far, the terms and conditions of the agreements have been met. 
Therefore, the plans are currently providing a benefit to the spring 
pygmy sunfish, and it is expected that they will continue to do so for 
their duration.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion
    The Secretary has determined that the benefits of excluding the 
areas covered by the Belle Mina Farms Ltd., McDonald Farms, and Horton 
Farm CCAAs from the designation of critical habitat for the species 
outweigh the benefits of including the covered areas in critical 
habitat. Since these CCAAs were approved in early 2014, the landowners 
have been carrying out conservation activities benefitting the spring 
pygmy sunfish that may not have been carried out otherwise (benefits 
that are not related to section 7 protection under the Act). The 
landowners are committed to the CCAAs, and through monitoring and 
collaboration, we are securing data and scientific information to 
better inform decisions. The CCAAs cover only non-Federal lands. Any 
Federal nexus on these lands would likely result from actions not 
covered by the CCAA. Thus, there would still be need for section 7 
consultation on projects outside of the purview of the CCAA activities 
that have a Federal nexus as a result of Federal actions, 
authorizations, or funding. However, the benefits of inclusion in 
critical habitat at these sites would be minimized because they are 
occupied by the species and section 7 consultation will still be 
invoked to consider the project effects on the species.
    Exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help foster the 
partnership we have developed with the landowners that own the majority 
of occupied spring pygmy sunfish habitat. Recognizing the important 
contributions of our conservation partners through exclusion from 
critical habitat helps to preserve these partnerships, and helps foster 
future partnerships for the benefit of this and other listed species, 
the majority of which do not occur on Federal lands; we consider this 
to be a substantial benefit of exclusion. For these reasons, we have 
determined that the benefits of exclusion of these CCAAs outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion for the spring pygmy sunfish.
Exclusion Will Not Result in the Extinction of the Species
    We have concluded that the existing protections under the Act, plus 
the protections afforded by the CCAAs, will be sufficient to prevent 
extinction of the spring pygmy sunfish. In the absence of critical 
habitat, the areas will still be protected through sections 7 and 9 of 
the Act due to the presence of the species. The CCAAs provide an 
additional protection to the species because conservation measures to 
protect habitat are implemented for the duration of the CCAA, whereas 
without a CCAA, measures to protect the species' habitat in critical 
habitat or in occupied habitat occur only when there is a project with 
Federal nexus, which will be a rare occurrence on private lands. 
Additionally, one population and a portion of another population will 
remain within designated critical habitat.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments we received, we evaluated 
whether certain lands in the proposed critical habitat were appropriate 
for exclusion from this final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act. All areas considered were within Unit 1. As shown in Table 
2, we are excluding the following areas from critical habitat 
designation for the spring pygmy sunfish because of their enrollment in 
CCAAs:

 Table 2--Areas Included and Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation
                                in Unit 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Areas meeting
                                          the definition  Areas excluded
              Specific area                 of critical    from critical
                                           habitat,  ha     habitat, ha
                                               (ac)            (ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit A...............................      7.2 (17.9)           0 (0)
Subunit B...............................    69.0 (170.4)           0 (0)
Subunit C...............................   265.7 (656.6)           0 (0)
Belle Mina Farms CCAA...................      62.7 (155)      62.7 (155)
McDonald Farms CCAA.....................      81.7 (202)      81.7 (202)

[[Page 25001]]

 
Horton Farm CCAA........................      59.1 (146)      59.1 (146)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 
further that regulations must be based on the best available science 
and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and 
an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

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 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 the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this critical 
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted to us during the comment period 
that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental 
economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on this 
information, we affirm our certification that this critical habitat 
designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this E.O. 
that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse 
effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory action under 
consideration.
    The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria is relevant 
to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic analysis, 
energy-related impacts associated with spring pygmy sunfish 
conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected. As 
such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.

[[Page 25002]]

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 rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments. By definition, Federal agencies are not 
considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit 
may be proposed or carried out by small entities. Consequently, we do 
not believe that the critical habitat designation will significantly or 
uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish in a takings implications 
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private 
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of 
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not 
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on 
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation 
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not 
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of 
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to 
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go 
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, 
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed 
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the spring 
pygmy sunfish does not pose significant takings implications for lands 
within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies in Alabama. We received comments 
from the Geological Survey of Alabama and have addressed them under 
Summary of Comments and Recommendations, above. 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, this rule does not have 
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological 
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species 
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and 
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist 
these local governments in long-range planning (because these local 
governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) will be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial

[[Page 25003]]

system and that it meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the species, the rule identifies the 
elements of physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the spring pygmy sunfish. The designated areas of 
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several 
options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location 
information, if desired.

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

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

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

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

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited is available on the 
internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Alabama Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the 
Alabama Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Sunfish, spring 
pygmy'' under FISHES in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Fishes
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sunfish, spring pygmy...........  Elassoma alabamae.  Wherever found....  T              78 FR 60766, 10/2/2013;
                                                                                          50 CFR 17.95(e).\CH.\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``Spring 
Pygmy Sunfish (Elassoma alabamae)'', in the same order that the species 
appears in the table at Sec.  17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Spring Pygmy Sunfish (Elassoma alabamae)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Limestone and Madison 
Counties, Alabama, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the spring pygmy sunfish consist of 
the following components:
    (i) Spring system. Springs, and connecting spring-fed reaches and 
wetlands, that are geomorphically stable and relatively low-gradient. 
This includes headwater springs with spring heads (water source), 
spring runs, and spring pools that filter into shallow, vegetated 
wetlands.
    (ii) Water quality. Yearly averages of water quality with optimal 
temperatures of 57.2 to 68 [deg]F (14 to 20 [deg]C); pH of 6.0 to 7.7; 
dissolved oxygen of 6.0 parts per million (ppm) or greater; low 
concentrations of free or suspended solids with turbidity measuring 
less than 15 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) and 20 milligrams per 
liter (mg/l) total suspended solids (TSS).
    (iii) Hydrology. A hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, frequency, 
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain 
spring habitats. The instream flow from groundwater sources (springs 
and seeps) maintains an adequate velocity and a continuous daily 
discharge from the aquifer that allows for connectivity between 
habitats. Instream flow is stable and does not vary during water 
extraction,

[[Page 25004]]

and the aquifer recharge maintains adequate levels to supply water flow 
to the spring head. The flow regime does not significantly change 
during storm events.
    (iv) Prey base, or food. Macroinvertebrates including Daphnia spp., 
amphipods, chironomids (non-biting midges), or small snails.
    (v) Vegetation. Aquatic, emergent and semi-emergent vegetation 
along the margins of spring runs and submergent vegetation that is 
adequate for breeding, reproducing, and rearing young; providing cover 
and shelter from predators; and supporting the macroinvertebrate prey 
base. Important species include submergent filamentous vegetation such 
as Ceratophyllum echinatum (spineless hornwort), Myriophyllum 
heterophyllum (two-leaf water milfoil), and Hydrilla verticillata 
(native hydrilla); emergent vegetation such as Sparganium spp. (bur 
reed), Polygonum spp. (smartweed), Nasturtium officinale (watercress), 
Juncus spp. (rush), and Carex spp. (sedges); and semi-emergent 
vegetation such as Nuphar luteum (yellow pond lily), Utricularia spp. 
(bladderwort), and Callitriche spp. (water starwort).
    (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 
July 1, 2019.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of U.S. Geological Survey digital topographic map 
quadrangle (Greenbrier and Mason Ridge) and a U.S. Department of 
Agriculture 2007 digital ortho-photo mosaic, in addition to National 
Wetland Inventory maps. The resulting critical habitat unit was then 
mapped using State Plane North American Datum (NAD) 83 coordinates. The 
maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, 
establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are 
available to the public at the Service's internet site at http://www.fws.gov/daphne, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2013-0010, 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 25005]]

    (5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY19.023

    (6) Unit 1: Beaverdam Spring/Creek, Limestone County, Alabama.
    (i) General description. Unit 1 consists of 342 hectares (845 
acres) and includes a total of 5.2 kilometers (3.2 miles) of spring/
stream complex in Limestone County, Alabama, northeast of Greenbrier. 
Unit 1 includes three subunits. Subunit A is a privately owned wetland, 
with an area of approximately 7.2 hectares (17.9 acres), located 0.38 
kilometers (0.23 miles) west of Chestnut Heath Drive. Subunit B 
consists of 69 hectares (170.4 acres) and is located partly in Wheeler 
National Wildlife Refuge (36.7 hectares (90.6 acres)), north of the 
edge of I-565. The private portion of Subunit B (32.3 hectares (79.8 
acres)) extends northward, from the northeast refuge boundary along the 
east side of the Beaverdam Spring complex, to 0.2 kilometers (0.12 
miles) south of Old Highway 20. Subunit C is approximately 265.7 
hectares (656.6 acres) and is located in Wheeler National Wildlife 
Refuge, extending 3.9 kilometers (2.4 miles) south from I-565. All of 
Subunit C is on refuge land except Thorsen Spring Pool (1.2 hectares 
(3.0 acres)), which is privately held. In total, the privately owned 
portion of Unit 1 consists of 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of stream in 
an area of 41 hectares (101 acres).

[[Page 25006]]

    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY19.024
    
    (7) Unit 2: Pryor Spring/Branch, Limestone County, Alabama.
    (i) General description. Unit 2 includes 3.4 kilometers (2.1 miles) 
of Pryor Spring and Pryor Branch from the spring head (water source), 
about 3.7 miles (5.9 kilometers) south of Tanner, Alabama, and just 
east of Highway 31, downstream to the bridge where it intersects with 
Harris Station/Thomas L. Hammons Road. This includes a total of 73.6 
hectares (182 acres) in area, mostly

[[Page 25007]]

owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority and managed by the Alabama 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as the Swan Creek 
Wildlife Management Area. The privately held portion of Unit 2 contains 
0.24 kilometers (0.15 miles) of stream in an area of 8.1 hectares (20 
acres).
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY19.025
    
    (8) Unit 3: Blackwell Swamp/Run, Madison County, Alabama.
    (i) General description. Unit 3 includes a total of 123 hectares 
(303 acres) of land and 2.3 stream kilometers (1.4 stream miles), all 
which is federally owned within the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge. 
Unit 3 is located

[[Page 25008]]

approximately 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) due west of Triana. This unit 
is 0.96 kilometers (0.6 miles) north of Blackwell Run's confluence with 
the Tennessee River; approximately 1 kilometer (0.5 miles) south of 
Swancott Road SW; about 1 kilometer (0.5 miles) west of Landess Circle; 
and just to the east of B Road/County Line Road SW.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY19.026
    

[[Page 25009]]


* * * * *

    Dated: May 20, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, exercising 
the authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-11302 Filed 5-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C