[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65098-65112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25548]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0062; FXES11130900000-189-FF0932000]
RIN 1018-BD02
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Nashville Crayfish From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the Nashville crayfish (Orconectes shoupi), a relatively large
crayfish native to the Mill Creek watershed in Davidson and Williamson
Counties, Tennessee, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (List). This determination is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the threats to the
species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species
has recovered and no longer meets the definition of an endangered or a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). We also announce the availability of a draft post-delisting
monitoring (PDM) plan for the Nashville crayfish. We seek information,
data, and comments from the public regarding this proposal to remove
the Nashville crayfish from the List (i.e., ``delist'' the species) and
regarding the draft PDM plan.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
January 27, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 10, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments on this proposed
rule by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2018-0062,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2018-0062; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Document availability: This proposed rule, the draft PDM plan, and
supporting documents (including the species status assessment (SSA)
report, references cited, and the 5-year review) are available at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0062.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office,
446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38506; telephone 931-528-6481. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments and information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning this proposed rule. Because we will
consider all comments and information we receive during the comment
period, our final determination may differ from this proposal. We
particularly seek comments on:
(1) Information concerning the biology and ecology of the Nashville
crayfish;
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the
Nashville crayfish, particularly any data on the possible effects of
climate change as it relates to habitat, and the extent of State
protection and management that would be provided to this crayfish as a
delisted species;
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the Nashville crayfish that may negatively impact or benefit the
species; and
(4) The draft PDM plan and the methods and approach detailed in it.
Please include sufficient information (such as scientific journal
articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include. All comments submitted
electronically via http://www.regulations.gov will be presented on the
website in their entirety as submitted. For comments submitted via hard
copy, we will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the listing action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is
an endangered or a threatened species must be made ``solely on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if
[[Page 65099]]
requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of
publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register (see DATES).
Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register at least 15 days before the hearing.
Previous Federal Actions
On September 26, 1986, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (51 FR 34410) listing the Nashville crayfish as endangered due
to siltation, stream alterations, and water quality deterioration
resulting from urban development pressures. On February 8, 1989, we
released a recovery plan for the Nashville crayfish (USFWS 1989,
entire). The latest 5-year review for the species, completed in
February 2017, recommended reclassifying the Nashville crayfish to a
threatened species due to recovery (USFWS 2017a, entire). Based on this
recommendation, a species status assessment (SSA) was initiated and
completed. Six peer reviewers were requested to review the SSA and
provide feedback. Reviewers were selected based on their knowledge of
the species' biology and habitat. Two peer reviewers submitted
feedback. One of the commenters informed us that Nashville crayfish
have been observed to be active on the surface diurnally during certain
times of the year and suggested we add otters as predators to the
crayfish. Another commenter asked about the conservation work being
done by two Tennessee agencies. This information was incorporated into
the final SSA and this proposed rule.
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of the Nashville crayfish is presented in the SSA
report (USFWS 2017b; available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0062).
The Nashville crayfish is endemic to the Mill Creek watershed south
of Nashville in Davidson and Williamson Counties, Tennessee. The
species is currently known to occur in Mill Creek and its tributaries,
including Collins Creek, Owl Creek, Edmonson Branch, Sims Branch,
Sevenmile Creek, Sorghum Branch, Whittemore Branch, Turkey Creek,
Indian Creek, Holt Creek, four unnamed tributaries to Mill Creek, and
one unnamed tributary to Owl Creek (USFWS 2017b, p. 5). There has been
no change in the distribution of the species within its historical
range (USFWS 2016, unpublished data).
Biologists conducting the pre-listing status survey for the species
surveyed 148 streams in the following central Tennessee drainages
(Korgi and O'Bara 1985, entire): Collins River, Stones River, Caney
Fork River, Cumberland River, Red River, Mill Creek, Harpeth River, and
Elk River. Nashville crayfish were only found in Mill Creek and its
tributaries.
Nonetheless, at the time of listing in 1986, the species was
thought to have occurred historically in several locations outside of
the Mill Creek watershed, including Big Creek in Giles County (Elk
River drainage), the South Harpeth River in Davidson County (Harpeth
River drainage), and Richland Creek in Davidson County (Cumberland
River drainage) (USFWS 1987, entire). The Service now believes that the
Big Creek and South Harpeth River records are the result of accidental
introduction by anglers using the species as bait and are no longer
thought to be historical locations for the crayfish (USFWS 2017b, p.
4). The Service originally believed that the Richland Creek occurrence
had been displaced by a more competitive crayfish species (USFWS 2017b,
p. 4). However, it was later determined that specimens of Nashville
crayfish (Orconectes shoupi) collected from Richland Creek were
misidentified, and the collections were subsequently correctly
identified as the bigclaw crayfish (Orconectes placidus) (USFWS 1989,
entire). In short, we now conclude that Mill Creek and its tributaries
constitute both the historical and current ranges of the species.
The Nashville crayfish is a relatively large crayfish ranging from
young-of-the-year at about 0.6 centimeters (cm) (0.24 inches (in))
total length (TL) to adults at about 17.8 cm (7 in) (TDNA 2009, p. 11;
O'Bara et al. 1985, entire). Other Orconectes species reported from the
Mill Creek watershed, including O. rhoadesi and O. durelli, can easily
be distinguished from the Nashville crayfish by gonopod (reproductive)
structure and body coloration. However, even young-of-the-year crayfish
from the Mill Creek watershed often can be identified as the Nashville
crayfish, as no other saddle-bearing species are present in the system.
The saddle-bearing features include elongate pincers with red tips and
adjacent narrow black banding, a usually light-colored ``saddle'' on
the carapace extending from the posterior to the anterior and
terminating as lateral stripes on both sides, and distinctive gonopods
markedly different from any of its congeners.
The Nashville crayfish has been found in a wide range of
environments, including gravel and cobble runs, pools with up to 10 cm
(3.9 in) of settled sediment, and in small pools with intermittent flow
(Stark 1986, 44 pp; Miller and Hartfield 1985, entire). The species has
also been found in impoundments that include overflow pools and
retention ponds adjacent to Mill Creek and its tributaries (Cook and
Walton 2008, p. 121; Service 2011, entire). It is estimated that
approximately 54 percent (104 stream miles) of the 192 stream miles of
the Mill Creek watershed that have the potential to support Nashville
crayfish is currently occupied by the species (USFWS 2017b, p. 30).
Population estimates from surveys are limited to the mainstem of
Mill Creek and Sevenmile Creek, although surveys in other streams have
detected Nashville crayfish and indicate consistent presence over time
(USFWS 2017, pp. 29-30, 35-40). Between 1999 and 2001, surveys
conducted within the mainstem and Sevenmile Creek led to overall
estimates of 1,854 to 3,217 individuals and 404 to 1,425 individuals
per 100 linear meters, respectively. (USFWS 2017b, p. 29). Long-term
monitoring, conducted between 2011 and 2015, has documented a total of
1,763 crayfish per 100 linear meters at five main stem Mill Creek
sampling sites. This long-term monitoring, conducted by the Nashville
Zoo, found Nashville crayfish to be the predominant species, comprising
more than 90 percent of all crayfish documented at all five sites
surveyed. According to these surveys, the Nashville crayfish has
remained stable throughout the Mill Creek watershed.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species because of any factors affecting its
continued existence. The SSA report documents the results of our
comprehensive biological status review for the Nashville crayfish,
including an assessment of the potential stressors to the species. The
SSA report does not represent a decision by the Service on whether the
species should be listed as an endangered or a threatened species under
the Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis for our
regulatory decision, which involves the further application of
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the
SSA
[[Page 65100]]
report; the full SSA report can be found on the Southeast Region
website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0062.
Summary of SSA Report
To assess the Nashville crayfish's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency
supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); representation supports the ability of the species to adapt
over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate
changes); and redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, hazardous
spills). In general, the more redundant and resilient a species is and
the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain
populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions.
Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological
requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual,
population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk
factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be divided into three sequential stages. During
the first stage, we use the conservation biology principles of
resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3Rs) to
evaluate individual life-history needs. The next stage involves an
assessment of the historical and current condition of species'
demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of
how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of
the SSA involves making predictions about the species' responses to
positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. This
process uses the best available information to characterize viability
as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over
time. We used this information to inform our decision in this proposed
rule.
Species Needs
For the Nashville crayfish to maintain viability, its populations
or some portion thereof must be resilient. Stochastic factors that have
the potential to affect Nashville crayfish include impacts to water
quality, particularly phosphorus loading, sedimentation, and
significant alterations to dissolved oxygen.
Silt deposition in streams contributes to several of the
impairments in the Mill Creek watershed, and can also be a risk factor
for crayfish. Stream channelization and silt deposition has been
reported to be directly responsible for the permanent loss of some
crayfish populations (Reynolds et al. 2013, p. 197-218). As crayfish
are primarily active at night, the chief requirement of all size
classes is for hiding spaces during the daytime. Where loss of hiding
spaces occurs through bank reconstruction or siltation from natural or
human causes, the habitat's carrying capacity for crayfish diminishes
(Reynolds et al. 2013, p. 197-218). Therefore, good quality habitat for
Nashville crayfish has minimal silt deposition such that availability
of vital hiding spaces, and thus carrying capacity, are maximized.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are an important water quality
parameter for all aquatic life, including crayfish. Oxygen is dissolved
into the water in streams through diffusion, aeration, and as the waste
product of plants that are photosynthesizing. The amount of DO found in
water can vary due to several factors including water temperature,
level of pollutants and water velocity. Extended periods of
supersaturation can occur in highly aerated waters, often near
hydropower dams and waterfalls, or due to excessive photosynthetic
activity. Algae blooms can cause air saturations of over 100% due to
large amounts of oxygen as a photosynthetic byproduct. This is often
coupled with higher water temperatures, which also affects saturation
(Fondriest 2013, entire). High levels of DO may be stressful to
crayfish because of physiological effects, such as gas bubble disease,
or because higher oxygen levels allow invasion of invasive crayfish
species, who better tolerate higher DO concentrations. If DO levels are
very low, it is harder for individual crayfish to take in oxygen, and
in extreme cases the lack of DO results in death. Although the
tolerance level of Nashville crayfish for DO is not known, levels below
2.0 mg/L typically result in invertebrates abandoning the area
(Fondriest 2013, entire).
Other factors that influence the resiliency of Nashville crayfish
populations include population size and the presence of slab rock (TDNA
2009, entire). Influencing those factors are elements of Nashville
crayfish ecology (e.g., dispersal and reproductive success) that
determine whether populations can grow to maximize habitat occupancy,
thereby increasing resiliency of populations (USFWS 2017b, p. 22). Slab
rock is defined as moderately to large sized rocks in the stream
channel, typically limestone, found on top of bedrock, cobble, or
gravel. Adult Nashville crayfish occur in various habitats in streams
with slab rocks or other debris for cover. Adults tend to be solitary,
seeking cover under large rocks, logs, debris, or rubble; the largest
individuals generally selected the largest cover available (USFWS 1987,
entire). Cover, particularly presence of large rocks, is also important
to Nashville crayfish (Cook and Walton 2008, p. 121). Nashville
crayfish were found half of the time in runs, using rocks with a
surface area of 0.05 m\2\ (0.54 ft\2\) as cover, and half of the time
in pools, when cover rock area increased to 0.10 m\2\ (1.1 ft\2\).
Larger rock areas may be needed in pools to decrease risk of predation,
whereas smaller rock areas would provide adequate protection in runs
(Cook and Walton 2008, p. 121). Reproductive females are typically
found under large slab rocks. Females seek out large slab rocks when
they are carrying eggs and young, and these secluded places are also
needed for molting. Cover rocks of at least 0.02 m\2\ (2.15 ft\2\) may
be important habitats for females releasing broods and for protection
during molting after releasing broods (USFWS 1987, entire). Gravel-
cobble substrate provided good cover for juveniles (Stark 1986, Miller
and Hartfield 1985, entire).
Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or
environmental diversity within and among populations, and gauges the
probability that a species is capable of adapting to environmental
changes. In the absence of species-specific genetic and ecological
diversity information, we evaluated representation based on the extent
and variability of habitat characteristics across the geographical
range of the species.
For the Nashville crayfish to maintain viability, the species as a
whole also needs to exhibit some degree of redundancy. We measured
redundancy for Nashville crayfish in terms of the number and
distribution of resilient populations across the range of the species.
It is important to note that Nashville crayfish has a naturally limited
range, so measures of redundancy reflect the distribution within a
relatively small area.
Current Condition
Resiliency
The Nashville crayfish is restricted to the Mill Creek watershed,
which we now understand to represent the species' historical range. For
this assessment, we measured resiliency at
[[Page 65101]]
the population segment level, but also reported resiliency in total
stream miles across the species' range. Because resiliency is a
population-level attribute, key to assessing it is the ability to
delineate populations. Because there is insufficient information on
dispersal and genetics to accurately delineate demographic populations
for Nashville crayfish, we delineated population segments. These were
delineated based on habitat quality (i.e., presence of slab rock and
qualitative assessments of water quality) and species occurrence data
from natural heritage data of the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation (TDEC) and opinions of species experts. We identified
174 stream segments based on watershed features, stream
characteristics, and expert opinion (USFWS 2017b, p. 19). This resulted
in delineation of 10 population segments within 3 representative units:
Upper Mill Creek, Middle Mill Creek, and Lower Mill Creek watershed
catchments (Table 1; and Figure 1).
Table 1--List of Delineated Population Segments of Nashville Crayfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Mill Creek Lower Mill Creek
Upper Mill Creek (MCW-A) (MCW-B) (MCW-C)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Mill Creek Streams........ Middle Mill Creek Lower Mill Creek
Streams. Streams.
Upper Mill Creek and Tributaries Owl Creek......... Sevenmile Creek
and Tributaries.
Mainstem Mill Creek *........... Holt Creek........ Mainstem Mill
Creek .*
Indian Creek......
Collins Creek.....
Mainstem Mill
Creek *.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mainstem Mill Creek runs through all three watershed catchments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26NO19.000
Element Occurrence (EO; an area of land or water where a species is
or was present) data were available through TDEC Natural Heritage Data
shapefiles. These data represent survey detections for Nashville
crayfish conducted since
[[Page 65102]]
1985, and each EO has an associated EO viability score. The EO
viability scores provide a succinct assessment of the estimated
viability of the species, or an estimation of the likelihood that, if
current conditions prevail, a species occurrence will persist for a
period of time. The EO viability scores for Nashville crayfish were
delineated by Service biologists following NatureServe descriptions
(Hammerson et al. 2008) as follows:
Excellent--species occurrence exhibits optimal or at least
exceptionally favorable characteristics with respect to population size
and/or quantity and quality of occupied habitat, and if current
conditions prevail, the occurrence is very likely to persist for the
foreseeable future (i.e., at least 20-30 years).
Good--species occurrence exhibits favorable
characteristics with respect to population size and/or quantity and
quality of occupied habitat, and if current conditions prevail, the
occurrence is very likely to persist for the foreseeable future (i.e.,
at least 20-30 years).
Fair--species occurrence characteristics (size, condition,
and landscape context) are non-optimal such that occurrence persistence
is uncertain under current conditions, but may persist for the
foreseeable future with appropriate management or protection.
Poor--If current conditions prevail, occurrence has a high
risk of extirpation because of small population size or area of
occupancy, deteriorated habitat, poor conditions for reproduction, or
other factors.
We looked at EO viability scores based on the element occurrence
data, and elicited the opinions of Nashville crayfish experts as to how
we should characterize resiliency of that population segment. The EO
viability scores provided a succinct assessment of the estimated
viability of the species, or an estimation of the likelihood that, if
current conditions prevail, a species occurrence will persist for a
period of time.
The EO data, combined with other survey efforts and expert opinion
resulted in the delineation of 174 stream segments. These stream
segments were scaled up to the population segment scale based on
watershed features such as physical hydrology and stream
characteristics, and species expert opinion, resulting in
identification of 10 population segments. We categorized resiliency for
each of these population segments using stream segment viability scores
(e.g., excellent, good, fair, poor, and uncertain) and expert opinion.
We considered stream segment viability scores of excellent and good as
a single category, with fair, poor, and uncertain being the other three
stream viability scores used in the resilience categorization. We
considered populations to be high resiliency when more than 50 percent
of its stream segments had EO viability scores of Excellent or Good.
Populations where greater than 50 percent of stream segments had EO
viability scores of Fair were considered to be moderate resiliency. We
considered populations to be low resiliency if more than 50 percent of
its stream segments had Poor EO viability scores. Finally, for
populations where over 50 percent of stream segment viability scores
were uncertain, we used a combination of EO viability scores (where
this was available) and expert opinion to determine whether they were
high, moderate, or low resiliency. Within each of the 10 population
segments, we calculated the total stream miles within each stream
segment viability category to determine the proportion of various
viability ranks represented (USFWS 2017b, p. 21).
Of the 10 population segments, currently six (145 stream miles; 76
percent of the total range) display high resiliency (likely to persist
for at least 20 to 30 years); two (20 stream miles; 10 percent of the
total range) display moderate resiliency (may persist for at least 20
to 30 years); and two (26.5 stream miles; 14 percent of the total
range) display low resiliency (high risk of extirpation in 20 to 30
years).
Representation
We lack genetic and ecological diversity data to characterize
representation for Nashville crayfish. In the absence of this
information, we evaluated representation based on the extent and
variability of habitat characteristics across the species' geographical
range. For the Nashville crayfish, we characterized representative
units by using physical stream hydrology, and measured representation
as the number of resilient populations within three delineated
representative units as originally proposed in Jones (2006, p. 6)--MCW-
A or Upper, MCW-B or Middle, and MCW-C or Lower (see discussion and
Table 1 above). The three units have different stream and watershed
characteristics, such as stream order, surrounding drainage landscapes,
depth, and flow, but are primarily delineated based on amount of
development. The landscape in unit MCW-A is primarily agricultural,
unit MCW-B encompasses the suburban subwatersheds, and unit MCW-C is
primarily urban (Jones 2006, p. 6). The representative units are
catchments created by using flow direction, flow accumulation, and a 3-
meter resolution digital elevation model (Jones 2006, entire).
Differences in hydrology in these three areas could result in
differences in how the species may adapt to changing environmental
conditions. Because the mainstem population segment crosses
representative unit boundaries, we report representation as the
percentage of stream miles categorized as low, moderate, and high
within each representative unit:
Upper (MCW-A): There are 61.8 total stream miles within
this unit. Of those, 49.6 miles (80 percent) are portions of population
segments classified as high resiliency; 12.2 miles (20 percent) are
classified as low resiliency.
Middle (MCW-B): There are 72.6 total stream miles within
this unit. Of those, 43.6 miles (60 percent) are portions of population
segments classified as high resiliency; 19.7 miles (27 percent) are
classified as moderate resiliency; and 9.3 miles (13 percent) are
classified as low resiliency.
Lower (MCW-C): There are 57.1 total stream miles within
this unit. Of those, 52.1 miles (91 percent) are portions of population
segments classified as high resiliency; 5.0 miles (9 percent) are
classified as low resiliency.
For the Nashville crayfish, our expert noted that the sub-
watersheds we used were a good way to spatially delineate adaptive
capacity. In fact, our spatial analysis was confirmed by a dissertation
done previously that looked at variability within that watershed
discussed in the SSA (Jones 2006, entire). From north to south the
species clearly showed some adaptive capacity, as evidenced by the
differences in habitat from north to south. Because of this we
established the three representative units (upper, middle, lower).
To measure representation we then looked at the number of resilient
stream segments and their resiliency score, assuming that a high number
of stream segments in a high resiliency status means there is
sufficient representation in that unit. If, for example, we had a
representative unit with a majority of low resiliency stream segments
we would then be concerned the species may lose some of its
representation. As this was not the case, we believe that
representation is not limiting the species' ability to maintain
resilient populations. We therefore conclude that representation is
high because the
[[Page 65103]]
majority of stream miles in each segment are highly resilient.
Redundancy
For the Nashville crayfish to maintain viability, the species needs
to exhibit some degree of redundancy. Redundancy describes the ability
of a species to withstand catastrophic events. Measured by the number
of populations, their resiliency, and their distribution (and
connectivity), redundancy gauges the probability that the species has a
margin of safety to withstand or return from catastrophic events (such
as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving many
populations). We report redundancy for Nashville crayfish as the total
number of population segments and their distribution within and among
representative units.
As discussed above, there are 10 population segments distributed
across the range of the Nashville crayfish between the three
representative units. Six of these population segments are highly
resilient; two population segments are moderately resilient; and two
population segments are of low resiliency. As also discussed above,
there is adequate redundancy based on the distribution in the three
representative units for the Nashville crayfish to withstand
catastrophic events. The catastrophic events likely to affect the
Nashville crayfish are spills associated with increasing human
population and urbanization (see Summary of Threats below). However,
the likelihood of such events occurring is not equal across the three
units: They are far more likely to occur in the lower, highly urbanized
unit MCW-C (the farthest downstream) and much less likely to occur in
the middle (MCW-B) and upper (MCW-A) units because these units are less
developed. Therefore, if a spill were to occur, it is more likely to
affect only one unit and not all three.
In any case, even in the unlikely circumstance a catastrophic event
would impact the entire range of the species, the Nashville crayfish
has demonstrated a high degree of resistance to disturbance. In the
Mill Creek watershed, there have been frequent spills/releases of raw
sewage and hazardous substances, particularly in the lower reaches
(USFWS 2018, p. 50-51). However, despite these events, the species has
been found in large numbers at several locations that are already
heavily developed. Although the Metropolitan Nashville area is
experiencing significant growth, with numerous residential, commercial,
utility, and other infrastructure developments occurring in the
watershed, Nashville crayfish populations have been documented to be
stable or increasing in size.
Based on our analysis of these three factors, the species
demonstrates high viability, indicating that it is likely to persist in
the future. Since the Nashville crayfish was listed, individuals have
been found in large numbers at several locations in the watershed that
are heavily developed and subjected to consistent storm water and
sediment inputs, as well as frequent spills and releases of raw sewage
and hazardous substances. Despite these stressors, Nashville crayfish
density has increased in all three representative units (McGinnity
2016, p. 3)
Summary of Threats and Conservation Measures That Affect the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act directs us to determine whether any
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any
of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In the assessment report, we reviewed the factors (i.e., threats,
stressors) that could be affecting the Nashville crayfish now or in the
future. However, in this proposed rule, we will focus our discussion on
those factors that could meaningfully impact the status of the species.
The primary risk factor affecting the status of the Nashville crayfish
is development in the Mill Creek watershed that results in destruction
or alteration of habitat. This was a primary factor in our decision to
list the species in 1986. Specifically, increased development in the
watershed leads to increased impervious cover, which in turn often
leads to water quality deterioration. This takes the form of siltation,
stream alteration, and urban runoff (particularly of phosphorus),
resulting from development in Nashville and surrounding urbanized
areas, all of which have the potential to negatively impact the
Nashville crayfish. Secondary risk factors include the species' limited
distribution, which makes it vulnerable to catastrophic events, such as
chemical spills or other contamination sources. Development in the
watershed can also increase the probably of catastrophic spills as well
as increase road density and create new contaminant sources.
Competition with invasive crayfish species could also be problematic,
but presently, this is not a known threat for the species. Similarly,
climate change and its associated effects will not have a negative
impact on the Nashville crayfish now or in the foreseeable future.
Factor A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range
The primary threat to the continued existence of the Nashville
crayfish is still development in the Mill Creek watershed that results
in destruction or alteration of the aquatic habitat. The population of
Davidson County grew by 5.1 percent between 2010 and 2013. Adjacent
Williamson County grew by 8.6 percent in the same time period (USFWS
2017a, p. 12). As Nashville and the surrounding areas have grown,
commercial and residential development has increased within the Mill
Creek watershed. Areas in the upper reaches of the Mill Creek watershed
that were once rural agricultural areas are now being developed for
residential purposes. Development often results in removal of riparian
vegetation and canopy cover over the stream that may result in bank
collapse. Runoff from denuded areas can result in heavy input of
sediment into the stream, excessive in-stream sediment deposition, and
increased water turbidity and temperatures. Sediment has been shown to
break down and or suffocate bottom-dwelling algae and other organisms
by clogging gills and reducing aquatic insect diversity and abundance
(Waters 1995, p. 251). We anticipate population growth in the Nashville
metropolitan area to continue, with associated increases in
development. Five of the ten counties in Tennessee with the highest
projected growth rates through 2040--Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson,
Robertson, and Sumner--are in the Nashville metropolitan area.
Approximately 69 percent of the population growth in Tennessee from
2010 to 2040 is expected to occur in 10 counties across the state,
including Davidson and Williamson counties (Boyd Center 2015, entire).
However, despite the increased development, the species has been found
in several locations and in large numbers.
Highway and road construction, as well as utility line construction
and right-of-way maintenance, within and adjacent to streams, may also
alter or destroy habitat. Additionally, short-term dewatering to
excavate trenches for utility lines could also result in temporary loss
of habitat. The settling
[[Page 65104]]
and filling in of crevices and interstitial spaces with sediment under
slab rocks is likely to result in increased biological oxygen demand
and longer term or permanent loss of habitat for crayfish (Cook and
Walton 2008, p. 121). These are all potential impacts to crayfish
habitat. We know that these actions result in degradation of riparian
areas and stream health, but there is uncertainty regarding how
tolerant the Nashville crayfish is to such changes. The only area where
we know the species was negatively impacted was near the airport where
toxic releases caused abandonment of that stream reach. However, years
later, the area was recolonized, albeit at a lower abundance (USFWS
2017b, p. 51).
To avoid direct adverse impacts to the crayfish and its habitat,
developers increasingly use directional boring under the stream as a
means of accomplishing crossings for utility and communication lines;
however, if not done properly, boring can cause fracturing of the
stream bottom. This can result in release of bentonite and other
slurries as well as toxic materials from the bore hole into the stream.
Dewatering of short or long reaches of the stream channel downstream
from the fracture may also occur. Dewatering can be permanent if the
fracture causes the entire surface flow to go underground. Materials
released into the stream from bore holes range from inert slurries to
potentially toxic chemicals and lubricants; however, inert slurry, if
released in large amounts, could result in mortality to crayfish and
other benthic fauna by smothering adults and juveniles. In 2000, during
installation of fiber optic cables in the Mill Creek drainage, several
incidents of fracturing occurred resulting in the release of large
amounts of bentonite slurry into the streams. In 2013, a Piedmont
Natural Gas Pipeline boring under Sevenmile Creek impacted its
tributary, releasing a bentonite slurry that resulted in mortality of
six individual crayfish. Due to these incidents, areas where known
bedrock fracturing potential exists are now being trenched (surface
cut) for projects involving utility line crossings (USFWSb 2017, p.
52).
Another potential threat to the species' continued existence is the
improper use or overuse of lawn pesticides and fertilizers. Intentional
or inadvertent application of chemicals to the stream or runoff from
yards after application has resulted in significant mortality of
aquatic organisms, including Nashville crayfish. We have received
periodic reports of mortality of stream fauna that likely resulted from
input of pesticides into streams in the Mill Creek watershed. This
threat is likely to increase in the future as residential development
increases (USFWS 2017b, p. 50).
Additionally, there have been consistent stormwater and sediment
inputs to the Mill Creek watershed, as well as frequent spills/releases
of raw sewage and hazardous substances, yet the Nashville crayfish
persists in high numbers. The species exhibits a high degree of
resistance to disturbance, indicating that the species has a low
susceptibility to threats and high degree of stability (USFWS 2017a, p.
16).
As of 2014, numerous stream segments in Mill Creek and its
tributaries were listed as impaired on the State of Tennessee's 303(d)
list (TDEC 2018, entire). Impairment of stream reaches in the drainage
is the result of low dissolved oxygen, siltation, removal of riparian
vegetation, nutrient enrichment and high bacteria levels from
stormwater discharges, sewage collection system failures, land
development, and unrestricted cattle access (TDEC 2018, entire).
Our analysis of threats and risk factors, as well as the past,
current, and future influences on what the Nashville crayfish needs for
long term viability revealed that the most risk to future viability of
the species is posed by water quality issues: The risk of a
catastrophic spill and impairment of water quality associated with
increasing human populations and urbanization. However, the species has
been found in large numbers at several locations that are already
heavily developed, and the species has been found in several additional
tributaries to Mill Creek since its original listing under the ESA
(USFWSb 2017, p. 73). Although the Metropolitan Nashville area is
experiencing significant growth, with numerous residential, commercial,
utility, and other infrastructure developments occurring in the
watershed, Nashville crayfish populations have been documented to be
stable or increasing in size (USFWS 2017b, entire). Additionally, there
have been consistent stormwater and sediment inputs to the Mill Creek
watershed, as well as frequent spills/releases of raw sewage and
hazardous substances, yet the Nashville crayfish persists in high
numbers. The species exhibits a high degree of resistance to
disturbance, indicating the species has a low susceptibility to threats
and a high degree of stability.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Sporting, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We have received reports over the past five years (2010-2015) that
fish and aquatic invertebrates, including Nashville crayfish, are being
harvested from Mill Creek for food (USFWS 2016, entire). Although we do
not know the full impact of harvesting on the species at this time,
populations are stable or improving across the range, indicating any
harvesting that is occurring is not affecting population resiliency.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
This factor was determined to not apply to the Nashville crayfish
at the time of its 1986 listing. Currently, porcelain disease
(Thelohania contejeani), known from crustaceans in Australia, may pose
a threat if infected crustaceans are accidently introduced into the
Mill Creek watershed from the pet trade (see Factor E discussion,
below). There is anecdotal evidence that porcelain disease was observed
in Cambarus sphenoides on the Cumberland Plateau. The Cumberland
Plateau is the southern part of the Appalachian Plateau in the
Appalachian Mountains of the United States. It includes much of eastern
Kentucky, Tennessee, and portions of Alabama and Georgia.
Although our earlier determination that a population of Nashville
crayfish was displaced by another crayfish species turned out to be
incorrect (see Background, above), competition or predation by released
nonnative crayfish also could potentially pose a threat to the species
in the future (Bizwell and Mattingly 2010, p. 359). Urbanization may
result in increased numbers of scavengers, such as raccoons, that might
prey on aquatic organisms. However, we currently have no information to
indicate that disease or predation are threats to this crayfish.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
In our discussions under Factors A, B, C, and E, we evaluate the
significance of threats as mitigated by any conservation efforts and
existing regulatory mechanisms. Where threats exist, we analyze the
extent to which conservation measures and existing regulatory
mechanisms address the specific threats to the species. Regulatory
mechanisms, if they exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one
or more identified threats. The following provides an overview of the
existing regulatory protections that
[[Page 65105]]
protect the Nashville crayfish ecosystem and the Nashville crayfish.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency has regulations in place to
address the collection of baitfish, including amphibians and crayfish,
which specifically prohibit the taking of and possession of crayfish
from Mill Creek and its tributaries in Davidson and Williamson Counties
(TWRA 1994, rule 1660-1-26-.04). The Tennessee Fish and Wildlife
Commission also issued a proclamation (TFWC 2014, p. 13-15) which
states that the collection of crayfish from Mill Creek in Davidson and
Williamson Counties is specifically prohibited. It is also prohibited
to possess or use crayfish for bait in Mill Creek, which is key to
preventing accidental introductions of nonnative species.
Currently there are no State laws that provide specific protection
for the species' habitat. However, the CWA and the Tennessee Water
Quality Control Act of 1977 provide water quality protections for
streams in the State. Agencies implementing these laws routinely issue
notices of violation (NOVs) when actions are reported that have adverse
impacts on waters in the State. NOVs are typically issued after the
fact--i.e., after destruction or alteration of the species and habitat
has occurred. Agencies are not staffed to oversee, supervise, or
inspect all of the actions for which permits have been issued. Also,
penalties levied on violators by the State are likely not severe enough
to deter future violations. Even if more drastic enforcement action is
taken by Federal agencies, the time between the violation and
conclusion of the law enforcement action is likely long enough to
suppress the deterrent effect of the penalty.
TDEC and Metropolitan Nashville Water Services (MNWS) routinely
issue CWA NOVs for incidents in the Mill Creek watershed. Service Law
Enforcement personnel have assisted the State in numerous
investigations. As an example, in 2011, a contractor constructing a
replacement sewage forcemain bypassed a section of an existing sewage
forcemain by pumping past the section of forcemain to be replaced. The
pump failed, releasing a significant amount of sewage into Mill Creek.
Crayfish mortality was observed; however, the Service did not pursue an
enforcement action under the Act because this was an accidental
release. The Service will continue to provide technical assistance to
the state agency to address future incidents within the Mill Creek
watershed. Mill Creek is currently listed as an impaired stream with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Although numerous NOVs have been issued in the Mill Creek watershed
since 2009, State and Federal water quality laws have not prevented
pollution from development activities or from municipal and industrial
sources. Portions of Mill Creek and some of its tributaries are
currently listed on TDEC's impaired stream list (TDEC 2018, in draft).
State and Federal agencies have identified impairments to address which
include low dissolved oxygen, siltation, other anthropogenic habitat
alterations, Escherichia coli (E. coli), total phosphorus, nitrate-
nitrite, and propylene glycol.
The CWA makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point
source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained. Section 404
of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged
or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands.
The basic purpose of the program is that no discharge of dredged or
fill material may be permitted if: (1) A practicable alternative exists
that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or (2) the nation's
waters would be significantly degraded. An individual permit is
required for potentially significant impacts. Individual permits are
reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which evaluates
applications under a public interest review, as well as the
environmental criteria set forth in the CWA Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, regulations promulgated by EPA. For the Nashville crayfish,
the Corps permits would still be applicable and have relevant
conditions. Furthermore, through our authorities under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the Service will provide technical
assistance to the Corps during the permit review process. The state
would also require Aquatic Resource Alteration Permits with conditions
as well.
TDEC and the Service conducted a natural resource damage assessment
(NRDA) and developed specific recommendations for stormwater treatment,
monitoring, and compliance to the Metropolitan Nashville Airport
Authority (MNAA). The purpose of the NRDA program is to restore natural
resources injured as a result of oil spills or hazardous substance
releases into the environment. The NRDA process evaluates and restores
wildlife, habitats, and human resources impacted by oil spills,
hazardous waste sites, and vessel groundings. Damage assessments
provide the basis for determining the extent of restoration needed to
address the public's natural resource losses. Should a future oil spill
or hazardous substance release adversely affect the Nashville crayfish,
the State, acting as a natural resource trustee, would assess injury
and determine appropriate restoration. Once the damages are assessed,
the NRDA Restoration Program negotiates legal settlements or takes
other legal actions against the responsible parties for the spill or
release. Funds from these settlements are then used to restore the
injured resources at no expense to the taxpayer. Settlements often
include the recovery of the costs incurred in assessing the damages.
These funds may also be used to fund damage assessments in future
incidents. Civil penalties were also assessed by TDEC (USFWS 2017b, p.
51). In cooperation with the Service and our partners, MNAA made
substantial improvements to the stormwater collection and treatment
system at the airport. The Service also provided specific
recommendations to TDEC in the revision of MNAA's national pollutant
discharge elimination system permit.
Summary of Factor D
Factor E. Other Natural or Man-Made Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence
In this section, we will discuss other natural and man-made threats
affecting the species including limited geographic range, vehicle
accident spills, introduction of invasive crayfish and climate change.
The Nashville crayfish's limited geographic range and apparent
small population size leave the species vulnerable to localized
extinctions from accidental toxic chemical spills or other stochastic
disturbances. Species that are restricted in range and population size
are more likely to suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic
drift, potentially increasing their susceptibility to inbreeding
depression and decreasing their ability to adapt to environmental
changes (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, p. 642). However, the Nashville
crayfish has always occupied a small range. The crayfish is endemic to
one watershed and still occupies the watershed. Highly resilient
populations are more than likely to survive stochastic events and there
are several highly resilient populations spread across the range.
Potential sources of such spills include accidents involving
vehicles transporting chemicals over road crossings of streams and
accidental or intentional release into streams of chemicals used in
industrial, agricultural, or residential applications. Dead crayfish,
including Nashville
[[Page 65106]]
crayfish, have been collected downstream from construction sites and
sewage releases on numerous occasions. For instance, in 2010 and 2011,
discharges of propylene glycol de-icing fluids from the runways and
tarmac at the Metropolitan Nashville International Airport adversely
affected Sims Branch. Response agencies located affected Nashville
crayfish. An attempt to translocate these individuals to the Cumberland
River Aquatic Center failed, as the specimens died during transport.
With regard to the effects of invasive species on Nashville
crayfish, most crayfish experts believe the introduction of invasive
crayfish species is not occurring at a rate that could negatively
impact native species, especially species with small distributions. In
east Tennessee, there have been several introductions; the most serious
is the Kentucky River crayfish (O. juvenilis), which has replaced the
surgeon crayfish (O. forceps) in most of the Holston River system above
Cherokee Reservoir. Although these water bodies are not within the Mill
Creek system, it is conceivable that one of these extremely aggressive
species could be introduced into that system and, once established,
there is no known method to remove them. A simple aquarium release of a
single ovigerous (egg bearing) female or other live specimens would be
detrimental to the Nashville crayfish. However, we have no information
suggesting the invasive crayfish are utilized in the local pet trade or
as bait for fishing in the Mill Creek watershed.
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. A recent compilation of climate change
and its effects is available from reports of the IPCC (IPCC 2014,
entire).
The IPCC concluded that evidence of warming of the climate system
is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, pp. 2, 40). Numerous long-term climate
changes have been observed including changes in arctic temperatures and
ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, and
aspects of extreme weather including heavy precipitation and heat waves
(IPCC 2014, pp. 40-44). Since 1970, the average annual temperature
across the Southeast has increased by about 0.8 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) with the greatest increases occurring during winter months.
The geographic extent of areas in the Southeast region affected by
moderate to severe spring and summer drought has increased over the
past three decades by 12 and 14 percent, respectively (Karl et al.
2009, p. 111). These trends are expected to increase. Rates of warming
are predicted to more than double in comparison to what the Southeast
has experienced since 1975, with the greatest increases projected for
summer months. Depending on the emissions scenario used for modeling
change, average temperatures are expected to increase by 2.5 [deg]C
(lower emissions scenario, or IPCC SRES B1) to 5 [deg]C (higher
emissions scenario, or A2) by the 2080s (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111).
While there is considerable variability in rainfall predictions
throughout the region, increases in evaporation of moisture from soils
and loss of water by plants in response to warmer temperatures are
expected to contribute to increased frequency, intensity, and duration
of drought events (Karl et al. 2009, p. 112).
There is also a growing concern that climate change may lead to
increased frequency of severe storms and droughts (McLaughlin et al.
2002, p. 6074; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; Cook et al. 2004, p.
1015). Specific effects of climate change to crayfish habitat could
include changes in stream temperature regimes; the timing and levels of
precipitation, causing more frequent and severe floods and droughts;
and alien species introductions. The following systematic changes are
expected to be realized to varying degrees in the southeastern United
States (NCILT 2012, p. 27; IPCC 2013, p. 7):
More frequent drought;
More extreme heat (resulting in increases in air and water
temperatures);
Flooding;
More intense storms (e.g., frequency of major hurricanes
increases).
Despite the recognition of potential climate effects on ecosystem
processes, there is uncertainty about what the exact climate future for
the southeastern United States will be and how the ecosystems and
species in this region will respond. Effects from climate change may
also result from synergistic effects. That is, factors associated with
a changing climate may act as risk multipliers by increasing the risk
and severity of more imminent threats. As a result, impacts from rapid
urbanization in the region might be exacerbated under long-term climate
change. However, our approach to assessing the future condition of the
species (see Future Conditions, below) is focused on a 20- to 25-year
projection timeframe, because beyond this time, much uncertainty
remains in both the degree of climate change and the species' response
to changes in precipitation and temperature. We currently do not have
information on the effect of future drought on specific stream segments
the species occupies within the watershed. We also do not know the
species temperature tolerance in response to long-term temperature
increases within those streams. While the Nashville crayfish has
multiple populations, future impacts due to the effects of climate
change may reduce the resiliency of the species although the long-term
effects remain unknown.
Conservation Measures That Affect the Species
The Mill Creek Watershed Association (MCWA) was formed in 2009. The
MCWA was strengthened in 2013 by the Cumberland River Compact with the
support of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture Division of
Forestry. The goal of the MCWA is to provide education and support for
improving and protecting the Mill Creek Watershed. It endeavors to
clean the water in Mill Creek, eliminate water pollution in local
neighborhoods, and make the water safe for wildlife and human use.
Focal activities for the MCWA include adopt a stream, riparian buffers,
pollution prevention, rain gardens and barrels, and protecting the
Nashville crayfish.
The Cumberland River Compact sponsors meetings every other month to
bring all interested stakeholders together to reach a realistic
approach to ensure a brighter future for the Mill Creek Watershed.
These meetings provide stakeholders an opportunity to learn and provide
perspective on current conditions, recommendations for improvements,
and plan activities to address the current concerns and needs in the
watershed. Current participants include Cumberland River Compact,
Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Tennessee Division of Forestry,
Metro Water Services, Nashville Zoo at Grassmere, Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association,
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the Corps, and the Service (USFWS
2017b, p. 57).
The Tennessee Stream Mitigation Program (TSMP) was established
under the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Foundation in 2002, as a
statewide in-lieu fee wetlands mitigation program. The TSMP provides
mitigation for improving instream and riparian habitat, and overall
water quality. It funds projects on significantly degraded streams to
arrest bank erosion, improve water quality, and restore aquatic and
riparian habitat. The TSMP has implemented 28 projects, restoring over
45 miles of degraded stream and over 800 acres of riparian habitat. One
of these projects was initiated in the Mill
[[Page 65107]]
Creek Watershed in 2009. The project encompassed 2,385 feet of Mill
Creek near Nolensville in Williamson County, in the Upper Mill Creek
segment (MCW-A). The existing channel was highly degraded due to
channelization, vegetation removal, and infrastructure including
roadway fills, and had been listed on the 303(d) list due to impacts
from unrestricted livestock access. The primary goals of the project
were to restore riparian buffer function by the excluding of livestock
from the channel and riparian corridor which would reduce non-point
source pollutants (such as sedimentation and nutrients). This work
resulted in improved water quality, channel stability, aquatic habitat,
and elimination of accelerated bank erosion problems; reestablishment
of instream habitat by restoring bed form diversity in the form of
riffles and pools; and enhancement of the riparian zone by planting
native plants. The restored riparian buffer resulted in decreased
stream temperatures, which improved water quality for the crayfish. The
floodplain basins helped improve water quality, decrease peak flows,
and provide valuable flood plain habitat (USFWS 2017b, p. 58). All of
the goals of this project were met, which has improved the habitat for
the Nashville crayfish, thereby increasing the resiliency of the
species.
The Nashville Zoo at Grassmere has been heavily involved in
Nashville crayfish recovery efforts. In March 2017, the zoo, in
collaboration with the Cumberland River Compact, Tennessee Wildlife
Resource Agency, and KCI Technologies Inc., removed two dams on Cathy
Jo Branch in the Lower Mill Creek segment (USFWS 2017b, p. 58). The
dams, which were located on zoo property, created a barrier to
crayfish, small fish, and other small aquatic life, preventing the
migration of aquatic species upstream and reducing the biodiversity of
the aquatic systems. Dam removal generally allows for the migration of
aquatic species that were previously blocked by dams within a
watershed, including the Nashville crayfish, and improves aquatic
biodiversity. These dam removals opened up 3 miles of habitat and
restored the stream as a free-flowing system. Nashville crayfish now
have access to 10 miles of creek and improved habitat and this reach is
now occupied by a highly resilient population of Nashville crayfish.
The Nashville Zoo has also implemented a stormwater management
project that benefits the Nashville crayfish and other aquatic
organisms. The Nashville Zoo had a stormwater detention pond on the
edge of its property that captured runoff from a large office park next
door to the zoo, but several times a year, excess water was discharged
from the pond's outlet pipe, where it carried sediment and other
pollutants into Cathy Jo Branch. Runoff from the office park also
damaged the perimeter fence and carried trash and debris into the pond.
The project retrofitted the detention pond to modify the two inlet
structures and expand the water holding capacity. In addition, the
brushy area below the outfall pipe was transformed into an infiltration
zone to slow, spread, and soak in the excess water discharges after
rain events. This project has directly improved water quality in known
occupied Nashville crayfish habitat.
Future Conditions
In the SSA, our analysis of threats and risk factors, as well as
the past, current, and future influences on what the Nashville crayfish
needs for long-term viability, revealed that there are two factors that
pose the largest risk to future viability of the species: The risk of a
catastrophic spill and impairment of water quality (USFWS 2017b, p.
59). Both factors are primarily related to habitat changes. We did not
assess overutilization for scientific and commercial purposes, disease,
or competition with invasive crayfish because these risks do not appear
to be occurring at levels that affect Nashville crayfish populations.
Accordingly, the risk of a catastrophic spill and impairment of water
quality, as well as management efforts (aside from those associated
with the 2010 biological opinion with the Corps), were carried forward
in our assessment of future conditions of Nashville crayfish
populations.
We assessed viability under three scenarios--status quo, worst
case, and conservation--projected over 20 to 25 years. We chose this
timeframe as the ``foreseeable future'' for two reasons. First, the
main threats influencing viability for the Nashville crayfish (the risk
of a catastrophic spill and impairment of water quality) are all
measurable within this timeframe. Also, the E.O. scores that underlie
the resilience of the population segments were determined based on a
20-30 year future time horizon. Qualitative assessments of urban
development for each population segment are based on the Slope, Land-
use, Exclusion, Urban, Transportation and Hillshade (SLEUTH) model
predictions (USFWS 2017b, p. 59). The next metric, element occurrence
(E.O.), data were available through TDEC Natural Heritage Data
shapefiles. These data represent survey detections for Nashville
crayfish conducted since 1985, and each E.O. has an associated E.O.
viability score. The E.O. scores provide a succinct assessment of the
estimated viability or likelihood of persistence of the species; as
such, the scores underlie the resilience of the population segments.
These scores were determined based on a 20- to 30-year future time
horizon based on Nature Serve criteria. Because occurrence ranks are
used to represent the relative overall ``quality'' of an occurrence as
it currently exists, they are based solely on criteria that reflect the
present status of that occurrence (Hammerson et al. 2008, entire).
Therefore, based on the species' lifespan and the uncertainty in the
models, a 20- to 25-year time frame for ``foreseeable future'' is
appropriate for determining whether threatened status is appropriate
for this species.
The three scenarios are intended to capture the range of changes,
likely to be observed in the Mill Creek watershed, to which the
Nashville crayfish will be exposed. These scenarios considered the
three elements described above: Water quality, catastrophic spill risk,
and conservation effort. While we considered these scenarios to be
plausible, we acknowledge that each scenario has a different
probability of materializing at different times. To account for this
difference in probability, a range of probabilities was used to
describe the likelihood each scenario will occur. We assumed rates of
increase in human population and, therefore, increase in impervious
cover, to be similar across all three scenarios. The differences in the
likelihood of the three scenarios represented our best assessment of:
(1) The degree to which projected increases in human population and
impervious cover will manifest in water quality degradation and
increased spill risk; (2) how the Nashville crayfish will actually
respond to these changes based on past observations; and (3) how likely
conservation measures will be implemented within population segments in
the Mill Creek watershed. For more information about how the scenarios
were developed, please see the SSA (USFWS 2017b, pp. 60-61).
Under the status quo scenario in the SSA, we analyzed the factors
that influence populations of Nashville crayfish (e.g., human
population growth, urban development, impervious cover, and
catastrophic spills) would continue at current rates. Human population
increases at currently predicted rates would lead to substantial
increases in urban development and impervious cover in a
[[Page 65108]]
few high-intensity areas throughout the watershed (e.g., MCW-B) (USFWS
2017b, p. 61). In this scenario, the risk of a contaminant spill
increased in and around the high urban growth areas of development and
resulted in some decreases in water quality. Impairment of stream
reaches in the drainage was the result of low dissolved oxygen,
siltation, removal of riparian vegetation, nutrient enrichment and high
bacteria levels from stormwater discharges, sewage collection system
failures, land development and unrestricted cattle access (TDEC 2014,
entire). However, the species is currently thriving in very poor
quality streams in downtown Nashville, it has shown since its listing
that it is more resilient to the threat of development than previously
thought and we would expect it to respond in the same manner to future
development stressors. Therefore, under the status quo scenario, the
Nashville crayfish's viability would remain high. There would be a
small loss in population resiliency (Owl Creek drops from moderate to
low; Upper Mill Creek System drops from high to moderate), but with no
loss in redundancy. Representation would be impacted, in that the two
populations predicted to lose resiliency were both in the same
representative unit, but all representative units were predicted to
retain the same number of populations.
Under the worst case scenario, the factors that influence
populations of Nashville crayfish would continue at increased rates
compared to the status quo scenario. Human population would increase at
currently predicted rates, which would lead to substantial increases in
urban development and impervious cover in the same high-intensity areas
throughout the watershed as the status quo scenario. However, in this
scenario, effects associated with increasing human populations and
impervious cover (water quality degradation and catastrophic spill
risk) would be much greater in magnitude compared to the status quo
scenario. The risk of a contaminant spill increased significantly in
the urban and suburban high-growth areas and resulted in substantial
decreases in water quality in several population segments (e.g., MCW-
C).
We included this scenario because there is uncertainty as to the
magnitude of effects on water quality, spill risk associated with a
growing human population, and subsequent increases in impervious cover,
as well as uncertainty concerning how fast the development will take
place. However, even with this higher risk, our modeling predicted that
there would only be a moderate loss in Nashville crayfish population
resiliency (Mainstem, Sevenmile, Collins Creek, and Upper Mill Creek
System drop from high to moderate; Owl Creek drops from moderate to
low; possible extirpation of Sims Branch in the Lower Mill Creek
Streams population segment), with no loss in redundancy. Also, all
representative units were predicted to retain the same number of
populations, although many at a lower resilience level. Therefore,
under the worst case scenario, the Nashville crayfish's viability would
sustain moderate losses in population resiliency (Mainstem, Sevenmile,
Collins Creek, and Upper Mill Creek System drop from high to moderate;
Owl Creek drops from moderate to low; possible extirpation of Sims
Branch in the Lower Mill Creek Streams population segment), with no
loss in redundancy. All representative units are predicted to retain
the same number of populations, although many at a lower resilience
level.
Under the conservation scenario, the factors that influence
populations of Nashville crayfish would continue at current rates, but
targeted conservation, such as the TSMP (see Conservation Measures that
Affect the Species, above), would ameliorate some of the associated
impacts of water quality degradation. Human population increases would
continue at currently predicted rates, leading to increases in urban
development and impervious cover in a few high-intensity areas
throughout the watershed. In this scenario, the risk of a contaminant
spill would increase in and around some of the urban growth areas, and
increases in population and impervious cover would result in some
decreases in water quality. However, this scenario assumes some
targeted conservation actions would be implemented, including riparian
protection and restoration; therefore, water quality degradation in
some streams would be reduced (USFWS 2017b, p. 61-62). Because of the
implementation of these conservation measures, our modeling predicted
that there would be no losses in resiliency, redundancy, or
representation for the Nashville crayfish. The Lower Mill Creek streams
were predicted to increase their resiliency due to targeted
conservation implemented by the City of Nashville, and minimization of
spills by the nearby Nashville International airport. Upper Mill Creek
Streams were predicted to increase their resiliency due, in part, to
targeted conservation implemented by the TSMP. Therefore, under the
conservation scenario, the Nashville crayfish's viability sustains no
losses in resiliency, redundancy, or representation. In fact, the Lower
Mill Creek Streams are predicted to increase their resiliency due to
targeted conservation implemented by the City of Nashville, and
minimization of spills by the nearby Nashville International airport.
Upper Mill Creek Streams are predicted to increase their resiliency
due, in part, to targeted conservation implemented by the Tennessee
Stream Mitigation Program.
Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation
The Nashville Crayfish Recovery Plan was issued by the Service on
August 12, 1987, and revised on February 8, 1989. The recovery plan did
not contain delisting criteria, as it was thought unlikely that the
species would be sufficiently protected from all threats associated
with the rapid development occurring in the Nashville area such that it
could be delisted. Furthermore, no quantitative recovery level was
defined due to the lack of data on historical population levels,
population trends, and apparent historical population size. However,
the recovery plan provided the following criteria that were to be met
before reclassification to a threatened species could be considered
(USFWS 1989, p. 4):
Criterion 1. Through protection of the existing Mill Creek
basin population and by reintroduction of the species into some as yet
unknown historic habitat or by discovery of an additional distinct
population, there must exist two distinct viable populations. This
criterion has been partially met due to implementation of monitoring of
water quality and, where needed, initiation of enforcement actions by
State and local agencies to ensure the protection of the existing Mill
Creek Basin population. However, we believe this criterion is not
appropriate given the best available information concerning the
historical range of the species. At the time of listing, the species
was thought to exist in multiple locations outside the Mill Creek
drainage, but subsequently those determinations were found to be in
error (see Background, above). Current information indicates that the
species is endemic to the Mill Creek drainage. Thus, we have determined
that it is no longer appropriate to introduce or recover the species in
locations outside of the Mill Creek drainage. Within the Mill Creek
watershed, the species is present throughout the drainage; therefore,
if some portion of the range was impacted by a catastrophic event, the
impacted area could be repopulated. Therefore, we also have determined
that
[[Page 65109]]
the intent of this criterion--to provide an additional refuge--is not
necessary.
Criterion 2. A newly discovered or reintroduced population
must (a) have been established or be self-sustaining for a minimum of
10 years without augmentation from an outside source, (b) represent a
significant component of the crayfish fauna throughout most of that
creek, and (c) be stable or increasing in numbers. For the same reason
as for Criterion 1, this criterion has not been met and is likely
unachievable. No new populations of the species have been reintroduced.
A population of the species has not been discovered outside of the Mill
Creek drainage (USFWS 2017b, p. 14). As described above, we have
determined that the establishment of a second population outside of the
Mill Creek drainage is not appropriate. The Nashville crayfish has
faced stressors from degraded water quality and potential catastrophic
spills associated with increasing human populations and urbanization.
However, the species has been found in large numbers at several
locations that are already heavily developed. The Nashville crayfish
population is stable or increasing throughout its range despite
significant human population growth, consistent storm water drainage,
and frequent spills. Furthermore, our analysis of possible future
scenarios demonstrated that, even under a worst-case scenario, the
species will remain viable in the Mill Creek watershed within the
foreseeable future.
Criterion 3. The species and its habitat in the Mill Creek
system and one other system are protected from human-related and
natural threats that would be likely to cause the species' extinction
in the foreseeable future. This criterion has been partially met.
Service biologists have worked with other agencies, groups, and
individuals to protect the species and its habitat from human-related
threats within the Mill Creek watershed. During project reviews for
routine Corps' section 404 permits and TDEC aquatic resource alteration
permits, recommended measures to protect the species are included as
permit conditions. These permits will remain applicable upon the
delisting of the species. Furthermore, we have authority under the FWCA
to provide technical assistance to the Corps during permit reviews. We
also routinely interact with Metro Water Services on stormwater best
management practices and compliance activities for project developments
in the watershed. This, too, will continue upon delisting. Finally, the
Service is also actively involved with nongovernmental organizations to
address potential habitat loss for the species. (USFWS 2017a, p. 16).
In summary, we consider the recovery plan to be outdated. We now
know the species is endemic only to the Mill Creek watershed;
therefore, establishing a population outside of the Mill Creek
watershed is not appropriate, and we will not find additional
populations outside of the watershed. The SSA highlights that Nashville
crayfish exhibits a high degree of resistance to disturbance,
indicating the species has a low susceptibility to threats and a high
degree of stability. In fact, the Nashville crayfish is widely
distributed, stable and increasing throughout most of its range. The
species is also more resilient to poor water quality conditions that we
understood at the time the recovery plan was developed.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' We may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
We must consider these same five factors in reclassifying or
delisting a species. In other words, for species that are already
listed as endangered or threatened, the analysis for a delisting due to
recovery must include an evaluation of the threats that existed at the
time of listing, the threats currently facing the species, and the
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the
removal of the Act's protections.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
find that the Nashville crayfish is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. As discussed above, the Service has
applied these listing factors to the Nashville crayfish. The Service
finds that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat (Factor A), which was the basis for listing
the species when it was thought to have been extirpated from three of
the four watersheds in which it historically occurred, is no longer a
threat to the continued existence of the Nashville crayfish, and we do
not expect it to be a threat in the future. The Nashville crayfish has
faced and will face stressors from degraded water quality and potential
catastrophic spills associated with increasing human populations and
urbanization. However, the species has been found in large numbers at
several locations that are already heavily developed. The Nashville
crayfish population is stable or increasing throughout its range
despite significant human population growth, consistent storm water
drainage and frequent spills. Targeted conservation has ameliorated
many threats associated with reductions in water quality, and under a
best-case scenario will continue to do so, but even without these
efforts, all population segments are predicted to at least persist
within the foreseeable future.
Overutilization for commercial, sporting, scientific, or
educational purposes is considered to be a potential threat to the
Nashville crayfish (Factor B). Over the period from 2010 to 2015 we
received reports that fish and aquatic invertebrates, including the
Nashville crayfish, have been harvested from Mill Creek for food. We
currently do not know the extent to which this is occurring; however,
we conclude that harvesting presently is not a threat to the species
because the species possesses multiple resilient populations across its
range.
Disease and predation (Factor C) were not considered to be threats
to the Nashville crayfish at the time of listing. We have no new
information indicating that disease or predation has become a
significant threat to the species.
The Nashville crayfish and its habitat have been and will continue
to be protected under the CWA, Tennessee Water Quality Control Act, and
the Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species
Conservation Act. These existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are
adequate to protect the Nashville crayfish now and in the future based
on the crayfish populations continuing to
[[Page 65110]]
be stable throughout the Mill Creek watershed.
The Nashville crayfish has demonstrated the ability to adapt to
changing environmental conditions over time (resiliency) from both
anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Since the species was listed as
an endangered species in 1986, it has demonstrated a high degree of
viability even in stream segments that are impaired. Based on the
biology of the species and the documented responses to the development
in the Nashville metropolitan area since listing, we expect the species
to respond the same way in the foreseeable future. In addition,
although there is no genetic information available for the Nashville
crayfish, there are no indications of a decreased fitness or that a
lack of representation is adversely affecting species mortality or
limiting its ability to adapt. Although the Nashville crayfish is an
endemic species, residing only in the Mill Creek watershed, no
immediate risk of extirpation has been identified. The fact that the
species is found throughout Mill Creek watershed and persists even in
stream segments of poor water quality indicates a large, well-
represented population with demonstrated resiliency to threats.
Because the Nashville crayfish is considered self-sustaining,
contains a relatively large number of individuals, and has demonstrated
high resilience and viability, we expect this population to persist
into the future. The species is considered abundant within its habitat,
which consists of adequate area and quality to maintain survival and
reproduction in spite of disturbances. It appears to have highly
resilient population attributes (e.g., ability to use storm water
detention ponds). Nashville crayfish are represented across the entire
watershed, and no extirpations have been recorded anywhere in the
species' historical range; therefore, we conclude it has high
redundancy across the historical and current range.
Even with continued risks from degraded water quality and
catastrophic spills (Factor E), the best scientific and commercial
information indicates that this species is viable and will remain
viable in the foreseeable future. Therefore, this species is no longer
in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future. Based on the analysis above and
after considering the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that the Nashville crayfish does not currently
meet the Act's definition of either an endangered or a threatened
species throughout its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (SPR). Where the best available information allows the
Services to determine a status for the species rangewide, that
determination should be given conclusive weight because a rangewide
determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of
imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the Act. Under this
reading, we should first consider whether the species warrants listing
``throughout all'' of its range and proceed to conduct a ``significant
portion of its range'' analysis if, and only if, a species does not
qualify for listing as either an endangered or a threatened species
according to the ``throughout all'' language.
Having determined that the Nashville crayfish is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in an SPR.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an
infinite number of ways, so we first screen the potential portions of
the species' range to determine if there are any portions that warrant
further consideration. To do the ``screening'' analysis, we ask whether
there are portions of the species' range for which there is substantial
information indicating that: (1) The portion may be significant; and,
(2) the species may be, in that portion, either in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. For a particular
portion, if we cannot answer both questions in the affirmative, then
that portion does not warrant further consideration and the species
does not warrant listing because of its status in that portion of its
range. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative
is not a determination that the species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout a significant
portion of its range--rather, it is a step in determining whether a
more detailed analysis of the issue is required.
If we answer these questions in the affirmative, we then conduct a
more thorough analysis to determine whether the portion does indeed
meet both of the SPR prongs: (1) The portion is significant and (2) the
species is, in that portion, either in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future. Confirmation that a portion
does indeed meet one of these prongs does not create a presumption,
prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species is an
endangered species or threatened species. Rather, we must then
undertake a more detailed analysis of the other prong to make that
determination. Only if the portion does indeed meet both SPR prongs
would the species warrant listing because of its status in a
significant portion of its range.
At both stages in this process--the stage of screening potential
portions to identify any portions that warrant further consideration
and the stage of undertaking the more detailed analysis of any portions
that do warrant further consideration--it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. Our selection of which question to address first for a
particular portion depends on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces. Regardless of which question we address
first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question
that we address, we do not need to evaluate the second question for
that portion of the species' range.
For Nashville crayfish we chose to evaluate the status question
(i.e., identifying portions where the Nashville crayfish may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future)
first. To conduct this screening, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats: Human
population growth, urban development, impervious cover, and
catastrophic spills including cumulative effects. We found no
concentration of threats in any portion of the Nashville crayfish range
at a biologically meaningful scale.
If both (1) a species is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range and (2)
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its
range, then the species could not be in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future in any biologically meaningful
portion of its range. For the Nashville crayfish, we found both: The
species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, and there is no
geographical concentration of threats so the threats to the species are
essentially uniform throughout its range. Therefore, no portions
warrant further consideration through a more
[[Page 65111]]
detailed analysis, and the species is not in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant
portion of its range. Our approach to analyzing SPR in this
determination is consistent with the court's holding in Desert
Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL
4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Nashville crayfish is not in danger of
extinction nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore,
we find that the Nashville crayfish does not meet the Act's definition
of an endangered species or of a threatened species, and we propose to
remove the Nashville crayfish from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
Effects of This Proposed Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
remove the Nashville crayfish from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the
event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect
Nashville crayfish. There is no critical habitat designated for this
species.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor for not less than
5 years the status of all species that are delisted due to recovery.
Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to
verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the
risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply.
The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its
status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take
measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as an endangered or a
threatened species is not again needed. If at any time during the
monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act
should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing. At the conclusion of the monitoring
period, we will review all available information to determine if
relisting, the continuation of monitoring, or the termination of
monitoring is appropriate.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with
the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However,
we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) of
the Act and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of
PDM. We also seek active participation of other entities that are
expected to assume responsibilities for the species' conservation after
delisting.
Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft
plan's availability for public review at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0062. Copies can also be obtained from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We seek information,
data, and comments from the public regarding this proposed delisting of
the Nashville crayfish and the PDM plan. We are also seeking peer
review of the draft PDM plan concurrently with this comment period. We
anticipate finalizing the PDM plan, considering all public and peer
review comments, prior to making a final determination on the proposed
delisting rule.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
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, 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. There are no tribal interests
associated with this proposed rule.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0062 and
upon request from the Field Supervisor, Tennessee Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Service's Southeastern Region Recovery Team and the Tennessee
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
[[Page 65112]]
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.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Crayfish,
Nashville'' under CRUSTACEANS from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
Dated: September 24, 2019.
Margret 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. 2019-25548 Filed 11-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P