[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6856-6883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0094; 4500090023]
RIN 1018-BD08


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Yellow Lance

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata) 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In total, 
approximately 319 river miles (mi) (514 kilometers (km)) in North 
Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland fall within the boundaries of the 
proposed critical habitat designation. If we finalize this rule as 
proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species' 
critical habitat. We also announce the availability of a draft economic 
analysis of the proposed designation.

DATES: We will accept comments on the proposed rule and draft economic 
analysis that are received or postmarked on or before April 6, 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 
March 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments on the proposed 
rule or draft economic analysis 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-2018-0094, 
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-2018-0094; 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: The draft economic analysis is available at 
http://www.fws.gov/southeast, at http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0094, and at the Raleigh Ecological Services 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the administrative record for this proposed 
critical habitat designation and are available at https://

[[Page 6857]]

www.fws.gov/southeast/, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2018-0094, and at the Raleigh Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or 
supporting information that we may develop for the critical habitat 
designation will also be available at the Service website and Field 
Office set out above, and may also be included in the preamble of this 
proposed rule and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 
551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919-856-4520. Persons 
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. To the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable, we must designate critical habitat for any species that 
we determine to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. 
Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a 
rule.
    This rulemaking proposes to designate critical habitat for the 
yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata). The yellow lance was listed as 
threatened under the Act on April 3, 2018 (83 FR 14189).
    The basis for our action. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat 
concurrent with listing to the extent prudent and determinable. Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national 
security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat. The Act defines critical habitat as (i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at 
the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological 
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) 
which may require special management considerations or protection; and 
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed if such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    We prepared an economic analysis of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 
prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical 
habitat designation. In this document, we announce the availability of 
the draft economic analysis for public review and comment.
    Peer Review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our 
August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer 
review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions 
of appropriate specialists regarding the species status assessment 
report, which informed this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review 
is to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in 
mussel biology, habitat, and stressors (factors negatively affecting 
the species) to the species. We invite any additional comment from the 
peer reviewers during the public comment period for this proposed rule 
(see DATES, above).

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific data available and be as accurate 
and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or 
information from other concerned government agencies, Native American 
tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information to inform the following factors such that 
a designation of critical habitat may be determined to be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of yellow lance habitat;
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments 
regarding:
    (i) Whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of 
the species; and,
    (ii) Specific information that supports the determination that 
unoccupied areas will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the 
conservation of the species and, contain at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the yellow lance and proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may 
be impacted.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable 
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
    (7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the 
draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if 
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory 
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    (9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for

[[Page 6858]]

greater public participation and understanding, or to better 
accommodate public concerns and comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. We also 
invite additional comments from peer reviewers during the public 
comment period. 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, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, we were petitioned to list 404 aquatic species, 
including yellow lance, in the southeastern United States. In response 
to the petition, we completed a partial 90-day finding on September 27, 
2011 (76 FR 59836), in which we announced our finding that the petition 
contained substantial information that listing may be warranted for the 
yellow lance. On April 5, 2017, we published a proposed rule to list 
the yellow lance as a threatened species (82 FR 16559). On April 3, 
2018, we published the final rule to list the species as a threatened 
species (83 FR 14189).
    Please refer to the April 5, 2017, proposed listing rule for a 
discussion of earlier Federal actions regarding the yellow lance.

Species Status Assessment

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the yellow lance. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in 
consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a 
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, 
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting 
the species. The SSA report underwent independent peer review by 
scientists with expertise in mussel biology, habitat management, and 
stressors (factors negatively affecting the species) to the species. 
Along with other information submitted during the process of listing 
the species, the SSA report is the primary source of information for 
this proposed designation. The SSA report and other materials relating 
to this proposal can be found on the Service's Southeast Region website 
at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0094, and at the Raleigh Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Critical Habitat

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

[[Page 6859]]

geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 
features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more 
complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include 
habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat 
conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to 
principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution 
distances, and connectivity.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first 
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only 
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat 
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, 
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must 
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will 
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area 
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report, version 1.3 (Service 2018, entire), 
and information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation 
strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the 
species; the recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed 
journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; 
scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other 
unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that the Secretary shall designate 
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the 
Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation 
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
    (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
    (v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical 
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data 
available.
    We did not identify any of the factors above to apply to the yellow 
lance. Therefore, we find designation of critical habitat is prudent 
for the species.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the yellow 
lance is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking; or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.'' When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows 
the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat 
designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is 
located. We find that this information is sufficient for us to conduct 
both the biological and economic analyses required for the critical 
habitat determination. This and other information represent the best 
scientific data available and led us to conclude that the designation 
of critical habitat is now determinable for the yellow lance.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical 
area occupied

[[Page 6860]]

by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, 
we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection.
    The regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features 
that occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the 
life-history needs of the species. These include, but are not limited 
to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
    The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics 
and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the 
necessary amount of a characteristic needed to support the life history 
of the species. In considering whether features are essential to the 
conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate 
quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat 
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, 
and status of the species.
    The yellow lance is a sand-loving species (Alderman 2003, p. 6) 
often found buried deep in clean, coarse to medium sand and sometimes 
migrating with shifting sands (NatureServe 2015, p. 6), although it has 
also been found in gravel substrates. The species is dependent on clean 
(i.e., not polluted), moderately flowing water with high dissolved 
oxygen content in riverine or larger creek environments. Most 
freshwater mussels, including the yellow lance, are found in 
aggregations (mussel beds) that vary in size and are often separated by 
stream reaches in which mussels are absent or rare (Vaughn 2012, p. 
983). Genetic exchange occurs between and among mussel beds via sperm 
drift, host fish movement, and movement of mussels during high flow 
events.
    The yellow lance are omnivores that primarily filter feed on a wide 
variety of microscopic particulate matter suspended in the water 
column, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, detritus, and 
dissolved organic matter (Haag 2012, p. 26). Like most freshwater 
mussels, they have a unique life cycle that relies on fish hosts for 
successful reproduction. Yellow lance larvae (glochidia) are obligate 
parasites of the gills, heads, or fins of fish; primary host species 
are members of the Cyprinidae family, including the white shiner 
(Luxilus albeolus) and pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus matutinus).
    A thorough review of the life history and ecology of the yellow 
lance is presented in the SSA report (Service 2018, entire). A summary 
of the resource needs of the yellow lance is in Table 1.

                          Table 1--Life History and Resource Needs of the Yellow Lance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Resources and/or circumstances
               Life stage                     needed for individuals to          Resource function (BFSD *)
                                              complete each life stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fertilized Eggs--early spring...........   Clear, flowing water...  B
                                           Sexually mature males
                                           upstream from sexually mature
                                           females.
                                           Appropriate spawning
                                           temperatures.
                                           Presence of gravid
                                           females.
Glochidia--late spring to early summer..   Clear, flowing water...  B, D
                                           Just enough flow to
                                           attract drift feeding minnows.
                                           Presence of host fish
                                           for attachment.
Juveniles--excystment from host fish to    Clear, flowing water...  F, S
 ~35 mm shell length.                      Host fish dispersal....
                                           Appropriate
                                           interstitial chemistry.
                                             --Low salinity (~0.9 ppt)....
                                             --Low ammonia (~0.7 mg/L)....
                                             --Low levels of copper and
                                              other contaminants.
                                             --Dissolved oxygen >1.3 mg/L.
                                           Appropriate substrate
                                           for settlement.
                                           Adequate food
                                           availability.
Adult-->35 mm shell length..............   Clear, flowing water...  F, S
                                           Appropriate substrate
                                           (silt-free gravel and stable,
                                           coarse sand).
                                           Adequate food
                                           availability (phytoplankton and
                                           detritus).
                                           High dissolved oxygen
                                           (>3 mg/L).
                                           Water temperature <35
                                           [deg]C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* B = breeding; F = feeding; S=sheltering; D = dispersal.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We have determined that the following physical or biological 
features are essential to the conservation of yellow lance:
    (1) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, 
characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (i.e., 
channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation) with habitats that support a diversity of freshwater mussels 
and native fish (such as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that provide 
flow refuges consisting of silt-free gravel and coarse sand 
substrates).
    (2) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the 
severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), 
necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the species is found and 
to maintain connectivity of streams with the floodplain, allowing the 
exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the mussel's and 
fish host's habitat, food availability, spawning habitat for native 
fishes, and the ability for newly transformed juveniles to settle and 
become established in their habitats.

[[Page 6861]]

    (3) Water and sediment quality (including, but not limited to, 
conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy 
metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural 
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of 
all life stages.
    (4) The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for 
recruitment of the yellow lance.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the yellow 
lance may require special management considerations or protections to 
reduce the following threats: (1) Urbanization of the landscape, 
including (but not limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial 
use, infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities), and urban water uses 
(water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment, etc.); (2) nutrient 
pollution from agricultural activities that impact water quantity and 
quality; (3) significant alteration of water quality; (4) improper 
forest management or silviculture activities that remove large areas of 
forested wetlands and riparian systems; (5) culvert and pipe 
installation that create barriers to movement; (6) impacts from 
invasive species; (7) changes and shifts in seasonal precipitation 
patterns as a result of climate change; and (8) other watershed and 
floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the 
water.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to: Use of best management practices (BMPs) 
designed to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank side destruction; 
protection of riparian corridors and retention of sufficient canopy 
cover along banks; moderation of surface and ground water withdrawals 
to maintain natural flow regimes; increased use of stormwater 
management and reduction of stormwater flows into the systems; and 
reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release 
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat.
    The current distribution of the yellow lance is reduced from its 
historical distribution. We anticipate that recovery will require 
continued protection of existing populations and habitat, as well as 
ensuring there are adequate numbers of mussels in stable populations 
and that these populations occur over a wide geographic area. This 
strategy will help to ensure that catastrophic events, such as floods, 
which can cause excessive sedimentation, nutrients, and debris to 
disrupt stream ecology, cannot simultaneously affect all known 
populations. Rangewide recovery considerations, such as maintaining 
existing genetic diversity and striving for representation of all major 
portions of the species' current range, were considered in formulating 
this proposed critical habitat designation.
    Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat include multiple 
databases maintained by universities and State agencies for North 
Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, and numerous survey reports on 
streams throughout the species' range. Other sources of available 
information on habitat requirements for this species include studies 
conducted at occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed articles, 
agency reports, and data collected during monitoring efforts (Service 
2018, entire).

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

    We identified stream channels that currently support populations of 
the yellow lance. In the SSA report, we define ``current'' as stream 
channels with observations of the species from 2005 to the present. Due 
to the breadth and intensity of survey effort done for freshwater 
mussels throughout the known range of the species, it is reasonable to 
assume that streams with no positive surveys since 2005 should not be 
considered occupied for the purpose of our analysis.
    Specific habitat areas were delineated based on Natural Heritage 
Element Occurrences (EOs) following NatureServe's occurrence 
delineation protocol for freshwater mussels (NatureServe 2018, 
unpaginated). These EOs provide habitat for yellow lance subpopulations 
and are large enough to be self-sustaining over time, despite 
fluctuations in local conditions. The EOs contain stream reaches with 
interconnected waters so that host fish containing yellow lance 
glochidia can move between areas, at least during certain flows or 
seasons. Based on this information, we consider the following streams 
in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to be occupied by the species 
at the time of listing: Patuxent River, Rappahannock Subbasin 
(including the Rappahannock River, South Run, Carter Run, Thumb Run, 
Hungry Run, and Great Run), Rapidan Subbasin (including the Rapidan 
River, Blue Run, and Marsh Run), South Anna River, Johns Creek, 
Nottoway Subbasin (including the Nottoway River, Crooked Creek, and 
Sturgeon Creek), Tar River, Sandy/Swift Creek, Fishing Creek Subbasin 
(including Fishing Creek, Shocco Creek, and Richneck Creek), Swift 
Creek, and Little River (see unit descriptions under Proposed Critical 
Habitat Designation, below). The proposed critical habitat designation 
does not include all streams known to have been occupied by the species 
historically; instead, it includes only the currently occupied streams 
within the historical range that have also retained some or all of the 
physical or biological features that will allow for the maintenance and 
expansion of existing populations.

Areas Outside the Geographic Area Occupied at the Time of Listing

    We are not proposing to designate any areas outside the 
geographical area currently occupied by the species because we did not 
find any unoccupied areas that were essential for the conservation of 
the species. The protection of stream segments within the seven 
currently existing populations (Patuxent, Rappahannock, York, James, 
Chowan, Tar, and Neuse), which are located across the physiographic 
representation of the range, would sufficiently reduce the risk of 
extinction. Improving the resiliency of populations in the currently 
occupied streams will increase viability to the point that the 
protections of the Act are no longer necessary.

General Information on the Maps of the Proposed Critical Habitat 
Designation

    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying

[[Page 6862]]

regulatory text, presented at the end of this document under Proposed 
Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed information on the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the discussion of 
individual units below. We will make the coordinates or plot points or 
both on which each map is based available to the public at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0094, at http://www.fws.gov/southeast, and at the Raleigh Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical or biological features necessary for yellow lance. The scale 
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the 
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such 
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been 
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for 
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is 
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not 
trigger section 7 consultation under the Act with respect to critical 
habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the 
specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the 
adjacent critical habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate approximately 319 river mi (514 km) 
in 11 units as critical habitat in North Carolina, Virginia, and 
Maryland for the yellow lance. All of the units were occupied by the 
species at the time of listing and contain all of the physical and 
biological features that are essential to support life-history 
processes of the species. These proposed critical habitat areas, 
described below, constitute our current best assessment of areas that 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the yellow lance. Table 2 
shows the name, land ownership of the riparian areas surrounding the 
units, and approximate river miles of the proposed designated units for 
the yellow lance. Because all streambeds are navigable waters, the 
actual critical habitat units are all owned by the State in which they 
are located. The riparian land adjacent to the proposed critical 
habitat is 83% private lands, 11% conservation lands and easements, and 
6% state lands.

      Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Yellow Lance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Riparian ownership      River miles
     Critical habitat unit          surrounding units      (kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PR1--Patuxent River.........  State; Private.........         10 (16)
2. RR1--Rappahannock Subbasin..  Private; Easements.....         44 (71)
3. RR2--Rapidan Subbasin.......  Private; Easements.....          9 (14)
4. YR1--South Anna River.......  Private; Easements.....          8 (13)
5. JR1--Johns Creek............  Private; George                 14 (23)
                                  Washington and
                                  Jefferson National
                                  Forest.
6. CR1--Nottoway Subbasin......  Private; Fort Pickett           41 (66)
                                  Military Reservation;
                                  Easements.
7. TR1--Tar River..............  Private; Easements.....        91 (146)
8. TR2--Sandy/Swift Creek......  Private; State;                 31 (50)
                                  Easements.
9. TR3--Fishing Creek Subbasin.  Private; State;                 37 (60)
                                  Easements.
10. NR1--Swift Creek...........  Private; Easements.....         24 (39)
11. NR2--Little River..........  Private; Easements.....         10 (16)
                                                         ---------------
    Total......................  .......................       319 (514)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all proposed units, and reasons 
why they meet the definition of critical habitat for yellow lance, 
below.

Patuxent Population

Unit 1: PR1--Patuxent River
    Unit 1 consists of approximately 10 river mi (16.1 km), including 3 
mi (4.8 km) of the Patuxent River and 7 mi (11.3 km) of the Hawlings 
River, in Montgomery and Howard Counties, Maryland. The riparian land 
adjacent to Patuxent River is primarily located in Patuxent River State 
Park (90 percent), with some parcels privately owned (10 percent); the 
riparian land surrounding the Hawlings River is predominantly 
conservation parcels (97 percent) including State, county, and Maryland 
National Capital Parks Planning (MD NCPP) park land, and some privately 
owned parcels (3 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants that enter the 
rivers and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as 
bacteria and toxins, all of which reduce water quality for the species. 
Primary sources of these types of pollution result from urbanization 
and include wastewater, stormwater runoff, and fertilizers. Portions of 
the upper Patuxent River watershed were listed in 2011 as impaired for 
aquatic life and wildlife due to total suspended solids, and in 2014 
due to chlorides and sulfates (MDE 2016, unpaginated). There are 146 
non-major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
discharges and three major (including Maryland City Water Reclamation 
Facility (WRF) and Bowie Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)) NPDES 
discharges in the management unit. The Patuxent River is also 
fragmented by two water supply reservoirs, one with dual use as a 
hydroelectric facility. Given the urban stormwater and nonpoint source 
pollution identified as contributing to water quality issues in this 
unit, special management considerations related to developed areas 
including riparian buffer restoration, reduced surface and groundwater 
withdrawals, stormwater retrofits, eliminating direct stormwater 
discharges, increasing open space in the watershed, and implementing 
highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable will benefit the 
habitat in this unit.

Rappahannock Population

Unit 2: RR1--Rappahannock Subbasin
    Unit 2 consists of approximately 44 river mi (70.8 km) of 
Rappahannock Subbasin, including 1.7 mi (2.7 km) in Hungry Run, 7.9 mi 
(12.7 km) in Thumb Run, 5.9 mi (9.5 km) in South Run/Carter Run, 2.7 mi 
(4.3 km) in Great Run, and 25.8 mi (41.6 km) in Rappahannock River in 
Rappahannock,

[[Page 6863]]

Fauquier, and Culpeper Counties, Virginia. The riparian land adjacent 
to this unit is primarily privately owned (72 percent), with some 
conservation parcels (28 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants that enter the river 
and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria 
and toxins, all of which impact water quality for the species. Sources 
of these types of pollution include wastewater, agricultural runoff, 
stormwater runoff, and septic systems. Approximately 77 miles (123.9 
km) of the Rappahannock River watershed are impaired for aquatic life. 
Impairment is indicated by low benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment 
scores, pH and temperature issues, and Escherichia coli (E. coli); 
several of these can be attributed to septic systems or nonpoint source 
runoff into streams. There are 93 non-major NPDES discharges and 11 
major NPDES discharges, including several city and package WWTPs, 
within this unit. Special management considerations for riparian buffer 
restoration, agricultural BMPs, stormwater retrofits, maintenance of 
forested buffers, and implementing highest levels of treatment of 
wastewater practicable will benefit the habitat for the species in this 
unit.
Unit 3: RR2--Rapidan Subbasin
    Unit 3 consists of approximately 9 river mi (14.5 km) of Rapidan 
Subbasin, including 1.2 mi (1.9 km) in Marsh Run, 3.1 mi (5.0 km) in 
Blue Run, and 4.7 mi (7.6 km) in the Rapidan River in Madison and 
Orange Counties, Virginia. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is 
privately owned (57 percent) and conservation parcels (43 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants that enter the river 
and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria 
and toxins, all of which reduce water quality for the species (see 
discussion for Unit 2, above). Special management considerations for 
riparian buffer restoration, agricultural BMPs, stormwater retrofits, 
maintenance of forested buffers, and implementing highest levels of 
treatment of wastewater practicable will benefit the habitat for the 
species in this unit.

York Population

Unit 4: YR1--South Anna River
    Unit 4 consists of approximately 8 river mi (12.9 km) of the South 
Anna River in Louisa County, Virginia. The riparian land adjacent to 
this unit is primarily privately owned (92 percent), with some 
conservation parcels (8 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants that enter the river 
and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria 
and toxins, all of which impact water quality for the species. Sources 
of these types of pollution include wastewater, agricultural runoff, 
stormwater runoff, and septic systems. Based on 2012 data, 13 stream 
reaches, totaling approximately 44 miles (70.8 km), are impaired for 
aquatic life in the Po River and South Anna River watersheds. 
Impairment is indicated by low benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment 
scores, low dissolved oxygen, pH, and E. coli. There are 50 non-major 
NPDES discharges in the basin, and one major discharge, the Ashland 
WWTP. Special management considerations for riparian buffer 
restoration, agricultural BMPs, stormwater retrofits, maintenance of 
forested buffers, and implementing highest levels of treatment of 
wastewater practicable will benefit the habitat for the species in this 
unit.

James Population

Unit 5: JR1--Johns Creek
    Unit 5 consists of approximately 14 river mi (22.5 km) of the Johns 
Creek in Craig County, Virginia. The riparian land adjacent to this 
unit is primarily private, with some federally owned land as part of 
George Washington and Jefferson National Forest.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
address excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants, which enter the 
creek and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as 
bacteria and toxins, all of which impact water quality for the species. 
Sources of these types of pollution are wastewater, agricultural 
runoff, and urban stormwater runoff. National Forest lands surround 
most of the Johns Creek watershed; protections and management of these 
lands will likely enable habitat conditions (water quality, water 
quantity/flow, instream substrate, and connectivity) to remain high 
into the future (Service 2017, entire). Targeted species restoration in 
conjunction with current associated-species restoration efforts in 
Johns, Dicks, and Little Oregon Creeks within the Craig Creek Subbasin 
will likely improve the yellow lance's resiliency in these areas. 
Maintenance of forested buffer conditions is essential to retaining 
high-quality instream habitat in this unit.

Chowan Population

Unit 6: CR1--Nottoway Subbasin
    Unit 6 consists of approximately 41 river mi (66 km) of Nottoway 
Subbasin, including 1.4 mi (2.3 km) in Crooked Creek, 3.3 mi (5.3 km) 
in Sturgeon Creek, and 36.3 mi (58.4 km) in the Nottoway River in 
Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, and Dinwiddie Counties, Virginia. The 
proposed designation begins upstream of VA49 and ends at its confluence 
with Sturgeon Creek. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is 
primarily privately owned (64 percent), although Fort Pickett Military 
Reservation, which is exempted from this critical habitat designation, 
also has frontage on the Nottoway River (33 percent; see Exemptions, 
below), and there are some conservation parcels (3 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address a variety of threats. In the past decade, 
the Nottoway River suffered from several seasonal drought events, which 
not only caused low dissolved oxygen conditions but also decreased food 
delivery because of minimal flows. In addition, these conditions led to 
increased predation rates on potential host fishes that were 
concentrated into low-flow refugia (e.g., pools). Urban stormwater and 
nonpoint source pollution have been identified as contributing to water 
quality issues in this unit. Additional threats to this system include 
oil and gas pipeline projects that propose to cross streams at 
locations where the species occurs. Special management considerations 
for riparian buffer restoration, reduced surface and groundwater 
withdrawals, and stormwater retrofits will benefit the habitat in this 
unit. Additional special management considerations or protection may be 
required within this unit to address low water levels as a result of 
water withdrawals and drought, as well as recommendation of alternate 
routes for oil and gas pipelines, or directional boring for those 
projects.

Tar Population

Unit 7: TR1--Tar River
    Unit 7 consists of approximately 91 river mi (146.5 km) of the Tar 
River, including 4.4 mi (7.1 km) in Ruin Creek, 11.9 mi (19.2 km) in 
Tabbs Creek, 6.8 mi (10.9 km) in Crooked Creek, and 67.9 mi (109.3 km) 
in the Tar River in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties, 
North Carolina. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is almost all

[[Page 6864]]

privately owned (98 percent), with a few conservation parcels (2 
percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of 
nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land, or are discharged, into the 
waters, causing excessive growth of vegetation and leading to extremely 
low levels of dissolved oxygen. Based on 2014 data, seven stream 
reaches totaling approximately 38 miles (61.1 km) are impaired in this 
basin. Indicators of impairment are low dissolved oxygen and low 
benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores, and the entire basin is 
classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NCDEQ 2016, pp. 115-117). 
There are 102 non-major NPDES discharges, including several package 
WWTPs and biosolids facilities, and 3 major NPDES discharges (Oxford 
WWTP, Louisburg WWTP, and Franklin County WWTP) in this unit; with 
expansion of these facilities, or addition of new wastewater 
discharges, an additional threat to habitat exists in this unit. 
Special management focused on agricultural BMPs, implementing highest 
levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested 
buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit 
habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 8: TR2--Sandy/Swift Creek
    Unit 7 consists of approximately 31 river mi (50 km) of Sandy/Swift 
Creek in Vance, Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North 
Carolina. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is primarily 
privately owned (92 percent), with the rest in either conservation 
easements (2.5 percent) or State Game Land parcels (4.6 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of 
nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land, or are discharged, into the 
waters, causing excessive growth of vegetation and leading to extremely 
low levels of dissolved oxygen; one stream reach totaling approximately 
5 miles (8 km) is impaired in this unit. Special management focused on 
agricultural BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of 
protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in 
this unit.
Unit 9: TR3--Fishing Creek Subbasin
    Unit 9 consists of approximately 37 river mi (59.5 km) of Fishing 
Creek Subbasin, including 1.6 mi (2.6 km) in Richneck Creek, 8.0 mi 
(12.9 km) in Shocco Creek, and 27.4 mi (44 km) in Fishing Creek in 
Vance, Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina. 
The riparian land adjacent to this unit is primarily in private 
ownership (85 percent), with some State Game Land parcels (12 percent) 
and conservation easements (3 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of 
nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land, or are discharged, into the 
waters, causing excessive growth of vegetation and leading to extremely 
low levels of dissolved oxygen. Special management focused on 
agricultural BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of 
protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in 
this unit.

Neuse Population

Unit 10: NR1--Swift Creek
    Unit 10 consists of approximately 24 river mi (38.6 km) of the 
Swift Creek in Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina. The riparian 
land adjacent to this unit is almost entirely privately owned (99.5 
percent), with one conservation parcel (0.5 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of 
nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal 
waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, and farm fields are 
impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. There are several permitted 
point source discharges of wastewater. Development is also impacting 
several areas along Swift Creek.
    All of Swift Creek is rated ``impaired'' by the North Carolina 
Division of Water Resources. Many factors contribute to this 
designation, including low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores, 
low pH, poor fish community scores, low dissolved oxygen, 
polychlorinated biphenyls, copper, and zinc. Many non-major and one 
major (Dempsey Benton Water Treatment Plant) permitted discharges occur 
in this unit. Special management related to developed areas, including 
using the best available wastewater treatment technologies, 
retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater 
discharges, increasing open space in the watershed, and maintaining 
connected riparian corridors, will be important to maintain habitat in 
this unit.
Unit 11: NR2--Little River
    Unit 11 consists of approximately 10 river mi (16.1 km) of the 
Little River in Johnston County, North Carolina. The riparian land 
adjacent to this unit is almost entirely privately owned (99.5 
percent), with one conservation parcel (0.5 percent).
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within this unit to address a variety of threats. Four stream reaches 
totaling approximately 17 miles are impaired in the Little River. The 
designation of impairment is based primarily on low benthic-
macroinvertebrate assessment scores, low pH, and low dissolved oxygen. 
There are 32 non-major and no major NPDES discharges in this unit. 
Special management considerations in this unit include retrofitting 
stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, 
increasing and protecting existing open space, and maintaining 
connected riparian corridors.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they 
fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat 
of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which 
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed 
to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final regulation with a revised definition of 
destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). 
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as 
a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33

[[Page 6865]]

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of 
the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference 
or consultation or both include management and any other landscape-
altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Service, Army 
National Guard, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; 
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by 
the Federal Highway Administration. Federal actions not affecting 
listed species or critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, 
local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or 
carried out by a Federal agency, do not require section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2), is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued 
existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of 
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, 
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species 
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal 
action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the 
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous 
consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need 
to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations 
also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate 
consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently 
listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. See the 
regulations for a description of those exceptions.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2) 
of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such designation, or 
that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would alter the minimum flow or the existing flow 
regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
impoundment, channelization, water diversion, water withdrawal, and 
hydropower generation. These activities could eliminate or reduce the 
habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of the yellow lance 
and/or its fish host by decreasing or altering flows to levels that 
would adversely affect their ability to complete their life cycles.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or 
temperature. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
release of chemicals (including pharmaceuticals, metals, and salts), 
biological pollutants, or heated effluents into the surface water or 
connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-
point source). These activities could alter water conditions to levels 
that are beyond the tolerances of the yellow lance and/or its fish host 
and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals 
and their life cycles.
    (3) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition 
within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, excessive sedimentation from livestock grazing, road 
construction, channel alteration, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, 
and other watershed and floodplain disturbances. These activities could 
eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and 
reproduction of the mussel and/or its fish host by increasing the 
sediment deposition to levels that would adversely affect their ability 
to complete their life cycles.
    (4) Actions that would significantly increase the filamentous algal 
community within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but 
are not limited to, release of nutrients into the surface water or 
connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-
point source). These activities can result in excessive filamentous 
algae filling streams and reducing habitat for the yellow lance and/or 
its fish host, degrading water quality during algal decay, and 
decreasing oxygen levels at night from algal respiration to levels 
below the tolerances of the mussel and/or its fish host. Algae can also 
directly compete with mussel offspring by covering the sediment that 
prevents the glochidia from settling into the sediment.
    (5) Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or 
geometry. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
channelization, impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, 
dredging, and destruction of riparian vegetation. These activities may 
lead to changes in water flows and levels that would degrade or 
eliminate the mussel, its fish host, and/or their habitats. These 
actions can also

[[Page 6866]]

lead to increased sedimentation and degradation in water quality to 
levels that are beyond the tolerances of the mussel and/or its fish 
host.
    (6) Actions that result in the introduction, spread, or 
augmentation of nonnative aquatic species in occupied stream segments, 
or in stream segments that are hydrologically connected to occupied 
stream segments, even if those segments are occasionally intermittent, 
or introduction of other species that compete with or prey on the 
yellow lance. Possible actions could include, but are not limited to, 
stocking of nonnative fishes, stocking of sport fish, or other related 
actions. These activities can introduce parasites or disease to fish 
hosts; result in direct predation; or affect the growth, reproduction, 
and survival of yellow lance.

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for yellow lance to determine if 
they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under 
section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
    We have identified one area within the proposed critical habitat 
designation that consists of Department of Defense lands with a 
completed, Service-approved INRMP. The Army National Guard--Maneuver 
Training Center Fort Pickett (Fort Pickett) is located on 41,000 acres 
in three counties in southeastern Virginia: Nottoway, Brunswick, and 
Dinwiddie. Fort Pickett is on federally owned land and is managed by 
the Virginia Army National Guard and is subject to all federal laws and 
regulations. The Fort Pickett INRMP covers fiscal years 2017-2021, and 
serves as the principal management plan governing all natural resource 
activities on the installation. Among the goals and objectives listed 
in the INRMP is habitat management for rare, threatened, and endangered 
species, and the yellow lance is included in this plan. Management 
actions and elements that will benefit the yellow lance and its habitat 
include managing soil erosion and sedimentation; maintaining and 
improving riparian, forest, and stream habitats; enforcing stream and 
wetland protection zones; improving water quality; and conducting 
public outreach and education.
    Fourteen miles (22.5 km) of Unit 6 (CR1--Nottoway Subbasin) are 
located within the area covered by this INRMP. Based on the above 
considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the 
Act, we have determined that the identified streams are subject to the 
INRMP and that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will 
provide a benefit to the yellow lance. Therefore, streams within this 
installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 14 river miles 
(22.5 river km) of habitat in this proposed critical habitat 
designation because of this exemption.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factors to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    As discussed below, we are not proposing to exclude any areas from 
critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any 
areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time 
of the final designation, including information obtained during the 
comment period and information about the economic impact of 
designation.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate whether a specific critical habitat designation may 
restrict or modify specific land uses or activities for the benefit of 
the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify 
which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being 
listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation 
of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic 
impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by 
comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without 
critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing 
regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, 
or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of 
critical habitat (e.g.,

[[Page 6867]]

under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local 
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all 
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., 
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat'' 
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with 
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental 
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected 
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other 
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the 
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. 
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion 
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of 
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) 
exclusion analysis.
    For this proposed designation, we developed an incremental effects 
memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts 
that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The 
information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening 
analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat 
for the yellow lance (IEc 2018, entire). The purpose of the screening 
analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical 
habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental 
economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers 
baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes 
probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to 
conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, 
or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal 
listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out 
particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such 
protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic 
impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our 
analysis the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable 
incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. The 
screening analysis also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the 
species and may require additional management or conservation efforts 
as a result of the critical habitat designation for the species which 
may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis, 
combined with the information contained in our IEM, constitutes our 
draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation 
for the yellow lance (DEA), which is summarized in the narrative below.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As 
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the yellow lance, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated August 2, 2018, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) Federal lands management (U.S. Forest Service, 
Department of Defense); (2) agriculture; (3) forest management/
silviculture/timber; (4) development; (5) recreation; (6) restoration 
activities; and (7) transportation. Additionally, we considered whether 
the activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any 
Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat 
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. In areas where the yellow lance is present, Federal 
agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 
7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may 
affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat 
designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the 
existing consultation process.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that will result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the yellow 
lance. We used the following to help to inform our evaluation: (1) The 
essential physical or biological features identified for critical 
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the 
species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or 
harassment to constitute jeopardy to the yellow lance would also likely 
adversely affect the essential physical or biological features of 
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this 
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and 
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this 
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as 
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
proposed designation.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for the yellow lance 
totals approximately 319 river mi (514 km) in 11 units as critical 
habitat in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, all of which is 
occupied by the species. In these areas, any actions that may affect 
the species would also affect proposed critical habitat, and it is 
unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended 
to address the adverse modification standard over and above those 
recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence 
of the yellow lance. Therefore, even though some analysis of the 
impacts of the action of critical habitat may be necessary, and this 
additional analysis will require costs in time and resources by both 
the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most 
circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in 
nature and would not be significant. We do not expect any additional 
consultations resulting from the designation of critical habitat. The 
total annual incremental costs of critical habitat designation are 
anticipated to be the additional resources expended in a maximum of 102 
section 7 consultations annually at a cost of less than $240,000 per 
year. Accordingly, we believe that, in most circumstances, these costs 
would not reach the threshold of ``significant'' under E.O. 12866.
    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the 
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our 
required determinations. See ADDRESSES, above, for information on where 
to send comments.

Exclusions

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical

[[Page 6868]]

habitat. As discussed above, we prepared an analysis of the probable 
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and 
related factors. Based on this analysis, the Secretary does not propose 
to exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from the final 
designation based on economic impacts. However, during the development 
of a final designation, we will consider any additional economic impact 
information we receive during the public comment period, which may 
result in areas being excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security 
Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider whether there 
are lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a 
national security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we 
have determined that, other than the land exempted under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act based upon the existence of an approved INRMP 
(see Exemptions, above), the lands within the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the yellow lance are not owned or managed by the 
Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and, 
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently, 
the Secretary does not propose to exercise his discretion to exclude 
any areas from the final designation based on impacts on national 
security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are 
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as 
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), safe harbor agreements, or candidate 
conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and 
partnerships, and consider the government-to-government relationship of 
the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for yellow lance, and the 
proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or 
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation.
    During the development of a final designation, we will consider any 
information currently available or received during the public comment 
period regarding the economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of the proposed designation and will determine whether any 
specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

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

Executive Order 13771

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

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the 
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory 
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is 
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation 
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only

[[Page 6869]]

Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory 
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by 
critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that 
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this 
designation. There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the 
potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal 
agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities 
are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, 
if made final as proposed, this proposed critical habitat designation 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final as proposed, this 
proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. 
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

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

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

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

Takings--Executive Order 12630

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

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies in Maryland, Virginia, and 
North Carolina. From a federalism perspective, the designation of 
critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal 
agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical 
habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. 
As a result, the rule does not have substantial direct effects either 
on the States, or on the relationship between the national government 
and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities 
among the various levels of government. The designation may have some 
benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the 
features essential to the

[[Page 6870]]

conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical 
or biological features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of 
the species are specifically identified. This information does not 
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, 
it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (because 
these local governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 
7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

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

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

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

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

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes. As discussed above (see Exclusions), 
we have determined that no tribal lands would be affected by this 
designation.

Clarity of the Rule

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Team and Raleigh 
Ecological Services Field Office.

References Cited

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

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


 Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
            Common name                Scientific name          Where listed       Status   and applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
               CLAMS
 

[[Page 6871]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Lance, yellow.....................  Elliptio lanceolata..  Wherever found.......         T  83 FR 14189, 4/3/
                                                                                             2018;
                                                                                            50 CFR 17.95(f).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(f) by adding, immediately following the entry for 
``Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica),'' an entry for ``Yellow 
Lance (Elliptio lanceolata)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95   Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Franklin, Granville, 
Halifax, Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, and Warren Counties, North 
Carolina; Brunswick, Craig, Culpeper, Dinwiddie, Fauquier, Louisa, 
Lunenburg, Madison, Nottoway, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties, 
Virginia; and Howard and Montgomery Counties, Maryland, on the maps in 
this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of yellow lance consist of the following 
components:
    (i) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, 
characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (i.e., 
channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation) with habitats that support a diversity of freshwater mussel 
and native fish (such as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that provide 
flow refuges consisting of silt-free gravel and coarse sand 
substrates).
    (ii) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes 
the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over 
time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the species is 
found and to maintain connectivity of streams with the floodplain, 
allowing the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the 
mussel's and fish host's habitat, food availability, spawning habitat 
for native fishes, and the ability for newly transformed juveniles to 
settle and become established in their habitats.
    (iii) Water and sediment quality (including, but not limited to, 
conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy 
metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural 
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of 
all life stages.
    (iv) The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for 
recruitment of the yellow lance.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created by overlaying Natural Heritage Element Occurrence data and U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic data for stream reaches. The 
hydrologic data used in the critical habitat maps were extracted from 
the USGS 1:1M scale nationwide hydrologic layer (https://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/mld/1nethyd.html) with a projection of 
EPSG:4269-NAD83 Geographic. The North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland 
Natural Heritage program species presence data were used to select 
specific stream segments for inclusion in the critical habitat layer. 
The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory 
text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are 
available to the public at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2018-0094 and at the Raleigh Ecological Services Field 
Office. You may obtain field office location information by contacting 
one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed 
at 50 CFR 2.2.

[[Page 6872]]

    (5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.010


[[Page 6873]]


    (6) Unit 1: PRI--Patuxent River, Montgomery and Howard Counties, 
Maryland.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 10 river miles (16.1 
kilometers (km)) of occupied habitat, including 3 mi (4.8 km) of the 
Patuxent River and 7 mi (11.3 km) of the Hawlings River. Unit 1 
includes stream habitat up to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.011
    

[[Page 6874]]


    (7) Unit 2: RR1--Rappahannock Subbasin, Rappahannock, Fauquier, and 
Culpeper Counties, Virginia.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 44 river miles (70.8 km) of 
occupied habitat in the Rappahannock Subbasin, including 1.7 miles (2.7 
km) in Hungry Run, 7.9 miles (12.7 km) in Thumb Run, 5.9 miles (9.5 km) 
in South Run/Carter Run, 2.7 miles (4.3 km) in Great Run, and 25.8 
miles (41.6 km) in Rappahannock River. Unit 2 includes stream habitat 
up to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.012
    

[[Page 6875]]


    (8) Unit 3: RR2--Rappahannock Subbasin, Madison and Orange 
Counties, Virginia.(i) This unit consists of 9 river miles (14.5 km) of 
occupied habitat in the Rapidan Subbasin, including 1.2 miles (1.9 km) 
in Marsh Run, 3.1 miles (5.0 km) in Blue Run, and 4.7 miles (7.6 km) in 
the Raspidan River. Unit 3 includes stream habitat up to bank full 
height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.013
    

[[Page 6876]]


    (9) Unit 4: YR1--South Anna River, Louisa County, Virginia.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 8 river miles (12.9 km) of 
occupied habitat in the South Anna River. Unit 4 includes stream 
habitat up to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.014
    

[[Page 6877]]


    (10) Unit 5: JR1--Johns Creek, Craig County, Virginia.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 14 river miles (22.5 km) of 
occupied habitat in the Johns Creek. Unit 5 includes stream habitat up 
to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.015
    

[[Page 6878]]


    (11) Unit 6: CR1--Nottoway Subbasin, Nottoway, Lunenburg, 
Brunswick, and Dinwiddie Counties, Virginia
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 41 river miles (66 km) of 
occupied habitat in the Nottoway Subbasin, including 1.4 miles (2.3 km) 
in Crooked Creek, 3.3 miles (5.3 km) in Sturgeon Creek, and 36.3 miles 
(58.4 km) in the Nottoway River. Unit 6 includes stream habitat up to 
bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.016
    

[[Page 6879]]


    (12) Unit 7: TR1--Tar River, Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash 
Counties, North Carolina.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 91 river miles (146.5 km) 
of occupied habitat in the Tar River, including 4.4 miles (7.1 km) in 
Ruin Creek, 11.9 miles (19.2 km) in Tabbs Creek, 6.8 miles (10.9 km) in 
Crooked Creek, and 67.9 miles (109.3 km) in the Tar River. Unit 7 
includes stream habitat up to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.017
    

[[Page 6880]]


    (13) Unit 8: TR2--Sandy/Swift Creek, Vance, Warren, Halifax, 
Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina.
    (i) This unit consists of 31 river miles (50 km) of occupied 
habitat in the Sandy and Swift Creeks. Unit 8 includes stream habitat 
up to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.018
    

[[Page 6881]]


    (14) Unit 9: TR3--Fishing Creek Subbasin, Vance, Warren, Halifax, 
Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 37 river miles (59.5 km) of 
occupied habitat in the Fishing Creek Subbasin, including 1.6 miles 
(2.6 km) in Richneck Creek, 8.0 miles (12.9 km) in Shocco Creek, and 
27.4 miles (44 km) in Fishing Creek. Unit 9 includes stream habitat up 
to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.019
    

[[Page 6882]]


    (15) Unit 10: NR1--Swift Creek, Wake and Johnston Counties, North 
Carolina.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 24 river miles (38.6 km) of 
occupied habitat in the Swift Creek. Unit 10 includes stream habitat up 
to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.020
    

[[Page 6883]]


    (16) Unit 11: NR2--Little River, Johnston County, North Carolina.
    (i) This unit consists of approximately 10 river miles (16.1 km) of 
occupied habitat in the Little River. Unit 11 includes stream habitat 
up to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE20.021
    
* * * * *

    Dated: November 26, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising 
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-02294 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-C