[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 3, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69540-69563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22007]



[[Page 69540]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0078; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BE82


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for the Canoe Creek Clubshell and Designation of Critical 
Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Canoe Creek clubshell 
(Pleurobema athearni), a freshwater mussel species endemic to a single 
watershed in north-central Alabama, as an endangered or threatened 
species and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the species 
is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Canoe Creek clubshell 
as an endangered species under the Act. We also propose to designate 
critical habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell under the Act. In total, 
approximately 58.5 river kilometers (36.3 river miles) in St. Clair and 
Etowah Counties, Alabama, fall within the boundaries of the proposed 
critical habitat designation. Finally, we announce the availability of 
a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
January 4, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by December 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 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-2020-0078, 
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, check 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 to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2020-0078, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat 
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps 
are generated are included in the administrative record and are 
available at https://www.fws.gov/daphne and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0078. Any 
additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for the 
critical habitat designation will also be available at the Service 
website set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and/or 
at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Pearson, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological Services Field 
Office, 1208 Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; telephone 251-441-5181. 
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. Under the Act, if we determine that 
a species is warranted for listing as an endangered or threatened 
species throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are 
required to promptly publish a proposal in the Federal Register and 
make a determination on our proposal within one year. 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. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species 
and designation of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a 
rule.
    What this document does. We propose to list the Canoe Creek 
clubshell as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose the 
designation of critical habitat for the species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that habitat degradation 
through changes in water quality and quantity (Factor A), increased 
sedimentation (Factor A), and climate events (Factor E) are the primary 
threats to the species.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of 
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration 
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
    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 eight appropriate specialists with expertise in biology, 
habitat, and threats to the species regarding the species status 
assessment report. We did not receive any responses to our peer review 
requests. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing 
determinations, critical habitat designations, and 4(d) rules are based 
on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information

[[Page 69541]]

we receive (and any comments on that new information), we may conclude 
that the species is threatened instead of endangered, or we may 
conclude that the species does not warrant listing as either an 
endangered species or a threatened species and withdraw this proposed 
rule. Such final decisions would be a logical outgrowth of this 
proposal, as long as we: (1) Base the decisions on the best scientific 
and commercial data available after considering all of the relevant 
factors; (2) do not rely on factors Congress has not intended us to 
consider; and (3) articulate a rational connection between the facts 
found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our 
conclusion.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (5) 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 that the 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
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; or
    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (6) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Canoe Creek clubshell 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:
    (i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the 
conservation of the species; and
    (ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not 
unoccupied areas would, 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.
    (7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (9) 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.
    (10) 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.
    (11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    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.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place

[[Page 69542]]

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in 
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public 
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's 
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual 
public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, the Service was petitioned by the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, 
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, 
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra Curry, and Noah Greenwald 
to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the Canoe 
Creek clubshell (named as the ``Canoe Creek pigtoe'' in the petition) 
as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 
2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 
59836), concluding that the petition presented substantial information 
indicating that listing the Canoe Creek clubshell may be warranted. On 
March 16, 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint 
against the Service for failure to complete a 12-month finding for the 
Canoe Creek clubshell. On August 30, 2016, the Service entered into a 
settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity whereby 
the Service agreed to submit a 12-month finding for the Canoe Creek 
clubshell to the Federal Register by September 30, 2020. This document 
serves as our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition.

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Canoe Creek clubshell. 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 Service sent the SSA report to eight 
independent peer reviewers. Although we made several attempts to obtain 
responses from the peer reviewers, we did not receive a review from any 
of them. The Service also sent the SSA report to four partners, 
including scientists with expertise in the ecology and life history of 
the Canoe Creek clubshell and related freshwater mussels, as well as in 
the mussel habitat of the Big Canoe Creek watershed in which the 
species lives, for review. We received reviews from two partners: The 
State of Alabama and the Service's Conservation Genetics Laboratory.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Canoe Creek clubshell (Pleurobema athearni) is presented in the SSA 
report (version 1.1, Service 2020, pp. 14-27).
    The Canoe Creek clubshell is a medium-sized mussel that grows up to 
93 millimeters (mm) in length. The shell outline is roughly ovate or 
sub-ovate with slight sculpturing on the posterior-dorsal third of the 
valves (Gangloff et al. 2006, p. 48). The outside of the shell is tawny 
to brown in color and without rays (Williams et al. 2008, p. 505).
    The Canoe Creek clubshell occurs only in the Big Canoe Creek 
watershed in St. Clair and Etowah Counties, Alabama (Gangloff et al. 
2006, p. 53; Williams et al. 2008, p. 506). Information on the 
historical distribution of the species is limited and gleaned primarily 
from vouchered museum specimens (Gangloff et al. 2006, p. 47; MRBMRC 
2010, p. 26). A genetic analysis of Pleurobema and Fusconaia species in 
the Coosa River led to the description of this species in 2006 
(Gangloff et al. 2006, entire). Thus, it is difficult to quantify the 
historical population. The animal was likely collected in historical 
samplings but reported as a different species that is similar in 
appearance (e.g., southern pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum), ovate 
clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum), Georgia pigtoe (Pleurobema 
hanleyianum), or Gulf pigtoe (Fusconaia cerina)). Recent comprehensive 
surveys of the species in 2017 and 2018 verified that it is present at 
historical locations; therefore, we conclude that the current 
distribution of the species is likely similar to its historical 
distribution (Gangloff et al. 2006, p. 47; Fobian et al. 2017, pp. 26-
29). However, the population within that distribution may be patchily 
distributed, in very low abundance, and absent of recent recruitment 
(Fobian et al. 2017, pp. 10-11, 38).
    The species' distribution is disjunct; the Little Canoe Creek West 
and Big Canoe Creek mainstem portions are separated from the Little 
Canoe Creek East portion by 28 kilometers (km) (17 miles (mi)) of 
unoccupied stream. In this unoccupied area sits the backwaters of the 
H. Neely Henry Reservoir, an inundated portion of the river constructed 
in 1966 that is unsuitable habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell. The 
distance between the two portions of the clubshell's range likely 
exceeds the dispersal distance of the species' host fish (the 
clubshell's primary mode of dispersal). In addition, the unsuitable 
stretch of river caused by the reservoir presents a significant barrier 
to dispersal. As a result, we conclude no genetic exchange occurs 
between the western and eastern parts of the species' range and these 
two areas have likely been physically separated since the construction 
of the reservoir in the late 1960s. Although genetic research supports 
the Canoe Creek clubshell as a valid species, we do not have any 
genetic information regarding the two areas of the species' range 
(Gangloff et al. 2006, entire). Due to the physical barrier between 
these areas and the inability of a host fish to travel between them, we 
characterize these areas as subpopulations (referred to throughout this 
document as the western and eastern subpopulations).
    The Canoe Creek clubshell, like other freshwater mussels, has a 
complex life history involving an obligate parasitic larval life stage 
that is wholly dependent on a suitable host fish (Haag 2012, pp. 38-
41). For reproduction, males release sperm into the water column, 
females take up the sperm, and the sperm fertilizes eggs held in the 
female. The developing larvae remain in the female's gill chamber until 
they mature and are ready to be released. These mature larvae are 
called glochidia.
    The Canoe Creek clubshell targets host fish to infest with their 
glochidia by releasing the glochidia in packets called conglutinates 
that resemble fish prey items (Haag 2012, pp. 148, 163; Williams et al. 
2008, p. 506). Host fish used by the Canoe Creek clubshell include the 
tricolor shiner (Cyprinella trichroistia), Alabama shiner (C. 
callistia), and striped shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), among others 
(Fobian 2019, pp. 6, 14). Since adult mussels are sedentary, dispersal 
of individuals is accomplished during the glochidial life stage when 
they are attached to their mobile host fish (Smith 1985, p. 105). The 
clubshell's host fish species are common and widely distributed within 
the Big Canoe Creek watershed; therefore, host availability is not 
likely limiting the reproductive success of the mussel. However, these 
fish move relatively short distances, which means that dispersal of the 
clubshell is also limited.
    Once attached to a fish host, the larvae draw nutrients from the 
fish and develop into juvenile mussels (Arey

[[Page 69543]]

1932, pp. 213-214; Haag 2012, p. 42). After about 2 to 4 weeks, when 
the metamorphosis is complete, juveniles fall to the stream bottom 
where they live the remainder of their lives as free-living benthic 
animals (Haag 2012, p. 42; Fobian 2019, pp. 6, 17).
    Canoe Creek clubshells, like other freshwater mussels, are 
naturally inefficient reproducers because recruitment success is very 
low. While survival of adult mussels is generally high (annual adult 
survival is greater than 90 percent) (Haag 2012, pp. 219-221), the 
survival from the glochidial stage to the benthic recruitment stage is 
exceptionally low (0.00001 percent to 0.000001 percent) (Haag 2012, p. 
220). This means that individual females may successfully produce only 
0.1 to 1.3 juveniles per year (Haag 2012, p. 220), despite an annual 
fecundity of many thousands to millions of glochidia (Haag and Staton 
2003, pp. 2122-2123; Haag 2013, pp. 748-751; Fobian 2019, p. 12). 
Further, survival of recruits immediately after settlement is also 
extremely low; in a hatchery, about 50 percent survive during the first 
50 days (Hanlon and Neves 2006, pp. 47-48), and the rate in the wild is 
likely lower. After settlement, survival increases significantly. 
Individuals reach sexual maturity around 4 to 6 years of age (Fobian 
2019, pers. comm.) and have a life expectancy of about 25 to 35 years 
(Haag and Rypel 2010, p. 6).
    Mussels are omnivores, and their diet consists of a wide variety of 
particulate material (primarily less than 20 micrometers in size), 
including algae, bacteria, detritus, and microscopic animals (Gatenby 
et al. 1996, p. 606; Haag 2012, pp. 26-27). Dissolved organic matter 
may also be a significant source of nutrition (Vaughn et al. 2008, p. 
411). Adult freshwater mussels are primarily suspension-feeders that 
filter water and nutrients to eat. Filter feeding also allows mussels 
to uptake oxygen, excrete waste, and disperse and acquire gametes (Haag 
2012, p. 27).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened 
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer, in general, to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by 
the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however, 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary 
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA 
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0078 on http://www.regulations.gov.
    To assess the Canoe Creek clubshell's viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (e.g., wet or dry, warm or 
cold years), redundancy

[[Page 69544]]

supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events 
(e.g., droughts, large pollution events), and representation supports 
the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in 
the environment (e.g., climate changes). In general, the more resilient 
and redundant a species is and the more representation it has, the more 
likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing 
environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the 
species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
condition of the species. Our assessment of the condition encompasses 
and incorporates the threats individually and cumulatively. Our 
condition assessment is iterative because it accumulates and evaluates 
the effects of all the factors that may be influencing the species, 
including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework 
considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they 
collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment 
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a 
standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Individual, Subpopulation, and Species Needs

    The primary requirements for individual Canoe Creek clubshells 
include the following: Stable instream substrate for settling and 
burrowing; clean, flowing water to keep substrates free from excess 
sedimentation and to facilitate host fish interactions and feeding; 
appropriate water quality and temperatures to meet physiological needs 
for survival, growth, and reproduction; food and nutrients to survive 
and grow; and host fish for reproduction and dispersal.
    Juvenile and adult Canoe Creek clubshells need stable instream 
substrates, including, but not limited to, coarse sand and gravel for 
settlement and sheltering. Clean, flowing water is needed to keep these 
substrates free from excess sedimentation that may reduce the amount of 
available habitat for sheltering, hinder a mussel's ability to feed, 
and, in severe instances, cause smothering and death (see Risk Factors 
for the Canoe Creek Clubshell, below, for information on impacts of 
sedimentation). Clean, flowing water is also needed to attract host 
fish and disperse juveniles throughout stream reaches. In addition, 
freshwater mussels are sensitive to changes in water quality parameters 
such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and pollutants. 
Therefore, while the precise tolerance thresholds for these water 
quality parameters are unknown for the Canoe Creek clubshell, we know 
the species requires water of sufficient quality to sustain its natural 
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and survival at 
all life stages (see Risk Factors for the Canoe Creek Clubshell, below, 
for more information on water quality impairments). Food and nutrients 
are needed for individuals at all life stages for survival and growth 
(see Background, above, for information on food sources and feeding). 
Lastly, the presence of host fish is needed for successful reproduction 
and dispersal. Host fish used by the Canoe Creek clubshell include the 
tricolor shiner (Cyprinella trichroistia), Alabama shiner (C. 
callistia), and striped shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), among others 
(see Background, above, for more information on reproduction and host 
fish).
    To be healthy at the subpopulation and species levels, the Canoe 
Creek clubshell needs individuals to be present in sufficient numbers 
throughout the subpopulations; reproduction, which is evidenced by the 
presence of multiple age classes within a subpopulation; and 
connectivity among mussel beds (local aggregations) within a 
subpopulation and between subpopulations. Mussel abundance facilitates 
reproduction. Mussels do not actively seek mates; males release sperm 
into the water column, where it drifts until a female takes it in 
(Moles and Layzer 2008, p. 212). Therefore, successful reproduction and 
subpopulation growth requires a sufficient number of females to be 
downstream of a sufficient number of males.
    There must also be multiple mussel beds of sufficient density such 
that local stochastic events do not eliminate most or all the beds. 
Connectivity among beds within each subpopulation is also needed to 
allow mussel beds within a stream reach to be recolonized by one 
another and recover from stochastic events. A nonlinear distribution of 
beds over a sufficiently large area also helps buffer against 
stochastic events that may impact portions of a clubshell 
subpopulation. Similarly, having multiple subpopulations that are 
connected to one another protects the species from catastrophic events, 
such as spills, because subpopulations can recolonize one another 
following events that impact the entirety or portions of one 
subpopulation.

Risk Factors for the Canoe Creek Clubshell

    We identified several factors that are influencing the viability of 
the Canoe Creek clubshell. The primary factors include sedimentation, 
water quality, and climate events.
Sedimentation
    Under a natural flow regime, sediments are washed through river and 
stream systems, and the overall amount of sediment in the substrate 
remains relatively stable over time. However, some past and ongoing 
activities or practices can result in elevated levels of sediment in 
the substrate. This excessive stream sedimentation (or siltation) can 
be caused by soil erosion associated with upland activities (e.g., 
agriculture, forestry, unpaved roads, road construction, development, 
unstable streambanks, and urbanization) and stream channel 
destabilization associated with other activities (e.g., dredging, 
poorly installed culverts, pipeline crossings, or other instream 
structures) (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 102; Wynn et al. 2016, pp. 36-
52). In severe cases, stream bottoms can

[[Page 69545]]

become ``embedded,'' whereby substrate features including larger 
cobbles, gravel, and boulders are surrounded by, or buried in, 
sediment, which eliminates interstitial spaces (small openings between 
rocks and gravels).
    The negative effects of increased sedimentation on mussels are 
relatively well-understood (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, entire; Gascho 
Landis et al. 2013, entire; Poole and Downing 2004, pp. 118-124). 
First, the river processes and sediment dynamics caused by increased 
sedimentation degrade and reduce the amount of habitats available to 
mussels. Juvenile mussels burrow into interstitial spaces in the 
substrate. Therefore, juveniles are particularly susceptible to excess 
sedimentation that removes those spaces, and they are unable to find 
adequate habitat to survive and become adults (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, 
p. 100). Second, sedimentation interferes with juvenile and adult 
physiological processes and behaviors. Mussels can die from being 
physically buried and smothered by excessive sediment. However, the 
primary impacts of excess sedimentation on individuals are sublethal; 
sedimentation can reduce a mussel's ability to feed (Brim Box and Mossa 
1999, p. 101) and reproduce (by reducing the success of glochidial 
attachment and metamorphosis; Beussink 2007, pp. 19-20).
    The primary activities causing sedimentation that have occurred, 
and continue to occur, in the Big Canoe Creek watershed include 
urbanization and development, agricultural practices, and forestry 
practices (Wynn et al. 2016, pp. 9-10, 50-51). Approximately 59 percent 
of the Big Canoe Creek watershed is in evergreen or mixed deciduous 
forest, and forestry activities are common in central Big Canoe Creek 
and Little Canoe Creek West. Agriculture is also common, with pasture 
and small farms comprising 18 percent, and cultivated crops comprising 
2.3 percent, of land use in the watershed. Urban development comprises 
6 percent of the watershed's land use and is concentrated near the 
cities of Ashville and Springville near the western clubshell 
subpopulation, and Steele near the eastern subpopulation (Wynn et al. 
2016, p. 9).
    A rapid habitat assessment survey that included an evaluation of 
sedimentation deposition was completed at multiple sites in the Big 
Canoe Creek watershed from 2008-2013 (Wynn et al. 2016, pp. 37-39). 
Overall habitat quality varied from poor to optimal throughout Big 
Canoe Creek's nine subwatersheds, but six subwatersheds were reported 
impaired by sedimentation (Wynn et al. 2016, p. 51).
Water Quality
    Water quality in freshwater systems can be impaired through 
contamination or alteration of water chemistry. Chemical contaminants 
are ubiquitous throughout the environment and are a major reason for 
the current declining status of freshwater mussel species nationwide 
(Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2025). Chemicals such as ammonia enter the 
environment through both point and nonpoint discharges, including 
spills, industrial sources, municipal effluents, and agricultural 
runoff. These sources contribute organic compounds, heavy metals, 
pesticides, herbicides, and a wide variety of newly emerging 
contaminants to the aquatic environment.
    Alteration of water chemistry parameters is another type of 
impairment. Reduced dissolved oxygen levels and increased water 
temperatures are of particular concern. Runoff and wastewater can wash 
nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) into the water column, which 
can stimulate excessive plant growth (Carpenter et al. 1998, p. 561). 
The decomposition of this plant material can lead to reduced dissolved 
oxygen levels and eutrophication. Increased temperatures from climate 
changes (Alder and Hostetler 2013, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
National Climate Change Viewer) and low flow events during periods of 
drought can also reduce dissolved oxygen levels (Haag and Warren 2008, 
p. 1176).
    The effects of water quality impairments on freshwater mussels is 
well studied (Naimo 1995, entire; Havlik and Marking 1987, entire; 
Milam et al. 2005, entire; Markick 2017, entire). Contaminants, reduced 
dissolved oxygen levels, and increased temperatures are primary types 
of impairments that affect mussel survival, reproduction, and fitness. 
Freshwater mussels in their early life stages are among the most 
sensitive organisms to contaminants, but all life stages are vulnerable 
and can suffer from both acute and chronic effects (Augspurger et al. 
2003, p. 2569). Depending on the type and concentration, contaminants 
can cause mortality of or sublethal effects (e.g., reduced filtration 
efficiency, growth, and reproduction) on mussels at all life stages.
    In addition to contaminants, alterations in water chemistry, 
especially reduced dissolved oxygen levels and increased temperatures, 
can have negative impacts on mussels. Although juveniles tend to be 
more vulnerable, reduced dissolved oxygen levels can have lethal and 
sublethal impacts on mussels in all life stages. Mussels require oxygen 
for metabolism and when levels are low, normal functions and behaviors 
(e.g., ventilation, filtration, oxygen consumption, feeding, growth, 
and reproduction) are impaired. Below a certain level, mortality can 
occur. Lastly, increased water temperatures can impact mussel health. 
Young juveniles (less than 3 weeks old) are particularly sensitive, 
with upper and lower thermal limits 2 to 3 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) 
higher or lower than juveniles 1 to 2 years older (Martin 2016, pp. 14-
17). While drastic increases in temperatures beyond thermal tolerances 
can cause mortality, the most common negative effects of temperatures 
on mussels is caused by relatively minor increases that exacerbate 
impacts caused by other issues, such as contamination. For example, 
temperature increases impair physiological functions like immune 
response, filtration and excretion rates, oxygen consumption, and 
growth (Pandolfo et al. 2012, p. 73). Temperature increases have been 
linked to increased respiration rates and have also been linked to 
increased toxicity of some metals, like copper (Rao and Khan 2000, pp. 
176-177).
    In the Big Canoe Creek watershed, water quality impairments have 
historically impacted the Canoe Creek clubshell and continue to do so. 
Historically, point source discharges and pesticide and herbicide 
applications were not well regulated. The Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is the primary Federal law in the United States 
governing water pollution. A primary role of the CWA is to regulate the 
point source discharge of pollutants to surface waters through a permit 
process pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES). The NPDES permit process may be delegated by the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to the States. In Alabama, this authority has 
been delegated to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management 
(ADEM).
    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 
U.S.C. 136 et seq.) is intended to protect against unreasonable human 
health or environmental effects. While pesticides are usually tested on 
standard biological media (e.g., honey bees (Apis sp.), daphnia 
(Daphnia magna), bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), rainbow trout 
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), mice (Mus musculus)), often endangered and 
threatened species are more susceptible to pollutants than test 
organisms commonly used in bioassays. While

[[Page 69546]]

State and Federal regulations have become more stringent and toxicity 
and environmental consequences of contaminants are better understood, 
the use of many pesticides and herbicides are more commonplace. Runoff 
and discharges are also concerns now and into the future with the 
ongoing urbanization of the area. Increasing water temperatures from 
drought events have been and will continue to exacerbate water quality 
issues (see ``Climate Events,'' below).
Climate Events
    Climate events such as droughts and floods can have significant 
impacts on freshwater systems and their fundamental ecological 
processes (Poff et al. 2002, pp. ii-v). Drought can cause dewatering of 
freshwater habitats and low flows, which exacerbate water quality 
impairments (e.g., dissolved oxygen, temperature, contaminants). 
Streams with smaller drainage areas are especially vulnerable to 
drought because they are more likely to experience extensive dewatering 
than larger streams that maintain substantial flow (Haag and Warren 
2008, pp. 1172-1173). Floods can cause excessive erosion, destabilize 
banks and bed materials, and lead to increases in sedimentation and 
suspended solids. Climate change can affect the frequency and duration 
of drought and floods, as well as alter normal temperature regimes. 
Higher water temperatures, which are common during the low flow periods 
of droughts, decrease mussel survival (Gough et al. 2012, p. 2363).
    Severe drought and major floods can have significant impacts on 
mussel communities (Haag and Warren 2008, p. 1165; Hastie et al. 2001, 
p. 107; Hastie et al. 2003, pp. 40-45). Reduced flows from drought can 
isolate or eliminate areas of suitable habitat for mussels in all life 
stages and render individuals exposed and vulnerable to drying and 
predation (Golladay et al. 2004, pp. 503-504). Drought can also degrade 
water quality (e.g., decreased dissolved oxygen levels and increased 
temperatures), which can reduce mussel survival, reproduction, and 
fitness (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 501; Haag and Warren 2008, pp. 1174-
1176) (see discussion above under ``Water Quality''). If severe or 
frequent, droughts can cause substantial declines in mussel abundance. 
Flooding can also affect mussels by dislodging individuals and 
depositing them in unsuitable habitat, which can affect their ability 
to survive and reproduce (Hastie et al. 2001, pp. 108, 114). Higher 
turbidity and reduced visibility during high flows reduce the chances 
of successful fertilization of the female and impede the host fish's 
ability to find and take up conglutinates.
    While the Canoe Creek clubshell evolved in an environment that 
experiences periods of drought, the frequency of severe droughts in the 
Big Canoe Creek watershed has increased in recent decades (NOAA 2020). 
The stream segments within Big Canoe Creek where clubshells occur have 
relatively small drainage sizes, which render them particularly 
vulnerable to drought. Combined with other stressors such as water 
quality degradation that occur within the watershed, severe droughts 
can have significant impacts on the species (Haag and Warren 2008, p. 
1175). No studies have been conducted specifically on the impacts of 
Canoe Creek clubshells within Big Canoe Creek following drought events. 
However, neighboring streams of similar size and condition experienced 
drastic declines in the density and abundance of the warrior pigtoe 
(Pleurobema rubellum, a mussel species similar to the clubshell). 
Following a severe drought event in 2000, warrior pigtoe abundance 
declined by 65 to 83 percent (Haag and Warren 2008, p. 1165), and 
multiple sites were extirpated. We presume that Big Canoe Creek faced 
similar conditions following this and other severe drought events 
because of its geographic proximity and similar size and condition. 
Additionally, we presume the Canoe Creek clubshell's response to the 
drought event was comparable to that of the warrior pigtoe given its 
similar life-history characteristics and physiological and habitat 
needs.
    While the impacts on mussels following the drought in 2000 were 
well documented (Golladay et al. 2004, entire; Haag and Warren 2008, 
entire), drought events have been occurring in the area and affecting 
mussel communities for decades. The severity and frequency of droughts 
is closely monitored and recorded at the local and State levels by 
multiple initiatives (NDMC 2019; USGS 2019). The National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Integrated Drought 
Information System (NIDIS) program keeps one of the most extensive 
records (beginning in 1895) of drought in Alabama. The program uses the 
Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), which is a measurement of dryness 
based on evapotranspiration (NOAA 2020). These data indicate that over 
the past 100 years (1918-2018), approximately 6 percent of years 
experienced severe drought.
    While severe droughts are natural events that these streams have 
always experienced, this part of Alabama has undergone more frequent 
severe drought events over the last 20 years; the number of severe 
drought years has increased to approximately 11 percent (NOAA 2020, 
unpaginated). This drying trend was also recorded at the local scale. 
Water flow gauge data at a Big Canoe Creek gauging site reported low 
flows that correlate to the severe and exceptional droughts in the Big 
Canoe Creek watershed during 2000, 2007, and 2008 (USGS 2019). The 
severe drought events that occurred in relatively short succession 
during a prolonged dry period likely caused severe impacts to the 
survival, reproduction, and abundance of Canoe Creek clubshells. 
Although we do not have specific data on the Canoe Creek clubshell in 
response to these drought events, the decline of other freshwater 
mussel species was documented in a nearby watershed. The dark pigtoe 
(Pleurobema furvum), a freshwater mussel with similar life history 
characteristics of the Canoe Creek clubshell, was extirpated at sites 
with low densities following the 2000 severe drought event (Haag and 
Warran 2008, pp. 1173).

Species Condition

    The Canoe Creek clubshell's ability to withstand, or be resilient 
to, stochastic events and disturbances such as drought and fluctuations 
in reproductive rates is extremely limited. The species has likely 
always been a rare, narrow endemic of the Big Canoe Creek watershed; 
however, past and ongoing stressors, including decreased water quality 
from drought events, development, and agriculture, among other sources, 
have greatly reduced the resiliency of the species. At present, the 
clubshell has extremely low abundance, shows no signs of successful 
reproduction, and has poor connectivity within and among 
subpopulations.
    During comprehensive mussel surveys conducted in 2017 and 2018 in 
the Big Canoe Creek watershed, only 25 Canoe Creek clubshells were 
found (Fobian et al. 2017, entire; Fobian 2018, entire). In the western 
subpopulation, 9 individuals were found in 2 of the 40 sites that were 
surveyed. In the eastern subpopulation, 16 individuals were found at 
only 1 of the 8 sites that were surveyed. In the 25 years prior to 
these surveys, fewer than 15 live individuals were found (Fobian et al. 
2017, pp. 9-10). However, despite the numbers of clubshell found in the 
2017 surveys, the age structure of the individuals consisted of aged 
adults and the surveys found no evidence of successful recruitment 
(i.e., sub adults (Fobian et al. 2017, pp. 9-10)).

[[Page 69547]]

    In addition to a low abundance, the clubshell is experiencing 
recruitment failure; juveniles are not surviving to reproductive ages 
and joining the adult population (Strayer and Malcom 2012, pp. 1783-
1785). This is evidenced by the species' heavily skewed age class 
distribution. Of the 25 individuals found in recent surveys, all were 
aging adults (Fobian et al. 2017, entire; Fobian 2018, entire). This 
skewed age class distribution is indicative of a species that is not 
successfully reproducing and is in decline.
    Lastly, the resiliency of each subpopulation is limited by their 
disjunct distribution. The stretch of unsuitable habitat separating the 
subpopulations prevents individuals from dispersing from one 
subpopulation to another. This isolation renders the subpopulations 
vulnerable to extirpation because individuals are unable to recolonize 
portions of the range following stochastic disturbances that eliminate 
entire mussel beds or a subpopulation.
    The Canoe Creek clubshell's ability to withstand catastrophic 
events (redundancy) is also limited primarily because of its narrow 
range. Severe droughts resulting in decreased water quality and direct 
mortality were likely the primary causes of the species' recent 
decline. This is in part because of the species' limited ability to 
withstand this type of catastrophic event. Compared to a more wide-
ranging species whose risk is spread over multiple populations across 
its range, the entirety of the clubshell's range is impacted by a 
severe drought event. However, the impacts of other potential 
catastrophic events, such as contaminant spills, may be restricted to a 
portion of the clubshell's range, especially because the species' 
subpopulations are not directly downstream from one another.
    The ability of the Canoe Creek clubshell to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions (representation) over time is also likely 
limited. There are no studies that have explicitly explored the 
species' adaptive capacity or the fundamental components--phenotypic 
plasticity, dispersal ability, and genetic diversity--by which it is 
characterized. The clubshell is a narrow endemic, inhabiting a single 
watershed, and we do not observe any ecological, behavioral, or other 
form of diversity that may indicate adaptive capacity across its range; 
thus, we presume the species currently has limited ability to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions.

Future Condition

    As part of the SSA, we also developed three future condition 
scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future 
threats and the projected responses by the Canoe Creek clubshell. Our 
scenarios assumed a moderate or enhanced probability of severe drought, 
and either propagation or no propagation of the species. Because we 
determined that the current condition of the Canoe Creek clubshell was 
consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of Species 
Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the future 
scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report 
(Service 2020) for the full analysis of future scenarios.

Determination of the Canoe Creek Clubshell's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the 
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because 
of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that past and ongoing stressors including decreased 
water quality from drought, development, and agriculture, among other 
sources (Factor A), have reduced the resiliency of the Canoe Creek 
clubshell to such a degree that the species is particularly vulnerable 
to extinction. The Canoe Creek clubshell has likely always been a rare, 
narrow endemic within the Big Canoe Creek, and the species has some 
natural ability to withstand stochastic demographic fluctuations and 
catastrophic events such as a severe drought, which are characteristic 
of the environment in which it evolved. However, the frequency of 
severe drought events in the past two decades, combined with other 
ongoing habitat-related stressors and the mussel's naturally 
inefficient reproductive strategy, likely caused the decline of the 
species to its current vulnerable condition from which it is unable to 
recover naturally. The species' declining trend and inability to 
recover is evidenced by recent comprehensive surveys in both the 
western and eastern subpopulations that reveal the species is comprised 
of a limited number of older adults that are failing to recruit young. 
While we anticipate these threats will continue to act on the species 
in the future, they are affecting the species such that it is in danger 
of extinction now, and therefore we find that a threatened species 
status is not appropriate. We find that the Canoe Creek clubshell's 
vulnerability to ongoing stressors is heightened to such a degree that 
it is currently in danger of extinction as a result of its narrow range 
and critically low numbers. Thus, after assessing the best available 
information, we conclude that the Canoe Creek clubshell is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. We have determined the Canoe Creek clubshell is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range and, accordingly, did not 
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because 
we have determined the Canoe Creek clubshell warrants listing as 
endangered throughout all of its range, our determination is consistent 
with the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 
WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the court vacated the aspect 
of our Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant 
Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of 
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 
2014) that provided that the Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a 
species' range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout 
all of its range.

[[Page 69548]]

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Canoe Creek clubshell meets the 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
Canoe Creek clubshell as an endangered species in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and 
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, 
below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery 
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making 
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of 
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website 
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Alabama Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Alabama would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Canoe Creek clubshell. Information on 
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be 
found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the Canoe Creek clubshell is only proposed for listing 
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(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. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities. These actions include work by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service under the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. This program 
provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners and 
Tribes who are willing to help meet habitat needs of Federal trust 
species. The Farm Service Agency administers the Conservation Reserve 
Program, which includes working with farmers and private landowners to 
use their environmentally sensitive agricultural land for conservation 
benefit. The Natural Resources Conservation Service works with private 
landowners under multiple Farm Bill programs, all aimed at the 
conservation of water and soil. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
administers the issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits that 
regulate fill of wetlands, and the Federal Highway Administration 
regulates the construction and maintenance of roads or highways.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these) endangered fish or wildlife within the United States or on the 
high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, 
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in 
the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce any species listed as an

[[Page 69549]]

endangered species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken 
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management 
agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to 
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information, 
the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section 
9, if these activities are carried out in accordance with existing 
regulations and permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including 
herbicide and pesticide use, that are carried out in accordance with 
any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best 
management practices.
    (2) Normal residential development and landscape activities that 
are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit 
requirements, and best management practices.
    (3) Normal recreational hunting, fishing, or boating activities 
that are carried out in accordance with all existing hunting, fishing, 
and boating regulations, and following reasonable practices and 
standards.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities, 
which are activities that the Service finds could potentially harm the 
Canoe Creek clubshell and result in ``take'' of the species, may 
potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they are 
not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not 
comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the Canoe Creek clubshell, 
including import or export across State lines and international 
boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of the 
taxon at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the 
Act.
    (2) Unauthorized modification of the channel, substrate, 
temperature, or water flow of any stream or water body in which the 
Canoe Creek clubshell is known to occur.
    (3) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any 
waters in which the Canoe Creek clubshell is known to occur.
    (4) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the Canoe Creek clubshell, such as the zebra mussel (Dreissena 
polymorpha) and Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea).
    (5) Pesticide applications in violation of label restrictions.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Alabama 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that 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. Designation also does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands, nor does designation 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

[[Page 69550]]

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, 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 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 occupied by the species and 
important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside 
the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) 
Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 
regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of 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 implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical 
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
the 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.
    As discussed earlier in the document, there is currently no 
imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism 
identified under Factor B for this species, and identification and 
mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such 
threat. In our SSA and proposed listing determination for the Canoe 
Creek clubshell, we determined that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a 
threat to the Canoe Creek clubshell and that those threats in some way 
can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. The species 
occurs wholly in the jurisdiction of the United States, and we are able 
to identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. 
Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) apply and because there are no other 
circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this designation 
of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the 
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Canoe Creek 
clubshell.

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 Canoe 
Creek clubshell 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

[[Page 69551]]

    (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. This and other information represent the best scientific data 
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for the Canoe Creek clubshell.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
    For example, physical features essential to the conservation of the 
species might include gravel of a particular size required for 
spawning, alkaline soil for seed germination, protective cover for 
migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains 
necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological 
features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 
ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular 
level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the 
listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species. In considering whether 
features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service 
may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal 
arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-
history needs, condition, and status of the species. These 
characteristics include, but are not limited to, space for individual 
and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, 
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or 
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
    Canoe Creek clubshells live in freshwater rivers and streams. 
Clubshells, like other freshwater mussels, live in aggregations called 
mussel beds, which can be patchily distributed throughout an occupied 
river or stream reach, but together comprise a mussel population. 
Mussel beds are connected to one another when host fish infested by 
mussel larvae in one bed disperse the larvae to another bed. While 
adults are mostly sedentary, larval dispersal among beds causes mussel 
density and abundance to vary dynamically throughout an occupied reach 
over time. Connectivity among beds and populations is essential for 
maintaining resilient populations because it allows for recolonization 
of areas following stochastic events. Populations that do not occupy a 
long enough reach or have too few or sparsely distributed beds are 
vulnerable to extirpation.
    The primary requirements for individual Canoe Creek clubshells 
include the following: Stable instream substrate for attaching and 
sheltering; clean, flowing water to keep substrates free from excess 
sedimentation and to facilitate host fish interactions and feeding; 
appropriate water quality and temperatures to meet physiological needs 
for survival, growth, and reproduction; food and nutrients to survive 
and grow; and host fish for reproduction and dispersal (see Individual, 
Subpopulation, and Species Needs, above, for more discussion of these 
needs).

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Canoe Creek clubshell from studies of the 
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. 
Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2020, 
entire; available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2020-0078). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of the Canoe 
Creek clubshell:
    (1) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, 
characterized by a geomorphically stable stream channel (a channel that 
maintains its lateral dimensions, longitudinal profile, and spatial 
pattern over time without aggrading or degrading bed elevation) and 
connected instream habitats (e.g., stable riffle-run-pool habitats that 
provide flow refuges consisting of silt-free gravel and coarse sand 
substrates).
    (2) A hydrologic flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, 
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain 
benthic habitats where the species is found; to maintain connectivity 
of streams with the floodplain; and to provide for normal behavior, 
growth, and survival of all life stages of Canoe Creek clubshell 
mussels and their fish hosts.
    (3) Water quality (including, but not limited to, temperature, 
conductivity, hardness, turbidity, ammonia, heavy metals, oxygen 
content, and other chemical characteristics) necessary to sustain 
natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages of Canoe Creek clubshell mussels and their 
fish hosts.
    (4) Sediment quality (including, but not limited to, coarse sand 
and/or gravel substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment, 
low amounts of attached filamentous algae, and other physical and 
chemical characteristics) necessary for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages of Canoe Creek clubshell mussels and their 
fish hosts.
    (5) The presence and abundance of known fish hosts, which may 
include the tricolor shiner (Cyprinella trichroistia), Alabama shiner 
(C. callistia), and striped shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), necessary 
for recruitment of the Canoe Creek clubshell mussel.

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

[[Page 69552]]

considerations or protection. The features essential to the 
conservation of the Canoe Creek clubshell may require special 
management considerations or protections to ensure that conditions do 
not degrade. Examples of these threats include excessive amounts of 
fine sediment deposited in the channel, changes in water quality 
(impairment), activities that cause a destabilization of the stream 
channel and/or its banks, loss of riparian cover, and altered hydrology 
from inundation, channelization, withdrawals, or flow loss/scour 
resulting from other human-induced perturbations.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to: Use of best management practices designed to 
reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank-side destruction; protection of 
riparian corridors and retention of sufficient canopy cover along 
banks; exclusion of livestock and nuisance wildlife (feral hogs, exotic 
ungulates); 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; use of highest 
water quality standards for wastewater and other return flows; and 
reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release 
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.
    In summary, we find that the areas we are proposing to designate as 
critical habitat contain the physical and biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. Special management 
considerations or protection may be required of the Federal action 
agency to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible levels, the threats 
affecting the physical and biological features of each unit.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat. We defined ``occupied'' areas as 
stream channels with observations of one or more live individuals, or 
recent dead shell material, from 1999 to the present because Canoe 
Creek clubshells may be difficult to detect and some sites are not 
visited multiple times. Recently dead shell material at a site 
indicates the species is likely present in that area, given their 
average life span of 25 to 35 years. Using this definition, we 
considered portions of the Big Canoe Creek mainstem and portions of 
Little Canoe Creek in its eastern and western reaches as occupied by 
the Canoe Creek clubshell at the time of proposed listing. In 2017 and 
2018, surveys confirmed occupancy of these river portions consistent 
with previous data collected.
    The Canoe Creek clubshell has likely always been a narrow endemic 
within its single watershed. Therefore, the species' redundancy and 
representation is limited, but likely similar to that which it was 
historically. However, the species has an extremely limited ability to 
withstand stochastic events and disturbances because of its now 
critically low numbers. Conserving the species will therefore require 
increasing the species' abundance throughout its range and successful 
recruitment. Although conservation of the Canoe Creek clubshell will 
require improving the species' resiliency, we concluded that the 
occupied areas proposed as critical habitat are sufficient to ensure 
the conservation of the species. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat.
    Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat include multiple 
databases maintained by the Service, museums, universities, 
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and State agencies; scientific 
and agency reports; peer-reviewed journal articles; and numerous survey 
reports on streams throughout the species' range.
    In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of proposed listing, we delineated critical habitat 
unit boundaries as follows: We evaluated habitat suitability of stream 
segments within the geographic area occupied at the time of listing, 
and retained those segments that contain some or all of the physical 
and biological features to support life-history functions essential for 
conservation of the species. Then, we assessed those occupied stream 
segments retained through the above analysis and refined the starting 
and ending points by evaluating the presence or absence of appropriate 
physical and biological features. We selected upstream and downstream 
cutoff points to reference existing easily recognizable landmarks, 
including stream confluences, highway crossings, and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission boundary of H. Neely Henry Reservoir. Unless 
otherwise specified, any stream beds located directly beneath bridge 
crossings or other landmark features used to describe critical habitat 
spatially, such as stream confluences, are considered to be wholly 
included within the critical habitat unit. Critical habitat stream 
segments were then mapped using ArcGIS Pro version 2.3.3 (ESRI, Inc.), 
a Geographic Information Systems program.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical or biological features necessary for the Canoe Creek 
clubshell. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
    We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently 
occupied) and contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the 
species. Units are proposed for designation based on one or more of the 
physical or biological features being present to support the Canoe 
Creek clubshell's life-history processes. Both proposed units contain 
all of the identified physical or biological features and support 
multiple life-history processes.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of

[[Page 69553]]

this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2020-0078 and on our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/daphne.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate approximately 58.5 river kilometers 
(km) (36.3 river miles (mi)) in two units as critical habitat for the 
Canoe Creek clubshell. The critical habitat areas we describe below 
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell. The two 
units we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Little Canoe Creek East 
and (2) Big Canoe Creek/Little Canoe Creek West. Table 1 shows the 
proposed critical habitat units and the approximate area of each unit. 
In Alabama, all waters are held within the public trust. The Service 
will consult with the State to confirm the status of ownership of the 
river bottoms in these river segments. This information will be made 
available in our final rule published in the Federal Register.

                     Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Canoe Creek Clubshell
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Size of unit
         Critical habitat unit            Adjacent land ownership    in kilometers            Occupied?
                                                  by type               (miles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Little Canoe Creek East.............  Private, County..........       9.7 (6.0)  Yes.
2. Big Canoe Creek/Little Canoe Creek    Private..................     48.8 (30.3)  Yes.
 West.
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  .........................     58.5 (36.3)  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of both units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell, 
below.
Unit 1: Little Canoe Creek East
    Unit 1 consists of 9.7 river km (6.0 river mi) of Little Canoe 
Creek East, due east of the Town of Steele, in St. Clair and Etowah 
Counties, Alabama. The unit consists of the Little Canoe Creek mainstem 
from the intersection with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
boundary of H. Neely Henry Reservoir (at elevation 155 meters (m) (509 
feet (ft)) above mean sea level and approximately 4.4 river km (2.7 
river mi) upstream of its confluence with Big Canoe Creek), upstream 
9.7 river km (6.0 river mi) to the U.S. Highway 11 bridge crossing.
    This unit is currently occupied by the Canoe Creek clubshell. The 
majority of the adjacent land surrounding this unit is privately owned. 
A small amount of the adjacent land is publicly owned in the form of 
bridge crossings and easements, and portions of the eastern bank of 
Little Canoe Creek between U.S. Highway 11 to Interstate 59, in Etowah 
County, Alabama. Approximately 2.4 river km (1.5 river mi) of Little 
Canoe Creek borders property to the east owned by Etowah County, 
Alabama.
    Unit 1 contains all physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. The channel within Unit 1 is 
relatively stable and provides the necessary riffle-run-pool sequences 
required by the Canoe Creek clubshell. A continued hydrologic flow 
regime with adequate water quality and limited fine sediments are 
present within this unit, providing habitat features that support the 
Canoe Creek clubshell. The unit also contains fish hosts for the 
clubshell. The physical and biological features in this unit may 
require special management considerations or protections to ensure that 
conditions do not further degrade. Examples of these threats include 
excessive amounts of fine sediment deposited in the channel, changes in 
water quality (impairment), activities that cause a destabilization of 
the stream channel and/or its banks, loss of riparian cover, and 
altered hydrology from either inundation, channelization, withdrawals, 
or flow loss/scour resulting from other human-induced perturbations 
(see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit 2: Big Canoe Creek/Little Canoe Creek West
    Unit 2 consists of 48.8 river km (30.3 river mi) of Big Canoe Creek 
and its tributary Little Canoe Creek West, which are located 
geographically between the cities of Springville and Ashville, St. 
Clair County, Alabama. The unit consists of the main channel of Big 
Canoe Creek from the Double Bridge Road bridge crossing near Ashville, 
Alabama, upstream 32.2 river km (20.0 river mi) to the Washington 
Valley Rd (St. Clair County Road 23) bridge crossing near Springville, 
Alabama; and Little Canoe Creek West from its confluence with Big Canoe 
Creek, upstream 16.6 river km (10.3 river mi) to the confluence of 
Stovall Branch. This unit is currently occupied by the Canoe Creek 
clubshell. The majority of this unit is adjacent to private land, 
except for any small amount of adjacent land that is publicly owned in 
the form of bridge crossings and easements.
    Unit 2 contains all physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. The channel within Unit 2 is 
relatively stable and provides the necessary riffle-run-pool sequences 
required by the Canoe Creek Clubshell. A continued hydrologic flow 
regime with adequate water quality and limited fine sediments is 
present within this unit, providing habitat features that support the 
Canoe Creek clubshell. A diverse fish fauna, including fish hosts for 
the clubshell, are known from this unit. The physical and biological 
features in this unit may require special management considerations or 
protections to ensure that conditions do not degrade. Examples of these 
threats include excessive amounts of fine sediment deposited in the 
channel, changes in water quality (impairment), activities that cause a 
destabilization of the stream channel and/or its banks, loss of 
riparian cover, and altered hydrology from either inundation, 
channelization, withdrawals, or flow loss/scour resulting from other 
human-induced perturbations (see Special Management Considerations or 
Protection, above).

[[Page 69554]]

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the 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 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require 
section 7 consultation.
    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, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 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 ``Destruction or 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 section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
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 geomorphology of stream and river 
habitats. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
instream excavation or dredging, impoundment, channelization, sand and 
gravel mining, clearing riparian vegetation, and discharge of fill 
materials. These activities could cause aggradation or degradation of 
the channel bed elevation or significant bank erosion and result in 
entrainment or burial of this mussel, and could cause other direct or 
cumulative adverse effects to this species and its life cycles.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter the existing flow regime 
where this species occurs. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, impoundment, urban development, water diversion, and water 
withdrawal. These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat 
necessary for growth and reproduction of this mussel and its fish 
hosts.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or water 
quality (for example, temperature, pH, contaminants, and excess 
nutrients). Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
hydropower discharges, or the release of chemicals, biological 
pollutants, or heated effluents into surface water or connected 
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (nonpoint 
source). These activities could alter water conditions that are beyond 
the tolerances of this mussel, its fish hosts, or both, and result in 
direct or cumulative adverse effects to the species throughout its life 
cycle.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter stream bed material 
composition and quality by increasing sediment deposition or 
filamentous algal growth. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, construction projects, gravel and sand mining, oil and gas 
development, coal mining, livestock

[[Page 69555]]

grazing, timber harvest, and other watershed and floodplain 
disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the water. These 
activities could eliminate or reduce habitats necessary for the growth 
and reproduction of this mussel, its fish hosts, or both, by causing 
excessive sedimentation and burial of the species or its habitat, or 
nutrification leading to excessive filamentous algal growth. Excessive 
filamentous algal growth can cause reduced nighttime dissolved oxygen 
levels through respiration, and prevent juvenile mussels from settling 
into stream sediments.

Exemptions

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

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

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the 
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that 
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and 
how much weight to give to any factor.
    We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into 
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant 
impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of 
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act 
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless 
of whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical 
habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts associated 
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. 
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not 
be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the 
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable 
solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the 
baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits 
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final 
designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a 
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. 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 Canoe Creek clubshell (IEc 2019, entire). We 
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that 
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of 
the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of 
critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, 
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In 
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., 
absent critical habitat designation) and includes 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. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our 
analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur 
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. 
If there are any unoccupied units in the proposed critical habitat 
designation, the screening analysis assesses whether any additional 
management or conservation efforts may incur incremental economic 
impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information 
contained in our IEM are what we consider our draft economic analysis 
(DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Canoe Creek 
clubshell; our DEA 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 Canoe Creek clubshell, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated November 27, 2019, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1)

[[Page 69556]]

Agriculture, (2) poultry farming, (3) grazing, (4) development, (5) 
recreation, (6) restoration activities, (7) flood control, (8) 
transportation, and (9) utilities. We considered each industry or 
category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation 
generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only 
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. If we list the species, in areas where the Canoe 
Creek clubshell is present, Federal agencies would be 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, when we 
list the species, we also 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 Canoe 
Creek clubshell's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical 
habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell is proposed concurrently with the 
listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to 
discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species 
being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of 
critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this 
case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or 
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same 
features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any 
actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to 
constitute jeopardy to the Canoe Creek clubshell 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 of critical habitat.
    The evaluation of incremental costs of designating critical habitat 
for the Canoe Creek clubshell indicates costs are relatively low. The 
proposed critical habitat designation for the Canoe Creek clubshell 
totals approximately 58.5 river kilometers (36.3 river miles) of river 
adjacent to private property across two currently occupied units in the 
Big Canoe Creek watershed. Numerous other listed species co-occur with 
the Canoe Creek clubshell in these areas (e.g., Georgia pigtoe, 
finelined pocketbook (Hamiota altilis), and triangular kidneyshell 
(Ptychobranchus greenii)). As a result, all activities with a Federal 
nexus occurring in these areas are already subject to section 7 
consultation requirements regardless of a critical habitat designation 
for the Canoe Creek clubshell. Based on historical consultation rates 
for co-occurring species, we anticipate approximately five or fewer 
section 7 consultation actions in the proposed critical habitat areas 
for the Canoe Creek clubshell.
    In addition, any actions that may affect the Canoe Creek clubshell 
or its habitat in these areas would also affect designated critical 
habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts 
would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over 
and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the species. Therefore, when section 7 
consultations occur, the only costs expected are those associated with 
the additional administrative effort needed to consider adverse 
modification during the consultation process. While this additional 
analysis would require time and resources by both the Federal action 
agency and the Service, we believe that in most circumstances, these 
costs would be predominantly administrative in nature and would not be 
significant.
    Further, we do not expect the designation of critical habitat for 
the Canoe Creek clubshell to trigger additional requirements under 
State or local regulations or have perceptional effects on markets. We 
also do not predict the designation would result in additional section 
7 efforts needed to conserve the species. Thus, the annual 
administrative burden is unlikely to reach $100 million.
    In conclusion, based on our estimate of the number of consultations 
and their costs, which would likely be limited to those associated with 
administrative efforts, we estimate that the annual costs to the 
Service and Action agencies from designating critical habitat for the 
Canoe Creek clubshell would be approximately $15,200. Therefore, the 
designation is unlikely to meet the threshold of $100 million in a 
single year for an economically significant rule, with regard to costs, 
under E.O. 12866.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above, as well as all aspects of this proposed rule and our 
required determinations. During the development of a final designation, 
we will consider the information presented in the DEA and any 
additional address information on economic impacts we receive during 
the public comment period to determine whether any specific areas 
should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under 
authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if 
we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the 
benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result 
in the extinction of this species.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly 
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular 
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or 
homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of 
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
Nevertheless, when designating critical habitat under section 4(b)(2), 
the Service must consider impacts on national security, including 
homeland security, on lands or areas not covered by section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always consider for exclusion from 
the designation areas for which DoD, Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), or another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an 
assertion of national-security or homeland-security concerns.
    We cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When 
DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical 
habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, 
it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental 
impact on national security that would result from the designation of 
that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could 
include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing 
border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in 
training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with 
section 7(a)(2) of the

[[Page 69557]]

Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does not provide us with a 
reasonably specific justification, we will contact the agency to 
recommend that it provide a specific justification or clarification of 
its concerns relative to the probable incremental impact that could 
result from the designation. If the agency provides a reasonably 
specific justification, we will defer to the expert judgment of DoD, 
DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) Whether activities on its 
lands or waters, or its activities on other lands or waters, have 
national-security or homeland-security implications; (2) the importance 
of those implications; and (3) the degree to which the cited 
implications would be adversely affected in the absence of an 
exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a discretionary section 
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great weight to national-
security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing the benefits of 
exclusion.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Canoe Creek 
clubshell are not owned, managed, or used by the DoD or DHS, and, 
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland 
security. However, during the development of a final designation we 
will consider any additional information we receive through the public 
comment period on the impacts of the proposed designation on national 
security or homeland security to 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.

Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security discussed above. We consider a number of factors, including 
whether there are permitted conservation plans (such as HCPs, safe 
harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements with 
assurances (CCAAs)) covering the species in the area, 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 the Canoe Creek 
clubshell, 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.

Exclusions

    We are not considering any exclusions at this time from the 
proposed designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on economic 
impacts, national security impacts, or other relevant impacts, such as 
partnerships, management, or protection afforded by cooperative 
management efforts. However, during the development of a final 
designation, we will consider any additional information we receive 
through the public comment period to determine whether any specific 
areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation 
under authority of the Act's section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Required Determinations

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.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has waived their review regarding 
their significance determination of this proposed rule.
    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 proposed rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

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

[[Page 69558]]

$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.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly 
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There 
is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final 
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13771

    We do not believe this proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3, 
2017) regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant 
under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance 
determination of this proposed rule.

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 this 
proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use because no activities related to energy 
supply, distribution, or use are occurring within or adjacent to the 
proposed critical habitat designation. 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 finding:
    (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In 
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or 
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions 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 units do not occur within 
the jurisdiction of small governments. Therefore, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell 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

[[Page 69559]]

conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Canoe Creek clubshell, 
and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat 
does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or 
affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

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

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, 
this proposed rule identifies the 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 information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

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

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Alabama 
Ecological Services Field Office.

Signing Authority

    The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this 
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document 
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as 
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Aurelia 
Skipwith, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this 
document on September 30, 2020, for publication.

    Dated: September 30, 2020.
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk 
Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service.

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

[[Page 69560]]

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.11 amend the table in paragraph (h) by adding an entry 
for ``Clubshell, Canoe Creek'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife in alphabetical order under CLAMS to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name                Scientific name        Where listed         Status        and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Clams
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Clubshell, Canoe Creek...........  Pleurobema athearni.  Wherever found......  E             [Federal Register
                                                                                              citation when
                                                                                              published as a
                                                                                              final rule]; 50
                                                                                              CFR 17.95(f).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(f) by adding an entry for ``Canoe Creek Clubshell 
(Pleurobema athearni)'' immediately following the entry for 
``Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica)'' to read as set forth 
below:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Canoe Creek Clubshell (Pleurobema athearni)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for St. Clair and Etowah 
Counties, Alabama, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Canoe Creek clubshell consist of 
the following components:
    (i) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, 
characterized by a geomorphically stable stream channel (a channel that 
maintains its lateral dimensions, longitudinal profile, and spatial 
pattern over time without aggrading or degrading bed elevation) and 
connected instream habitats (such as stable riffle-run-pool habitats 
that provide flow refuges consisting of silt-free gravel and coarse 
sand substrates).
    (ii) A hydrologic flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, 
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain 
benthic habitats where the species is found; to maintain connectivity 
of streams with the floodplain; and to provide for normal behavior, 
growth, and survival of all life stages of Canoe Creek clubshell 
mussels and their fish hosts.
    (iii) Water quality (including, but not limited to, temperature, 
conductivity, hardness, turbidity, ammonia, heavy metals, oxygen 
content, and other chemical characteristics) necessary to sustain 
natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages of Canoe Creek clubshell mussels and their 
fish hosts.
    (iv) Sediment quality (including, but not limited to, coarse sand 
and/or gravel substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment, 
low amounts of attached filamentous algae, and other physical and 
chemical characteristics) necessary for normal behavior, growth, and 
viability of all life stages of Canoe Creek clubshell mussels and their 
fish hosts.
    (v) The presence and abundance of fish hosts, which may include the 
tricolor shiner (Cyprinella trichroistia), Alabama shiner (C. 
callistia), and striped shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), necessary for 
recruitment of the Canoe Creek clubshell mussel.
    (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 the final rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created from the National Hydrography High Resolution Dataset, and 
critical habit units were mapped using North American Datum (NAD) 1983 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 16N coordinates. The maps in 
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish 
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or 
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the 
public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/daphne, at 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0078, and at 
the field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field 
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional 
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 69561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO20.013

    (6) Unit 1: Little Canoe Creek East, St. Clair and Etowah Counties, 
Alabama.
    (i) General description: Unit 1 consists of 9.7 river km (6.0 river 
mi) of Little Canoe Creek East, due east of the Town of Steele, in St. 
Clair and Etowah Counties, Alabama. The unit consists of the Little 
Canoe Creek mainstem from the intersection with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission boundary of H. Neely Henry Reservoir (at 
elevation 155 meters (m) (509 feet (ft)) above mean sea level and 
approximately 4.4 river km (2.7 river mi) upstream of its confluence 
with Big Canoe Creek), upstream 9.7 river km (6.0 river mi) to the U.S. 
Highway 11 bridge crossing. The majority of the adjacent land 
surrounding this unit is privately owned. A small amount of the 
adjacent land is publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings and 
easements, and portions of the eastern bank of Little Canoe Creek 
between U.S. Highway 11 to Interstate 59, in Etowah County, Alabama. 
Approximately 2.4 river km (1.5 river mi) of Little Canoe Creek borders 
property to the east owned by Etowah County, Alabama.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

[[Page 69562]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO20.014

    (7) Unit 2: Big Canoe Creek/Little Canoe Creek West, St. Clair 
County, Alabama.
    (i) General Description: Unit 2 consists of 48.8 river km (30.3 
river mi) of Big Canoe Creek and its tributary Little Canoe Creek West, 
which are located geographically between the cities of Springville and 
Ashville, St. Clair County, Alabama. The unit consists of the main 
channel of Big Canoe Creek from the Double Bridge Road bridge crossing 
near Ashville, Alabama, upstream 32.2 river km (20.0 river mi) to the 
Washington Valley Rd (St. Clair County Road 23) bridge crossing near 
Springville, Alabama; and Little Canoe Creek West from its confluence 
with Big Canoe Creek, upstream 16.6 river km (10.3 river mi) to the 
confluence of Stovall Branch. The majority of this unit is adjacent to 
private land, except for any small amount of adjacent land that is 
publicly owned in the form of bridge crossings and easements.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 69563]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO20.015

[FR Doc. 2020-22007 Filed 11-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C