[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 224 (Thursday, November 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74050-74088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24208]



[[Page 74049]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 224

November 19, 2020

Part V





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Upper Coosa River Distinct 
Population Segment of Frecklebelly Madtom and Designation of Critical 
Habitat; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 74050]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0058; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018-BE87


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Upper Coosa River Distinct 
Population Segment of Frecklebelly Madtom 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 frecklebelly madtom (Noturus 
munitus), a fish species from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, 
and Tennessee, as an endangered or threatened species and 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 frecklebelly madtom as an 
endangered or a threatened species throughout all of its range is not 
warranted. However, we determined that listing is warranted for a 
distinct population segment (DPS) of the frecklebelly madtom in the 
Upper Coosa River in Georgia and Tennessee. Accordingly, we propose to 
list the Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom as a 
threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act 
(``4(d) rule''). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add 
this DPS to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend 
the Act's protections to the DPS. We also propose to designate critical 
habitat for the Upper Coosa River DPS under the Act. In total, 
approximately 134 river miles (216 kilometers) in Georgia and Tennessee 
fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. We also announce the availability of a draft economic 
analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
Upper Coosa River DPS.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
January 19, 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 January 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: 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-2020-0058, 
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-2020-0058, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: JAO/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: The species status assessment 
(SSA) report and other materials relating to this proposal can be found 
on the Southeast Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and 
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0058.
    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/southeast/, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2020-0058, and at the Alabama Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting 
information that we may develop for the critical habitat designation 
will also be available at the Service website and field office set out 
above and may also be included in the preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Pearson, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological Services Field 
Office, 1208-B Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; telephone 251-441-5870. 
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 may be 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 1 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. This rule proposes the listing of the 
Upper Coosa River distinct population segment (DPS) of frecklebelly 
madtom as a threatened species with a rule under section 4(d) of the 
Act and proposes the designation of critical habitat for the DPS.
    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 the factors driving the 
status of the Upper Coosa River DPS are habitat destruction and 
degradation caused by agriculture and developed land uses resulting in 
poor water quality (Factor A).
    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

[[Page 74051]]

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 10 appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report. We 
received responses from two specialists, and their input informed this 
proposed rule. 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. The peer 
reviewers have expertise in the biology, habitat, and threats to the 
species.
    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 we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the Upper Coosa 
River DPS is endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that 
the DPS does not warrant listing. 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 frecklebelly madtom's biology, range, distribution, and 
population trends, particularly in the upper Coosa River watershed in 
Georgia and Tennessee, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the frecklebelly 
madtom, 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 frecklebelly 
madtom, its habitat, or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the 
frecklebelly madtom, 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 the frecklebelly madtom and existing 
regulations that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of the frecklebelly 
madtom, and specifically the Upper Coosa River DPS, including the 
locations of any additional populations of the frecklebelly madtom.
    (5) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of the Upper Coosa River DPS of 
frecklebelly madtom and that the Service can consider in developing a 
4(d) rule for the DPS, including information concerning the extent to 
which we should include any of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) 
rule or whether any other forms of take should be excepted from the 
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (a) Whether we should add a provision to except incidental take 
resulting from silvicultural practices and forest management activities 
that implement State-approved best management practices and comply with 
forest practice guidelines related to water quality standards.
    (b) Whether there are additional provisions the Service may wish to 
consider for the section 4(d) rule in order to conserve, recover, and 
manage the Upper Coosa River DPS.
    (6) 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; or
    (c) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (7) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Upper Coosa River DPS habitat;
    (b) Information on the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the DPS;
    (c) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the DPS, such as the Coosawattee River in Georgia, 
should be included in the critical habitat designation and why;
    (d) The methods we used, particularly the use of environmental DNA, 
to identify occupied critical habitat for each of the units;
    (e) 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
    (f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the DPS and should be included as critical 
habitat and why. We particularly seek comments:
    (i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the 
conservation of the DPS; and
    (ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not 
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the 
conservation of the DPS and contain at least one physical or biological 
feature essential to the conservation of the DPS.
    (8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (9) 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.
    (10) 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.
    (11) 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

[[Page 74052]]

outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act.
    (12) 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 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 regulations at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, we were petitioned by the Center for Biological 
Diversity and others to list 404 aquatic species in the southeastern 
United States, including the frecklebelly madtom, under the Act. In 
response to the petition, we completed a partial 90-day finding on 
September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), in which we announced our finding 
that the petition contained substantial information indicating that 
listing may be warranted for numerous species, including the 
frecklebelly madtom. On April 15, 2015, the Center for Biological 
Diversity amended a complaint against the Service for failure to 
complete a 12-month finding for the frecklebelly madtom in accordance 
with statutory deadlines. On September 9, 2015, the Service and the 
Center for Biological Diversity filed stipulated settlements in the 
District of Columbia, agreeing that the Service would submit to the 
Federal Register a 12-month finding for the frecklebelly madtom no 
later than September 30, 2020 (Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Jewell, case 1:15-CV-00229-EGS). This document constitutes our 
concurrent 12-month warranted petition finding, proposed listing rule, 
and proposed critical habitat rule.

Supporting Documents

    An SSA team prepared an SSA report for the frecklebelly madtom. 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 10 independent peer reviewers and received 2 
responses. The Service also sent the SSA report for review to 13 
partners, including scientists with expertise in fish biology, stream 
and riverine ecology, and factors negatively and positively affecting 
the species. We received review from two partners, Mississippi Museum 
of Natural Science and Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus) is presented in the SSA report 
(version 1.2; Service 2020, pp. 5-15; available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2020-0058).
    The frecklebelly madtom is a catfish species that inhabits the main 
channels and larger tributaries of large river systems in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. The species has a broad 
but disjunct distribution across the Pearl River watershed and Mobile 
River Basin, with populations in the Pearl River and Bogue Chitto River 
in the Pearl River watershed and the Upper Tombigbee, Alabama, Cahaba, 
Etowah, and Conasauga river systems in the Mobile River Basin (Piller 
et al. 2004, p. 1004; Bennett et al. 2010, pp. 507-508). Throughout its 
range, the frecklebelly madtom primarily occupies streams and rivers 
within the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province; however, it also 
occurs in the Ridge and Valley physiographic province in the Conasauga 
River and Piedmont Upland physiographic province in the Etowah River 
(Mettee et al. 1996, pp. 408-409).
    The frecklebelly madtom is a small, stout catfish reaching 99 
millimeters (mm) (3.9 inches (in)) in length (Etnier and Starnes 1993, 
p. 324) and distinctively marked with dark saddles (Suttkus and Taylor 
1965, p. 171). The color of the frecklebelly madtom is a mixture of 
light yellows with brownish patches and a combination of many scattered 
specks or freckles on the underside, which provides camouflage in its 
preferred habitats and inspired its common name (Suttkus and Taylor 
1965, p. 176; Vincent 2019, unpaginated). The fins' colors are 
typically mottled or blotched (Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 324). The 
frecklebelly madtom is armed with venomous pectoral and dorsal spines 
used to defend against predation and has barbels around the mouth that 
act as sensory organs.
    The species belongs in the family Ictaluridae, and all species in 
the genus Noturus, referred to as madtoms, are diminutive and possess 
long and low adipose fins (i.e., found on the back behind the dorsal 
fin) (Page and Burr 2011, p. 207). The currently recognized taxon is 
Noturus munitus (Suttkus and Taylor 1965, entire; Rhode 1978, p. 465). 
Since the time of description, uncertainty regarding the taxonomic 
status of some populations of frecklebelly madtom has arisen. In 1998, 
the name ``Coosa madtom'' (Noturus sp. cf. N. munitus) was coined to 
describe the madtoms, previously identified as frecklebelly madtom, in 
the Conasauga and Etowah Rivers that were morphologically distinct from 
the

[[Page 74053]]

frecklebelly madtom found elsewhere (Boschung and Mayden 2004, p. 347; 
Neely 2018, p. 1). However, a recent analysis of the existing 
morphological and genetic datasets documented substantial genetic 
divergence between all populations from distinct watersheds. The Pearl 
and Mobile basin populations exhibited the strongest genetic 
divergence, followed by Tombigbee and Alabama River (Cahaba and Coosa) 
populations (Neely 2018, entire). The Cahaba and Coosa populations 
exhibited the lowest genetic differentiation and could not be reliably 
diagnosed based on morphology. Therefore, because the data indicate 
divergence between populations but do not support the description of 
distinct subspecies or species, we consider each population of 
frecklebelly madtom to be a separate evolutionary significant unit 
(ESU) (Neely 2018, p. 10) for purposes of this determination. ESUs are 
partially defined as a population that ``represents an important 
component in the evolutionary legacy of a species'' (Waples 1991, p. 
12). Because evolution is a continual process, elements that represent 
a species' evolutionary legacy are also important elements of a 
species' adaptive capacity. Therefore, the ESUs recommended by Neely 
(2018, entire) were used to inform our analysis on the frecklebelly 
madtom's representation, an attribute of the species' viability 
(Service 2020, pp. 3, 35-37).
    For the frecklebelly madtom to survive and reproduce, individuals 
need suitable habitat that supports essential life functions at all 
life stages. Three elements appear to be essential to the survival and 
reproduction of individuals: Flowing water, stable substrate, and 
aquatic vegetation. The frecklebelly madtom typically occurs over firm 
gravel substrates, such as shoals and riffles, in small to large swift-
flowing streams often associated with large rivers and their 
tributaries (Suttkus and Taylor 1965, pp. 177-178; Mettee et al. 1996, 
p. 409; Vincent 2019, unpaginated). However, the species will use 
streams dominated with sand substrates if suitable cover such as large 
woody debris is present (Wagner 2019, pers. comm.). Cover is an 
important habitat factor for the species, as it provides for 
concealment against predators (Vincent 2019, unpaginated), foraging 
habitat, and nesting habitat. In some rivers where the species is 
found, the frecklebelly madtom is often associated with aquatic 
vegetation, such as river weed (Podostemum), and under large, flat 
rocks (Mettee et al. 1996, p. 409, Freeman et al. 2003, p. iii). In the 
upper Etowah and Conasauga Rivers, the frecklebelly madtom has been 
collected in moderate to swift currents over boulders, rubble, cobble, 
and coarse gravel and around concentrations of river weed.
    The frecklebelly madtom is likely nocturnal and most active at 
night. The species has a lifespan of approximately 5 years (Mettee et 
al. 1996, pp. 408-409) and is reproductively mature in the second 
summer after birth, similar to other madtom species (Burr and Stoeckel 
1999, p. 65). In the wild, reproduction is thought to occur between 
June and July (Trauth et al. 1981, p. 66). At the Private John Allen 
National Fish Hatchery in Tupelo, MS, frecklebelly madtoms have been 
observed spawning between the end of May to mid-August (Schwarz 2020, 
unpublished report). The female produces 50 to 70 eggs, which are 
released all at one time (Trauth et al. 1981, p. 66). Fecundity in 
madtoms is among the lowest for North American freshwater fishes due to 
their small size, relatively large egg size, and high level of parental 
care given to the fertilized eggs (embryos) and larvae (Dinkins and 
Shute 1996, pp. 58-60; Burr and Stoeckel 1999, pp. 66-67). However, the 
frecklebelly madtom is considered highly fecund for a madtom and among 
the highest fecundity known for its subgenus, Rabida (Bennett et al. 
2010, p. 507).
    Nesting sites for madtoms are typically cavities under natural 
material (rocks, logs, empty mussel shells) or human litter (inside 
cans or bottles, under boards). Madtoms construct cavities on the 
bottoms of streams by moving substrate using their heads to push gravel 
or their mouths to carry and transport gravel and pebbles (Vincent 
2019, unpaginated). Both males and females may construct nesting 
cavities (Burr and Stoeckel 1999, p. 69).
    The species is an opportunistic insectivore feeding on a variety of 
aquatic insects and larvae, including caddisflies, mayflies, 
blackflies, and midges (Miller 1984, p. 9). There appear to be seasonal 
shifts in food preference between the sexes, with males typically 
preferring caddisflies in the fall months, and the females preferring 
midges during the same time (Miller 1984, p. 10).

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

[[Page 74054]]

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 
Service 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 https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0058.
    To assess frecklebelly madtom 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 (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
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. For frecklebelly madtom 
populations to be resilient, the needs of individuals (flowing water, 
substrate, and aquatic vegetation) must be met at a large scale. Stream 
reaches with suitable habitat must be large enough to support an 
appropriate number of individuals to avoid issues associated with small 
population sizes, such as inbreeding depression. At the species level, 
the frecklebelly madtom needs a sufficient number and distribution of 
healthy populations to withstand environmental stochasticity 
(resiliency) and catastrophes (redundancy) and to adapt to biological 
and physical changes in its environment (representation). To evaluate 
the current and future viability of the frecklebelly madtom, we 
assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the current and 
future effects on resiliency, representation, and redundancy.

Delineating Representation and Resilience Units

    We delineated representation and resilience units for the 
frecklebelly madtom. Representation units were delineated to describe 
the breadth of known genetic, phenotypic, and ecological diversity 
within the species. There is evidence of differentiation in habitat 
use, morphology, and genetics for areas that the frecklebelly madtom 
occupies, which are disconnected spatially across the landscape. 
Resilience units were delineated to describe at a local scale how the 
species withstands stochastic events. These resilience units are not 
meant to represent individual populations as they may represent 
multiple or portions of groups of demographically linked interbreeding 
individuals.
    In total, we identified six representation units for the 
frecklebelly madtom: Pearl River (A), upper Tombigbee River (B), lower 
Tombigbee/Alabama Rivers (C), Alabama River (D), Cahaba River (E), and 
upper Coosa River (F) (see table 1, below). Four representation units 
(Pearl River (A), upper Tombigbee River (B), Cahaba River (E), and 
upper Coosa River (F)) are the ESUs based on the evaluation of 
morphometric and genetic datasets (Neely 2018, entire). Morphometric 
and genetic data from the remaining two representation units (lower 
Tombigbee/Alabama Rivers (C) and Alabama River (D)) were not available 
to be analyzed in the 2018 study (Neely 2018, entire) and, therefore, 
were not identified as ESUs in that study.
    The lower Tombigbee/Alabama Rivers (C) and Alabama River (D) 
representation units reflect occurrences of the species in the Mobile 
River Basin that are the farthest downstream and within a large river 
habitat type that is distinct from the remainder of the units in the 
Mobile River Basin. Furthermore, these reaches are disconnected from 
the nearest adjacent representation units by dams that act as dispersal 
barriers for the species. Therefore, these reaches are assessed as two 
individual representation units. The Alabama River (D) representation 
unit consists of a single HUC 10 watershed that is isolated

[[Page 74055]]

from other representation units by dams. The remaining unit, lower 
Tombigbee/Alabama Rivers (C), is disconnected from the upper Tombigbee 
River and Alabama River units by dams.
    Resilience units were delineated as aggregations of adjacent U.S. 
Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) 10 watershed boundaries 
that contain a frecklebelly madtom observation and are not disconnected 
by dams or other major habitat alterations that may present a barrier 
to movement. While resiliency is typically assessed at the scale of a 
population, there was little information to delineate populations of 
the frecklebelly madtom. By using HUC 10 watersheds, we are able to 
delineate resilience units that can be measured and evaluated at a 
local scale similar to that we would expect for a population. We 
determined this to be the most appropriate scale for measuring 
resiliency. We identified 16 resilience units consisting of 66 HUC10 
watersheds across the range of the frecklebelly madtom (see table 1, 
below).

    Table 1--Representation Units and Resilience Units Used To Assess
                  Viability of the Frecklebelly Madtom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Representation units                   Resilience units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl River (A)..................  Bogue Chitto River (A1).
                                   Pearl River (A2).
Upper Tombigbee River (B)........  East Fork Tombigbee (B1).
                                   Sipsey River (B2).
                                   Luxapallila Creek (B3).
                                   Buttahatchee River (B4).
                                   Bull Mountain Creek (B5).
                                   Upper Tombigbee River (mainstem)
                                    (B6).
Lower Tombigbee/Alabama Rivers     Lower Tombigbee River (C1).
 (C).                              Lower Alabama River (C2).
Alabama River (D)................  Alabama River (D1).
Cahaba River (E).................  Cahaba River (E1).
                                   Alabama River/Big Swamp (E2).
Upper Coosa River (F)............  Conasauga River (F1).
                                   Coosawattee River (F2).
                                   Etowah River (F3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methods To Assess Current Condition

    We assessed the current resiliency (ability of populations to 
withstand stochastic events) of frecklebelly madtom resilience units by 
considering occurrence data throughout the species' range. We used 
occurrence data to estimate range extent and range geometry (i.e., 
number of named streams with occurrences). These metrics can be useful 
for evaluating resiliency, as larger areas of occupied habitat and 
multiple occupied streams (more complex ranges) are more robust to 
stochastic events (i.e., a single more localized event would be 
unlikely to negatively affect the entire population or unit if many and 
larger reaches of streams were occupied). Occurrence data for the 
frecklebelly madtom are only available for five of the six 
representation units: The Pearl River (A), upper Tombigbee River (B), 
Alabama River (D), Cahaba River (E), and upper Coosa River (F). 
Therefore, we conducted our assessment of occurrences only on 
resilience units within those representation units, and we categorized 
current resiliency into high, moderate, low, or likely extirpated 
conditions, based on our evaluation of total number of occurrences, the 
number of occupied stream reaches, the length of discrete stream 
reaches, and the maximum occupied stream reach estimate and available 
literature (Service 2020, pp. 34-53). The Lower Tombigbee/Alabama 
Rivers (C) representation unit was categorized to have unknown 
resiliency (see discussion below regarding environmental DNA).
    Environmental DNA (eDNA, which is DNA that is shed into the 
environment by an organism during its life) belonging to the 
frecklebelly madtom was collected in the Conasauga River (F1), 
Coosawattee River (F2), Etowah River (F3), and portions of the lower 
Alabama River (C2) and lower Tombigbee River (C1) (Freeman and Bumpers 
2018, entire; Janosik and Whittaker 2018, entire). Within the 
Coosawattee River (F2), the lower Alabama River (C2), and the lower 
Tombigbee River (C1), eDNA is the only evidence of the species' 
presence within the period of record (1950-2019). Collecting and 
analyzing water samples for eDNA provides a means of rapidly surveying 
aquatic habitats to help identify potentially occupied sites for a 
species. However, uncertainty of these data revolves around the origin 
and fate of the individuals that shed the DNA and the length of time 
the eDNA persists in the environment. For the purposes of this 
analysis, we used eDNA data as evidence to support our conclusion that 
the probability of the species being present in a particular unit is 
greater than zero. As described above, we used occurrence data to 
assess resiliency. If units are known only from eDNA data, an unknown 
resiliency was determined since we have no occurrence information.
    We assessed representation for the frecklebelly madtom as the 
number of resilient populations within a representation unit. Finally, 
we assessed frecklebelly madtom redundancy (ability of species to 
withstand catastrophic events) by evaluating the number and 
distribution of resilient populations throughout the species' range.

Current Condition of Frecklebelly Madtom

    The historical range for the frecklebelly madtom includes two large 
river basins that enter into the Gulf of Mexico: The Pearl River Basin 
and the Mobile River Basin. The Pearl River Basin is in eastern 
Louisiana and southern Mississippi (identified as Pearl River (A) 
representation unit in the SSA). The Mobile River Basin consists of the 
Tombigbee River in eastern Mississippi and western Alabama (Upper 
Tombigbee (B) representation unit); the upper Alabama (Alabama

[[Page 74056]]

River (D) representation unit) and Cahaba Rivers (Cahaba River (E) 
representation unit) in central Alabama; the Etowah River (part of the 
Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit) in northern Georgia; and the 
Conasauga River (part of the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit) 
in northern Georgia and southeastern Tennessee. Historically, the 
species was likely more widespread in the Mobile Bay drainage but was 
extirpated from large river habitats after the creation of numerous 
impoundments, and thus, the species' current representation has been 
reduced from historical levels. Currently, the species is known to be 
extant in four (Pearl River (A), Upper Tombigbee River (B), Cahaba 
River (E), and Upper Coosa River (F)) of the six representation units.
    Within the Pearl River (A) representation unit, there are two 
resilience units (Bogue Chitto River (A1) and Pearl River (A2)) 
assessed to have high resiliency to stochastic events based on stable 
populations and complex range geometry with 15 occupied streams in the 
Pearl River. In addition, recent surveys (2009-2019) observed 
frecklebelly madtom at 83 percent of known historical sites (i.e., any 
site in which the species was previously observed) (Wagner et al. 2018, 
entire; Service 2020, p. 59).
    Within the Upper Tombigbee River (B) representation unit, there is 
one resilience unit (Buttahatchee River (B4)) assessed to have high 
resiliency, three (East Fork Tombigbee River (B1), Sipsey River (B2), 
and Luxapallila Creek (B3)) have moderate resiliency, and two are 
likely extirpated (Upper Tombigbee River (B6) and Bull Mountain Creek 
(B5)). The Buttahatchee River (B4) unit has been identified as a 
stronghold of the species where it has consistently been collected in 
higher numbers (Shepard et al. 1997, p. 23, Bennett et al. 2008, p. 
470). For the East Fork of the Tombigbee River (B1) unit, the species 
has recent (2009-2019) collections of more than 100 individuals per 
survey event (i.e., occurrence) of frecklebelly madtom. However, there 
has been a loss of habitat, altered water quality, and loss of 
connectivity in the East Fork with numerous structures installed for 
the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (Tenn-Tom Waterway) (Millican et al. 
2006, p. 3-4). Within the Sipsey River (B2) unit, experts have 
indicated that the habitat is excellent with few threats and the 
populations appear stable, albeit few records for them exist (Shepard 
et al. 1997, pp. 9, 23). Frecklebelly madtom persists in Luxapallila 
Creek (B3) with stable populations and recent (2009-2019) collections 
of almost 100 individuals per survey event (i.e., occurrence).
    Historically, the mainstem of the upper Tombigbee River (mainstem, 
B6) unit was considered to support robust populations of the 
frecklebelly madtom with some sites producing single collections of 
over 300 individuals during the assessment period from 1950-1987 
(Bennet et al. 2008, p. 466; Service 2020, p. 49). However, the 
construction of the Tenn-Tom Waterway, a canal system that connects the 
Tombigbee River to the Tennessee River for commercial navigation, 
eliminated the suitable gravel-cobble habitat for the species (Shepard 
et al. 1997, p. 4). Despite fish assemblage surveys undertaken since 
the construction of the waterway (e.g., Millican et al. 2006, entire), 
observations of the species cease in the mainstem of the upper 
Tombigbee River (B6) after 1980 (Bennett et al. 2008, p. 466), thus 
supporting the species' likely extirpation from this formerly occupied 
habitat. The frecklebelly madtom has not been observed in the Bull 
Mountain Creek (B5) unit since 1978-1987 assessment period; this unit 
was also drastically altered by the construction of the Tenn-Tom 
Waterway and is currently bisected by the canal system (Millican et al. 
2006, p. 3). The habitat lost from this major construction and 
engineering activity has likely caused the extirpation of the 
frecklebelly madtom in the upper Tombigbee River (B6) (Millican et al. 
2006 p. 84; Shepard 2004, p. 221; Bennett et al. 2008, p. 467) and Bull 
Mountain Creek (B5) (Shepard 2004, p. 221) resilience units.
    Within the Lower Tombigbee/Alabama Rivers (C) representation unit, 
there are two resilience units (Lower Tombigbee River (C1) and Lower 
Alabama River (C2)) assessed to have unknown resiliency. There are no 
traditional occurrence data of this species for either resilience unit; 
however, eDNA of frecklebelly madtom was found in both units (Janosik 
and Whittaker 2018, p. 7).
    Within the Alabama River (D) representation unit, there is one 
resilience unit (Alabama River (D1)) assessed to be likely extirpated. 
Following the construction of the Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam and 
Claiborne Dam in the late 1960s, there have been no occurrences of this 
species in the Alabama River (D1) unit, despite efforts to locate the 
species (Shepherd et al. 1997, p. 18).
    Within the Cahaba River (E) representation unit, one resilience 
unit (Cahaba River (E1)) was estimated to have moderate resiliency to 
stochastic events. The Cahaba River system is believed to be a 
stronghold for the species (Neely 2018, p. 11) where it appears to be 
abundant (Bennet et al. 2008, p. 467). The Alabama River-Big Swamp 
Creek (E2) resilience unit is likely extirpated; no observations have 
been made of this species in the unit since the late 1960s after the 
construction of Miller's Ferry Lock and Dam and Claiborne Dam despite 
efforts to locate the species (Shepherd et al. 1997, p. 18; Bennet et 
al. 2008, p. 464).
    Within the Coosa River (F) representation unit, one resilience unit 
(Conasauga River (F1)) was estimated to have low resiliency, one with 
moderate resiliency (Etowah River (F3)), and one with unknown 
resiliency (Coosawattee River (F2)). In the Conasauga River (F1), fish 
assemblage and abundance from the 1990s-2000s documented declines in 
several fish species, including the frecklebelly madtom, and after 
2000, the frecklebelly madtom was no longer detected in fish surveys 
(Freeman et al. 2003, pp. 569-570; Bennett et al. 2008 p. 466). These 
surveys indicate a reduced resiliency in the Conasauga River (F1), 
because the best available occurrence data present a transition from a 
measurable population of the frecklebelly madtom to an unmeasurable 
one. Despite a 20-year lapse since the last observation of the 
frecklebelly madtom, the current presence of the species in the 
Conasauga River (F1) is supported by eDNA that was collected in 2017 
and 2018 (Freeman and Bumper 2018, entire), as described above. 
Furthermore, the Conasauga River (F1) has not experienced the same type 
of habitat modifications as other rivers that have caused localized 
extirpation of the species (dams, impoundments, and channelization), 
and the species has been observed more recently in river surveys than 
in river sections where it is considered extirpated. Therefore, we 
determined that the species remains present in the Conasauga River but 
with low resiliency to stochastic events, as estimated from the 
occurrence data. Within the Etowah River (F3), frecklebelly madtom 
populations appear stable, albeit at lower levels of abundance, as the 
patterns of occurrence in the most recent time period is similar to 
time periods prior to 1998. There are no historical occurrence data or 
direct observations of the species from the Coosawattee River (F2) 
resilience unit. Environmental DNA for the frecklebelly madtom was 
found in portions of this unit (Freeman and Bumpers 2018, p. 9); 
therefore, we assessed this unit as having an unknown resiliency.

[[Page 74057]]

    Overall, the frecklebelly madtom was assessed to have three units 
with high resiliency, five units with moderate resiliency, one unit 
with low resiliency, three units with unknown resiliency (eDNA only), 
and four units that are likely extirpated.
    For species' redundancy, we assessed the number and distribution of 
resilient populations across the frecklebelly madtom's range, and we 
considered catastrophic events that could impact frecklebelly madtom. 
Catastrophic events may include chemical spills, large and rapid 
changes in upstream land use that alter stream characteristics and 
water quality downstream, new impoundments or other engineered devices 
that alter natural hydrological processes, and potential effects of 
climate change, such as drought and increases in occurrence of flash 
flooding events. Given the broad distribution of extant resilience 
units and several units assessed as having moderate to high resiliency, 
it is unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the entire 
species' range. Therefore, the frecklebelly madtom exhibits a moderate 
to high degree of redundancy and that level of redundancy has remained 
relatively stable over time.

Risk Factors for Frecklebelly Madtom

    We reviewed the potential risk factors (see discussion of section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, above) that are affecting the frecklebelly madtom 
now and are expected to affect it into the future. We have determined 
that habitat destruction and degradation caused by agriculture and 
development resulting in poor water quality (Factor A) pose the largest 
risk to the current and future viability of the frecklebelly madtom. 
Other potential stressors to the species are habitat degradation 
resulting from channelization, dams, and impoundments (Factor A) and 
climate change (Factor E). We find the species does not face 
significant threats from overutilization (Factor B), disease or 
predation (Factor C), or invasive species (Factor E). We also reviewed 
the conservation efforts being undertaken for the habitat in which the 
frecklebelly madtom occurs. A brief summary of relevant stressors is 
presented below; for a full description, refer to chapter 4 of the SSA 
report (Service 2020, entire).
Water Quality
    The frecklebelly madtom, like other benthic aquatic species, is 
sensitive to poor water quality (Warren et al. 1997, p. 125) and needs 
clean, flowing water to survive; thus water quality degradation is 
considered a threat to the species. Changes in water chemistry and flow 
patterns, resulting in a decrease in water quality and quantity have 
detrimental effects on madtoms, because they can render aquatic habitat 
unsuitable for occupancy.
    Inputs of point (discharge from particular pipes) and nonpoint 
(diffuse land surface runoff) source pollution across the frecklebelly 
madtom range are numerous and widespread. Point source pollution can be 
generated from inadequately treated effluent from industrial plants, 
sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, active surface mining, 
drain fields from individual private homes, and others (Service 2000, 
pp. 14-15). Nonpoint pollution originates from agricultural activities, 
poultry and cattle feedlots, abandoned mine runoff, construction, 
failing septic tanks, and contaminated runoff from urban areas (Deutsch 
et al. 1990, entire; Service 2000, pp. 14-15). These sources contribute 
pollution to streams via sediments, heavy metals, fertilizers, 
herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and gray water 
leakage, and oils and greases. Water quality and native aquatic fauna 
decline as a result of this pollution through nitrification, decreases 
in dissolved oxygen concentration, increases in acidity and 
conductivity, or direct introduction of toxicants. These alterations 
likely have direct (e.g., decreased survival and/or reproduction) and 
indirect (e.g., loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat) 
effects. For some aquatic species, including the frecklebelly madtom, 
submergent vegetation provides critical spawning habitat for adults, 
refugia from predators, and habitat for prey of all life stages (Jude 
and Pappas 1992, pp. 666-667, Freeman et al. 2003, p. 54). Degraded 
water quality and the high algal biomass that result from pollutant 
inputs cause loss of these critical submergent plant species (Chow-
Fraser et al.1998, pp. 38-39) that are vital habitat for the 
frecklebelly madtom.
    The frecklebelly madtom is intolerant to sedimentation (Shepard 
2004, p. 221; MMNS 2014, p. 35), and sedimentation is a concern 
throughout the species' range. Researchers have documented a negative 
relationship between occurrence of the frecklebelly madtom and human-
induced increases of sediment within the upper Tombigbee River 
(mainstem), Alabama River, Cahaba River, Luxapallila Creek, Etowah 
River, and Conasauga River (Burkhead et al. 1997, pp. 406-413; Shepherd 
et al. 1997, pp. 15-19; Freeman et al. 2002, pp. 18-19; Freemen et al. 
2017, pp. 429-430). Human-induced increases in sediment are likely a 
factor in local declines of the species. In addition, the frecklebelly 
madtom's habitat requirements make it vulnerable to activities that 
disturb substrate integrity. The species is restricted to habitat with 
pea-sized gravel, cobble, or slab-rock substrates not embedded in large 
amounts of silt (Bennett et al. 2008, p. 467; Bennett and Kuhajda. 
2010, p. 510), although it has also been found to occupy some stable 
streams with a sandy yet stable substrate. Degradation from 
sedimentation, physical habitat disturbance, and contaminants threaten 
the habitat and water quality on which the frecklebelly madtom depends. 
Sedimentation from an array of land uses (e.g., urbanization, 
agriculture, channel maintenance activities) could negatively affect 
the species by reducing growth rates, disease tolerance, and gill 
function; reducing spawning habitat, reproductive success, and egg 
(embryo), larva, and juvenile development; reducing food availability 
through reductions in prey; reducing foraging efficiency; and reducing 
shelter.
    A wide range of current activities and land uses, including 
agricultural practices, construction, stormwater runoff, unpaved roads, 
poor forest management, utility crossings, and mining, can lead to 
excessive sedimentation within streams. Fine sediments not only smother 
streams during current ongoing activities, historical land use 
practices may have substantially altered hydrological and geological 
processes such that sediments continue to be input into streams for 
several decades after those activities cease (Harding et al. 1998, p. 
14846).
    Water quality for frecklebelly madtom is particularly impacted by 
three processes: Channel modification (i.e., dredging and 
channelization), agriculture, and development, which are further 
discussed below.
Channel Modification
    Dredging and channelization have led to loss of aquatic habitat in 
the Southeast (Neves et al. 1997, p. 71). Dredging and channelization 
projects are extensive throughout the region for flood control, 
navigation, sand and gravel mining, and conversion of wetlands into 
croplands (Neves et al. 1997, p. 71; Herrig and Shute 2002, pp. 542-
543). Dredging and channelization modify and destroy habitat for 
aquatic species by destabilizing the substrate, increasing erosion and 
siltation, removing woody debris, decreasing habitat heterogeneity, and 
stirring up contaminants that settle onto the substrate (Williams et 
al. 1993, pp. 7-8; Buckner et al. 2002, entire; Bennett et

[[Page 74058]]

al. 2008, pp. 467-468). Channelization can also lead to head cutting 
(an erosional process in a stream channel with a vertical cut or drop 
that migrates upstream over time), which causes further erosion and 
sedimentation (Hartfield 1993, pp. 131-141). Dredging can involve 
snagging (the removal of woody debris from the channel), which not only 
contributes to destabilization of the channel but also removes the 
woody debris that provides important cover and nest locations for many 
fish species, including the frecklebelly madtom (Bennett et al. 2008, 
pp. 467-468).
    The frecklebelly madtom was eliminated from much of the mainstem of 
the Tombigbee River after the construction of the Tenn-Tom Waterway. 
Tributaries to the upper Tombigbee River have also been affected by 
channel modification of the Tenn-Tom Waterway due to head cutting and 
other geomorphic and flow modifications (Raborn and Schramm 2003, pp. 
289-301; Roberts et al. 2007, pp. 250-256; Tipton et al. 2004, pp. 49-
61), and fewer tributaries currently maintain the habitat needed by the 
frecklebelly madtom in this system (Millican et al. 2006, p. 84; 
Shepard 2004, pp. 220-222; Shepard et al. 1997, pp. 3-4). Similarly, 
channel geomorphology and substrate are likely being affected by head 
cutting due to impoundment of the Alabama River (Bennett et al. 2008, 
p. 468).
    Alternatively, frecklebelly madtom abundances have remained stable 
in the Cahaba River throughout the modification periods that affected 
surrounding drainages. The Cahaba River, Conasauga River, and some 
tributaries to the upper Tombigbee River are the only remaining waters 
within the range of the frecklebelly madtom that have escaped large-
scale human modification through damming or channelization (Bennet et 
al. 2008, p. 468).
Agriculture
    Agricultural practices such as traditional farming, feedlot 
operations, and associated land use practices can contribute pollutants 
to rivers. These practices can also degrade habitat by eroding stream 
banks, which results in alterations to stream hydrology and 
geomorphology. Nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, and other organic 
compounds are generally found in higher concentrations in agricultural 
areas rather than forested areas. Contaminants associated with 
agriculture (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal 
waste) can degrade water quality and negatively impact instream 
habitats by causing oxygen deficiencies, excess nutrification, and 
excessive algal growths, which can have a direct impact on fish 
community composition (Petersen et al. 1999, p. 6).
    Areas within the current range of the frecklebelly madtom, which 
are predominantly agricultural, are impacted by nonpoint source 
sediment and agrochemical discharges altering the physical and chemical 
characteristics of its habitat, thus potentially impeding its ability 
to feed, seek shelter from predators, and successfully reproduce. A 
negative relationship between the species and nonpoint source stressors 
attributed to agriculture has been described particularly within the 
Conasauga River (Freeman et al. 2017, pp. 429-430). Over the past two 
decades, an increase in the use of agricultural chemicals and 
practices, such as use of glyphosate-based herbicides for weed control 
and land dispersion of animal waste for soil amendment, has 
corresponded with marked declines in populations of fish and mussel 
species in the Upper Conasauga River watershed in Georgia and Tennessee 
(Freeman et al. 2017, p. 429). Nutrient enrichment of streams was found 
to be widespread with high levels of nitrate and phosphorus (reported 
at over 5 milligrams per liter and over 300 micrograms per liter, 
respectively, within the Conasauga River) likely associated with 
eutrophication, and hormone concentrations in sediments were often 
above those shown to cause endocrine disruption in fish, which was 
possibly related to the widespread application of poultry litter and 
manure (Lasier et al. 2016, entire). Estrogens, a hormone and type of 
endocrine disruptor that can be found in poultry litter, also have been 
identified as a threat to aquatic fauna in the Conasauga River system 
(Jacobs 2015, entire). Increased levels of estrogens can lead to 
decreases in spawning success and potentially population collapse 
within short timeframes (Kidd et al. 2007, p. 8899). Aquatic species 
declines observed in the Conasauga watershed may be at least partially 
due to hormones, as well as excess nutrients, herbicides, and 
surfactants (Freeman et al. 2017, p. 429).
    The amount (acreage) of agricultural land is declining across the 
eastern United States with a net loss of 6.5 percent between 1973 and 
2000 (Sayler et al. 2016, p. 12). As discussed below under Future 
Scenarios, within the watersheds in which frecklebelly madtom occurs, 
the declining trend of agricultural land is consistent with broader 
trends in the eastern United States showing agricultural land declines 
with time (Sayler et al. 2016, p. 12). These agricultural lands are 
mostly being converted to developed and forested lands (Sayler et al. 
2016, p. 12). Despite the declining trend, agricultural practices 
leading to poor water quality conditions currently influence and will 
continue to influence the viability of frecklebelly madtom across its 
range.
Development
    Development is a significant source of water quality degradation 
that can reduce the survival of aquatic organisms, including the 
frecklebelly madtom. Urban development can stress aquatic systems in a 
variety of ways, including increasing the frequency and magnitude of 
high flows in streams; increasing sedimentation and nutrient loads; 
increasing contaminants and toxicity; decreasing the diversity of fish, 
aquatic insects, plants, and amphibians; and changing stream morphology 
and water chemistry (Coles et al. 2012, entire; CWP 2003; entire). 
Sources and risks of an acute or catastrophic contamination event, such 
as a leak from an underground storage tank or a hazardous materials 
spill on a highway, increase as urbanization increases.
    Urbanization has also been shown to impair stream quality by 
impacting riparian health (Diamond et al. 2002, p. 1150). Riparian 
impairment resulting from urbanization or agricultural land use can 
amplify negative effects of nonpoint source pollution within the 
watershed as well as impact stream quality independent of land use 
within the watershed. Impacts from impervious cover can be mitigated 
through riparian forest cover and good riparian health (Roy et al. 
2005, p. 2318; Walsh et al. 2007, entire); however, the benefit of the 
riparian cover diminishes when impervious cover (i.e., urban cover) 
exceeds approximately 10 percent within the watershed (Booth and 
Jackson 1997, p. 1084; Goetz et al. 2003, p. 205).
    Currently, larger population centers, such as the cities of 
Atlanta, Georgia, Jackson, Mississippi, and Birmingham, Alabama, 
contribute substantial runoff to the watersheds occupied by the 
frecklebelly madtom. In the future, urbanization is predicted to 
increase in several areas across the range of the frecklebelly madtom 
(see below under Future Scenarios). All watersheds, but especially the 
Etowah River watershed, upstream of Lake Allatoona in Georgia are 
expected to experience additional urbanization (Albanese et al. 2018, 
p. 39). Conservation concerns in the Etowah River watershed have 
focused on potential effects of this predicted urban growth on 
imperiled fishes

[[Page 74059]]

(Burkhead et al. 1997, pp. 959-968; Wenger et al. 2010, pp. 11-21), and 
previous analyses show negative correlations between occurrence of 
native fishes and increases in impervious cover associated with urban 
development (Wenger et al. 2008, p. 1260). In the Etowah Basin in 
Georgia, models indicated that urbanization lowered fish species 
richness and density and led to predictable changes in species 
composition. Darters, sculpin, minnows, and endemic species declined 
along the urban gradient, whereas sunfishes persisted and became the 
dominant group (Walters et al. 2005, pp. 10-11). In the future, we 
anticipate increased development to amplify as a population-level 
factor influencing the viability of frecklebelly madtom.
Impoundments
    Impoundment of rivers is a stressor to aquatic species in the 
southeast (Benz and Collins 1997, pp. 22-23, 63, 91, 205, 273, 291, 
397, 399, 401-406, 446; Buckner et al. 2002, pp. 10-11). Dams modify 
habitat conditions and aquatic communities both upstream and downstream 
of an impoundment (Winston et al. 1991, pp. 103-104; Mulholland and 
Lenat 1992, pp. 193-231; Soballe et al. 1992, pp. 421-474). Upstream of 
dams, habitat is flooded and in-channel conditions change from flowing 
to still water, with increased depth, decreased levels of dissolved 
oxygen, and increased sedimentation. Sedimentation alters substrate 
conditions by filling in interstitial spaces between rocks, which 
provide habitat for many species (Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63-64), 
including the frecklebelly madtom. Downstream of dams, flow regime 
fluctuates with resulting fluctuations in water temperature and 
dissolved oxygen levels, the substrate is scoured, and downstream 
tributaries are eroded (Neves et al. 1997, pp. 63-64; Schuster 1997, p. 
273; Buckner et al. 2002, p. 11). Negative ``tailwater'' effects on 
habitat can extend many kilometers downstream (Neves et al. 1997, p. 
63). Dams fragment habitat for aquatic species by blocking corridors 
for migration and dispersal, resulting in population isolation and 
heightened susceptibility to extinction (Neves et al. 1997, p. 63). 
Dams also preclude the ability of aquatic organisms to escape from 
polluted waters and accidental spills (Buckner et al. 2002, p. 10).
    Damming of streams and springs is also extensive throughout the 
Southeast and occurs within the large river habitats of the 
frecklebelly madtom (Etnier 1997, pp. 88-89; Morse et al. 1997, pp. 22-
23; Shute et al. 1997, pp. 458-459, Bennett et al. 2008, p. 467). Many 
streams have both small ponds in their headwaters and large reservoirs 
in their lower reaches (Morse et al. 1997, p. 23). Small streams on 
private lands are regularly dammed to create ponds for cattle, 
irrigation, recreation, and fishing, with significant ecological 
effects due to the sheer abundance of these structures (Morse et al. 
1997, pp. 22-23). In addition, small headwater streams are increasingly 
being dammed in the Southeast to supply water for municipalities 
(Buckner et al. 2002, p. 11).
    Dams are known to have caused the extirpation and extinction of 
many southeastern species, and existing and proposed dams pose an 
ongoing threat to many aquatic species (Folkerts 1997, p. 11; Neves et 
al. 1997, p. 63; Riciarddi and Rasmussen 1999, p. 1222; Service 2000, 
p. 15; Buckner et al. 2002, p. 11, Olden 2016, pp. 112-122), including 
the frecklebelly madtom. The construction of 10 lock and dam structures 
on the Tenn-Tom Waterway, which artificially connects the Tennessee 
River to the Gulf of Mexico, led to the extirpation of many species, 
including the frecklebelly madtom, from the main river channel (Bennett 
et al. 2008, p. 467). The frecklebelly madtom is considered extirpated 
from the Alabama River, likely due to the construction of three dams in 
the late 1960s and early 1970s (Bennett et al. 2008, p. 467). In 
addition, the construction of one dam on the Etowah River may have 
affected the frecklebelly madtom, since the species is dependent on 
large-river gravel shoal substrate (Bennett et al. 2008, p. 470). As 
discussed above in Current Condition of Frecklebelly Madtom, four 
resilience units are likely extirpated as a result of dam construction 
and large scale river modifications.
Climate Change
    In the southeastern United States, several climate change models 
have projected more frequent drought, more extreme heat (resulting in 
increases in air and water temperatures), increased heavy precipitation 
events (e.g., flooding), more intense storms (e.g., frequency of major 
hurricanes increases), and rising sea level and accompanying storm 
surge (IPCC 2013, entire). When taking into account future climate 
projections for temperature and precipitation where the frecklebelly 
madtom occurs, warming is expected to be greatest in the summer, which 
is predicted to increase drought frequency. Nevertheless, annual mean 
precipitation is expected to increase slightly, leading to a slight 
increase in flooding events (Alder and Hostetler 2013, unpaginated; 
IPCC 2013, entire; USGS 2020, unpaginated). Changes in climate may 
affect ecosystem processes and communities by altering the abiotic 
conditions experienced by biotic assemblages, resulting in potential 
effects on community composition and individual species interactions 
(DeWan et al. 2010, p. 7).
    The frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts are likely to 
increase in the southeastern United States as a result of global 
climate change (Konrad et al. 2013, p. 34), which could negatively 
affect stream flows in the region. Stream flow is strongly correlated 
with important physical and chemical parameters that limit the 
distribution and abundance of riverine species (Power et al. 1995, 
entire; Resh et al. 1988, pp. 438-439) and regulates the ecological 
integrity of flowing water systems (Poff et al. 1997, p. 770).
    To understand how climate change is projected to affect where 
frecklebelly madtom occurs, we used the National Climate Change Viewer 
(NCCV), a climate-visualization tool developed by the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS), to generate future climate projections across the range 
of the species. The NCCV is a web-based tool for visualizing and 
assessing projected changes in climate and water balance at watershed, 
State, and county scales (USGS 2020, unpaginated). To evaluate the 
effects of climate change in the future, we used projections from 
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5 to 
characterize projected future changes in climate and water resources, 
averaged for the South-Atlantic Gulf Region encompassing the range of 
the frecklebelly madtom (Service 2020, pp. 27-31). The projections 
estimate changes in mean annual values for maximum air temperature, 
minimum air temperature, monthly precipitation, and monthly runoff, 
among other factors, from historical (1981-2010) to future (2050-2074) 
time series.
    Within the range of the frecklebelly madtom, the NCCV projects 
that, under the RCP 4.5 scenario, maximum air temperature will increase 
by 1.9 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (3.4 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), 
minimum air temperature will increase by 1.8 [deg]C (3.2 [deg]F), 
precipitation will increase by 5.36 millimeters (0.2 inches) per month, 
and runoff will remain the same in the 2050-2074 time period (USGS 
2020, unpaginated). Under the more extreme RCP 8.5 scenario, the NCCV 
projects that maximum air temperature will increase by 2.8 degrees 
Celsius ([deg]C) (5 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), minimum air

[[Page 74060]]

temperature will increase by 2.7 [deg]C (4.9 [deg]F), precipitation 
will increase by 5.36 millimeter (0.2 inches) per month, and runoff 
will remain the same in the 2050-2074 time period (USGS 2020, 
unpaginated). These estimates indicate that, despite projected minimal 
increases in annual precipitation, anticipated increases in maximum and 
minimum air temperatures will likely offset those gains. Based on these 
projections, the frecklebelly madtom will on average be exposed to 
increased air temperatures across its range, despite limited increases 
in precipitation; however, these projections are not a one-to-one air 
to stream water temperature comparison.
    Despite the recognition of climate effects on ecosystem processes, 
there is uncertainty within each model and model ensembles about what 
the exact climate future will be, and there is uncertainty in how the 
ecosystems and species will respond. Although there are several 
potential risks associated with long-term climate change as described 
above, there is uncertainty regarding how the frecklebelly madtom will 
respond to these risks. The species occupies some tributaries 
throughout its range, but the frecklebelly madtom has a preference for 
habitat in larger rivers and this may provide a buffer to changes 
induced by climate change, particularly from issues associated with 
drought. Therefore, we do not consider climate change to be a primary 
risk factor for the species at this time.
Conservation Efforts
    The frecklebelly madtom is recognized as a species of concern in 
all States where it occurs and is protected by State statute in four 
States where it occurs. This species is listed as endangered by the 
State of Georgia (GADNR 2015, p. 74), endangered by the State of 
Mississippi (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2015, p. 36), and 
threatened by the State of Tennessee (TWRA 2015, Appendix C). In 
Alabama, the frecklebelly madtom is designated as a protected nongame 
species under Alabama Code 220-2-.92. In general, the protections 
accorded to the frecklebelly madtom by Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, 
and Tennessee prohibit direct exploitation of the species without a 
permit within those States.
    Beginning in 2017, the Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery 
partnered with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and 
Parks to collect individuals of the frecklebelly madtom within that 
State to study marking techniques, establish captive husbandry methods, 
and conduct life-history studies. This effort has led to successful 
propagation of the species, documented important components of the 
species' life history, and collected data that can be used to develop 
long-term, captive-propagation efforts, although no individuals have 
been released.
    Throughout the range of the species, portions of occupied rivers 
and surrounding lands are owned and managed by State and Federal 
entities that prioritize conservation as a management objective. 
Generally, these entities help to maintain the natural ecosystem 
functioning of a river by managing terrestrial areas in a more natural 
state and limiting disturbance adjacent to rivers. However, properties 
managed by the Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the Dawson Forest 
Wildlife Management Area (WMA) managed by the Georgia Department of 
Natural Resources, are known to specifically consider and manage for 
the conservation of aquatic species and their habitats. It is expected 
that the frecklebelly madtom will be positively affected by management 
on these lands. These conservation lands and the adjacent rivers 
occupied by the frecklebelly madtom include: Portions of the Bogue 
Chitto and Pearl Rivers within the Bogue Chitto National Wildlife 
Refuge (NWR, Service) in Louisiana; portions of the Bogue Chitto River 
within Bogue Chitto State Park (Louisiana Department of Culture, 
Recreation, and Tourism) in Louisiana; portions of the Pearl River 
within the Pearl River WMA (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 
Fisheries) in Louisiana; portions of the Cahaba River within the Cahaba 
NWR (Service) in Alabama; portions of the Conasauga River within the 
Cherokee National Forest (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. 
Forest Service) in Georgia; and portions of the Etowah River within the 
Dawson Forest WMA (Georgia Department of Natural Resources) in Georgia. 
In addition, the Etowah River catchment area upstream of habitat 
occupied by the frecklebelly madtom and managed by the Chattahoochee-
Oconee National Forest (USDA U.S. Forest Service) is expected to 
benefit the species by providing good water quality to lower river 
reaches.
    The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA, designated 
the Conasauga River as a Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) landscape in 
2017 (USDA 2020, unpaginated) and will provide additional funds and 
human-power to improve water quality and aquatic habitat in the 
watershed. The project will provide technical and financial assistance 
to help landowners improve water quality and help producers plan and 
implement a variety of conservation activities or practices that 
benefit aquatic species. The frecklebelly madtom will likely benefit 
from water quality improvements in portions of the Conasauga River that 
are affected by agricultural practices implemented through the WLFW 
project.
Synergistic and Cumulative Effects
    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 
current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the 
current and future conditions encompasses and incorporates the threats 
individually and primary threats cumulatively. Our current and future 
condition (see below) 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.
    In addition to impacting frecklebelly madtom individually, it is 
possible that several of the above summarized risk factors are acting 
synergistically or cumulatively on the species. The combined impact of 
multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor acting 
alone. The dual stressors of climate change and direct human impact 
have the potential to affect aquatic ecosystems by altering stream 
flows and nutrient cycles, eliminating habitats, and changing community 
structure (Moore et al. 1997, p. 942). Increased water temperatures and 
a reduction in stream flow are the climate change effects that are most 
likely to affect stream communities (Poff 1997, entire), and each of 
these variables is strongly influenced by land use patterns. For 
example, in agricultural areas, lower precipitation may trigger 
increased irrigation resulting in reduced stream flow (Backlund et al. 
2008, pp. 42-43). In forested areas, trees influence instream 
temperatures through the direct effects of shading. Reductions in 
temperature by vegetative cover may be particularly important in low-
order streams, where canopy vegetation significantly reduces the 
magnitude and

[[Page 74061]]

variation of the stream temperature compared with that of clear-cut 
areas (Ringler and Hall, 1975, pp. 111-121).

Future Scenarios

    To evaluate the future viability of the frecklebelly madtom and 
address uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential 
future stressors and their impacts to the madtom, we analyzed three 
future scenarios and assessed the resiliency, representation, and 
redundancy of the madtom for each scenario. We devised these scenarios 
by identifying information on the following primary threats that are 
anticipated to affect the frecklebelly madtom in the future: 
Agriculture and developed land use. We considered projected changes in 
agricultural and developed land uses in assessing future resiliency of 
each resilience unit for frecklebelly madtom. We assessed these land 
uses to understand the future impacts to habitat degradation and 
destruction resulting from poor water quality, a primary threat to 
frecklebelly madtom. The three scenarios capture the range of 
variability in the changing human population footprint on the landscape 
and how frecklebelly madtom populations will respond to these changing 
conditions. All three scenarios were projected out to the year 2050 
(i.e., 30 years), because we were reasonably certain we could forecast 
patterns in land-use change and understand how these land uses will 
interact with the frecklebelly madtom and its habitat over this time 
period given the species' life span.
    In our development of future scenarios, we used projected trends in 
land use change from two models, the National Land Cover Database 
(NLCD) and the Slope, Land use, Excluded, Urban, Transportation and 
Hillshade (SLEUTH) model (Jantz et al. 2010, entire). Future 
projections for agricultural land use were developed from NLCD data by 
calculating a 15-year trend in agricultural land use change between 
2001 and 2016 for each resilience unit and converting that to an annual 
rate of agricultural land use change for each resilience unit. We used 
the annual rate of agricultural land use change to project changes to 
30 years from the present. The annual rate of agricultural land use 
change was held constant for each resilience unit across all scenarios; 
however, the rate of change in agricultural area varied among the 
resilience units we evaluated in our analysis. With the exception of 
the Alabama River resilience unit, which has an increase in the amount 
of agricultural land use over time, we found an overall decline in the 
amount of land used for agriculture. This result is consistent with 
broader trends that show the amount of agricultural land is declining 
with time in the eastern United States (Sayler et al. 2016, p. 12).
    For our future developed land use projections, we used the SLEUTH 
datasets from the year 2050 (closest to 30 years in the future) and 
examined development across resilience units. We then developed three 
scenarios that varied development probabilities: (1) Low development, 
(2) moderate development, and (3) high development. For the low 
development scenario, we considered all areas predicted to be developed 
at a greater than 90 percent probability (i.e., only including areas 
that are almost certain to be developed); the moderate development 
scenario considered all areas to be developed at a greater than 50 
percent probability; and the high development scenario considered all 
areas to be developed at a greater than 10 percent probability (i.e., 
including the majority of areas with any potential to be developed). 
The results of the future projections for agriculture and developed 
land use were used to estimate a composite land use score, and then 
using a rule set, we categorized future resiliency into high, moderate, 
low, unknown, or likely extirpated conditions.
    In the low development scenario, the frecklebelly madtom was 
projected to have one unit with high resiliency, seven units with 
moderate resiliency, one unit with low resiliency, and four units that 
are likely extirpated (see table 2, below). In terms of projected 
change from current condition, the Buttahatchee River (B4) and Pearl 
River (A2) resilience units are projected to decrease in resiliency 
from high to moderate. The Etowah River (F3) resilience unit is 
projected to become more developed, although the percent of developed 
land does not reach a point where a change in resiliency is 
anticipated. All other units are projected to retain their current 
resiliency under the low development scenario.

                             Table 2--Future Resiliency of Frecklebelly Madtom Resilience Units Under Three Future Scenarios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Representation units            Resilience units             Current               Scenario 1             Scenario 2             Scenario 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl River (A)....................  Bogue Chitto River      High..................  High.................  High.................  High.
                                      (A1).                  High..................  Moderate.............  Moderate.............  Moderate.
                                     Pearl River (A2)......
Upper Tombigbee River (B)..........  East Fork Tombigbee     Moderate..............  Moderate.............  Moderate.............  Moderate.
                                      (B1).                  Moderate..............  Moderate.............  Moderate.............  Moderate.
                                     Sipsey River (B2).....  Moderate..............  Moderate.............  Moderate.............  Moderate.
                                     Luxapallila Creek (B3)
                                     Buttahatchee River      High..................  Moderate.............  Moderate.............  Moderate.
                                      (B4).                  Likely Extirpated.....  Likely Extirpated....  Likely Extirpated....  Likely Extirpated.
                                     Bull Mountain Creek
                                      (B5).
                                     Upper Tombigbee River   Likely Extirpated.....  Likely Extirpated....  Likely Extirpated....  Likely Extirpated.
                                      (mainstem) (B6).
Lower Tombigbee/Alabama Rivers (C).  Lower Tombigbee River   Unknown*..............  Unknown*.............  Unknown*.............  Unknown.*
                                      (C1).                  Unknown*..............  Unknown*.............  Unknown*.............  Unknown.*
                                     Lower Alabama River
                                      (C2).
Alabama River (D)..................  Alabama River (D1)....  Likely Extirpated.....  Likely Extirpated....  Likely Extirpated....  Likely Extirpated.
Cahaba River (E)...................  Cahaba River (E1).....  Moderate..............  Moderate.............  Moderate.............  Moderate.
                                     Alabama River/Big       Likely Extirpated.....  Likely Extirpated....  Likely Extirpated....  Likely Extirpated.
                                      Swamp (E2).
Upper Coosa River (F)..............  Conasauga River (F1)..  Low...................  Low..................  Low..................  Likely Extirpated.
                                     Coosawattee River (F2)  Unknown*..............  Unknown*.............  Unknown*.............  Unknown.*
                                     Etowah River (F3).....  Moderate..............  Moderate.............  Low..................  Low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Resiliency determined as unknown since units are known only from eDNA data.

    In the moderate development scenario, the frecklebelly madtom was 
projected to have one unit with high resiliency, six units with 
moderate resiliency, two units with low resiliency, and four units that 
are likely extirpated (see table 2, above). In terms of projected 
change from current condition, the Buttahatchee River (B4) and Pearl 
River (A2) resilience units are projected to decrease in resiliency 
from high to moderate. The Etowah River (F3) resilience unit is 
projected to become substantially more developed under this scenario, 
and, therefore, this unit is projected to decrease in resiliency from 
moderate to low. All other units are projected to retain their current 
resiliency.
    In the high development scenario, the frecklebelly madtom was 
projected to

[[Page 74062]]

have one unit with high resiliency, six units with moderate resiliency, 
one unit with low resiliency, and five units that are likely extirpated 
(see table 2, above). In terms of projected change from current 
condition, the Buttahatchee River (B4) and Pearl River (A2) resilience 
units are projected to decrease in resiliency from high to moderate. 
The Etowah River (F3) resilience unit is projected to become 
substantially more developed under this scenario; therefore, this unit 
is projected to decrease in resiliency from moderate to low. The 
Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit is projected to decrease in 
resiliency from low to being likely extirpated as a result of high 
levels of both agriculture and developed land uses. All other units are 
projected to retain their current resiliency.
    In summary, the resiliency of frecklebelly madtom resilience units 
are projected to remain similar to the current condition with eight 
units having moderate to high resiliency under the low development 
scenario (Service 2020, entire). In the moderate and high development 
scenarios, seven units are projected to have moderate to high 
resiliency; two units are projected to have low resiliency (one unit is 
low under current condition) in the moderate development scenario and 
one additional unit is projected to be likely extirpated (total of five 
units) in the high development scenario. The Pearl River (A) 
representation unit continues to be the stronghold for the species, as 
resiliency is projected to remain high in the Bogue Chitto (A1) 
resilience unit across all scenarios and the Pearl River (A2) 
resilience unit is projected to have moderate resiliency across all 
scenarios. All extant resilience units in the Upper Tombigbee (B) 
representation unit are projected to have moderate resiliency. The 
Cahaba River (E1) resilience unit is projected to maintain moderate 
resiliency into the future.
    Within the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit, the Etowah 
River (F3) resilience unit is projected to become more developed by 
2050 under all scenarios; therefore, in the moderate and high 
development scenarios, the resiliency is projected to decrease from 
moderate to low, making the unit more vulnerable to stochastic events. 
The high level of development projected within riparian areas of the 
Etowah River (F3) unit will lead to an increase in impervious area, 
which could lead to further decreases in water quality and impact the 
persistence of frecklebelly madtom. In addition, although the 
agricultural trend projects a decrease, the amount of land in 
agricultural use is still projected to remain relatively high. High 
levels of agriculture and developed land use projections in this unit 
drive the projected low resiliency by the year 2050. In the Conasauga 
River (F1) resilience unit, developed land use under the high 
development scenario is projected to increase, and agriculture and 
developed land use are projected to be at relatively high levels by 
2050. However, the Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit currently has 
low resiliency, and this projected increase in development is 
anticipated to further impact resiliency, resulting in likely 
extirpation of the frecklebelly madtom from this unit.
    Finally, the presence of frecklebelly madtom in the Lower Tombigbee 
River (C1), Lower Alabama River (C2), and Coosawattee River (F2) 
resilience units is based on recent positive eDNA samples, and these 
units have been assessed as having an unknown resiliency. Based on our 
assessment of future land use, threat levels from agriculture and 
developed land use are projected to be relatively low in the Lower 
Tombigbee (C1) and Lower Alabama (C2) resilience units. Thus, if the 
species is present, there is no projected increase in threats related 
to agriculture or developed land use. In the Coosawattee River (F2) 
resilience unit, there is projected to be relatively high amounts of 
agricultural and developed land. If the species is present there, this 
land use pattern could represent a threat to the individuals occupying 
the unit.
    Future species' representation is projected to maintain current 
levels in the low development scenario, as the only projected changes 
in resiliency are two units decreasing from high to moderate 
resiliency. Under the moderate and high development scenarios, the 
Etowah River (F3) and Conasauga River (F1) units are projected to 
decrease in resiliency. Therefore, the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit is projected to be vulnerable to extirpation, 
resulting in a loss of species' representation. Given this unit occurs 
in a unique physiographic province and has populations considered as an 
evolutionary significant unit (Neely 2018, pp. 7-10), the projected 
loss of this unit would result in a lower level of representation for 
the species.
    Species redundancy is projected to maintain current levels into the 
future under the low and moderate development scenarios, as no 
additional resilience units are projected to become extirpated. In the 
Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit, two resilience units are 
projected to decrease in resiliency under the moderate and high 
scenarios. Therefore, frecklebelly madtom in these units are at an 
increased risk of extirpation from a catastrophic event. Given the 
broad distribution of moderate to high resilience units, it is unlikely 
that a catastrophic event would impact the entire species' range.

Determination of Frecklebelly Madtom'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 ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 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

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the frecklebelly madtom. We considered whether the frecklebelly 
madtom is presently in danger of extinction. Our review of the best 
available information indicates there are 16 resilience units of 
frecklebelly madtom within 6 representation units across the known 
historical range in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and 
Tennessee. The species was likely more widespread historically in the 
Mobile Bay drainage but was extirpated from large river habitats after 
the creation of numerous impoundments. Currently, eight resilience 
units (62 percent) of frecklebelly madtom have moderate to high 
resiliency and are contributing to the viability of the species; 
impacts from habitat destruction and modification do not appear to be 
affecting the frecklebelly madtom at the population-level for these 
resilience units. Five units (38 percent) have low resiliency or are 
likely extirpated due to habitat destruction and degradation resulting 
from channelization, dams, and

[[Page 74063]]

impoundments, and these units are not currently contributing to the 
frecklebelly madtom's viability. Three units have unknown resiliency as 
these units have no direct observations of the species and are known 
only from eDNA presence surveys. The species is currently extant in 
four of the six representation units with at least one resilience unit 
having moderate to high resiliency in each of the four representation 
units. Given the broad distribution of the species and eight units 
across the range having moderate to high resiliency, a single 
catastrophic event is not likely to impact the species as a whole. 
Therefore, the frecklebelly madtom across its range is currently at a 
low risk of extinction from habitat destruction and other stressors. 
Thus, we determine that proposing an endangered status for the species 
is not appropriate.
    We forecasted the viability of the frecklebelly madtom under three 
plausible scenarios 30 years into the future (summarized above in 
Future Scenarios). We assessed relevant risk factors that may be acting 
on the frecklebelly madtom in the future and whether we could make 
reliable predictions about these factors and how they may impact the 
viability of the species. We assessed how agriculture and developed 
land use is projected to influence the viability of the frecklebelly 
madtom 30 years in the future (2050). Based on the modeling and 
scenarios evaluated, we considered our ability to make reliable 
predictions in the future and the uncertainty in how and to what degree 
the species could respond to those risk factors in this timeframe. 
Based on this information, we determine the appropriate timeframe for 
assessing whether this species is likely to become in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future is 30 years.
    Taking into account the impacts of the primary factors influencing 
the species in the future (habitat destruction and degradation caused 
by agriculture and developed land uses resulting in poor water quality) 
and the potential impacts to the species' needs, we project the 
frecklebelly madtom will continue to remain resilient to stochastic 
events across much of its range. We project that numerous resilience 
units will have moderate to high resiliency over the next 30 years 
across the broad geographic range of the species, including within the 
four currently extant representation units, depending on scenario. 
Although two of our scenarios indicated a decline in the number of 
resilience units contributing to viability of the frecklebelly madtom, 
eight units in the low development scenario and seven units in the 
moderate and high development scenarios are projected to remain viable 
through 2050. With the projected lower resiliency from habitat 
destruction and degradation within the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit, the species' representation and redundancy is 
lower than current levels. However, the geographically wide 
distribution of resilience and representation units guards against 
catastrophic losses rangewide. We find the multiple resilience units 
across multiple representation units provide resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy levels that are likely sufficient to 
sustain the species into the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find 
that the risk of extinction of the frecklebelly madtom is sufficiently 
low that it is unlikely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future, i.e., within the next 30 years.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
conclude that the risk factors acting on the frecklebelly madtom and 
its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient 
imminence, scope, or magnitude to rise to the level to indicate that 
the species is in danger of extinction now (an endangered species), or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened 
species), 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 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. Having determined that the frecklebelly madtom is not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any 
portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the 
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. 
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the 
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can 
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question 
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the 
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range.
    In undertaking this analysis for the frecklebelly madtom, we chose 
to address the status question first--we consider information 
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the 
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range 
where the species is endangered or threatened. We considered whether 
any of the threats acting on the frecklebelly madtom are geographically 
concentrated in any portion of the range at a biologically meaningful 
scale.
    We identified two portions of the species' range that may be 
experiencing a concentration of threats. First, the Upper Tombigbee 
River (B) representation unit of the frecklebelly madtom may be 
experiencing elevated threats resulting from construction of the Tenn-
Tom Waterway (Factor A). The construction of the Tenn-Tom Waterway for 
commercial navigation eliminated suitable habitat for the frecklebelly 
madtom and has caused the likely extirpation of two of six resilience 
units in the Upper Tombigbee River (B) representation unit: Upper 
Tombigbee River (B6) and Bull Mountain Creek (B5). We evaluated current 
status information and concluded that the species is effectively 
extirpated from these two resilience units. Because we considered these 
extirpated units to be lost historical range, they cannot be considered 
as a significant portion of the range. However, we considered the 
effects that the loss of these two units have on the current and future 
viability of the frecklebelly madtom in the Upper Tombigbee River (B) 
representation unit. We then considered the current status of the 
remaining four resilience units in the Upper Tombigbee River 
representation unit (B), which currently have moderate to high 
resiliency, including the Buttahatchee River (B4)--considered a 
stronghold for the species. In addition, the East Fork Tombigbee River 
(B1) resilience unit has moderate resiliency with recent collections of 
over 100 individuals despite some habitat impacts from the Tenn-Tom 
Waterway. These four units are projected to have continued moderate 
resiliency into the foreseeable future. Based on these facts, we 
conclude that the impacts from the Tenn-Tom Waterway are not having any 
biologically meaningful effect on the remaining four resilience units 
in the Upper Tombigbee River representation unit (B), which indicates 
the species does not have a different status in that portion of its 
range. Therefore, even if the Upper Tombigbee River (B) representation 
unit was found to

[[Page 74064]]

comprise a significant portion of the frecklebelly madtom's range, we 
conclude that the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
    We identified another portion, the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit, of the frecklebelly madtom's range that is 
experiencing a concentration of the following threat, but at a 
biologically meaningful scale: Habitat destruction and degradation from 
agriculture and developed land uses resulting in poor water quality 
(Factor A). Currently, within the Upper Coosa River (F) representation 
unit, two resilience units (Conasauga River (F1) and Etowah River (F3)) 
have low and moderate resiliency, respectively; the Coosawattee (F2) 
resilience unit was determined to have an unknown resiliency as the 
species was not historically known to occur in this river, but eDNA for 
the frecklebelly madtom was found in portions of this unit in 2018. 
Declines from historical condition in frecklebelly madtom occurrences 
have been apparent in the Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit, while 
occurrence records in the Etowah River (F3) resilience unit are fairly 
widespread and considered similar to historical occurrence records. 
Given the current resiliency of units within the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit, it is not likely a single catastrophic event would 
result in the extirpation of the species from this portion.
    In the foreseeable future, we project the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit will have declines in resiliency for both the 
Conasauga River (F1) and Etowah River (F3) resilience units due to 
habitat destruction and degradation from agriculture and developed land 
use. Although this threat is not unique to the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit, the threat in this portion is great enough to 
project a reduction in resiliency for both of these resilience units, 
and, therefore, the entire representation unit is expected to decline. 
In the Etowah River (F3) resilience unit, urbanization under the low, 
moderate, and high development scenarios is projected to increase and 
comprise 35, 38, and 42 percent of the watershed, respectively, as 
compared to 14 percent of the watershed currently. Within the Conasauga 
River (F1) resilience unit, urbanization is projected to increase and 
comprise 13, 15, and 17 percent of the watershed under the low, 
moderate, and high development scenarios, as compared to 8 percent of 
the watershed currently. This projected urbanization coupled with 
continued agricultural activities will continue to impair, and 
potentially further decrease, stream habitat and water quality in the 
Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit, which already has elevated 
nitrogen, phosphorus, turbidity, and concentrations of bioavailable 
estrogen (Freemen et al. 2017, pp. 429-430). In addition, the future 
scenarios project the Etowah River (F3) and Conasauga River (F1) units 
to have low resiliency (under the moderate development scenario) and to 
have low resiliency and be likely extirpated, respectively (under the 
high development scenario), by the year 2050. This would significantly 
increase the risk of extirpation of the Upper Coosa (F) representation 
unit from a catastrophic or stochastic event. Our examination leads us 
to find that there is substantial information that the Upper Coosa 
River (F) representation unit is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future.
    We then proceeded to consider whether this portion of the range 
(i.e., the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit) is significant. 
For the purposes of this analysis, the Service is considering 
significant portions of the range by applying any reasonable definition 
of ``significant.'' We asked whether any portions of the range may be 
biologically meaningful in terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation of the entity being evaluated. This approach is 
consistent with the Act, our implementing regulations, our policies, 
and case law.
    We evaluated the available information about the portion of the 
species that occupies the Upper Coosa River representation unit, 
assessing its significance. Throughout most of its range, the 
frecklebelly madtom occurs in rivers within the Gulf Coastal Plain 
physiographic province, which is an area comprising the former 
continental shelf and is currently above sea level (Fennemann 1928, p. 
280). The Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit occurs in the Ridge 
and Valley (Conasauga River (F1) and Coosawattee River (F2) resilience 
units) and Piedmont Upland (Etowah River (F3) resilience unit) 
physiographic provinces. Physiographic provinces are regions divided 
into distinctive geographic areas based on physical geography, such as 
topography, soil type, and geologic history (Fenneman 1928, pp. 266-
272), where areas with similar characteristics are grouped into a 
province. The Piedmont province contains lowlands (plains) and 
highlands (plateaus) with isolated mountains, and in Georgia, the 
elevation reaches up to 480 meters (1,500 feet) (Fennemann 1928, p. 
293); the Ridge and Valley province contain a longitudinal series of 
valleys (lowlands) and ridges (mountains) through the Appalachians 
(Fennemann 1928, p. 296). Given the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit occurs in different physiographic provinces with a 
distinctive physical geography from the rest of the range, frecklebelly 
madtoms in this unit may experience environmental conditions, such as 
soils, water chemistry, hydrological regimes, and nutrient cycling, 
that are different from the rest of the range. These rivers in the 
Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit, flowing through unique 
physiographic provinces, are also removed from the nearest Coastal 
Plain physiographic province resilience units by approximately 418 
river miles (673 river kilometers) and represent the most eastern and 
northern resilience units of the frecklebelly madtom.
    Historically and currently, the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit represents a small portion (less than 15 percent 
based on current occurrences and occupied stream reaches; less than 24 
percent based on historical occurrences) of the frecklebelly madtom's 
range. If the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit was extirpated, 
the frecklebelly madtom would lose some representation and redundancy, 
but the loss of this portion of the species' range would still leave 
sufficient resiliency (populations with moderate to high resiliency), 
redundancy, and representation in the remainder of the species' range 
such that it would not notably reduce the viability of the species. 
Therefore, despite the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit 
occurring in different physiographic provinces and being disjunct from 
the remainder of the range, this unit only represents a small portion 
of the frecklebelly madtom's historical and current range and does not 
represent a significant portion of the frecklebelly madtom's range. We 
conclude that the frecklebelly madtom is not in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion 
of its range. Our approach is consistent with the courts' holdings in 
Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011 
(N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 
Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the frecklebelly madtom. Because the species is neither in danger of 
extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or any significant portion of its range, the 
frecklebelly madtom does not meet the definition of an

[[Page 74065]]

endangered species or threatened species. Therefore, we find that 
listing the frecklebelly madtom as an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act is not warranted at this time. This constitutes the 
conclusion of the Service's 12-month finding on the 2010 petition to 
list the frecklebelly madtom as an endangered or threatened species. A 
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the 
SSA report and other supporting documents (available on the internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0058).
    We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes 
available concerning the taxonomy, biology, ecology, or status of the 
frecklebelly madtom, or stressors to the frecklebelly madtom, whenever 
it becomes available. Please submit any new information, materials, 
comments, or questions concerning this finding to the Alabama 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Analysis

    Under the Act, we have the authority to consider for listing any 
species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any distinct population 
segment (DPS) of these taxa if there is sufficient information to 
indicate that such action may be warranted. To guide the implementation 
of the DPS provisions of the Act, we and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries), 
published the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy) in 
the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under our DPS 
Policy, we use two elements to assess whether a population segment 
under consideration for listing may be recognized as a DPS: (1) The 
population segment's discreteness from the remainder of the species to 
which it belongs, and (2) the significance of the population segment to 
the species to which it belongs. If we determine that a population 
segment being considered for listing is a DPS, then the population 
segment's conservation status is evaluated based on the five listing 
factors established by the Act to determine if listing it as either 
endangered or threatened is warranted.
    The Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit consists of the 
Conasauga River, Coosawattee River, Etowah River, and their tributaries 
and watersheds (see figure 1, below). The Coosawattee River joins the 
Conasauga River to form the Oostanaula River, and the Etowah River 
joins the Oostanaula River to form the Coosa River. Within this 
proposed rule, we refer to the Upper Coosa River (F) representation 
unit as including all rivers and streams in the upper Coosa River basin 
that join to form the Coosa River; in other words, the entire watershed 
upstream from the confluence of the Oostanaula and Etowah Rivers. 
Below, we evaluated the Upper Coosa River representation unit of the 
frecklebelly madtom's range to determine whether it meets the 
definition of a DPS under our DPS Policy.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 74066]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO20.014

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Discreteness
    Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon 
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

[[Page 74067]]

    The Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit of the frecklebelly 
madtom is markedly separate from other representation and resilience 
units of the species both genetically and geographically. In terms of 
morphology and genetics, the frecklebelly madtom has exhibited some 
morphological and genetic differences across representation units. 
Preliminary data suggested there was considerable morphological 
variation across the species' range, and the populations in the Coosa 
River drainage were the most distinctive population (Neely 2018, p. 1). 
Given this information, it was thought that frecklebelly madtoms in the 
Conasauga and Etowah Rivers may be distinct from frecklebelly madtoms 
found elsewhere. Through a reanalysis of existing morphological and 
genetic data, frecklebelly madtoms collected from the Coosa River 
drainage were found to have shorter snout to barbel midpoint distance 
measurements than madtoms collected from other drainages, but this 
difference was not diagnostic of this population as there is overlap in 
the range of measurements among populations (Neely 2018, p. 7). In 
terms of genetic variation, considerable genetic differentiation was 
observed among the Pearl, Tombigbee, Cahaba, and Coosa Rivers 
populations; however, morphological variation was incongruent with 
genetic variation (Neely 2018, p. 10). These results ``do not allow 
clear diagnosis of distinct species within Noturus munitus'' (Neely 
2018, p. 10). Because the data do not support the description of a 
distinct subspecies or species, each population of frecklebelly madtom 
is recommended to be considered as a separate evolutionary significant 
unit or ESU of the frecklebelly madtom (Neely 2018, p. 10). Therefore, 
the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit is considered an ESU of 
the frecklebelly madtom, which provides key representation for the 
frecklebelly madtom as a whole.
    The Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit also consists of 
separate and distinct physiographic provinces as compared to the 
majority of the species' range, as discussed above under Status 
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range. In terms of physical or 
geographic separation, the resilience units in the Upper Coosa River 
(F) representation unit are disjunct from other units of the 
frecklebelly madtom across the species' range. The distance of the 
geographic separation from other frecklebelly madtom representation and 
resilience units is approximately 418 river miles (673 river 
kilometers) upstream with seven dams (Weiss, H. Neely Henry, Logan 
Martin, Lay, Mitchell, Jordan, and R.F. Henry) and impoundments 
disrupting the connectivity and creating barriers to movement to the 
rest of the range. Therefore, frecklebelly madtoms in the Upper Coosa 
River (F) representation unit currently do not, and will likely never, 
naturally interact with individuals or populations in the remaining 
part of the range. In addition, if this portion becomes extirpated, 
frecklebelly madtoms located within the Coastal Plain physiographic 
province may be unable to recolonize the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit, not only due to the lack of connectivity, but also 
because they may lack the needed adaptive traits to survive in these 
different physical geographies. Based on our review of the available 
information, we conclude that the Upper Coosa River representation unit 
of the frecklebelly madtom is markedly separate from other 
representation and resilience units of the species due to genetic 
separation and geographic (physical) isolation from frecklebelly 
madtoms in the remainder of the range. Therefore, we have determined 
that the Upper Coosa River representation unit of the frecklebelly 
madtom meets the condition for discreteness under our DPS Policy.
Significance
    Under our DPS Policy, once we have determined that a population 
segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological 
significance to the larger taxon to which it belongs. This 
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Evidence of the 
persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting 
that is unusual or unique for the taxon, (2) evidence that loss of the 
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of 
the taxon, (3) evidence that the population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range, or 
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from 
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. Of 
particular note, as we explained in our draft (76 FR 76987, December 9, 
2011, p. 76998) and final (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014, pp. 79 FR 37579, 
37585) Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of 
Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (SPR Policy), the definition of 
``significant'' for the purpose of significant portion of the range 
analysis differs from the definition of ``significant'' found in our 
DPS Policy and used for DPS analysis. Although there are similarities 
in the definition of ``significant'' under the SPR Policy and the 
definition of ``significance'' in the DPS Policy, there are important 
differences between the two. The DPS Policy requires that for a 
vertebrate population to meet the Act's definition of ``species,'' it 
must be discrete from other populations and must be significant to the 
taxon as a whole. The significance criterion under the DPS Policy is 
necessarily broad and could be met under a wider variety of 
circumstances even if it could not be met under the SPR Policy. In this 
case, we determine (see below) that the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit is ``significant'' for the purposes of DPS, and we 
did not, as discussed above, conclude that it constituted a 
``significant'' portion of the frecklebelly madtom's range.
    Currently, the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit is one of 
four known extant units within the species. We determined that loss of 
this unit (population segment) would result in a significant gap in the 
species' range. The Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit in 
Georgia and Tennessee represents the eastern and northernmost portion 
of the frecklebelly madtom's range, with the remainder of the range 
occurring in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. As discussed 
previously, this unit also occurs in different physiographic provinces 
(Ridge and Valley province and Piedmont Upland province) associated 
with different environmental and physical conditions. Lastly, the Upper 
Coosa River (F) representation unit is approximately 418 river miles 
(673 kilometers) from the nearest resilience units in the Coastal Plain 
province. Therefore, the loss of this unit would result in the species' 
range shifting south and west approximately 418 miles (673 kilometers).
    As with other representation units, the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit of the frecklebelly madtom differs markedly from 
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. As 
discussed above, considerable genetic differentiation has been observed 
among populations of frecklebelly madtom (Neely 2018, p. 10), and these 
populations are considered evolutionary significant units of 
frecklebelly madtom. In addition, the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit of the frecklebelly madtom persists in different 
physiographic provinces than the remainder of the range. The Upper 
Coosa River (F) representation unit occurs in the Ridge and Valley

[[Page 74068]]

(Conasauga River (F1) and Coosawattee River (F2) resilience units) and 
Piedmont Upland (Etowah River (F3) resilience unit) physiographic 
provinces, while the rest of the range occurs in rivers within the Gulf 
Coastal Plain physiographic province. Having persisted over time in 
areas with distinctive physical geography, frecklebelly madtoms in the 
Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit have likely adapted to 
environmental conditions, such as soils, water chemistry, hydrological 
regimes, and nutrient cycling, differently, as demonstrated by the 
divergent genetics described by Neely (2018, entire), and have likely 
contributed to the adaptive capacity of the species. The adaptations of 
frecklebelly madtoms are an important and unique component of the 
species' representation, which is evidence of it differing markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetics. Therefore, we 
have substantial evidence that the Upper Coosa River (F) representation 
unit of the frecklebelly madtom differs markedly in its genetic 
characteristics, as it is considered an evolutionary significant unit, 
and loss of this genetic diversity would likely impact the species' 
adaptive capacity. However, although the loss of the Upper Coosa River 
(F) representation unit would likely result in a reduction in species' 
redundancy, and, therefore, the species' adaptive capacity, it would 
not notably reduce the viability of the species across the range (see 
above under Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range).
    Given the evidence that the Upper Coosa River (F) representation 
unit of the frecklebelly madtom would result in a significant gap in 
the range if lost, and that the unit differs markedly from other 
populations of the species, we consider this unit to be significant to 
the species as a whole. Thus, the Upper Coosa River (F) representation 
unit of the frecklebelly madtom meets the criteria for significance 
under our DPS Policy.
DPS Conclusion for the Upper Coosa River Representation Unit of the 
Frecklebelly Madtom
    Our DPS Policy directs us to evaluate the significance of a 
discrete population in the context of its biological and ecological 
significance to the remainder of the species to which it belongs. Based 
on an analysis of the best available scientific and commercial data, we 
conclude that the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit of the 
frecklebelly madtom is discrete due to genetic separation and 
geographic (physical) isolation from the remainder of the taxon. 
Furthermore, we conclude that the Upper Coosa River representation unit 
of the frecklebelly madtom is significant, as described above. 
Therefore, we conclude that the Upper Coosa River (F) representation 
unit of the frecklebelly madtom is both discrete and significant under 
our DPS Policy and is, therefore, a listable entity under the Act.
    Based on our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), if a 
population segment of a vertebrate species is both discrete and 
significant relative to the taxon as a whole (i.e., it is a distinct 
population segment), its evaluation for endangered or threatened status 
will be based on the Act's definition of those terms and a review of 
the factors enumerated in section 4(a) of the Act. Having found that 
the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit of the frecklebelly 
madtom meets the definition of a distinct population segment, we now 
evaluate the status of this DPS to determine whether it meets the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.

Status Throughout All of the DPS's Range

    In the analysis above for the frecklebelly madtom as a whole, we 
have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Upper 
Coosa River DPS of the species. We considered whether the Upper Coosa 
River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom is presently in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range. The Upper Coosa River 
representation unit faces ongoing and future threats from habitat 
destruction and degradation caused by agriculture and developed land 
uses resulting in poor water quality. As discussed above under Status 
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range, occurrence records in 
the Etowah River (F3) resilience unit are considered similar to 
historical occurrence records, whereas there have been declines from 
historical conditions in frecklebelly madtom occurrences in the 
Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit. Evidence of the frecklebelly 
madtom presence was first reported from the Coosawattee River (F2) from 
eDNA collected in 2018. Until eDNA for the species was recorded from 
this river, the frecklebelly madtom was not expected occur there, given 
that the history of physical modification to improve navigation, as 
well as hydropeaking at Carters Dam, upstream has negatively affected 
small-bodied, riffle-dwelling fish species (Freeman et al. 2011, pp. 
10-11). However, given the current resiliency of units within the Upper 
Coosa River (F) representation unit, it is not likely that the current 
threats, or the cumulative effects of those threats, will result in the 
extirpation of the DPS. Therefore, the DPS is not currently in danger 
of extinction throughout its range.
    In the future, projected urbanization and continued agricultural 
activities will continue to impact the Upper Coosa River DPS and its 
habitat by negatively affecting water quality (Factor A). Our future 
scenarios project the Etowah River (F3) and Conasauga River (F1) units 
in the Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit to have low resiliency 
or to become extirpated by the year 2050, and this would significantly 
increase the risk of extirpation of the Upper Coosa River (F) 
representation unit from the aforementioned threats, as well as a 
catastrophic or stochastic event, within the foreseeable future. In our 
consideration of foreseeable future, we evaluated how far into the 
future we could reliably predict the threats to this unit, as well as 
the madtom's response to those threats. Based on the modeling and 
scenarios (agriculture and developed land use projections to 2050) 
evaluated, we considered our ability to make reliable predictions in 
the future and the uncertainty in how and to what degree the unit could 
respond to those risk factors in this timeframe. We determined a 
foreseeable future of 30 years for the Upper Coosa River representation 
unit. Based on this information, we find the Upper Coosa River DPS of 
the frecklebelly madtom is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Therefore, we consider 
the Upper Coosa River DPS to be threatened throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of the DPS's 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. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological 
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the SPR Policy (79 FR 37577; July 1, 
2014) that provided that the Service does not undertake an analysis of 
significant portions of a species' range if the species warrants 
listing as threatened throughout all of its range. Therefore, we 
proceed to evaluating whether the species (DPS) is endangered in a 
significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion 
of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; 
and

[[Page 74069]]

(2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion. Depending 
on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the 
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can 
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question 
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the 
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity, 
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the 
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., 
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for the Upper Coosa River DPS 
of the frecklebelly madtom, we chose to address the status question 
first--we consider information pertaining to the geographic 
distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces 
to identify any portions of the range where the species is endangered. 
We considered whether the threats acting on the Upper Coosa River DPS 
are geographically concentrated in any portion of the range at a 
biologically meaningful scale. We examine the following threats that 
were considered to be primary factors driving current resiliency of the 
Upper Coosa River DPS: Habitat destruction and degradation caused by 
agriculture and developed land uses resulting in poor water quality 
(Factor A).
    Habitat destruction and degradation from agriculture and developed 
land uses resulting in poor water quality is occurring throughout the 
range of the Upper Coosa River DPS. In the Conasauga River (F1) 
resilience unit, current development and agriculture comprises 8.0 
percent and 21.3 percent of the watershed, respectively (Service 2020, 
pp. 66-69). In the Coosawattee River (F2) resilience unit, current 
development and agriculture comprises 6.6 percent and 27.2 percent of 
the watershed, respectively (Service 2020, pp. 66-69). Lastly, current 
development and agriculture comprises 14.8 percent and 10.4 percent of 
the Etowah River (F3) resilience unit (Service 2020, pp. 66-69). For 
the three resilience units assessed within the DPS, approximately 25 to 
33 percent of each unit is currently impacted by agricultural and 
developed land uses. Therefore, we found no concentration of threats in 
any portion of the Upper Coosa River DPS's range at a biologically 
meaningful scale. However, we identified one portion, the Conasauga 
River (F1) resilience unit, which currently has low resiliency and 
where the frecklebelly madtom has not been observed, despite repeated 
surveys, in at least 20 years. Environmental DNA surveys have detected 
the frecklebelly madtom in the Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit, 
leading us to determine the species remains present there. However, the 
lack of recent occurrence data coupled with projections that this unit 
will become extirpated within the foreseeable future led us to find 
there is substantial information that the Conasauga River (F1) 
resilience unit may be endangered.
    We then proceeded to consider whether this portion of the range 
(i.e., the Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit) is significant. For 
purposes of this analysis, the Service is examining for significant 
portions of the range by applying any reasonable definition of 
``significant.'' We asked whether any portions of the range may be 
biologically meaningful in terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation of the entity being evaluated. This approach is 
consistent with the Act, our implementing regulations, our policies, 
and case law.
    The Upper Coosa River (F) representation unit occurs in the Ridge 
and Valley (Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit) and Piedmont Upland 
(Etowah River (F3) resilience unit) physiographic provinces. As 
discussed above under Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its 
Range for the frecklebelly madtom as a whole, physiographic provinces 
are geographic areas divided based on physical geography and grouped by 
similar characteristics (Fenneman 1928, pp. 266-272). The Conasauga 
River (F1) resilience unit occurs in the Ridge and Valley province, 
which contains a series of valleys (lowlands) and ridges (mountains) 
through the Appalachians (Fennemann 1928, p. 296). The Etowah River 
(F3) resilience unit occurs in the Piedmont province, which contains 
lowlands (plains) and highlands (plateaus) with isolated mountains 
(Fennemann 1928, p. 293). These two resilience units may occur in two 
physiographic provinces; however, the geography in both represents 
environmental and physical conditions of lowlands and highlands 
associated with higher elevations than the remainder of the species' 
range in the Coastal Plain province. Frecklebelly madtoms collected in 
both the Conasauga River (F1) and Etowah River (F3) resilience units 
are strongly associated with river weed (Podostemum spp.) used for 
cover and shelter. Neither unit acts as a refugia or an important 
spawning ground for the DPS. In addition, the Conasauga River (1) 
resilience unit watershed is experiencing similar impacts from 
development and agricultural land-use to the Etowah River (F3) 
resilience unit. Since the Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly 
madtom occurs in rivers with similar physical and environmental 
conditions, and the Conasauga River (F1) resilience unit portion is 
experiencing similar water quality impacts as the remainder of the 
DPS's range, there is no unique observable environmental usage or 
behavioral characteristics attributable to just this portion that would 
make it a significant portion of the range of the Upper Coosa River 
DPS.
    Overall, there is little evidence to suggest that the Conasauga 
River (F1) portion of the range has higher quality or higher value 
habitat or any other special importance to the species' life history in 
the Upper Coosa River DPS. We considered if the Conasauga River (F1) 
portion contributes to biological significance in any way listed above 
and did not find this portion to be prominent or noteworthy in a manner 
that would suggest it is a significant portion of the DPS's range. 
Thus, based on the best available information, we find that this 
portion of the DPS's range is not biologically significant. Therefore, 
no portion of the Upper Coosa River DPS's range provides a basis for 
determining that it is in danger of extinction in a significant portion 
of its range. This is consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert 
Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 
4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity 
v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Status

    We evaluated threats to the frecklebelly madtom and assessed the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors and conclude the species, viewed across its entire range, 
experiences a low risk of extinction. Based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information as presented in the SSA report 
and this finding, we do not find that the frecklebelly madtom is 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future. However, we did find the Upper Coosa River representation unit 
is a valid DPS, and this DPS of the frecklebelly madtom is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its 
range. Therefore, we propose to list the Upper Coosa River DPS of the 
frecklebelly madtom as a threatened species throughout all of its range 
in accordance

[[Page 74070]]

with sections 3(20) 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 States of Georgia and Tennessee 
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions 
that promote the protection or recovery of the Upper Coosa River DPS of 
the frecklebelly madtom. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom 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 on Federal lands administered, or on private lands seeking 
funding by Federal agencies, which may include, but are not limited to, 
the USDA U.S. Forest Service, USDA Farm Service Agency, USDA Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, and Federal Emergency Disaster Service; 
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    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. The discussion below regarding protective 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act complies with our policy.

II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory 
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree 
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). 
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to the Act

[[Page 74071]]

are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section 
4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit 
with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 
9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the 
case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two sentences of section 
4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of discretion to select 
and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to the specific 
conservation needs of the threatened species. The second sentence 
grants particularly broad discretion to the Service when adopting the 
prohibitions under section 9.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules 
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority 
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife or include a limited 
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council 
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. 
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address 
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when 
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened 
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available 
to him with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He 
may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species, 
or he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the 
transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st 
Sess. 1973).
    Exercising our authority under section 4(d), we have developed a 
proposed rule that is designed to address the specific threats and 
conservation needs for the Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly 
madtom. Although the statute does not require us to make a ``necessary 
and advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of specific 
prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a whole 
satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue 
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the Upper Coosa River DPS of frecklebelly madtom. As 
discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have 
concluded that the Upper Coosa River DPS is likely to become in danger 
of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat 
destruction and degradation from agriculture and developed land uses 
resulting in poor water quality. The provisions of this proposed 4(d) 
rule would promote conservation of the Upper Coosa River DPS by 
encouraging management of the landscape in ways that meet both 
watershed and riparian management purposes and the conservation needs 
of the Upper Coosa River DPS. The provisions of this proposed rule are 
one of many tools that we would use to promote the conservation of the 
Upper Coosa River DPS. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if and 
when we make final the listing of the Upper Coosa River DPS as a 
threatened species.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

    This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the 
Upper Coosa River DPS by prohibiting the following activities, except 
as otherwise authorized or permitted: Import or export (see proposed 
Sec.  17.44(ee)(1)(i)); take (see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(1)(ii)); 
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens (see proposed 
Sec.  17.44(ee)(1)(iii)); delivery, receipt, transport, or shipment in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity 
(see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(1)(iv)); and sale or offer for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce (see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(1)(v)). We 
also include several exceptions to these prohibitions, which along with 
the prohibitions are set forth under Proposed Regulation Promulgation, 
below.
    Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in 
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally, unintentionally, or 
incidentally. Protecting the Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly 
madtom from direct forms of take, such as physical injury or killing, 
whether incidental or intentional, will help preserve and recover the 
remaining populations of the DPS. Therefore, we prohibit intentional 
take of frecklebelly madtom, including, but not limited to, capturing, 
handling, trapping, collecting, or other activities (see proposed Sec.  
17.44(ee)(1)(ii)). Also, as discussed above under Summary of Biological 
Status and Threats, habitat destruction and degradation from 
agriculture and developed land uses are affecting the status of the 
Upper Coosa River DPS. Across the DPS's range, stream and water quality 
have been degraded physically by sedimentation, pollution, 
contaminants, impoundments, channelization, destruction of riparian 
habitat, and loss of riparian vegetation due to agriculture activities 
and development within the watershed and riparian areas. Other habitat 
or hydrological alteration, such as ditching, draining, stream 
diversion, or diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow, 
into or out of the stream will impact the habitat of the DPS. 
Therefore, we prohibit actions that result in the incidental take of 
the Upper Coosa River DPS by destroying, altering, or degrading the 
habitat in the manner described above (see proposed Sec.  
17.44(ee)(1)(ii)). Regulating these activities would help preserve the 
DPS's remaining populations, slow the rate of population decline, and 
decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.

Exceptions to Prohibitions

    In addition to certain statutory exceptions from prohibitions, 
which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the proposed 4(d) rule 
includes the following exceptions to the prohibitions:
Permitted Activities
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under 
certain circumstances (see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(2)(i)). Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to 
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for 
economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, 
for incidental taking, or for special purposes consistent with the Act. 
There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, 
which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
Activities Not Requiring a Permit
    We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State 
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of 
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and 
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, 
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State 
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working 
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique 
position to assist the Service in implementing all aspects of the Act. 
In

[[Page 74072]]

this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Service shall 
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying 
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee 
or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, 
would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve the Upper 
Coosa River DPS that may result in otherwise prohibited take without 
additional authorization (see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(2)(iii)).
    We may allow take of the individuals of the Upper Coosa River DPS 
without a permit by any employee or agent of the Service or a State 
conservation agency designated by his agency for such purposes and when 
acting in the course of his official duties if such action is necessary 
to aid a sick, injured or orphaned specimen; dispose of a dead 
specimen; or salvage a dead specimen which may be useful for scientific 
study (see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(2)(ii)). In addition, Federal and 
State law enforcement officers may possess, deliver, carry, transport, 
or ship specimens taken in violation of the Act as necessary (see 
proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(2)(v)).
Channel Restoration, Streambank Stabilization, and Other Activities
    Channel restoration is used as a technique to restore degraded, 
physically unstable streams back to natural, physically stable, 
ecologically functioning streams. When done correctly, these projects 
reduce, ameliorate, or fix unnatural erosion, head cutting, and/or 
sedimentation. Thus, channel restoration projects result in 
geomorphically stable stream channels that maintain the appropriate 
lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity patterns over 
time without an aggrading or degrading bed elevation and include stable 
riffle-run-pool complexes that consist of silt-free gravel, coarse 
sand, cobble, boulders, woody structure, and river weed (Podostemum 
spp.). This provision of the proposed 4(d) rule for channel restoration 
would promote conservation of the Upper Coosa River DPS by excepting 
incidental take resulting from activities that would improve channel 
conditions and restore degraded, physically unstable streams or stream 
segments (see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(2)(iv)(A)). We anticipate these 
activities will advance ecological conditions within a watershed to a 
more natural state that will benefit the frecklebelly madtom.
    Streambank stabilization is used as a habitat restoration technique 
to restore degraded and eroded streambanks back to natively vegetated, 
stable streambanks. When done correctly, these projects reduce bank 
erosion and instream sedimentation, resulting in improved habitat 
conditions for aquatic species. Therefore, we would allow streambanks 
to be stabilized using the following bioengineering methods: Live 
stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in 
a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow), live fascines 
(live branch cuttings, usually willows, bound together into long, 
cigar-shaped bundles), planting of bare-root seedlings or brush 
layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species layered 
between successive lifts of soil fill). All methods should use plant 
species native to the region where the project is being conducted. 
These methods would not include the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) 
or the use of rock baskets or gabion structures, but could be used in 
conjunction with the above bioengineering methods. This provision of 
the proposed 4(d) rule for streambank stabilization would promote 
conservation of the Upper Coosa River DPS by excepting from the 
prohibition incidental take resulting from activities that would 
improve habitat conditions by reducing bank erosion and instream 
sedimentation (see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(2)(iv)(B)).
    Improving watershed, riparian, and habitat conditions within the 
range of the Upper Coosa River DPS would provide for the conservation 
of the DPS and would likely increase resiliency in the Etowah River and 
Conasauga River resilience units. Activities carried out under the 
Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) program of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, or similar 
projects, which may include projects funded by the Service's Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Program or the Environmental Protection Agency's 
319 grant program, would benefit the DPS if they do not alter habitats 
known to be used by the DPS beyond its tolerances and are implemented 
with a primary objective of improving environmental conditions to 
support the aquatic biodiversity of flowing water habitats. This 
provision of the proposed 4(d) rule for other activities would promote 
conservation of the Upper Coosa River DPS by excepting from the 
prohibition incidental take resulting from activities as described 
above (see proposed Sec.  17.44(ee)(2)(iv)(C)).
Relation of 4(d) Rule to Available Conservation Measures
    Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the 
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of 
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and 
protection of the Upper Coosa River DPS. However, interagency 
cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic 
consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service, 
where appropriate. We ask the public, particularly State agencies and 
other interested stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed 4(d) 
rule, to provide comments and suggestions regarding additional guidance 
and methods that the Service could provide or use, respectively, to 
streamline the implementation of this proposed 4(d) rule (see 
Information Requested, above).
    Since we are proposing a threatened status for the Upper Coosa 
River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom and this proposed rule outlines 
the protections in section 9(a)(1) of the Act for the DPS, we are 
identifying those activities that would or would not constitute a 
violation of either section 9(a)(1) or this proposed 4(d) rule. Based 
on the best available information, at this time, activities identified 
as discussed above under Exceptions to Prohibitions would not be 
considered to result in a violation of section 9 of the Act. On the 
other hand, based on the best available information, the following 
actions may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act 
if we adopt this proposed rule; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized handling, collecting, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the frecklebelly madtom, 
including interstate transportation across State lines and import or 
export across international boundaries.
    (2) Destruction/alteration of the species' habitat by discharge of 
fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond construction, stream 
channelization or diversion, or diversion or alteration of surface or 
ground water flow into or out of the stream (i.e., due to roads, 
impoundments, discharge pipes, stormwater detention basins, etc.).
    (3) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the frecklebelly madtom.
    (4) Discharge of chemicals or fill material into any waters in 
which the frecklebelly madtom is known to occur.

[[Page 74073]]

    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).

III. 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 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

[[Page 74074]]

recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation 
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat 
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions 
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and 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 this 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 Upper 
Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom, we determined that the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range is a threat to the Upper Coosa River DPS 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) have 
been met 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 Upper Coosa River DPS.

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 Upper 
Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom is determinable. Our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not 
determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.'' When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows 
the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat 
designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the Upper Coosa River DPS and habitat characteristics where 
this DPS 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 Upper Coosa River DPS.

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, alkali soil 
for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility 
to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat 
characteristics. Biological features might include prey species, forage 
grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 
symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent 
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be 
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the 
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a 
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we 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;

[[Page 74075]]

and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
    The Upper Coosa River DPS is a population segment of the 
frecklebelly madtom and occurs in the upper Coosa River system in the 
Piedmont Upland physiographic province in Georgia and the Ridge and 
Valley physiographic province in Georgia and Tennessee. The primary 
habitat features that influence the resiliency of the Upper Coosa River 
DPS include flowing water, suitable water quality, substrate, cover, 
and habitat connectivity. These features are essential to the survival 
and reproduction of individuals at all life stages.
    As stated above, the frecklebelly madtom occurs in small to large, 
swift-flowing rivers consisting of stable riffle-run pool complexes and 
with a substrate that consists of silt-free gravel, coarse sand, 
cobble, and boulders. The species needs unimpounded flowing water to 
successfully reproduce and maintain populations. In addition, streams 
must have an adequate flow to maintain instream habitats and 
connectivity of streams with the floodplain, which is important to 
allow nutrient and sediment exchange for habitat maintenance. Stream 
reaches with suitable habitat must be large enough and have 
connectivity to support enough frecklebelly madtoms to ensure 
individuals can find a mate and reproduce (Service 2020, p. 17). Cover 
is an important component of suitable habitat for the frecklebelly 
madtom and provides shelter from predators, space to forage, and space 
to nest. The species is often found in or near aquatic vegetation, such 
as river weed (Podostemum spp.), woody structures, and under large, 
flat rocks. In addition, nesting sites for madtoms are typically 
cavities under natural material (rocks, logs, empty mussel shells). 
Thus, small to large flowing rivers with appropriate substrate, cover, 
and connectivity are important for the growth, reproduction, and 
survival of the frecklebelly madtom.
    The frecklebelly madtom, like other benthic species, is sensitive 
to poor water quality (Warren et al. 1997, p. 125) and needs clean, 
flowing water to survive. Changes in water chemistry and flow patterns, 
resulting in a decrease in water quality and quantity, have detrimental 
effects on madtom ecology, because they can render aquatic habitat 
unsuitable for occupancy. In addition, the frecklebelly madtom is 
intolerant of excessive sedimentation (Shepard 2004, p. 221). The 
minimum and maximum standards of water quality and quantity conditions 
that are conducive to the presence of frecklebelly madtom is not well 
known. However, muddy waterways, lentic streams (still water), and poor 
water quality conditions are not desirable for maintaining suitable 
habitat for the species. Therefore, appropriate water and sediment 
quality are necessary to sustain growth, reproduction, and viability of 
the frecklebelly madtom and are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    The species is an opportunistic insectivore feeding on a variety of 
aquatic insects and larvae, including caddisflies, mayflies, 
blackflies, and midges (Miller 1984, p. 9). Seasonal changes found in 
diet probably reflect differences in prey availability (Miller 1984, p. 
11). Therefore, a diverse and available aquatic macroinvertebrate 
assemblage is important to the growth and survival of the frecklebelly 
madtom.
    More detail of the habitat and life history needs are summarized 
above under Background, and a thorough review is available in the SSA 
report (Service 2020, entire; available on http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0058). A summary of the resource needs 
of the Upper Coosa River DPS is provided below in table 3.

      Table 3--Resource Needs for the Upper Coosa River DPS of the
             Frecklebelly Madtom To Complete Each Life Stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Life stage                        Resources needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fertilized eggs...................  Flowing water with good water
                                     quality; cavities for shelter;
                                     parental care.
Larvae............................  Flowing water with good water
                                     quality; low predation, disease,
                                     and environmental stress; adequate
                                     food availability.
Juveniles.........................  Flowing water with good water
                                     quality; low predation, disease,
                                     and environmental stress; structure
                                     (vegetation, rock, substrate) for
                                     shelter and forage; adequate food
                                     availability.
Adults............................  Flowing water with adequate water
                                     quality; structure (vegetation,
                                     rock, substrate) for shelter,
                                     forage, and nesting; cavities for
                                     nesting; appropriate male to female
                                     demographics; adequate food
                                     availability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom 
from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as 
described above. Additional information can be found in the SSA report 
(Service 2020, entire; available on http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0058). We have determined that the following 
physical or biological features are essential to the conservation of 
Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom:
    (1) Geomorphically stable, medium to large streams with:
    (a) Stable stream channels that maintain lateral dimensions, 
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity patterns over time without an 
aggrading or degrading bed elevation; and
    (b) Banks with intact riparian cover to maintain stream morphology 
and reduce erosion and sediment inputs.
    (2) Connected instream habitats that:
    (a) Include stable riffle-run pool complexes;
    (b) Consist of silt-free gravel, coarse sand, cobble, boulders, 
woody structure, and river weed (Podostemum spp.); and
    (c) Have abundant cobble, boulders, woody structure, or other 
suitable cover used for nesting.
    (3) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the 
severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), 
necessary to maintain instream habitats and to maintain connectivity of 
streams with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and 
sediment for maintenance of the fish's habitat, food availability, and 
ample oxygenated flow for spawning and nesting habitat.
    (4) Appropriate water and sediment quality (including, but not 
limited to, conductivity; hardness; turbidity; temperature; pH; 
ammonia; heavy metals; pesticides; animal waste products; and nitrogen, 
phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers) necessary to sustain natural 
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of 
all life stages.
    (5) Diversity and availability of aquatic macroinvertebrate prey 
items, which include larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, 
and beetles.

[[Page 74076]]

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Upper 
Coosa River DPS may require special management considerations or 
protections to reduce the following threats: (1) Urbanization of the 
landscape, including (but not limited to) land conversion for urban and 
commercial use, infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities), and urban 
water uses (water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment); (2) 
nutrient pollution from agricultural activities that impact water 
quantity and quality; (3) significant alteration of water quality; (4) 
culvert and pipe installation that creates barriers to movement; (5) 
other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or 
nutrients into the water or fill suitable spawning habitat; and (6) 
creation of reservoirs that convert permanently flowing streams and/or 
streams that hold water into lake or pond-like (lentic) environments.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to, use of best management practices (BMPs) 
designed to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank-side destruction; 
protection of riparian corridors and suitable spawning habitat; 
retention of sufficient canopy cover along banks; moderation of surface 
and ground water withdrawals to maintain natural flow regimes; 
increased use of stormwater management and reduction of stormwater 
flows into the stream systems; placement of culverts or bridges that 
accommodate fish passage; and reduction of other watershed and 
floodplain disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or 
nutrients into the water.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. To determine and select 
appropriate occupied areas that contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species or areas 
otherwise essential for the conservation of the Upper Coosa River DPS 
of the frecklebelly madtom, we developed a conservation strategy for 
the DPS. The goal of the conservation strategy for the Upper Coosa 
River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom is to recover the DPS to the point 
where the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. The role of 
critical habitat in achieving this conservation goal is to identify the 
specific areas within the Upper Coosa River DPS's range that provide 
essential physical or biological features, without which range-wide 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation could not be achieved. We 
anticipate that recovery will require continued protection of existing 
resilience units and habitats that contribute to the viability of the 
DPS, as well as ensuring there are adequate numbers of fish in stable 
units and that at least one viable unit occurs in each of the 
physiographic provinces (Piedmont Upland and Ridge and Valley). This 
will help to ensure that catastrophic events, such as floods, cannot 
simultaneously affect all known resilience units of the DPS. Recovery 
considerations, such as maintaining existing genetic diversity and 
striving for representation of both physiographic provinces in the 
DPS's current range, were considered in formulating this proposal.
    In developing our conservation strategy for determining which areas 
to include as critical habitat for the Upper Coosa River DPS, we 
focused on the existing resilience units and habitats that are 
presently contributing to the viability or historical units in which 
resiliency can be improved such that they contribute to viability of 
the species. In summary, we identified streams and rivers that are 
both: (1) Currently occupied streams and rivers within the known 
historical range of the Upper Coosa River DPS, and (2) those areas that 
have retained the physical or biological features identified earlier 
that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of existing 
populations. For the purposes of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, and for areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we determined a unit to be occupied if 
it contains a recent (i.e., observed in the past 11 years (since 2009)) 
observation (collection) or eDNA record that supports the presence of 
the species. Within those areas, we delineated critical-habitat-unit 
boundaries using the following process:
    We evaluated habitat suitability of stream and river channels 
within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing, and 
retained for further consideration those streams that contain one or 
more of the physical and biological features to support life-history 
functions essential to conservation of the Upper Coosa River DPS. We 
determined the end points of river units by evaluating the presence or 
absence of appropriate physical and biological features. Our upstream 
cutoff points for each stream are located approximately where the 
physiographic province that the frecklebelly madtom occupies begins 
(where the Conasauga River flows out of the Blue Ridge and into the 
Ridge and Valley physiographic province and where the Etowah River 
flows out of the Blue Ridge and into the Piedmont Upland physiographic 
province) and selected downstream cutoff points that omit areas where 
habitat conditions are less favorable for the species (i.e., do not 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the DPS).
    Based on this analysis, the following rivers meet criteria for 
areas occupied by the species at the time of listing: Conasauga River, 
Coosawattee River, and Etowah River. These areas include the two 
rivers, Conasauga River and Etowah River, known to have been occupied 
by the DPS historically. Environmental DNA of the frecklebelly madtom 
was detected in the Conasauga River in 2017 and 2018, which meets the 
criteria for consideration as an area occupied by the species at the 
time of listing. In the Etowah River, occurrence data and eDNA records 
from 2018 are available. These two areas meet our conservation strategy 
for the frecklebelly madtom. Designating critical habitat of streams in 
these two occupied resilience units of the DPS, which occur in both 
physiographic provinces and currently contribute to (or are historical 
units in which resiliency can be improved to contribute to) the 
species' viability, will sufficiently lead to the protection, and 
eventual reduction in risk of extirpation, of the DPS. Improving the 
resiliency of the resilience units in these two currently occupied 
streams will likely increase viability to the point that the 
protections of the Act are no longer necessary.
    The proposed designation does not include the Coosawattee River, 
which is not part of the known historical range of the species. 
Environmental DNA of the frecklebelly madtom was detected in the 
Coosawattee River in 2018, which meets

[[Page 74077]]

the criteria for consideration as an area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing. However, since the Coosawattee River is not part 
of the known historical range of the frecklebelly madtom, this area 
does not meet our conservation strategy for designating critical 
habitat for the species. The conservation strategy focused on areas 
within the historical known range of the species. In addition, since 
the species has never been directly observed in this river despite 
multiple surveys over time, using the best available information, we 
determined this area is not a historical unit in which resiliency can 
be improved to contribute to the species' viability. Lastly, we 
determined that sufficient areas (Conasauga River and Etowah River) 
already have been identified within this proposed designation. Should 
we receive information during the public comment period that supports 
designating as critical habitat areas not included in the proposed 
units (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation, below), we will 
reevaluate our current proposal.
    We are not currently proposing to designate any areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the Upper Coosa River DPS, because we 
have not identified any unoccupied areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the species. The protection of the Conasauga River and 
Etowah River would sufficiently reduce the risk of extinction, and 
improving the resiliency of these currently occupied streams of the DPS 
would increase viability to the point that the protections of the Act 
are no longer necessary.
    Sources of data for this proposed designation of critical habitat 
include multiple databases maintained by universities and State 
agencies in Tennessee and Georgia, as well as numerous survey reports 
on streams throughout the DPS's range. Other sources of available 
information on habitat requirements for this species include studies 
conducted at occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed articles, 
agency reports, and data collected during monitoring efforts (Shepard 
et al. 1997, entire; Bennet et al. 2008, entire; Bennet and Kuhajda 
2010, entire; Albanese et al. 2018, entire; Service 2020, entire). 
Observation and eDNA records were compiled and provided to us by State 
partners during the SSA analysis.
    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 Upper Coosa River 
DPS. 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 that 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 Upper 
Coosa River DPS's life-history processes. Some units contain all of the 
identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Unit 1 contains only some of the physical or 
biological features necessary to support the Upper Coosa River DPS's 
particular use of that habitat. Unit 2 contains all of the identified 
physical or biological features and supports multiple life-history 
processes.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2020-0058 and on our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate approximately 134 river miles (mi) 
(216 river kilometers (km)) in two units as critical habitat for the 
Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom. The critical habitat 
areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Upper Coosa River 
DPS. The two units are: (1) Conasauga River Unit and (2) Etowah River 
Unit. Table 4, below, shows the proposed critical habitat units, land 
ownership, and the approximate river miles of each unit. Per State 
regulations (Tennessee Code Annotated section 69-1-101 and Georgia Code 
section 52-1-31), navigable waters are considered public rights-of-way. 
Lands beneath the navigable waters included in this proposed rule are 
owned by the States of Tennessee or Georgia. Ownership of lands beneath 
nonnavigable waters included in this rule are determined by riparian 
land ownership. The riparian land adjacent to the proposed critical 
habitat is 85 percent private, 6 percent local, 5 percent State, and 4 
percent Federal lands.

 Table 4--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Upper Coosa River DPS
                       of the Frecklebelly Madtom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Riparian ownership     River miles
       Critical habitat unit          surrounding units    (kilometers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Conasauga River................  Private, State,            51.5 (83)
                                     Federal.
2. Etowah River...................  Private, Local,           82.5 (133)
                                     State.
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ....................       134 (216)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Lengths may not sum due to rounding.


[[Page 74078]]

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Upper Coosa River DPS, 
below.

Unit 1: Conasauga River

    Unit 1 consists of approximately 51.5 river mi (83 km) of the 
Conasauga River beginning at the mouth of Coahulla Creek in Whitfield 
and Murray Counties, Georgia, and continuing upstream through Bradley 
County, Tennessee, to the mouth of Graham Branch in Polk County, 
Tennessee. Unit 1 includes river habitat up to bank full height. 
Frecklebelly madtom occupies all river reaches in this unit. Unit 1 
contains some of the physical or biological features necessary for the 
conservation of the DPS. Unit 1 possesses those characteristics, as 
described above under Summary of Essential Physical or Biological 
Features, of essential physical or biological features (1), (2), (3), 
and (5). Essential physical or biological feature (4) is degraded in 
this unit, but with appropriate management and restoration actions, 
this physical or biological feature can be restored.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within Unit 1 to alleviate impacts from stressors that have led to the 
degradation of the habitat, including sedimentation, pollutant input, 
excess nutrient input, development, and unstable stream banks. 
Surrounding land-use practices, including agricultural runoff, 
agricultural ditching, and erosion have led to high levels of 
sedimentation, siltation, contamination, and nutrient-loading, as well 
as destabilized stream banks. Special management considerations related 
to agricultural and developed areas that will benefit the habitat in 
this unit include, but are not limited to, riparian buffer restoration, 
reduced surface and groundwater withdrawals, increased open space in 
the watershed, and treating wastewater to the highest level 
practicable.

Unit 2: Etowah River

    Unit 2 consists of approximately 82.5 river mi (133 km) of the 
Etowah River beginning at its confluence with Shoal Creek in Cherokee 
County, Georgia, and continuing upstream through Forsyth and Dawson 
Counties to approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the Jay Bridge Road 
crossing over the Etowah River in Lumpkin County, Georgia. Unit 2 
includes river habitat up to bank full height. Frecklebelly madtom 
occupies all river reaches in this unit. Unit 2 contains all of the 
physical or biological features necessary for the conservation of the 
DPS.
    Special management considerations or protection may be required 
within Unit 2 to alleviate impacts from stressors that are anticipated 
to amplify degradation of the habitat, including sedimentation, 
pollutant input, excess nutrient input, development, and unstable 
stream banks. Increased development, including urban development and 
runoff, dam construction and use, and paved and unpaved roads, in the 
surrounding watershed and riparian area have led to higher levels of 
sedimentation, siltation, contamination, and nutrient-loading, as well 
as destabilized stream banks. Special management considerations related 
to agricultural and developed areas that will benefit the habitat in 
this unit include, but are not limited to, riparian buffer restoration, 
reduced surface and groundwater withdrawals, increased open space in 
the watershed, and implementing highest levels of treatment of 
wastewater practicable.

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

[[Page 74079]]

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 Service may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would alter the minimum flow or existing flow 
regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
impoundment, channelization, water diversion, water withdrawal, 
hydropower generation, and flood control. These activities could 
eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and 
reproduction of the Upper Coosa River DPS by altering flows to levels 
that would adversely affect the Upper Coosa River DPS's ability to 
complete its life cycle.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or 
quality. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, release 
of chemicals or biological pollutants into the surface water or 
connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-
point source). These activities could alter water conditions to levels 
that are beyond the tolerances of the Upper Coosa River DPS and result 
in direct or cumulative adverse effects to individuals and their life 
cycles.
    (3) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition 
within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, excessive sedimentation from livestock grazing, road 
construction, channel alteration, and other watershed and floodplain 
disturbances. These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat 
necessary for the growth and reproduction of the Upper Coosa River DPS 
by increasing the sediment deposition to levels that would adversely 
affect the DPS's ability to complete its life cycle.
    (4) Actions that would significantly increase eutrophication (the 
addition of excessive nutrients that are typically limited in aquatic 
environments, such as nitrogen and phosphorus that cause phytoplankton 
to proliferate). Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
release of excessive nutrients into the surface water or connected 
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point 
source). These activities could result in excessive nutrients and algae 
filling streams and reducing habitat, degrading water quality from 
excessive nutrients and algae decay, and decreasing oxygen levels below 
the tolerances of the DPS.
    (5) Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or 
geometry, or decrease connectivity. Such activities could include, but 
are not limited to, channelization, impoundment, road and bridge 
construction, mining, dredging, and destruction of riparian vegetation. 
These activities may lead to changes in water flows and levels that 
would degrade or eliminate the Upper Coosa River DPS and its habitats. 
These actions could also lead to increased sedimentation and 
degradation in water quality to levels beyond the tolerances of the 
DPS.
    (6) Actions that result in the introduction, spread, or 
augmentation of nonnative aquatic species in occupied stream segments, 
or in stream segments that are hydrologically connected to occupied 
stream segments, or introduction of other species that compete with or 
prey on the Upper Coosa River DPS. Possible actions could include, but 
are not limited to, stocking of nonnative fishes and crayfishes, or 
other related actions. These activities could introduce parasites or 
disease; result in direct predation or direct competition; or affect 
the growth, reproduction, and survival of the DPS.

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.
    The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we 
take into consideration the economic, national security, or other 
relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical 
habitat. 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

[[Page 74080]]

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 designation, we developed an incremental effects 
memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts 
that may result from the proposed designation. The information 
contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of 
the probable effects of the designation (IEc 2020, entire). 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 Upper Coosa River DPS. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us 
to focus on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur 
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. 
This screening analysis, combined with the information contained in our 
IEM, comprises our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed 
critical habitat designation for the Upper Coosa River DPS of the 
frecklebelly madtom; 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 Upper Coosa River DPS, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated June 23, 2020, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) Federal lands management (U.S. Forest Service and U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers); (2) agriculture; (3) development; (4) roadway 
and bridgeway construction; (5) dredging, dams, and diversions; (6) 
flood control and hydropower; (7) wastewater and chemical discharge; 
(8) pesticide use; (9) recreation; (10) conservation and restoration; 
and (11) transportation and utilities. We considered each industry or 
category individually. Additionally, we considered whether these 
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation 
generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only 
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. In areas where individuals from the Upper Coosa River 
DPS are found, Federal agencies already are required to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
the DPS under section 7 consultation procedures. If we finalize this 
proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be 
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that will result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Upper 
Coosa River DPS's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical 
habitat for the Upper Coosa River DPS was 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 Upper Coosa River DPS 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 proposed critical habitat designation for the Upper Coosa River 
DPS totals approximately 134 river miles (mi) (216 river kilometers 
(km)) in two occupied units in Georgia and Tennessee. In these areas, 
any actions that may affect the species would also affect proposed 
critical habitat because all designated habitat is occupied. Thus, 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 Upper Coosa River DPS. Therefore, the only additional 
costs that are expected in all of the proposed critical habitat 
designation are administrative costs. These costs are due to additional 
consultation analysis requiring time and resources by both the Federal 
action agency and the Service. However, these costs are not expected to

[[Page 74081]]

reach the threshold of ``significant'' under E.O. 12866. We anticipate 
a maximum of 10 section 7 consultations annually at a total incremental 
cost of less than $11,000 per year.
    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 information on economic impacts received 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.
    The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on 
the best scientific data available at the time of the final 
designation, including information we obtain during the public comment 
period and information about the economic impact of designation. 
Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the 
proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review 
and comment (see ADDRESSES).

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Upper Coosa 
River DPS are not owned, managed, or used by the DoD or DHS where a 
national security or homeland security impact might exist, 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 received 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

    We consider a number of factors, including whether there are 
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as 
HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation 
agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or whether there are non-permitted 
conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by 
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we 
look at the existence of Tribal conservation plans and partnerships and 
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States 
with Tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might 
occur because of the designation.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are 
currently no draft or final HCPs or other management plans for the 
Upper Coosa River DPS, and the proposed designation does not include 
any Tribal lands or trust resources.
    As discussed above, we anticipate no impacts on national security, 
economic, or any other relevant impacts as a result of this 
designation. Accordingly, at this time, we do not propose to exclude 
any particular areas from the critical habitat designation. However, 
during the development of a final designation, we will consider any 
additional information we receive through the public comment period 
regarding other relevant impacts 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.

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

[[Page 74082]]

employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether 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 the light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking only on those entities 
directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not 
required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated 
entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat 
protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires 
Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any 
action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely 
to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under 
section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the 
specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies 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

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

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. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides 
guidance for implementing this Executive Order, outlining nine outcomes 
(criteria) that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when 
compared with the regulatory action under consideration. The economic 
analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this 
analysis, and therefore, we did not find that this proposed critical 
habitat designation would significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant 
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following 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 it will not produce a 
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations 
on State or local governments and, as such, a Small Government Agency 
Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for Upper Coosa River DPS in a takings

[[Page 74083]]

implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to 
regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private 
property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any 
closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. 
Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect 
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor 
does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or 
issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require 
Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are 
prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that 
would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings 
implications assessment has been completed for the proposed designation 
of critical habitat for Upper Coosa River DPS, 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.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), need not be prepared in connection 
with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
    It is also 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 NEPA in connection with 
designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

[[Page 74084]]

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Madtom, frecklebelly 
[Upper Coosa River DPS]'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife in alphabetical order under FISHES to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                     Fishes
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Madtom, frecklebelly [Upper       Noturus munitus...  Upper Coosa River   T              [Federal Register
 Coosa River DPS].                                     Basin (GA, TN).                    citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule];
                                                                                         50 CFR 17.44(ee); \4d\
                                                                                         50 CFR 17.95(e).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.44 by reserving paragraphs (cc) and (dd), and by 
adding a paragraph (ee) to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.44  Special rules--fishes.

* * * * *
    (cc) [Reserved]
    (dd) [Reserved]
    (ee) Upper Coosa River DPS of the frecklebelly madtom (Noturus 
munitus).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to the Upper Coosa River DPS. Except as 
provided under paragraph (ee)(2) of this section and Sec. Sec.  17.4 
and 17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another 
to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in 
regard to this DPS:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(1) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this DPS, you may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec.  17.32.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (iii) Take as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iv) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
    (A) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically 
stable, ecologically functioning streams. These projects can be 
accomplished using a variety of methods, but the desired outcome is a 
natural channel with geomorphically stable stream channels that 
maintain the appropriate lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and 
sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed 
elevation and include stable riffle-run-pool complexes that consist of 
silt-free gravel, coarse sand, cobble, boulders, woody structure, and 
river weed (Podostemum spp.).
    (B) Streambank stabilization projects that use bioengineering 
methods to replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with 
natively vegetated, stable stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion 
and instream sedimentation and improving habitat conditions for the 
DPS. Stream banks may be stabilized using live stakes (live, vegetative 
cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the 
stake to take root and grow), live fascines (live branch cuttings, 
usually willows, bound together into long, cigar-shaped bundles), or 
brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species 
layered between successive lifts of soil fill). Stream banks must not 
be stabilized solely through the use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the 
use of rock baskets or gabion structures.
    (C) Projects carried out in the DPS's range under the Working Lands 
for Wildlife program of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, or similar projects conducted by the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 
or the Environmental Protection Agency's 319 Grant Program, that are 
implemented with a primary objective of improving environmental 
conditions to support the native, aquatic biodiversity of flowing water 
habitats.
    (v) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  17.95(e) by adding an entry for ``Frecklebelly Madtom 
[Upper Coosa River DPS] (Noturus munitus)'', in the same alphabetical 
order that it appears in the table at Sec.  17.11(h), to read as set 
forth below:


Sec.  17.95   Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Frecklebelly Madtom [Upper Coosa River DPS] (Noturus munitus)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bradley and Polk 
Counties, Tennessee, and Cherokee, Dawson, Forsyth, Lumpkin, Murray, 
and Whitfield Counties, Georgia, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Upper Coosa River distinct 
population segment (DPS) consist of the following components:
    (i) Geomorphically stable, medium to large streams with:
    (A) Stable stream channels that maintain lateral dimensions, 
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity

[[Page 74085]]

patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed elevation; and
    (B) Banks with intact riparian cover to maintain stream morphology 
and reduce erosion and sediment inputs.
    (ii) Connected instream habitats that:
    (A) Include stable riffle-run-pool complexes;
    (B) Consist of silt-free gravel, coarse sand, cobble, boulders, 
woody structure, and river weed (Podostemum spp.); and
    (C) Have abundant cobble, boulders, woody structure, or other 
suitable cover used for nesting.
    (iii) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes 
the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over 
time), necessary to maintain instream habitats and to maintain 
connectivity of streams with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of 
nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the fish's habitat, food 
availability, and ample oxygenated flow for spawning and nesting 
habitat.
    (iv) Appropriate water and sediment quality (including, but not 
limited to, conductivity; hardness; turbidity; temperature; pH; 
ammonia; heavy metals; pesticides; animal waste products; and nitrogen, 
phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers) necessary to sustain natural 
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of 
all life stages.
    (v) Diversity and availability of aquatic macroinvertebrate prey 
items, which include larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, 
and beetles.
    (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 rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
selected from the U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrological 
Dataset--High Resolution (1:24,000 scale; Geographic Coordinate System 
North American 1983 coordinates) using mapping software. The selected 
river reaches were informed by species occurrence data. All layers use 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 16N coordinates. We also used 
the mapping software to calculate the length of the units. 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 on which each map is based are available to the public at 
the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/, at 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0058, 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 74086]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO20.015

    (6) Unit 1: Conasauga River; Bradley and Polk Counties, Tennessee, 
and Murray and Whitfield Counties, Georgia.
    (i) General description: Unit 1 consists of 51.5 river miles (83 
kilometers) of the Conasauga River beginning at the mouth of Coahulla 
Creek in Murray and Whitfield Counties, Georgia, and continuing 
upstream through Bradley County, Tennessee, to the mouth of Graham 
Branch in Polk County, Tennessee. Unit 1 includes river habitat up to 
bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

[[Page 74087]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO20.016

    (7) Unit 2: Etowah River, Cherokee, Dawson, Forsyth, and Lumpkin 
Counties, Georgia.
    (i) General description: Unit 2 consists of 82.5 river miles (133 
kilometers) of the Etowah River beginning at its confluence with Shoal 
Creek in Cherokee County, Georgia, and continuing upstream through 
Forsyth and Dawson Counties to approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the 
Jay Bridge Road crossing over the Etowah River in Lumpkin County, 
Georgia. Unit 2 includes river habitat up to bank full height.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 74088]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO20.017

* * * * *

Aurelia Skipwith
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-24208 Filed 11-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C