[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 71 (Thursday, April 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19838-19863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket Nos. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0061 and FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137; FF09E2100 
FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018-BC14; 1018-BD50


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status, Section 4(d) Rule, and Designation of Critical Habitat for 
Panama City Crayfish

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and announcement of 
public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), reopen the 
public comment period on the proposed rule to list the Panama City 
crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) as a threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act); propose a rule issued 
under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule'') for the species; and 
propose to designate critical habitat for the Panama City crayfish 
under the Act. In total, approximately 7,177 acres (2,904 hectares) in 
Bay County, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed 
critical habitat designation, all of which are currently occupied by 
the species. We also announce the availability of a draft economic 
analysis (DEA) for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
Panama City crayfish. We will accept comments on the proposed listing, 
4(d) rule, and critical habitat designation, as well as the draft 
economic analysis, during the open comment period. Finally, we announce 
a public informational meeting and public hearing on the proposed 
listing rule and this proposed rule.

DATES: 
    Written comments: The comment period on the proposed rule that 
published January 3, 2018 (83 FR 330), is reopened. We will accept 
comments on that proposed rule, as well as the new proposals described 
in this document, that are received or postmarked on or before June 14, 
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.
    Public informational meeting and public hearing: We will hold a 
public informational meeting on May 4, 2021, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., 
Central Time, followed by a public hearing from 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., 
Central Time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rules or draft 
economic analysis by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2017-0061 for the proposed listing, or FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137 for the 
proposed 4(d) rule and critical habitat designation (including the 
associated draft economic analysis), which are the docket numbers for 
the rulemakings. 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 the 
correct 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: [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0061 for the proposed 
listing, or FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137 for the proposed 4(d) rule and critical 
habitat designation (including the associated draft economic 
analysis)], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg 
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Public informational meeting and public hearing: The public 
informational meeting and the public hearing will be held virtually 
using the Zoom platform. See Public Hearing, below, for more 
information.
    Availability of supporting materials: For the proposed critical 
habitat designation, the shapefiles from which the maps are generated 
are included in the administrative record and are available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137. Any 
additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for the 
critical habitat designation may also be included in the preamble and/
or at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 
1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405; telephone 904-731-3191; 
facsimile 904-731-3045. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under section 4(d) of the Act, 
whenever any species is listed as a threatened species, we are required 
to issue any regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of such species. Also, any species that is determined 
to be endangered or threatened under the Act requires critical habitat 
to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. The 
Panama City crayfish is proposed as a threatened species under the Act, 
and this document proposes regulations we deem necessary and advisable 
under section 4(d) of the Act, and also proposes to designate critical 
habitat. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be 
completed by issuing a rule. In light of the time that has passed since 
the publication of the proposed listing rule and the receipt of new 
scientific information, we are also reopening the comment period for 
the proposed listing rule.
    What this document does. We are concurrently reopening the comment 
period for the proposed listing rule, proposing a 4(d) rule, and 
proposing to designate critical habitat for the Panama City crayfish. A 
draft economic analysis on impacts expected from the critical habitat 
proposal is also available.
    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

[[Page 19839]]

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. Our proposed rule 
identified habitat loss and fragmentation from development (Factor A) 
as a primary threat to the Panama City crayfish, making the species 
warranted for protection as a threatened species under the Act.
    The Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered 
species under section 9, but the Act does not automatically extend 
these same prohibitions to threatened species. Under section 4(d), the 
Act instructs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to issue any 
protective regulations deemed necessary and advisable for the 
conservation of threatened species. It also indicates the Secretary may 
extend some or all of the prohibitions in section 9 to threatened 
species. We are proposing a 4(d) rule that specifically tailors 
measures that provide for the conservation of the Panama City crayfish.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary to designate 
critical habitat concurrent with listing to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 
as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or 
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species 
and (II) which may require special management considerations or 
protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must 
make the designation on the basis of the best scientific data available 
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on 
national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat.
    We prepared an economic analysis of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an 
analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. We hereby announce the availability of the draft economic 
analysis and seek public review and comment.
    Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and 
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of 
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert 
opinions of nine appropriate specialists regarding version 1.1 of the 
species status assessment (SSA) report, and four appropriate 
specialists regarding version 2.0 of the SSA report. We received 
responses from four specialists for each version (total of eight peer 
reviews), which 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 
species' biology, habitat, and response to threats.

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 government agencies, Native American 
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The historical and current status and distribution of the 
Panama City crayfish, its biology and ecology, specific threats (or 
lack thereof) and regulations that may be addressing those threats and 
ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat.
    (2) Information relevant to the factors that are the basis for 
making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the 
Act, which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' 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 and threats to the species or its habitat.
    (3) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (4) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Panama City crayfish habitat;
    (b) What areas, that are occupied at the time of listing and that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change;
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species and why;
    (e) Information about conservation efforts that may affect proposed 
critical habitat areas; and
    (f) Information about the proposed 100-meter (328-foot) buffer 
within secondary soils, and whether we should consider increasing or 
decreasing that buffer.
    (5) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (6) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Panama City crayfish and proposed critical 
habitat.
    (7) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding specific areas.
    (8) 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 and the description of the 
environmental impacts in the draft environmental assessment is complete 
and accurate, especially in light of impacts from Hurricane Michael in 
October 2018.
    (9) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the

[[Page 19840]]

Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific 
area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (10) 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.
    (11) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of the Panama City crayfish and that the 
Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In 
particular, 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.
    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.'' Comments previously 
submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in 
preparation of the final rule.
    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 the 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.
    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 species is 
endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species 
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a 
threatened species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the 
prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions if we conclude it 
is appropriate in light of comments and new information received. For 
example, we may expand the incidental-take prohibitions to include 
prohibiting additional activities if we conclude that those additional 
activities are not compatible with conservation of the species. 
Conversely, we may establish additional exceptions to the incidental-
take prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that the activities 
would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation and recovery 
of the species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not 
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas, and may 
exclude some areas if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion.

Public Hearing

    We are holding a public informational meeting followed by a public 
hearing on the date and at the time listed in DATES. We are holding the 
public informational meeting and public hearing via the Zoom online 
video platform and via teleconference so that participants can attend 
remotely. For security purposes, registration is required. To listen 
and view the meeting and hearing via Zoom, listen to the meeting and 
hearing by telephone, or provide oral public comments at the public 
hearing by Zoom or telephone, you must register. For information on how 
to register, or if you encounter problems joining Zoom the day of the 
meeting, visit http://www.fws.gov/panamacity. Registrants will receive 
the Zoom link and the telephone number for the public informational 
meeting and public hearing. If applicable, interested members of the 
public not familiar with the Zoom platform should view the Zoom video 
tutorials (https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials) prior to the public informational meeting and public 
hearing.
    We are holding the public informational meeting to present 
information about the January 3, 2018, proposed rule to list the Panama 
City crayfish as a threatened species (83 FR 330) and to provide 
interested parties an opportunity to ask questions about the proposed 
4(d) rule and proposed designation of critical habitat. The public 
hearing will provide interested parties an opportunity to present 
verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) regarding the January 3, 2018, 
proposed rule to list the Panama City crayfish as a threatened species 
(83 FR 330), the proposed 4(d) rule, and the proposed designation of 
critical habitat. While the public informational meeting will be an 
opportunity for dialogue with the Service, the public hearing is not: 
It is a forum for accepting formal verbal testimony. In the event there 
is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be 
limited. Therefore, anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the 
public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a prepared 
written copy of their statement to us through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, or U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES, above). There are no limits on the 
length of written comments submitted to us. Anyone wishing to make an 
oral statement at the public hearing must register before the hearing 
(http://www.fws.gov/panamacity). The use of a virtual public hearing is 
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Reasonable Accommodation

    The Service is committed to providing access to the public 
informational meeting and public hearing for all participants. Closed 
captioning will be available during the public informational meeting 
and public hearing. Further, a full audio and video recording and 
transcript of the public hearing will be posted online at http://www.fws.gov/panamacity after the hearing. Participants will also have 
access to live audio during the public informational meeting and public 
hearing via their telephone or computer speakers. Persons with 
disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations to participate in the 
meeting and/or hearing should contact the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 5 business days prior to the date 
of the meeting and hearing to help ensure availability. An accessible 
version of the Service's public informational meeting presentation will 
also be posted online at http://www.fws.gov/panamacity prior to the 
meeting and hearing (see DATES, above). See http://www.fws.gov/panamacity for more information about reasonable accommodation.

[[Page 19841]]

Previous Federal Actions

    All previous Federal actions are described in the proposal to list 
the Panama City crayfish as a threatened species under the Act 
published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2018 (83 FR 330).

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Panama City crayfish. 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 version 1.1 of the SSA report 
to nine independent peer reviewers and received four responses. The 
Service also sent the SSA report to two academic partners for review, 
and we received review from both partners. The Service sent version 2.0 
of the SSA report to four peer reviewers and received four responses.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss in this document only those topics 
directly relevant to the new scientific information procured and 
analyzed since the proposed listing rule's publication, in addition to 
discussing the proposed section 4(d) rule and designation of critical 
habitat for the Panama City crayfish. For more information on the 
Panama City crayfish generally, refer to the proposed listing rule 
published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2018 (83 FR 330). A 
thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Panama City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) is presented in the 
revised SSA report, version 2.0 (Service 2019).

Species Description

    The Panama City crayfish is a small, semi-terrestrial crayfish that 
grows to about 2 inches (in) (50.8 millimeters (mm)) in length (minus 
claws), and is found in south-central Bay County, Florida. The species' 
color pattern consists of a medium dark-brown background color, lighter 
brown mid-dorsal stripe, and darker brown dorsolateral stripes (FWC 
2016, p. 1). The Panama City crayfish was first described by Hobbs in 
1942 from Bay County, Panama City, Florida. Currently, the Panama City 
crayfish is classified in the family Cambaridae and is considered a 
valid taxon by the scientific community (Taylor et al. 1996, 2007; 
Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2017).
    The life history of the Panama City crayfish specifically is not 
well known. Cambarid crayfish may live about 2.5 to 3 years (Hobbs 
2001, p. 977), with a generation period of 2 years. For this family of 
crayfish, the majority breed more than once, with mating among mature 
yearlings frequent; however, many individuals do not become sexually 
active until late summer or fall. Females may produce between 30 and 
160 eggs and have been found with eggs and/or young from March through 
September. Juveniles are most frequently found in the summer and have 
been observed through December, so young appear to be produced from at 
least March through December. Juveniles can be carried overland by 
moving water during rainy periods, which aids in dispersal (Keppner and 
Keppner 2002, p. 11).
    Eight crayfish species occur within the range of the Panama City 
crayfish, although only the hatchet crayfish, Procambarus kilbyi, and 
the jackknife crayfish, Procambarus hubbelli, are found in the same 
habitat as the Panama City crayfish and may co-occur with it (FWC 
2017). The Panama City crayfish is not known to hybridize with other 
species of crayfish.
    Historically, the species inhabited natural and often temporary 
bodies of shallow fresh water within open pine flatwoods and wet 
prairie-marsh communities. However, most of these communities have been 
cleared for residential or commercial development or replaced with 
slash pine plantations. The Panama City crayfish currently inhabits the 
waters of grassy, gently sloped ditches and swales, slash pine 
plantations, utility rights-of-way, and a few remnant parcels protected 
under wetland and private easements (FWC 2016, p. 2).
    The highest densities of Panama City crayfish have been recorded in 
areas with little to no shrub or tree cover (FWC 2016, p. 2). Suitable 
habitat is normally dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Lowest 
population densities have occurred in small, open sites where shrubs or 
trees were present, or in the furrows between bedding rows in some pine 
plantations (Keppner and Keppner 2005). When encountered in dense titi 
(Cyrilla racemiflora and Cliftonia monophylla) swamps, the species was 
associated with temporarily inundated areas open to the sun with some 
herbaceous vegetation. Such sites may be considered secondary or 
suboptimal habitat for the species. On sites where mixed habitat 
features are present (e.g., partially wooded sites or sites with 
permanent, deep-water ponds), the Panama City crayfish appears to 
select favorable areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation, with shallow 
or fluctuating water levels (FWC 2016, p. 3; Keppner and Keppner 2005).
    The Panama City crayfish relies on particular soil types for burrow 
construction and supporting the herbaceous vegetation; these soil types 
are categorized as core or secondary soils. Core soils provide the best 
substrate to support the species; secondary soils are less ideal but 
still used. The core and secondary soil types that support Panama City 
crayfish within the species' known range are described in more detail 
in the SSA report (Service 2019, pp. 23-24).
    Panama City crayfish build burrows for shelter, which are normally 
in or adjacent to surface water when it is present on the hydric soils 
they inhabit (Hobbs 1981). They construct burrows that contact the 
water table as the surface water of their habitat recedes, and they 
occupy burrows when surface water is absent or during periods of 
extreme water temperatures. They emerge from the burrows when surface 
water is present again or water temperatures are favorable. It appears 
that they can survive significant periods of drought in their burrows 
when they can maintain contact with the water table. During these dry 
periods, the Panama City crayfish excavates and lives in unbranched 
burrows up to 3 feet long that extend down to the water table, thereby 
enabling the species to remain adequately hydrated and survive (FWC 
2016, p. 3).
    Little is known about the specific feeding habits of the Panama 
City crayfish. Observations on Panama City crayfish that were held in 
aquaria spanning 1.5 plus years (Keppner 2014, entire) indicate that 
they are detritivores and herbivores. Specimens were offered dead 
animal material, but they avoided it in favor of processing the 
substrate for particles of prepared fish food and the fresh aquatic 
vegetation that were provided as primary food sources. Herbaceous 
vegetation likely serves as a food source for the Panama City crayfish.
    The Panama City crayfish historically ranged throughout south-
central Bay County, Florida, within a 56-square-mile area (see figure, 
below). The historical range likely created one population connected by 
core and secondary soils. As urban growth came to Panama City, the 
range became fragmented and isolated patches. Today, the species has 12 
localized populations that can be divided into two distinct

[[Page 19842]]

groups: The western and eastern group. The western group includes eight 
populations, and the eastern group includes four populations. The 12 
populations are described in more detail in the SSA report (Service 
2019, pp. 37-52), and are referred to as 19th Street, Old Airport, 390 
West, Talkington, Minnesota, Edwards, Transmitter West, College Point, 
Deer Point, High Point, Star, and Transmitter East.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP21.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

Conservation Strategy

    We developed a conservation strategy for Panama City crayfish to 
identify critical conservation needs (Service 2017, entire). In this 
conservation strategy, we rely on the known persistence over time of 
small populations and published meta-analysis (Traill 2007, entire) to 
estimate that 2,200 acres of actively managed habitat permanently 
protected and managed within at least seven population units should 
ensure the Panama City crayfish remains viable for the foreseeable 
future. This acreage amount is based on a minimum viable population 
size (MVP) for Panama City crayfish of 5,137 individuals.
    Applying the MVP of 5,137 individuals to an estimate of Panama City 
crayfish population density gives us an estimate of the minimum viable 
habitat area required to support highly resilient crayfish populations. 
Thus far, our estimated population sizes at three sites (19th Street, 
Transmitter West, Talkington) have ranged from 34 to 623 Panama City 
crayfish in overall habitat areas ranging from 3 to 232 acres (1.2 to 
93.9 hectares). Population estimates ranged from 3 to 9 crayfish per 
acre, which would equate to 6,600 to 19,800 Panama City crayfish if 
applied across the currently occupied range of the species.
    The Panama City crayfish needs multiple resilient populations 
spread

[[Page 19843]]

across its range to avoid extinction, although how much redundancy 
among populations is often uncertain. We currently estimate that 2,200 
acres (890 hectares) of permanently protected Panama City crayfish 
habitat would sustain the viability of multiple (up to 7) populations 
depending on habitat quality. We estimate that protecting at least four 
large core populations with between 200 and 800 acres (81 and 324 
hectares) within each population, in addition to three smaller 
populations (less than 200 acres (81 hectares) in size), to be managed 
with fire or mowing every 2 to 3 years, along with a plan to restore 
existing conservation easements that have suitable soils for the 
crayfish will sustain the crayfish into the future (Service 2017, 
entire). While additional field studies should help to refine this 
estimate, we determined the conservation goal of 2,200 acres that are 
permanently protected (890 hectares) would support Panama City crayfish 
for the foreseeable future. However, at this time, agreements are not 
in place to ensure the necessary protections, and we do not have 
certainty about whether and where, or in what configuration, those 
protections may occur on the landscape.

New Information Regarding Species Status Assessment

    On January 3, 2018, we proposed to list the Panama City crayfish as 
a threatened species (83 FR 330). We accepted comments on the proposal 
for 60 days, ending on March 5, 2018. Based on information we received 
during the public comment period, we revised the analysis in our SSA 
report (version 2.0, Service 2019, entire). See Appendix IV of the 
report for details regarding the changes made from version 1.1 to 
version 2.0 (Service 2019, p. 114). Notably, new genetic information 
was incorporated into the analysis resulting in the 231-north 
population being combined with the Star population because they were 
found to be not genetically distinct; that combined population is now 
referred to as the Star Avenue population (Duncan et al. 2017, entire). 
In addition, several of the names of the populations were modified to 
better reflect location information.
    Based on comments received, the current condition analysis was 
revised to adjust population factors and add information on mark-
recapture population estimates. Additionally, the habitat ranking 
analysis was revised based on information provided during peer review, 
resulting in revised current habitat conditions for several of the 
populations (Service 2019, pp. 61-62).
    Subsequent to the proposed listing, Hurricane Michael made landfall 
in Panama City, Florida, on October 10, 2018. A quick assessment was 
conducted a few weeks post-storm by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Commission (FWC) (FWC 2018, entire), noting downed trees and difficulty 
for mowing maintenance activities in Panama City crayfish habitats. 
Power outages from the storm necessitated use of heavy equipment in 
powerline habitat areas, resulting in extensive rutting and soil 
compaction in Panama City crayfish habitat. Despite widespread impacts 
to many areas post-storm, preliminary mark-recapture survey efforts did 
not show any reduction in Panama City crayfish population size 
estimates compared to pre-storm estimates.
    The future condition tables and subsequent interpretations were 
revised based on new analysis (Service 2019, pp. 79-93). In summary, 
the overall estimate of the Panama City crayfish's resiliency remains 
low across the majority of its geographic range, particularly in the 
urbanized western portion. As a result, Panama City crayfish may become 
extirpated from the vast majority of its range. Future development will 
likely result in low resiliency, redundancy, and representation across 
70 percent of the species' range by 2030. However, as described below, 
if the remainder (i.e., eastern portion) is protected from development 
and conservation efforts are focused in the less developed habitat 
areas, the species is predicted to sustain populations in the wild for 
the foreseeable future. The most notable revision to the SSA report is 
the inclusion of a new conservation scenario for our analysis of future 
conditions (Service 2019, pp. 93-98). This conservation scenario is 
based on the conservation strategy that includes permanent protection 
and management of approximately 2,200 acres (890 hectares) of habitat 
across seven populations (Service 2017, entire). The predicted outcomes 
of the conservation scenario are straightforward, with populations with 
higher resiliency continuing to maintain or have improved resiliency in 
the future as land management efforts improve. Although anticipated 
habitat protection and habitat management will not immediately change 
any of the overall current condition ranks, it should, when coupled 
with the population management measures agreed to by FWC and the 
Service, ensure that populations with high resiliency will remain so 
regardless of future development, which is the primary threat to the 
Panama City crayfish. Additionally, population management measures 
(e.g., translocation) detailed in this scenario should improve the 
genetic health and population size of several managed populations. 
Finally, improved monitoring and applied research agreed to by the 
Service and FWC should also improve our knowledge of the status of each 
population to better adjust management actions as needed in the future.
    Bay County staff and staff with the Florida Department of 
Transportation (FDOT) have taken the initiative to expedite 
conservation of the Panama City crayfish. These efforts, when merged 
with a longstanding partnership between the FWC and the Service, 
provide the potential for a significant change in the outlook on the 
future status of the Panama City crayfish. The prospect of a large 
acquisition of land to protect the species from its primary threat of 
habitat loss through development is being considered by those who have 
a stake in the conservation of the Panama City crayfish. Along with a 
variety of habitat management commitments to be implemented by, or with 
the oversight of, FWC, the Service, and local partners, this could 
provide a substantial and immediate benefit to a species that is 
experiencing rapid declines in its small remaining habitat areas.
    We have carefully assessed this new scientific and commercial 
information in light of the past, present, and future threats to the 
Panama City crayfish. Our analysis of this information indicates that, 
at the species level, habitat development continues to be the primary 
factor affecting the Panama City crayfish now and into the future.
    Based on our analysis of the species' current and future 
conditions, we conclude that the population and habitat factors used to 
determine the resiliency, representation, and redundancy for Panama 
City crayfish will continue to decline so that it is likely that the 
species will become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable 
future throughout its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we affirm our proposed 
listing of the Panama City crayfish as a threatened species in 
accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

[[Page 19844]]

Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act for the Panama City 
Crayfish

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 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 this authority under the Act's section 4(d), we have 
developed a proposed rule that is designed to address the Panama City 
crayfish's specific threats and conservation needs. 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 Panama City crayfish. 
As described in the Summary of Biological Status and Threats section of 
the proposed listing rule (83 FR 330; January 3, 2018), we concluded 
that the Panama City crayfish is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat loss 
and degradation, habitat fragmentation, and subpopulation isolation due 
to development.
    The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote 
conservation of the Panama City crayfish by encouraging management of 
the landscape in ways that meet the conservation needs of the Panama 
City crayfish and are consistent with land management considerations. 
The provisions of this proposed rule are one of many tools that we 
would use to promote the conservation of the Panama City crayfish. This 
proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if and when we finalize the listing 
of the Panama City crayfish as a threatened species.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

    This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the 
Panama City crayfish by prohibiting the following activities, except as 
otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; take; 
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, 
receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce 
in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale 
in interstate or foreign commerce.
    Multiple factors are affecting the status of the Panama City 
crayfish, with the primary threats resulting in habitat loss and 
degradation, habitat fragmentation, and population isolation. A range 
of activities have the potential to affect these species, including 
farming and grazing practices, improper silvicultural practices, 
creation of roadside ditches, rights-of-way, development of residential 
or commercial properties, and collection for bait (Service 2019, pp. 
65-66). These threats, which are expected to be exacerbated by 
continued development along with the effects of climate change, were 
central to our assessment of the future viability of the Panama City 
crayfish.
    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 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating 
incidental and intentional take would help preserve the species' 
remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and decrease 
synergistic, negative effects from other stressors. Therefore, we 
propose to prohibit intentional and incidental take of the Panama City 
crayfish, except for those actions and activities specifically excepted 
by the 4(d) rule.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for threatened 
wildlife 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 the propagation or survival of the 
species, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes 
consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain 
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 
9 and 10 of the Act.
    The proposed 4(d) rule would also provide for the conservation of 
the species by allowing exceptions to actions and activities that, 
while they may have some minimal level of disturbance or take to the 
Panama City crayfish, are not expected to rise to the level that would 
negatively impact the species' conservation and recovery efforts. The 
proposed exceptions to these prohibitions include conservation efforts 
by the Service or State wildlife agencies, and certain development 
practices, select land management activities, and some utility actions 
(described below) that are expected to have negligible impacts to the 
Panama City crayfish and its habitat.
    The first exception is for conservation and restoration efforts for 
listed species by the Service or State wildlife agencies, including, 
but not limited to, collection of broodstock, tissue collection for 
genetic analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into 
unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species, and 
follow-up

[[Page 19845]]

monitoring. The proposed 4(d) rule would allow take of the Panama City 
crayfish without a permit by any employee or agent of the Service or a 
State conservation agency designated by the agency for such purposes 
and when acting in the course of their official duties if such action 
is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; to dispose 
of a dead specimen; or to salvage a dead specimen which may be useful 
for scientific study.
    We recognize our 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 Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. 
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services 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 Panama 
City crayfish that may result in otherwise prohibited take without 
additional authorization. In addition, Federal and State wildlife law 
enforcement officers, working in coordination with Service field office 
personnel, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship Panama City 
crayfish taken in violation of the Act as necessary.
    The second exception is for certain development activities that 
will have negligible or beneficial effects on the Panama City crayfish 
and its habitat, including: Maintenance of existing structures and 
construction or reconstruction activities that occur within the 
existing footprint of previously developed areas; new structures that 
occur within 100 feet of existing structures on an individual private 
landowner's property and with a new footprint less than 1,000 square 
feet (ft\2\), such as a pool or shed associated with an existing house; 
culvert installations for individual landowners not associated with 
larger developments; installation of platforms or boardwalks for 
recreational purposes on conservation lands that allow sunlight of 
sufficient levels to maintain herbaceous groundcover; and paths used 
for nonmotorized activities as long as the project footprint, including 
construction impacts, impacts no more than 5 percent of the acreage in 
core or secondary soils within properties under a conservation 
easement.
    The third exception is for select land management activities 
related to silvicultural (forestry) activities and invasive species 
control that help maintain habitat for Panama City crayfish and 
agricultural maintenance activities, that have de minimus effects. 
Silviculture activities within secondary soils including tree thinning, 
harvest (including clearcutting), site preparation, planting, and 
replanting following state best management practices (BMPs) (FDACS 
2008, entire) are excepted as the species has persisted in lands under 
timber management where native groundcover species recolonize 
naturally. Prescribed burning, wildfire control efforts, herbicide 
applications targeting exotic plants or shrub species are excepted when 
following all other state and federal BMPs or permits associated with 
these actions. Finally, agricultural maintenance activities in pasture 
and rangelands (including cattle operations) that were established 
prior to publication of the proposed listing rule (January 3, 2018) 
that do not have indirect impacts to adjacent Panama City crayfish 
habitat will be excepted.
    The fourth exception is for some utility actions that are expected 
to have minimal impacts to the Panama City crayfish or its habitat. 
These include ditch mowing and maintenance activities outside of 
critical habitat units, or ditch mowing and maintenance within critical 
habitat units after coordination with the local FWS office. Culvert 
replacements or maintenance that do not adversely affect, but improve 
or restore, the natural hydrology are excepted. In coordination with 
the local FWS office, the following are excepted: Maintenance of 
rights-of-way, powerline and pole placements and replacements, and 
directional boring by utility owners.
    We reiterate that these actions and activities may have some 
minimal level of take of the Panama City crayfish, but any such take is 
expected to be rare and insignificant, and is not expected to 
negatively impact the species' conservation and recovery efforts. We 
expect the restoration activities to have a net beneficial effect on 
the species. Across the species' range, habitat has been degraded and 
fragmented by development and land use changes. The habitat restoration 
activities in the proposed 4(d) rule are intended to improve habitat 
conditions for the species in the long term.
    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 Panama City crayfish. 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).

Proposed Critical Habitat Determination

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

[[Page 19846]]

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

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary 
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be 
prudent in the following circumstances:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and

[[Page 19847]]

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 in the January 3, 2018, proposed listing rule (83 FR 
330), 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 Panama City crayfish, we determined that the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range is a threat to the Panama City crayfish and that those threats in 
some way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. The 
species occurs wholly in the jurisdiction of the United States, and we 
are able to identify areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat. Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) apply and because there are no other 
circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this designation 
of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the 
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Panama City 
crayfish.

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

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline 
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or 
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include 
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for 
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of 
nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed 
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, 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; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance. These characteristics are described below for the 
Panama City crayfish:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior: The Panama City crayfish naturally inhabits shallow, 
ephemeral, freshwater wetlands that are associated with early 
successional wet prairie-marsh and wet pine flatwoods and their 
associated communities. These locations historically supported a native 
herbaceous plant community dominated by native wetland grasses and 
sedges with an accompanying overstory of no to low-density pines and 
were naturally maintained by periodic wildfire.
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements: Native herbaceous vegetation is important 
to the Panama City crayfish for food, detritus formation, and cover. 
Absence of vegetation increases exposure of this small crayfish to 
predation and reduced availability of food. Although Panama City 
crayfish are facultative air breathers, moisture is required to 
facilitate the respiratory process. Burrowing to groundwater or access 
to surface water are both important habitat features needed to prevent 
desiccation of individuals and populations. The Panama City crayfish 
cannot burrow much deeper than 3 feet below the surface and prefer 
surface waters less than 1 foot deep (E.Keppner 2003, pers. comm.).
    (3) Cover or shelter: The Panama City crayfish relies mostly on 
herbaceous vegetation that grows on core and secondary soils, which 
allow them to burrow for shelter and to rear young. The ability to 
burrow to the water table during times of drought is essential to the 
persistence of the species. Core soils have depth to water tables that 
meet the depth threshold that is important for long-term Panama City 
crayfish population persistence. These core soils provide the sediment 
structure needed for burrow construction to the water table and also 
support the herbaceous

[[Page 19848]]

vegetation upon which the species relies for food and cover. Young 
crayfish are often captured clinging to vegetation in emergent, yet 
shallow, water bodies.
    Secondary soil types are drier, and it is believed the species 
cannot persist when only secondary soils are available with below-
average water tables. They are mentioned here because they may support 
Panama City crayfish after recent rainfalls and longer periods of time 
after above-average rainfall that influences water table depths, and 
they may provide connectivity between two patches of core soils. 
Ninety-six percent of known occurrences of Panama City crayfish occur 
within either core soils or within secondary soils that are within 100 
meters (328 feet) of core soils. These secondary soils also provide the 
sediment structure needed for burrow construction to the water table 
and also support the herbaceous vegetation upon which the species 
relies for food and cover except during times of drought.
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring: Shelters, such as burrows, are an important resource for 
crayfish as they provide for protection from predation and space for 
mating and for rearing hatchlings. Burrows also help to maintain 
hydration and preferred body temperatures. Surface waters provide 
shelter for juveniles to grow prior to being large enough to burrow. 
These surface water locations also provide for breeding and feeding 
grounds. Surface water must be sufficiently deep, but usually less than 
1 foot (0.3 meters) deep, to support the species but shallow enough to 
sustain herbaceous vegetation. Waters greater than 1 foot (0.3 meters) 
deep sustain other crayfish species that may outcompete the Panama City 
crayfish.
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species: The Panama City crayfish's historical range 
is estimated to cover a 56-square-mile area (Service 2019, entire). 
Hardwood swamps fall within the core soil category but are not actually 
suitable for the Panama City crayfish (except the transition edge 
habitat). Land acreages within the Panama City crayfish's range total 
35,658 acres, with a composition of the following soils: (1) Core with 
14,880 acres (6,022 hectares; 42 percent of the land area); (2) 
secondary with 12,379 acres (5,010 hectares; 35 percent of the land 
area), and (3) unsuitable soils with 8,399 acres (3,399 hectares; 23 
percent of the land area). We estimate that approximately 9,180 acres 
(3,715 hectares) of core and 5,647 acres (2,285 hectares) of secondary 
soils remain undeveloped (using 2016 data) and are therefore suitable 
for the Panama City crayfish. We estimate that 3,606 acres (1,459 
hectares) of the core (3,242 acres (1,312 hectares, or 22 percent)) and 
secondary (364 acres (147 hectares, or 3 percent)) soils are hardwood 
swamp, which are not directly used by the Panama City crayfish but are 
included within acreage totals because they provide transition habitat.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Panama City crayfish from studies of this 
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described above. 
Additional information can be found in the proposed listing rule 
published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2018 (83 FR 330), and 
the Panama City Crayfish SSA report (version 2.0; Service 2019, 
entire). We have determined that the following physical or biological 
features are essential to the conservation of the Panama City crayfish:
    (1) Undeveloped lands, including cropland, utilities rights-of-way, 
timberlands, or grazing lands, that support open wet pine flatwoods and 
wet prairie habitats that contain the following:
    (a) Appropriate herbaceous groundcover vegetation;
    (b) Permanent or temporary pools of shallow (usually less than 1 
foot) freshwater locations; and
    (c) Gently-sloped ground level swales with a 3:1 or shallower slope 
ratio along ecotonal or transitional areas.
    (2) Soil types within undeveloped lands that provide sediment 
structure needed for burrow construction and that support some native 
herbaceous vegetation and the likelihood of native seed bank that with 
management will provide vegetation needed for additional food and 
cover, and where the ground water is always within 3 feet of the ground 
surface and surface waters occur on occasion. These soil types include:
    (a) Core soils for Panama City crayfish, including (note: prefix 
numbers refer to map units in the Soil Survey for Bay County, Florida 
(USDA 1984, entire)): (22) Pamlico-Dorovan Complex, (29) Rutlege Sand, 
(32) Plummer Sand, (33) Pelham Sand, (39) Pantego Sandy Loam, and (51) 
Rutledge- Pamlico Complex;
    (b) Secondary soils within 100 meters (328 feet) of core soils: (1) 
Albany Sand, (12) Leefield Sand, (13) Leon Fine Sand, (31) Osier Fine 
Sand, and (36) Alapaha Loamy Sand; and
    (c) Soils that support native herbaceous vegetation such as, but 
not limited to, wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana), redroot (Lachnanthes 
caroliniana), beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp.), pitcher plants 
(Sarracenia spp.), sundews (Drosera spp.), butterworts (Pinguicula 
spp.), and lilies (Hymenocallis spp.).
    (3) Undeveloped lands that contain surface and groundwater of 
sufficient quality to support all life stages of the Panama City 
crayfish and the herbaceous vegetation on which they rely. This 
includes surface waters with:
    (a) Oxygen levels that range between 2 and 9 milligrams per liter;
    (b) pH levels between 4.1 and 9.2; and
    (c) Temperatures between 42 and 94 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (5 
and 34.4 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), although optimum temperatures are 
thought to be in the range of 68 to 79 [deg]F (20 to 26 [deg]C) (Butler 
et al. 2003).

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 this species 
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
the following threats: Habitat loss and destruction due to residential 
and commercial development, as well as habitat loss due to changes in 
the natural disturbance and hydrological regimes that maintain the wet 
prairie and flatwoods that Panama City crayfish originally inhabited. 
Historically, the Panama City crayfish inhabited natural and often 
temporary bodies of shallow fresh water within open pine flatwoods and 
prairie-marsh communities (as described in the SSA report (version 2.0; 
Service 2019, p. 56)). However, most of these communities have been 
cleared for residential or commercial development or replaced with 
slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations. Thus, the Panama City 
crayfish currently is known to inhabit the waters of grassy, gently-
sloped ditches and swales; furrows within slash pine plantations; and 
utility rights-of-way.
    Special management considerations or protections are required 
within critical habitat areas to address these habitat loss and 
destruction threats. The occupied units we are proposing to designate 
as critical habitat for Panama City crayfish will require some level of

[[Page 19849]]

management to address the current and future threats to the physical or 
biological features. Management activities that could ameliorate these 
threats include (but are not limited to): (1) Protection of lands from 
development through purchase, easement, or other conservation 
agreements that will prevent permanent conversion of Panama City 
crayfish habitat to other land uses; and (2) restoration and management 
of habitat to maintain the appropriate vegetative and hydrological 
characteristics for the Panama City crayfish.
    These management activities will protect the physical or biological 
features for the species by protecting currently suitable habitat from 
being converted to other land uses and by promoting the appropriate 
vegetative and hydrological characteristics that the Panama City 
crayfish needs for survival. Additionally, management of habitat to 
protect the physical or biological features on occupied critical 
habitat will help achieve recovery of the Panama City crayfish.

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), 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 would be inadequate to ensure the 
conservation of the species. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat and because occupied areas are 
sufficient to ensure the conservation of the species.
    We reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat 
requirements of this species using information that was cited within 
the SSA report (Service 2019, entire) and information presented in the 
Service's conservation strategy for Panama City crayfish critical 
conservation needs (Service 2017, entire); sources of information on 
habitat requirements include existing State management plans, 
endangered species reports, studies conducted at occupied sites and 
published in peer-reviewed articles, agency reports, and data collected 
during monitoring efforts (Service 2019, entire). Based on known 
occurrences and habitat requirements, critical habitat units were 
mapped in ArcMap (ESRI, Inc.) using the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic Database 
(USDA 2019, unpaginated). ArcGIS software was used to calculate the 
acreage of core and secondary soils within the historical range of the 
Panama City crayfish prior to anthropogenic habitat disturbances. Core 
soil types (as described in Species Description in the proposed listing 
rule (83 FR 330, January 3, 2018, pp. 332-333) and in Physical or 
Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species, 
above) were buffered by 100 meters. We used 100 meters as our buffer 
because we found that 96 percent of known occurrences of Panama City 
crayfish occur within 100 meters of core soils and this buffer 
encompasses the secondary soil types (as described in Species 
Description in the proposed listing rule (83 FR 330, January 3, 2018, 
pp. 332-333) and in Physical or Biological Features Essential to the 
Conservation of the Species, above). In geographic information systems 
(GIS) mapping, the buffered soils were spatially processed by clipping 
to the population buffer of one-quarter mile, and developed areas were 
excluded based on 2016 Florida Department of Transportation aerial 
imagery (FDOT 2016, unpaginated).
    In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing and with sufficient availability of 
land, we delineate critical habitat unit boundaries using the following 
criteria:
    (1) Suitable habitat surrounding each of 10 known populations of 
Panama City crayfish, delineated by polygons using one-quarter mile 
(0.4 kilometer (km)) circles around sample points with known species 
occurrences, based on the movement patterns of small crayfishes (Note: 
Habitat surrounding two populations was not included for critical 
habitat designation, as explained below);
    (2) Core and secondary soils within 100 meters (328 feet) of core 
soils that contain one or more of the physical or biological features 
to support life-history functions essential for conservation of the 
Panama City crayfish.
    Hardwood swamps found within core soils are considered unsuitable 
for the crayfish, and this habitat type was removed to the maximum 
extent possible.
    The total acreage calculated for critical habitat based upon the 
above criteria amounted to 7,177 acres (2,904 hectares). Accordingly, 
we propose to designate as critical habitat those areas that contain 
the physical and biological features essential to the Panama City 
crayfish and that are currently occupied by the species.
    For the purposes of critical habitat designation, we determined a 
unit to be occupied if it contains recent (i.e., observed since 2015) 
observations of Panama City crayfish. The proposed critical habitat 
designation does not include all lands known to have been occupied by 
the species historically; instead, it focuses on currently occupied 
lands that have retained the necessary physical or biological features 
that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of existing 
populations. The following locations (i.e., populations as defined in 
the SSA) meet the definition of areas occupied by the species at the 
time of listing and that present sufficient availability of lands to 
support a population: 19th Street, Talkington, Minnesota, Transmitter 
West, Deer Point, High Point, Star, and Transmitter East. College Point 
and Old Airport populations were not consistently occupied, nor was 
there sufficient suitable habitat within the one-quarter-mile (0.4-km) 
polygon to support recovery, and these populations, therefore, are not 
included in the proposed designation. We also do not include Edwards, a 
population representing an original collection site from 1942, nor 390 
West given the fragmentation of that population by the industrial park 
resulted in too little remaining habitat to support a viable population 
over time. While both areas are still occupied by Panama City crayfish, 
Edwards is surrounded by industrial buildings and bordered by U.S. 
Route 231 on its west edge, and 390 West will soon be bisected by a 
four-lane highway as it is currently under construction. Potential 
habitat for recovery in either of these locations is limited and 
potentially fragmented. Long-term management will be challenging given 
proximity to major roadways and industrial development. As mentioned 
above, we exclude developed areas within the proposed designation to 
the extent possible in the mapping exercise and in the text of the 
rule, as explained below. Designating critical habitat in these eight 
occupied areas of the Panama City crayfish would sufficiently conserve 
the species, leading to its recovery.
    We are not proposing to designate any areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species because we have not 
identified any unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation 
of the species. In addition, based on our conservation strategy, the

[[Page 19850]]

protection of the eight occupied units (as further described below) are 
sufficient for the conservation of the species.
    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 Panama City crayfish. 
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 Panama City 
crayfish's life-history processes. All units contain all of the 
identified physical or biological features and support 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 
shapefiles on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137, on our internet 
site http://ecos.fws.gov, and at the Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing eight units as critical habitat for the Panama 
City crayfish. The critical habitat units we describe below constitute 
our assessment based on the best available science of areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat for the Panama City crayfish. In 
total, they comprise 7,177 acres (2,904 hectares) of land, entirely 
within Bay County, Florida. The table below summarizes the approximate 
area and ownership of the units, which are described in detail below.

                                          Table of Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Panama City Crayfish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Land ownership (AC.)         Total
                                                                                                  --------------------------    proposed
              Group                        Unit                Unit name            Occupied                                    critical      Percent of
                                                                                                     Private    State/Local   habitat area    total  (%)
                                                                                                                                  (AC.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western..........................  1...................  19th Street.........  Yes...............         20.6          3.7            24.3            0
                                   2...................  Talkington..........  Yes...............         53.1          0.0            53.1            1
                                   3...................  Minnesota...........  Yes...............         27.9         37.2            65.0            1
                                   4...................  Transmitter West....  Yes...............        243.7          4.7           248.4            3
Eastern..........................  5...................  Deer Point..........  Yes...............        413.8          0.9           414.6            6
                                   6...................  High Point..........  Yes...............         37.9          0.5            38.4            1
                                   7...................  Star................  Yes...............      2,751.6          9.7         2,761.4           38
                                   8...................  Transmitter East....  Yes...............      3,489.0         82.5         3,571.5           50
                                                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  ....................  ....................  ..................      7,037.6        139.2         7,176.8          100
                                                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------
    Percent of total.............  ....................  ....................  ..................          98%           2%            100%  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries; Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    The eight units we propose as critical habitat are broken into two 
groups, based on the western (Units 1 through 4) and eastern (Units 5 
through 8) groups described in the SSA report (Service 2019, pp. 37-
52). These two groups are distinguished by east-west genetic 
differentiation based on proximity to other populations and amounts of 
fragmentation within a population polygon. Below we describe each unit, 
and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the 
Panama City crayfish.
Western Group
    The western group is comprised of four units supporting 
geographically isolated populations scattered throughout the species' 
range primarily in the cities of Panama City and Lynn Haven in Bay 
County, Florida. The Service proposes designation of 390.8 acres (158.2 
hectares) in total for the western group. These populations have been 
isolated by residential and commercial development, which resulted in 
habitat loss and fragmentation. These populations are currently 
supported by an average of 83.4 acres (33.8 hectares) of habitat (range 
24.3-248.4 acres (9.8-100.5 hectares)). However, the Transmitter West 
population is by far the largest at 248.4 acres (100.5 hectares), and 
this population may have historically been a critical link both 
genetically and geographically between the western and eastern 
representative groups. The remaining three populations are supported by 
an average of 50.3 acres (20.4 hectares) (range 24.3-65.0 acres (9.8-
26.3 hectares)). Limited habitat area needed to support each population 
and lack of habitat connectivity to other populations in this group are 
the greatest management challenges.
Unit 1: 19th Street
    The 19th Street population is the southwestern-most population 
located off 19th Street in Panama City, Florida. It is located on both 
sides of an active railroad track with habitat totaling 24.3 acres (9.8 
hectares). Land ownership is mostly private, but some is in public 
ownership with 3.7 acres (1.5 hectares) owned by Bay County. Only 
secondary soils remain undeveloped, but the elevated railroad track has 
artificially provided a water barrier, often keeping the site ponded 
when all others have dried up. Maintenance (i.e., mowing and woody 
vegetation removal) for the railroad has kept the adjacent right-of-way 
covered in dense, herbaceous

[[Page 19851]]

vegetation that is ideal for the Panama City crayfish. Adjacent 
unmanaged slash pine stands, where burrows have been documented, and a 
mowed grass field also provide habitat.
    Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented in 2001, 2012-2014, 
and 2016-2018. All of the essential physical or biological features are 
found within the unit. The essential features (e.g., appropriate 
herbaceous groundcover vegetation and permanent or temporary pools of 
shallow fresh water) for this unit may require special management, 
particularly mowing, to ensure maintenance or improvement of the 
existing habitat.
Unit 2: Talkington
    The Talkington population is located off of Jenks Avenue in Panama 
City, Florida, with habitat totaling 53.1 acres (21.5 hectares). Land 
ownership is entirely private, although 10 acres (4 hectares) is under 
easement for conservation. The Talkington Family Nature Preserve forms 
the centerpiece of this population, with land ownership held by the Bay 
County Conservancy (BCC), and the associated conservation easement held 
by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The preserve 
is primarily pine flatwoods with a cluster of pond pine trees in the 
center portion. The Service and FWC have a management agreement in 
place with BCC that allows for mowing to manage the habitat on a 2- to 
3-year interval, to mimic the natural fire regime and maintain ideal 
conditions for the Panama City crayfish. The remaining 43.1 acres (17.4 
hectares) of core and secondary soils in the vicinity provide 
opportunity for additional land protections and management, although 
much of this area would require restoration of vegetation.
    Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented in 2000, 2001, 2003, 
2006, 2012, 2013, and 2016-2018. All essential physical and biological 
features are found within the unit. The essential features, especially 
appropriate herbaceous groundcover vegetation and permanent or 
temporary pools of shallow fresh water, for this unit may require 
special management; establishment of sloped swales and removal of dense 
shrub thickets would improve conditions for the Panama City crayfish in 
this unit.
Unit 3: Minnesota
    The Minnesota population is located off Minnesota Avenue in Lynn 
Haven, Florida, with undeveloped habitat totaling 65.0 acres (26.3 
hectares). Land ownership is a mix of private and public, and some area 
is under easement for conservation. This site is largely hardwood-
cypress swamp with some possibilities for improving the habitat along 6 
acres (2.4 hectares) near and adjacent to the swamp ecotone. The City 
of Lynn Haven owns 37.2 acres (15.1 hectares), which is under a 
conservation easement held by FDEP.
    The Service and FWC have a management agreement with the City of 
Lynn Haven that allows the agencies to manage the property when funding 
is available. Minimal actions have occurred to date to remove some of 
the pine canopy layer. Other core and secondary soils surrounding the 
easement consist of dense slash pine plantations. The property has deep 
rutting from off-road vehicles, horses, and heavy equipment, which may 
affect the hydrology of the habitat.
    Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented in 2015 and 2016. 
All essential physical and biological features are found within the 
unit. Achieving the right mosaic of water and grasses requires special 
management.
Unit 4: Transmitter West
    The Transmitter West population is located off Transmitter Road in 
Lynn Haven and Panama City, Florida, with habitat totaling 248.4 acres 
(100.5 hectares). Land ownership is a mix of private and public, with 
approximately 40 percent under easement for conservation. The FDEP 
holds multiple conservation easements for private landowners with a 
total 100.5 acres (40.7 hectares) of pine flatwoods. The easements are 
managed as required by permit with either mowing or burning, and are in 
good condition for the Panama City crayfish. The remaining habitats, 
including the 4.7 acres (1.9 hectares) in public ownership owned by the 
City of Lynn Haven and Bay County, are in mixed condition and in need 
of regular management (e.g., prescribed fire or mowing).
    Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented in 2004, 2013, and 
2016. All essential physical and biological features are found within 
the unit, with grasses maintained by fire in the past and mowing more 
recently. Different depths of water bodies occur that provide a mosaic 
of water features with herbaceous grasses to make this a good area for 
the Panama City crayfish. Management is required to reduce encroaching 
shrubs and to remove tree debris caused by Hurricane Michael in October 
2018.
Eastern Group
    The eastern group is comprised of four units supporting populations 
scattered throughout the species' range primarily in the unincorporated 
portions of Bay County, Florida. The Service proposes designation of 
6,785.9 acres (2,746.2 hectares) in total for the eastern group. These 
populations are currently supported by an average of 1,696.5 acres 
(686.5 hectares) of habitat (range 38.4-3,571.5 acres (15.5-1,445.3 
hectares)). However, the Star and Transmitter East populations are the 
largest at 2,761.4 and 3,571.5 acres (1,117.5 and 1,445.3 hectares), 
respectively. These two populations represent the largest connected 
blocks of core and secondary soils with appropriate vegetation. 
Although the vegetation and hydrology have been altered from native wet 
prairie and pine flatwoods habitats by silvicultural and agricultural 
uses, the geographic extent of these two populations forms the basis 
for the species' long-term resilience.
Unit 5: Deer Point
    The Deer Point population occurs on a peninsula located near Bay 
County Road 2321 in Lynn Haven and Panama City, Florida, and is 
supported by 414.6 acres (167.8 hectares) of habitat. The land is 
bordered by Willams Bayou on the northeast, Mill Bayou on the 
southwest, and North Bay to the north. Land ownership is almost 
entirely private, although some areas under easement for conservation. 
Only 0.9 acres (0.4 hectares) is in public ownership by Bay County.
    Four privately owned easements lie within or are adjacent to areas 
included in this unit. These easements protect 95.0 acres (38.4 
hectares) of core and secondary soil habitat, although some of the 
secondary soil habitats do not meet the criteria for inclusion within 
critical habitat due to distance from core soils. The Trust for Public 
Lands holds 90.0 acres (36.4 hectares) under easement, but that 
easement is to be transferred to the City of Lynn Haven in the near 
future. FDEP holds three easements totaling 35.0 acres (14.2 hectares) 
that are still owned by a private landowner (D&H Properties, LLC). The 
Service and FWC hold a management agreement with D&H Properties, LLC, 
and have mowed and burned 24.0 acres (9.7 hectares) of this 35.0-acre 
(14.2-hectare) property that are held in easements by FDEP. The 
remaining habitat is on lands that are heavily timbered and unmanaged, 
resulting in dense overgrowth of titi and slash pine, and hydrology may 
be affected by these activities as well as borrow pits and dirt roads 
that traverse the unit. Only the portions of these easements that meet 
the criteria are included as critical habitat. All need regular 
management,

[[Page 19852]]

especially the lands with dense vegetation, for the crayfish to thrive.
    Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented on easement lands in 
2012 and 2014-2018. All of the essential physical or biological 
features are found within the unit. Herbaceous groundcover is spotty, 
and shallow pools of water are small and unreliable, often caused by 
vehicle tracks, and too deep for Panama City crayfish. Management is 
required to remove Hurricane Michael tree debris. Considerations on 
whether there are ways to improve the hydrology are also warranted.
Unit 6: High Point
    The High Point population is the northern-most population and is 
located off Bay County Road 2311 in Bay County, Florida. The population 
is supported by habitat totaling 38.4 acres (15.5 hectares), and land 
ownership is almost entirely private, with some acreage under easement 
for conservation. Only 0.5 acres (0.2 hectares) is in public ownership 
by Bay County. The 11-acre (4.5 hectare) Marjorie's Magical Marsh-
Symone's Sanctimonious Swamp conservation easement owned by BCC 
contains most of the known Panama City crayfish population.
    Panama City crayfish occupy 6.0 (2.4 hectares) of the 11-acre (4.5 
hectare) easement, which is in the process of being restored by the 
Service and FWC under a management agreement with BCC. These six acres 
are being restored to primarily herbaceous vegetation from a more 
recent dense mixture of titi shrub thicket in the under- and mid-story 
and slash pines in the overstory, which has lacked fire management. The 
remaining core and secondary soil habitat surrounding the easement was 
historically managed for timber but currently contains dense titi with 
an intermittent slash pine overstory.
    Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented in 2010, 2012-2014, 
and 2015-2017. All essential physical and biological features are found 
within the unit. This population, albeit small, has herbaceous ground 
cover vegetation, pools of shallow water, and appropriate slope ratios, 
but the unit will require management to maintain the groundcover and 
keep shrubs from encroaching.
Unit 7: Star
    A portion of this unit is located north of the intersection of Bay 
County Road 2321 and U.S. Highway 231 in Bay County, Florida. Land 
ownership is a mix of private and public. There are no conservation 
easements in place, but one 1.4-acre (0.6-hectare) parcel is owned by 
the State of Florida and used by the Florida Highway Patrol. Although 
the appropriate core and secondary soil habitat exists, the lands that 
run parallel to the county road are mostly in dense slash pine 
plantations for timber production with overgrown groundcover. The 
plantations east of the county road have been harvested recently. This 
management is sub-optimal for the Panama City crayfish because of the 
dense overstory canopy, lack of herbaceous ground cover, infrequent (<3 
year) fire management, and bedding that may additionally affect the 
hydrology of the unit.
    The remainder of this habitat unit is adjacent and south of U.S. 
Highway 231. It forms the farthest east-northeast boundary of the 
species' geographic range in Bay County, Florida. The population is 
bordered on the west by U.S. Highway 231, the north by Bayou George 
Creek, and the south by an unnamed tributary of Mill Bayou. These lands 
are mostly under timber management since the mid-1980s and in various 
stages of management from recent harvest to dense slash pines with 
dense titi shrub layers. The current timber management is sub-optimal 
for Panama City crayfish because of the dense overstory canopy, lack of 
herbaceous ground cover, infrequent (<3 year) fire management, and 
bedding that may additionally affect the hydrology of the unit. Land 
ownership is predominantly private, with only 9.7 acres (3.9 hectares) 
in public ownership by Bay County. Gulf Power Company manages rights-
of-way along 86 acres (34.8 hectares). The Service and FWC have a 
management agreement with Gulf Power Company incorporating best 
management practices, primarily regular mowing, that have stimulated 
herbaceous vegetation as the primary groundcover. Currently a two-lane 
road, Star Avenue, bisects this population.
    The population in the unit is supported by 2,761.4 acres (1,117.5 
hectares). Panama City crayfish occurrence was documented in 2001, 
2003-2004, 2006, 2012-2013, and 2016. All essential physical and 
biological features are found within the unit. Intermittent herbaceous 
groundcover vegetation and temporary pools of shallow water with 
hardwood swamp ecotone areas do occur, but much management is required 
to maintain and improve these biological features needed for increased 
or more connected populations. Much tree debris remains throughout the 
unit as a result of Hurricane Michael's 2018 impact to the landscape. 
It is assumed that some debris will be removed from timber company land 
and on other small tracts of land, but it is unknown at this time what 
impacts are likely to occur to Panama City crayfish populations as 
lands are cleared at large-scale levels.
Unit 8: Transmitter East
    The Transmitter East population forms the farthest south-southeast 
boundary of the species' geographic range in Bay County, Florida. The 
population is bordered on the west by Transmitter Road, the south by 
U.S. Highway 98 and State Highway 22, the east by Callaway Creek, and 
the north by an unnamed tributary of Mill Bayou. The population in this 
unit is supported by 3,571.5 acres (1,445.3 hectares) of habitat, which 
has been primarily under timber management since the mid-1980s and in 
various stages of management from recent harvest to dense slash pines 
with dense titi shrub layers.
    The current management regime is sub-optimal for Panama City 
crayfish because of the dense overstory canopy, lack of herbaceous 
ground cover, infrequent (<3 year) fire management, and bedding that 
may additionally affect the hydrology of the unit. Land ownership is 
predominantly private, with only 82.5 acres (33.4 hectares) in public 
ownership by the City of Springfield, Bay County, and the State of 
Florida. Gulf Power Company manages rights-of-way along approximately 
114 acres (46.1 hectares) of land that is populated with the Panama 
City crayfish. The Service and FWC have a management agreement with 
Gulf Power incorporating best management practices, primarily regular 
mowing, that have stimulated herbaceous vegetation as the primary 
groundcover.
    Two conservation easements, 11.3 and 7.3 acres (4.6 and 3.0 
hectares) in size, are held by FDEP for two separate landowners. 
Currently, a two-lane road, Star Avenue, bisects this population. Tram 
Road also bisects the lower third of the area. It is currently a dirt 
road and there are plans for converting it to a four-lane asphalt road.
    Panama City crayfish occurrence was confirmed in 2001, 2002, and 
2006, and extensive efforts documented the species in 2003-2004, 2012-
2013, and 2016. All essential physical and biological features are 
found within the unit. Much tree debris, which will require management, 
remains throughout as a result of Hurricane Michael's 2018 impact to 
the landscape. It is assumed that some debris will be removed from 
timber company land and on other small tracts of land, but it is 
unknown at this time what impacts are likely to occur on the Panama 
City

[[Page 19853]]

crayfish populations as lands are cleared at large-scale levels.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or 
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat and actions on 
State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded, 
authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency do not require section 7 
consultation. Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is 
documented through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, 
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species 
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal 
action, the action has been modified in a manner that affects the 
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous 
consultation, new information reveals effects of the action may affect 
the species or critical habitat in a way not previously considered, or 
incidental take is exceeded. In such situations, Federal agencies 
sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but 
the regulations also specify some exceptions to the requirement to 
reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after 
subsequently listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. 
See the regulations for a description of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter hydrological and soil 
characteristics. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
those that result in wetland fill or draining or, conversely, provide 
additional waters to the wetland. Activities drying the wetland (via 
fill or draining) can result in changes in depth to water tables that 
are less than the depth threshold that is important for long-term 
Panama City crayfish population persistence. These activities can also 
alter soils from those that provide the sediment structure needed to 
allow for burrow construction down to the water table and also support 
the herbaceous vegetation upon which the species relies for food and 
cover. Activities providing additional water can allow other crayfish 
species that persist in deeper waters to outcompete the Panama City 
crayfish.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter water quality parameters 
including oxygen content, temperature, and chemical composition. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, release of chemicals, 
excess nutrients, pesticides, and biological or other 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 
crayfish and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these 
individuals and their life cycles.
    (3) Actions that would significantly and permanently alter 
vegetative characteristics. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, residential and commercial

[[Page 19854]]

construction; road construction; and draining, filling or otherwise 
destroying or altering wetlands. These activities may lead to changes 
in hydrology and soil characteristics that prevent the appropriate 
vegetation from growing. These activities can result in an absence or 
reduced levels of herbaceous vegetation that is important to the Panama 
City crayfish for food, detritus formation, and cover.

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 (DoD), 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 
DoD lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed critical habitat 
designation.

Consideration of Exclusions 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 
plain language of the statute, as well as the legislative history, make 
clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) 
to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
    We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into 
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant 
impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of 
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act 
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless 
of whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical 
habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts associated 
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. 
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not 
be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the 
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable 
solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the 
baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits 
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final 
designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a 
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of 
critical habitat for the Panama City crayfish (IEC 2018). We began by 
conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are 
likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the 
screening analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of 
critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, 
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In 
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., 
absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic 
impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, 
land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that 
protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of 
the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our 
analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur 
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. 
If there are any unoccupied units in the proposed critical habitat 
designation, the screening analysis assesses whether any additional 
management or conservation efforts may incur incremental economic 
impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information 
contained in our IEM are what we consider our draft economic analysis 
(DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Panama City 
crayfish; 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 Panama City crayfish, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated July 13, 2018, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: Agriculture, forest management (silviculture, timber), 
development, recreation, restoration and conservation management 
activities, transportation, and utilities. We considered each

[[Page 19855]]

industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether 
their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any 
Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat 
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. If we finalize our proposal to list the species, in 
areas where the Panama City crayfish is present, Federal agencies would 
be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on 
activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. 
If 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 would 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 Panama 
City crayfish's critical habitat. Because the proposed critical habitat 
for the Panama City crayfish coincides with currently occupied areas by 
the species, 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 Panama City crayfish 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 Panama City 
crayfish includes eight units, each of which contains one 
geographically and/or genetically distinct population of the Panama 
City crayfish. All of these units are in Bay County, Florida, and none 
occur on Federal lands. For the purposes of critical habitat 
designation, we determined a unit to be occupied if it contains recent 
(i.e., observed since 2015) observations of Panama City crayfish. All 
units are occupied because they contain populations of Panama City 
crayfish at the time of proposed listing, and each unit is considered 
essential to the conservation of the species. In total, we are 
proposing 7,177 acres (2,904 hectares) for designation as critical 
habitat for the Panama City crayfish. In occupied areas, any actions 
that may affect the species or its habitat would also affect critical 
habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts 
would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over 
and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the Panama City crayfish. Incremental costs of 
the proposed critical habitat designation for the Panama City crayfish 
are likely to be limited to additional administrative costs to consider 
adverse modification in consultations in all units. The incremental 
administrative burden resulting from the designation of critical 
habitat for the Panama City crayfish is not anticipated to reach an 
annual effect of $100 million (which is the economic threshold for a 
``significant regulatory action'' (see section 3(f)(1) of Executive 
Order 12866)) based on the anticipated annual number of consultations 
and associated consultation costs, which are not expected to exceed 
$60,000 in any year. The designation is unlikely to trigger additional 
requirements under State or local regulations and is not expected to 
have perceptional effects.
    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 we receive during the public 
comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if 
we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the 
benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result 
in the extinction of this species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly 
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular 
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or 
homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of 
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
Nevertheless, when designating critical habitat under section 4(b)(2), 
the Service must consider impacts on national security, including 
homeland security, on lands or areas not covered by section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always consider for exclusion from 
the designation areas for which DoD, Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), or another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an 
assertion of national-security or homeland-security concerns.
    We cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When 
DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical 
habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, 
it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental 
impact on national security that would result from the designation of 
that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could 
include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing 
border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in 
training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does 
not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will 
contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific 
justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable 
incremental impact that could result from the designation. If the 
agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will defer to 
the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) 
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other 
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security 
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the 
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in 
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great 
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing 
the benefits of exclusion.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for Panama City 
crayfish are not owned,

[[Page 19856]]

managed, or used by the DoD or DHS, and, therefore, we anticipate no 
impact on national security or homeland security. However, during the 
development of a final designation, we will consider any additional 
information 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
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security discussed above. We consider a number of factors, including 
whether there are permitted conservation plans 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 HCPs or other management plans for the Panama City 
crayfish, and the proposed designation does not include any Tribal 
lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, 
partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. 
Additionally, as described above, we are not considering excluding any 
particular areas from critical habitat on the basis of impacts to 
national security or economic impacts. 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 of the proposed designation and will determine whether any 
specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Required Determinations

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) 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 rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

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

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

[[Page 19857]]

(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 would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the 
designation of this proposed critical habitat would significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use because these were not 
identified as land use sectors within the critical habitat areas. 
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. Small governments will be affected 
only to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or 
other authorized activities must ensure that their actions will not 
adversely affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

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

[[Page 19858]]

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

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

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

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.  17.46 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.46  Special rules--crustaceans.

* * * * *
    (d) Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus econfinae)--(1) Prohibitions. 
The following prohibitions that apply to endangered wildlife also apply 
to the Panama City crayfish. Except as provided under paragraph (d)(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 these species:
    (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 species, 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) Conservation and restoration efforts by the Service or State 
wildlife agencies, including, but not limited to, collection of 
broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive 
propagation, subsequent stocking into unoccupied areas within the 
historical range of the species and follow-up

[[Page 19859]]

monitoring, and actions necessary to aid a sick, injured, or orphaned 
specimen, to dispose of a dead specimen, or to salvage a dead specimen 
which may be useful for scientific study.
    (B) Development practices that:
    (1) Maintain existing structures and construction or reconstruction 
activities that occur within the existing footprint of previously 
developed areas;
    (2) Build new structures that occur within 100 feet of existing 
structures on an individual private landowner's property and with a new 
footprint less than 1,000 square feet, such as a pool or shed 
associated with an existing house;
    (3) Install culverts for individual landowners not associated with 
housing developments on lands greater than one acre;
    (4) Build platforms or boardwalks for recreational purposes on 
conservation lands that allow sunlight of sufficient levels to maintain 
herbaceous groundcover;
    (5) Build paths used for nonmotorized activities as long as the 
project footprint, including construction impacts, alter no more than 5 
percent of the acreage in core or secondary soils within lands under a 
conservation easement.
    (C) Certain land management activities, including:
    (1) Silvicultural (forestry) activities located in secondary soils 
that follow state best management practices (BMPs);
    (2) Prescribed burning and wildfire control efforts when following 
state BMPs, guidelines, or permit conditions;
    (3) Herbicide application activities targeting exotic plants or 
shrub species when following all other state and federal BMPs, 
guidelines, or permit conditions;
    (4) Agricultural maintenance activities in pasture and rangelands 
(including cattle operations) that were established prior to January 3, 
2018, that do not have indirect impacts to adjacent Panama City 
crayfish habitat.
    (D) Utility actions, including:
    (1) Ditch mowing and maintenance outside of critical habitat units;
    (2) Ditch mowing or maintenance within critical habitat units after 
coordination with the local FWS office;
    (3) Culvert replacements or maintenance on individual landowner 
properties that do not adversely affect, but improve or restore, the 
natural hydrology;
    (4) After coordination with the local FWS office the following: 
Maintenance associated with rights-of-way or powerlines, powerline and 
pole placements and replacements, and directional boring.
    (v) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(h) by adding an entry for ``Panama City Crayfish 
(Procambarus econfinae)'', in the same alphabetical order that it 
appears in the table at Sec.  17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus econfinae)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bay County, Florida, on 
the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Panama City crayfish consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Undeveloped lands, including cropland, utilities rights-of-way, 
timberlands, and grazing lands, that support open wet pine flatwoods 
and wet prairie habitats that contain the following:
    (A) Appropriate herbaceous groundcover vegetation;
    (B) Permanent or temporary pools of shallow (usually less than 1 
foot) freshwater locations; and
    (C) Gently-sloped ground level swales with a 3:1 or shallower slope 
ratio along ecotonal areas.
    (ii) Soil types within undeveloped lands that provide sediment 
structure needed for burrow construction and that support mostly native 
herbaceous vegetation needed for food and cover, and where the ground 
water is always within 3 feet of the ground surface and surface waters 
occur on occasion. These soil types include:
    (A) Core soils for Panama City crayfish, including Pamlico-Dorovan 
Complex, Rutlege Sand, Plummer Sand, Pelham Sand, Pantego Sandy Loam, 
and Rutledge-Pamlico Complex;
    (B) Secondary soils within 100 meters (328 feet) of core soils: 
Albany Sand, Leefield Sand, Leon Fine Sand, Osier Fine Sand, and 
Alapaha Loamy Sand; and
    (C) Currently, or can eventually, support native herbaceous 
vegetation such as, but not limited to, wiregrass (Aristida 
beyrichiana), redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana), beakrushes 
(Rhynchospora spp.), pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.), sundews (Drosera 
spp.), butterworts (Pinguicula spp.), and lilies (Hymenocallis spp.).
    (iii) Undeveloped lands that contain surface and groundwater of 
sufficient quality to support all life stages of the Panama City 
crayfish and the herbaceous vegetation on which they rely, specifically 
surface waters with:
    (A) Oxygen levels that range between 2 and 9 milligrams per liter;
    (B) pH levels between 4.1 and 9.2; and
    (C) temperatures between 42 and 94 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (5 
and 34.4 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), although optimum temperatures are 
thought to be in the range of 68 to 79 [deg]F (20 to 26 [deg]C).
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created based on known occurrences and habitat requirements. Critical 
habitat units were mapped in ArcMap (ESRI, Inc.) using the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil 
Survey Geographic Database dataset. The maps in this entry, as modified 
by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the 
critical habitat designation. The shapefiles on which each map is based 
are available to the public at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2020-0137 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:

[[Page 19860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP21.001

    (6) Unit 1: 19th Street, Bay County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 1 consists of 24.3 acres (9.8 
hectares) and is composed of lands in State, county, or city ownership 
(3.7 ac (1.5 ha)), and private ownership (20.6 ac (8.3 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 follows:

[[Page 19861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP21.002

    (7) Unit 2: Talkington, Bay County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 2 consists of 53.1 acres (21.5 
hectares) and is composed of lands entirely in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
    (8) Unit 3: Minnesota, Bay County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 3 consists of 65.0 acres (26.3 
hectares) and is composed of lands in State, county, or city ownership 
(37.2 ac (15.0 ha)), and private ownership (27.9 ac (11.3 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
    (9) Unit 4: Transmitter West, Bay County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 4 consists of 248.4 acres (100.5 
hectares) and is composed of lands in State, county, or city ownership 
(4.7 ac (1.9 ha)), and private ownership (243.7 ac (98.6 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
    (10) Unit 5: Deer Point, Bay County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 5 consists of 414.6 ac (167.8 ha) and 
is composed of lands in State, county, or city ownership (0.9 ac (0.4 
ha)), and private ownership (413.8 ac (167.5 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Units 5 and 6 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 19862]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP21.003

    (11) Unit 6: High Point, Bay County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 6 consists of 38.4 ac (15.5 ha) and 
is composed of lands in State, county, or city ownership (0.5 ac (0.2 
ha)), and private ownership (37.9 ac (15.3 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
    (12) Unit 7: Star, Bay County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 7 consists of 2,761.4 ac (1,117.5 ha) 
and is composed of lands in State, county, or city ownership (9.7 ac 
(4.0 ha)), and private ownership (2,751.6 ac (1,113.5 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Units 7 and 8 follows:

[[Page 19863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP21.004

    (13) Unit 8: Transmitter East, Bay County, Florida.
    (i) General description: Unit 8 consists of 3,571.5 ac (1,445.4 ha) 
and is composed of lands in State, county, or city ownership (82.5 ac 
(33.4 ha)), and private ownership (3,489.0 ac (1,412.0 ha)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (12)(ii) of this entry.
* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-07243 Filed 4-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C