[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57292-57327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17666]



[[Page 57291]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 161

August 22, 2023

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





 Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Brawleys Fork Crayfish and 
Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 57292]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0065; FF09E21000; FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BG18


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Brawleys Fork Crayfish and 
Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami), a freshwater 
crayfish species from Tennessee, as a threatened species and designate 
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a 
petition to list the Brawleys Fork crayfish. After a review of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing 
the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Brawleys 
Fork crayfish as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 
4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule''). If we finalize this rule as proposed, 
it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species. We also 
propose to designate critical habitat for the Brawleys Fork crayfish 
under the Act. In total, approximately 86.6 river miles (139.4 river 
kilometers) in Cannon, Rutherford, and Warren Counties, Tennessee, fall 
within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. We 
also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Brawleys Fork crayfish.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
October 23, 2023. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2023-0065, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2023-0065, 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 https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as 
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's 
website at at https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/Brawleys-Fork-crayfish and at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2023-0065. For the proposed critical habitat designation, the 
coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated 
are included in the decision file for this critical habitat designation 
and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2023-0065 and on the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/Brawleys-Fork-crayfish.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Elbert, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 
446 Neal Street, Cookeville, Tennessee, 38501; Telephone 931-254-9617. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). If we 
determine that a species warrants listing, we must list the species 
promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the Brawleys 
Fork crayfish meets the definition of a threatened species; therefore, 
we are proposing to list it as such and proposing a designation of its 
critical habitat. Both listing a species as an endangered or threatened 
species and making a critical habitat determination can be completed 
only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act 
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. We propose to list the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish as a threatened species with a rule under section 4(d) of the 
Act, and we propose the designation of critical habitat for the 
species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that Brawleys Fork crayfish is 
threatened due to the following threats: habitat loss and degradation 
due to sedimentation and water quality impairments from sources 
including agricultural practices, horticultural practices, and 
urbanization; and instream modification including impoundments, gravel 
dredging, and channel alteration. Each of the threats influencing 
Brawleys Fork crayfish viability may be further exacerbated by the 
effects of small, isolated populations and the future effects of 
climate change.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time

[[Page 57293]]

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.

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 governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species, 
including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the 
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, 
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species.
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to this species.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of this species.
    (4) Information on regulations that may be necessary and advisable 
to provide for the conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish and that 
we 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 
we should consider any additional exceptions from the prohibitions in 
the 4(d) rule.
    (5) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Brawleys Fork crayfish habitat;
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species, 
Cannon, Rutherford, and Warren Counties, Tennessee, that should be 
included in the designation because they (i) are occupied at the time 
of listing and contain the physical or biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations, or (ii) are unoccupied at the time 
of listing and are essential for the conservation of the species; and
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) To evaluate the potential to include areas not occupied at the 
time of listing, we particularly seek comments regarding whether 
occupied areas are adequate for the conservation of the species. 
Additionally, please provide specific information regarding whether or 
not unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to 
the conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. We 
also seek comments or information regarding whether areas not occupied 
at the time of listing qualify as habitat for the species.
    (6) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on 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 related 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 any additional information 
regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
    (9) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think we should exclude any 
additional areas, please provide information supporting a benefit of 
exclusion.
    (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.
    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, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. 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, and section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat 
on the basis of the best scientific data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://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 https://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 https://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. For critical habitat, our final designation may not 
include all areas

[[Page 57294]]

proposed, may include some additional areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we find the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and exclusion will not 
result in the extinction of the species. In addition, we may change the 
parameters of the prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions 
in the 4(d) rule if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments 
and new information received. For example, we may expand the 
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 prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that 
the activities would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation 
and recovery of the species.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is 
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition to list 404 species, 
including the Brawleys Fork crayfish, as endangered or threatened 
species, and designate critical habitat under the Act (Center for 
Biological Diversity et al. 2010, entire). Our subsequent 90-day 
finding concluded that the petition provided substantial information 
indicating that the Brawleys Fork crayfish may be warranted for 
listing, and that the status of the species warranted further review 
(September 27, 2011; 76 FR 59836).

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Brawleys Fork 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.
    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 solicited independent scientific 
review of the information contained in the Brawleys Fork crayfish SSA 
report. The Service sent the SSA report to four independent peer 
reviewers and received no responses.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and distribution 
of the Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami) is presented in the 
SSA report (version 1.1; Service 2023, pp. 14-24).
    The Brawleys Fork crayfish is a small, freshwater crayfish endemic 
to the Nashville Basin and Eastern Highland Rim ecoregions of central 
Tennessee. The species occurs primarily in small- to medium-sized 
streams (first- to third-order streams) and in one medium-sized river 
(fifth order) of the Stones and Collins River systems (Bouchard and 
Bouchard 1995, p. 6; Williams et al. 2017, p. 51; Giddens and Mattingly 
2020, pp. 2-3; Johansen 2021, pers. comm. 2021; Mattingly 2021, pers. 
comm.; Simmons 2021, pers. comm.; Williams 2021, pers. comm.).
    Brawleys Fork crayfish is known to occur in 20 streams in 5 
Hydrologic Unit Code 12 (HUC 12) watersheds within its range. The 
Brawleys Fork crayfish range has increased from historical levels and 
the current known range of the species is wider than the historical 
range (no range contraction) (Bouchard and Bouchard 1995, entire; 
Withers and McCoy 2005, entire; Rohrbach and Withers 2006, entire; 
Giddens and Mattingly 2020, entire). Brawleys Fork crayfish known 
occurrences are in streams with moderate to fast flow and main channel 
depths ranging from 5 to 30 centimeters (cm) (2-12 inches (in)) 
(Withers and McCoy 2005, pp. 3, 27-48; Rohrbach and Withers 2006, p. 3; 
Williams et al. 2017, p. 51). Brawleys Fork crayfish typically occupy 
runs and riffles in streams with layered chert gravel and cobble 
substrate with ample interstitial space not consolidated by finer 
substrates such as sand or silt (Khan 2021, unpublished data). This 
species frequently burrows into chert gravel substrate within the 
wetted stream channel during normal and reduced stream flows to escape 
predators and access subterranean water (Bouchard and Bouchard 1995, p. 
6; Williams et al. 2017, p. 51; Giddens and Mattingly 2020, pp. 2-3). 
Streams with Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrence are characterized by 
water temperatures ranging from 10 to 23 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (50-
73 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Giddens and Mattingly 2020, pp. 4-5; 
Simmons 2021, pers. comm.). Ample riparian vegetation is an important 
habitat characteristic that creates shaded conditions to maintain the 
cooler water temperature required by the species and buffers streams 
against pollutants carried by stormwater runoff. Suitable habitat 
conditions also support an adequate prey base for Brawleys Fork 
crayfish, indicated by a healthy aquatic community structure including 
native benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, and plant matter (e.g., leaf 
litter, algae, detritus). Brawleys Fork crayfish site occupancy is 
associated with a high volume of clean groundwater discharged into the 
stream from subterranean aquifers (Simmons 2021, pers. comm.).
    Although the specific diet of Brawleys Fork crayfish is unknown, it 
is likely similar to congeneric species of the same size and includes 
smaller invertebrates, periphyton, and plant detritus. Individuals 
reach reproductive maturity by their first year. A portion of males are 
in reproductive form in all months except August. Females bear eggs in 
the spring as typical of most crayfish species. The Brawleys Fork 
crayfish lifespan is estimated to be 3 years with two to three age 
classes present in healthy populations.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species 
listed as

[[Page 57295]]

threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the Service's 
general protective regulations automatically applying to threatened 
species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies to 
endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable 
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable 
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and 
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and 
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing 
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the 
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve 
the further application of standards within the Act and its 
implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess Brawleys Fork crayfish viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at FWS-R4-ES-2023-0065 
on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.

Species Needs

    For Brawleys Fork crayfish populations to have sufficient

[[Page 57296]]

resiliency, the needs of individuals (cool, clean flowing water with 
unembedded substrate) must also be met at a large enough scale to 
address population and species-level needs. As described under 
Background above, the individual needs of Brawleys Fork crayfish are 
primarily a function of habitat condition and are summarized in Table 
1.

           Table 1--Individual Needs of Brawleys Fork Crayfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Type of requirement                      Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stream permanence.................  Permanent.
Stream order......................  First- to third-order streams.
Water temperature.................  10-23 [deg]C (50-73 [deg]F).
Stream flow velocity..............  Riffle and run habitats with
                                     moderate to fast flow.
Stream substrate..................  Chert gravel substrate with
                                     unconsolidated pieces of cobble and
                                     gravel.
Embeddedness......................  Low embeddedness so that food and
                                     refugia under rocks and in crevices
                                     remain accessible.
Refugia...........................  Cavities and burrows within gravel.
Diet..............................  Likely smaller invertebrates,
                                     periphyton, and/or plant detritus
                                     (specific diet unknown).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Brawleys Fork crayfish populations need the same key habitat-based 
resources as individuals to maintain sufficient resiliency (table 1), 
as well as a sustainable population size and connectivity within and 
among populations. Populations also need relatively stable conditions 
within the stream ecosystem each year, especially during the spring 
when females are ovigerous, to maintain successful reproduction and 
recruitment. Connectivity among populations is necessary to avoid the 
effects of genetic isolation, promote genetic diversity, and facilitate 
gene flow via emigration, immigration, and reproduction. For Brawleys 
Fork crayfish, maintaining gene flow within and among populations is 
facilitated by corridors of suitable habitat for movement of 
individuals throughout the stream network, including road crossings 
that are designed to easily pass aquatic organisms at a range of 
streamflow conditions. The species may move between areas of suitable 
habitat within and among connected streams in response to behavioral 
drivers (dispersal or mating) or in search of suitable habitat in 
response to environmental drivers when species' needs are no longer met 
in previously suitable habitat (reduced prey, unavailable shelter or 
refugia, inadequate conditions for breeding).
    For species viability to be sufficient, there must be adequate 
redundancy (suitable number of populations, distribution of 
populations, and connectivity between populations to allow the species 
to withstand catastrophic events) and representation (suitable genetic 
and environmental diversity to allow the species to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions). Redundancy improves with more sufficiently 
resilient, connected populations to allow recovery after catastrophic 
events. Representation or adaptive capacity is maintained with genetic 
and ecological diversity within and among populations.

Threats

    We identified sedimentation, water quality degradation, and 
instream modification as the primary threats currently affecting the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish. The impacts of these threats may be further 
exacerbated by the effects of small, isolated populations and the 
future effects of climate change. The following discussion provides a 
summary of the threats and stressors that are affecting or may be 
affecting the current and future condition of the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish throughout some or all of its range. A more detailed 
description may be found in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 24-38).
Sedimentation
    Sedimentation of substrate and filling of interstitial spaces is 
the key driver affecting the Brawleys Fork crayfish's condition. 
Crayfish are benthic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrates that occupy stream 
or riverine habitats. The species requires unembedded rocks, crevices, 
and woody debris for access to prey, refuge from predation and 
competition, and cover during vulnerable periods such as molting or egg 
extrusion. Brawleys Fork crayfish density is strongly and positively 
correlated with the relative abundance of unconsolidated cobble and 
gravel substrates (Withers and McCoy 2005, p. 3; Rohrbach and Withers 
2006, p. 3). Excessive sediment input from a variety of sources can 
overwhelm the capacity of the lower order stream systems where the 
species occurs to remove sediment (except during heavy rainfall 
events), resulting in sediment deposition that embeds necessary 
species' resources (e.g., food, shelter, refugia) and negatively 
impacts Brawleys Fork crayfish individuals and populations (Withers and 
McCoy 2005, p. 5; Rohrbach and Withers 2006, p. 8). Sedimentation is 
also related to water quality as sediment may carry pollutants into the 
stream and cloud the water with suspended solids, reducing light 
availability and causing aquatic plants to die.
    In the Brawleys Fork crayfish range, the sources of sedimentation 
that have affected or are affecting the species and its habitat as a 
result of current and historical surrounding land uses include 
agriculture and horticulture practices, stream impoundment, and 
urbanization and development. These stressors are present rangewide and 
impact the viability of Brawleys Fork crayfish at a species level, but 
the sources are more concentrated in some areas and may affect some 
individuals and populations to a greater extent (e.g., increased 
urbanization in the West Fork Stones watershed).
    Agriculture and horticulture occur rangewide on the relatively flat 
terrain of the Eastern Highland Rim and Nashville Basin regions where 
the species occurs, particularly lands in row crops, hay/pasture, 
livestock grazing, and plant nurseries. Agricultural and horticultural 
practices that do not implement best management practices (BMPs) or 
improperly implement BMPs influence Brawleys Fork crayfish viability by 
contributing to sedimentation within nearby streams. Practices that 
contribute to sedimentation include harvest techniques that expose bare 
soil and use of heavy machinery that disturbs soil composition and 
breaks down sediments into fine particles (Burskey and Simon 2009, p. 
207). Heavy machinery entering the stream channel via the stream bank 
contributes sediment and modifies the channel structure (Schmidt 1982, 
p. 39).
    Stream impoundment results in decreased flow velocity and fine 
sediment accumulation leading to

[[Page 57297]]

subsequent substrate embeddedness, decreased woody debris availability, 
more severely entrenched stream channels, and increased water 
temperature (Arnwine et al. 2006, p. 3; Adams 2013, p. 1328; Barnett 
and Adams 2021, p. 3; Williams 2021, pers. comm.). In the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish's range, impounded streams demonstrated a lower percentage of 
dominant cobble substrate compared to unimpounded streams, and, 
statewide, 80 percent of impoundments failed to meet regional habitat 
quality expectations as a result of sediment deposition below small 
dams (Arnwine et al. 2006, pp. 3, 62). However, the percentage of small 
impoundments (less than 250 acres) within the Brawleys Fork crayfish's 
range is relatively low in comparison to other watersheds in Tennessee 
(0.6 and 1.7 percent in the Stones and Collins watersheds, 
respectively) (Arnwine et al. 2006, pp. 9-14). Small impoundments are 
associated with large plots of residential development in this region, 
and we expect the impact of this threat may increase in the future as 
projected future residential development increases, particularly in the 
East and West Fork Stones River watersheds (Withers and McCoy 2005, p. 
5; Rohrbach and Withers 2006, p. 8).
    Urbanization, commercial and residential development, and 
associated infrastructure and road construction have affected Brawleys 
Fork crayfish and its habitat in the past and are expected to continue 
to affect the species. In the Brawleys Fork crayfish's range, the human 
population increased as much as 122 percent from 1990 to 2010 and an 
additional 32 percent from 2010 to 2020 (World Population Review 2021). 
In the future, urbanization in the Southeast is projected to increase 
up to 192 percent by 2060. In addition, the greatest change in land use 
associated with urbanization and development is expected to be the 
conversion of agricultural land into urban land use (Terando et al. 
2014, p. 5). Because Brawleys Fork crayfish occurs in a region of heavy 
agricultural land use, the threat of land conversion as a result of 
urbanization and development is expected to affect the species to a 
greater extent in the future as urbanization increases. Streams in the 
Southeast experience significant impacts to water quality when urban 
land use reaches 10-14 percent of the catchment or drainage area 
(Suttles et al. 2018, p. 813). One watershed with Brawleys Fork 
crayfish occurrences now has greater than 10 percent of its area in 
urban land use (West Fork Stones River).
    Urbanization and development can alter water quality and hydrology 
in a number of ways. An increase in impervious surfaces associated with 
urban land use directly results in a higher volume and velocity of 
stormwater runoff, scouring of streambeds and stream banks, increased 
water temperatures, and increased sediment and pollutants discharged 
into receiving streams. The effects of sedimentation and other 
pollutants on water quality and the Brawleys Fork crayfish as a result 
of a variety of stressors are described under Sedimentation below. 
Brawleys Fork crayfish requires cool, clean water, and the increased 
water quantity and pollutants associated with increased urbanization 
negatively impact habitat conditions. Temperature tolerances of the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish are unknown. However, life stage development of 
several aquatic organisms, including crayfish, is temperature-dependent 
and an increase in water temperature could result in changes to growth 
rates, reproduction, and overall survival (Poff et al. 2002, p. 7). In 
addition, a higher rate of microbial activity is associated with warmer 
water temperatures, leading to an increased rate of organic material 
decomposition and nutrient loading within streams (Poff et al. 2002, p. 
7). Although we do not have temperature information for all streams 
with Brawley's crayfish occurrences, we expect that increased water 
temperature associated with urbanization and other stressors negatively 
impacts the species (Lockaby et al. 2013, p. 333).
Water Quality
    Suitable water quality is a requirement for the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish. Although little is known regarding the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish's specific water quality requirements, water quality 
parameters such as water temperature, nutrient load, pH, and 
conductivity are significant factors influencing several biological 
processes of crayfish including osmoregulation, immunology, acid/base 
regulation, gas exchange, reproduction, molting, growth rate, and 
behavior (Romano and Zeng 2013, p. 17; Schorr et al. 2013, p. 340). In 
the Brawleys Fork crayfish's range, agriculture and horticultural 
practices, urbanization, and wastewater treatment outfall negatively 
affect the species and its habitat through changes to water quality.
    Agricultural and horticultural practices influence water quality by 
means of stormwater runoff that transports chemicals (pesticides, 
fungicides, and herbicides) and nutrients (fertilizers and livestock 
waste) into nearby streams. In areas with no BMPs or improperly 
implemented BMPs, stormwater runoff from agricultural fields during 
planting season (spring and early summer) is the most significant 
source of water quality contamination. Several stream reaches with 
Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences may be exposed to contaminants on an 
ongoing basis. For example, horticultural lands surrounding occurrences 
in Mountain Creek receive pesticide, fungicide, and fertilizer 
applications, and these chemicals enter the adjacent stream (Mattingly 
et al. 2021, entire; Mattingly 2021, pers. comm.). Pesticides can cause 
deleterious effects on crayfish behavior, increasing risk of predation 
(Sohn et al. 2018, pp. 900, 905).
    Stormwater runoff from agricultural and horticultural practices 
also contributes to increased nutrient (nitrogen and phosphate) loads 
within nearby streams through fertilizers and livestock waste 
transported into the streams. Nitrogen loading has deleterious effects 
on molting, respiration, disease resistance, and disruption of 
reproductive behaviors in crustaceans, and we expect similar effects to 
Brawleys Fork crayfish fitness and reproductive success (Romano and 
Zeng 2013, p. 17; Schorr et al. 2013, p. 340). In addition, slower 
areas of stream habitat between occupied riffles and runs may become 
stagnant and oxygen depleted as a result of livestock waste discharged 
into the stream (Rorhbach and Withers 2006, p. 8; Withers and McCoy 
2005, p. 5).
    Urbanization and development influence Brawleys Fork crayfish 
through effects to water quality as described under Sedimentation 
above. The increased impervious surface associated with urbanization 
results in higher flow, higher velocity, increased transport of 
contaminants, and warmer water temperatures that negatively impact 
Brawleys Fork crayfish through habitat degradation.
    Historically, the Woodbury wastewater treatment plant has 
contributed to increased nutrient loads in the East Fork Stones River 
with negative impacts including fish kills and decreased benthic 
macroinvertebrate communities (indication of water quality and 
ecosystem function) (Schmidt 1982, pp. 26, 30, 49-50). The effects of 
excessive nutrients and nutrient loading on crustaceans are described 
above. More recently, the treatment plant was out of compliance or not 
complete and/or

[[Page 57298]]

stable in 4 of 13 inspections from 2007 to 2022, primarily due to 
issues with sampling. Spring overflows with discharges outside of the 
National Permit Discharge Elimination System limits have occurred in 
recent years as well.
Instream Modification
    Stream modification and impoundment influences Brawleys Fork 
crayfish and its habitat through altered stream depth and flow, 
sedimentation, and water quality degradation. Stream channel 
modification has occurred and continues to occur in the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish range. Reaches of Mountain Creek, East Fork Stones River, and 
Hollis Creek with Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences have experienced 
significant disturbance and modification including heavy machinery 
directly entering the stream channel to dredge gravel, modify stream 
banks, and alter the stream channel (Mattingly et al. 2021, entire; 
Mattingly 2021, pers. comm.). For headwater species with specific 
habitat needs such as Brawleys Fork crayfish, even small alterations to 
the channel, flow, and substrate may affect individuals or populations. 
In Mountain Creek, small rock dams resulted in local alteration of 
flows, depths, and siltation of substrate particles, negatively 
impacting Brawleys Fork crayfish (Mattingly 2021, pers. comm.).
    In addition to the effects of sedimentation described above, stream 
impoundment also results in changes to stream depth, flow, and water 
temperature that may influence Brawleys Fork crayfish resiliency. 
Upstream of impoundments, stream flows are slower, stream channels are 
wider, and water temperatures are higher. Downstream, flows are 
decreased. Thus, crayfish assemblages are altered both upstream and 
downstream of impoundments in affected stream reaches (Arnwine et al. 
2006, p. 152; Hartfield 2010, pp. 25, 43; Adams 2013, pp. 1325, 1328; 
Barnett and Adams 2021, pp. 2, 4). The changes associated with 
impoundments degrade the habitat conditions required by Brawleys Fork 
crayfish including changes from cool, clean water with moderate to fast 
flow in riffles and runs to slower, warmer water with increased 
sedimentation and pollutants.
Climate Change
    Climate change is projected to result in changes to precipitation 
and temperature in the range of Brawleys Fork crayfish in the future 
(Nissenbaum 2016, pp. 6-7). We used a downscaled model of projected 
climate change and changes to the frequency and severity of drought and 
extreme weather events (e.g., flooding) to assess the effect of climate 
change on the Brawleys Fork crayfish and its habitat (Nissenbaum 2016, 
entire).
    The range of Brawleys Fork crayfish experienced above-average 
annual rainfall in the period 2010-2020 (Climate Explorer 2021). An 
increase in the frequency, duration, and severity of rain events will 
result in heavier stormwater runoff transporting larger loads of 
sediment, pollutants, and nutrients into streams and will also modify 
stream channels and substrate composition through flooding (Poff et al. 
2002, p. 12; Lockaby et al. 2013, p. 310). These changes may negatively 
influence the Brawleys Fork crayfish through the effects associated 
with increased sedimentation and degraded water quality as described 
above.
    Since the 1970s, moderate to severe droughts in the Southeast have 
increased by 12 to 14 percent during spring and summer months and this 
trend is projected to continue or increase (Jones et al. 2015, p. 126; 
Nissenbaum 2016, p. 6). An increase in the frequency and severity of 
droughts could result in shallower or dry headwater streams due to 
increased evapotranspiration if this loss is not counteracted by 
rainfall and groundwater recharge (Lockaby et al. 2013, p. 310). We 
expect decreased stream flow and reduced habitat availability to reduce 
the availability of food, shelter, or refugia sites as well as increase 
predation and competition for these resources. However, Brawleys Fork 
crayfish exhibits an adaptive strategy during dry periods by burrowing 
deeper into the streambed, thereby accessing subterranean water, likely 
providing some resiliency to drought conditions (Simmons 2021, pers. 
comm.; Williams 2021, pers. comm.). In addition to effects to flow, 
warmer water temperatures, particularly in lower order streams, may 
influence Brawleys Fork crayfish growth and reproduction as described 
under Water Quality above. The best available information does not 
indicate that the effects of climate change are currently impacting 
Brawleys Fork crayfish, but increased drought conditions and the 
frequency of extreme weather events, including increased frequency, 
severity, and duration of precipitation, are projected to increase in 
the future. Accordingly, the impact of climate change on Brawleys Fork 
crayfish viability may increase in the future.
Small, Isolated Populations
    The Brawleys Fork crayfish is a narrow endemic species with a 
limited range and fragmented distribution. These species' 
characteristics coupled with small population size (low abundance of 
less than 1 crayfish/100 meters or less than 1 crayfish/person hour) in 
8 of 20 streams with Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences may exacerbate 
the impact of other threats described above (Service 2023, appendix A). 
Small, isolated populations may have reduced genetic diversity as a 
result of inbreeding, resulting in lower levels of population 
resiliency and species' representation (Frankham 1995, p. 309; Frankham 
2005, pp. 132-135; Johansen 2018, p. 38; Grubb 2019, p. 29). Although 
the effects of small, isolated populations may exacerbate other 
threats, the best available information indicates that the threat of 
small, isolated populations is not currently influencing Brawleys Fork 
crayfish viability alone.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

State Protections
    Brawleys Fork crayfish is listed as endangered by the State of 
Tennessee and receives some protections under the provisions of the 
State wildlife code (Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened 
Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee Code Annotated, 
Section 70-8-101-112)), which states that it is unlawful for any person 
to take, attempt to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or 
offer for sale, or ship nongame wildlife, or for any common or contract 
carrier knowingly to transport or receive for shipment nongame 
wildlife. Brawleys Fork crayfish is considered a Species of Greatest 
Conservation Need (SGCN) in Tennessee's State Wildlife Action Plan (TN-
SWAP 2015, appendix C, p. 255). Key goals of TN-SWAP are to develop and 
implement conservation strategies and prioritize funding for 
conservation projects to protect SGCN species and their habitats, 
although specific actions for Brawleys Fork crayfish have not been 
implemented. The protections for the Brawleys Fork crayfish in 
Tennessee do not prohibit the species' habitat from destruction, 
modification, or alteration.
    In addition to State protections, the Brawleys Fork crayfish 
receives some habitat protection through the Clean Water Act of 1972 
(33 U.S.C. 1251). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a 
Department of the Army permit to discharge dredge or fill material in 
``waters of the United

[[Page 57299]]

States'' that includes most streams where Brawleys Fork crayfish 
occurs. Before acquiring a permit, the requester must first show that 
steps have been taken to avoid impacts to wetlands, streams, and other 
aquatic resources, such as Brawleys Fork crayfish; that potential 
impacts have been minimized; and that compensation will be provided for 
all remaining unavoidable impacts. State-level regulation of water 
quality occurs through the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation (TDEC), whereby laws such as Tennessee's Water Quality 
Control Act of 1977 (T.C.A. 69-3-101) are enforced. TDEC personnel also 
monitor water quality in surface waters throughout the State, including 
watersheds within the Brawleys Fork crayfish's range.

Cumulative Threats

    Due to the complexity of freshwater ecosystems, any single factor 
influencing Brawleys Fork crayfish viability often impacts the species 
in a variety of ways. The interconnectedness of these influences and 
their ecological impacts create synergistic and cumulative effects on 
Brawleys Fork crayfish viability. For example, conversion of forested 
land to agricultural use may be associated with subsequent stream 
impoundment to create small reservoirs for livestock or crop 
irrigation. The effects of climate change (warmer temperatures and more 
frequent and/or severe drought) could lead to decreased water 
availability. As a result, water withdrawal from nearby streams would 
increase to support crop irrigation demands. Additionally, urbanization 
can exacerbate drought conditions in streams by channeling stormwater 
runoff from impervious surfaces into ditches and drains that flow into 
sewer lines and/or larger-order streams, bypassing headwater streams 
and decreasing the amount of water available for groundwater recharge 
to headwater streams. Without adequate groundwater recharge, lower-
order streams including those with Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrence 
are susceptible to going dry during severe droughts. Reduced 
groundwater recharge would also impact Brawleys Fork crayfish by 
decreasing the availability of subterranean water, which the species 
uses as refuge during periods of drought. Climate change and the 
effects of small, isolated populations may exacerbate the effects of 
other threats, including cumulative threats.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and 
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis 
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then 
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Current Condition

    For the purposes of the Brawleys Fork crayfish SSA, we delineated 
five analysis units (AUs) using available spatial occurrence data 
(1955-2021) obtained from State agency survey reports and data 
(Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), TDEC), federally owned 
corporation data (Tennessee Valley Authority), an interim research 
report (Tennessee Tech University), peer-reviewed literature, and other 
surveys (Bouchard and Bouchard 1995; Withers and McCoy 2005; Rohrbach 
and Withers 2006; Giddens and Mattingly 2020). We evaluated the current 
viability of Brawleys Fork crayfish using the conservation biology 
principles of population resiliency, and species' redundancy and 
representation.
    Based on Brawleys Fork crayfish survey information and species' 
needs (e.g., the availability of unembedded chert gravel and cobble 
substrate within areas of fast to moderate flow, adequate water 
quality, sufficient population size, and connectivity to support 
reproduction and recruitment), we developed an approach using key 
habitat and demographic parameters to assess population resiliency. 
These included three habitat condition parameters (percent riparian 
canopy cover, percent agricultural and/or urban development, and 
drought) and three demographic condition parameters (extent, abundance, 
and age class distribution). We developed four condition categories for 
each parameter ranging from high to very low condition. Descriptions of 
the parameters included in our resiliency assessment are summarized 
individually below (Service 2023, pp. 38-47). We developed a scoring 
framework for current resiliency that categorized each AU as either 
high, moderate, low, or very low resiliency based on the overall 
condition of assessed parameters.

Habitat Parameters

    Riparian canopy cover (vegetation) regulates stream temperature, 
reduces sedimentation, and sequesters stormwater runoff and associated 
pollutants. To assess the influence of riparian vegetation on Brawleys 
Fork crayfish resiliency, we determined the mean percent canopy cover 
score within 30 meters (m) of the stream edge for each occupied stream 
catchment. We categorized the canopy cover condition (table 2), then 
averaged the catchment scores for an overall AU canopy cover score.
    The extent of land use in agriculture and urban development impact 
Brawleys Fork crayfish current resiliency through the effects of 
increased sedimentation and water quality degradation. We assessed the 
percentage of the stream catchment in agricultural and urban land cover 
categories in the National Land Cover Database (NLCD 2016 Products in 
Dewitz 2019, entire). We developed four categories for percent 
agriculture and/or urban development and scored each stream catchment 
with Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences, then averaged the catchment 
scores within each AU.
    We assessed the level of drought in each AU in the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish range using U.S. Drought Monitor data on the severity and 
duration of extreme drought (category D3) and exceptional drought 
(category D4) from 2000 to 2020 (U.S. Drought Monitor 2021). We 
categorized drought experienced by Brawleys Fork crayfish AUs based on 
the duration of D3 or D4 category drought conditions that occurred 
during reproductive (March-June) and non-reproductive seasons (July-
February) (table 2).
    The habitat parameters of riparian canopy cover and percent 
agriculture and/or urban development were adjusted by -0.5 at the 
catchment level to account for the greater impact of the factors on 
first-, second- and third-order streams. Drought scores were not 
adjusted at the AU level. The adjusted riparian canopy cover and land 
cover scores and the drought parameter scores were summed for an 
overall habitat condition score.

[[Page 57300]]



    Table 2--Habitat Parameters and Parameter Condition Categories Used in Determining Brawleys Fork Crayfish
                                                   Resiliency
 [Parameters were assessed at the catchment level and averaged over the analysis unit, except drought, which was
              assessed at the analysis unit level. D3 = extreme drought; D4 = exceptional drought.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Habitat parameter              High (4)          Moderate (3)           Low (2)          Very low (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean percent riparian canopy      Greater than 75     50-75 percent.....  25-50 percent.....  Less than 25
 cover.                            percent.                                                    percent.
Percent agriculture and urban     Less than 10        10-30 percent.....  30-50 percent.....  Greater than 50
 land use.                         percent.                                                    percent.
Drought (D3 or D4 2000-2020)....  D3 or D4 drought    D3 or D4 drought    D3 or D4 drought    D3 or D4 drought
                                   never exceeds 4     exceeds 4           exceeds 4           exceeds 4
                                   consecutive weeks   consecutive weeks   consecutive weeks   consecutive weeks
                                   in any season in    in any non-         during              during
                                   a calendar year.    reproductive        reproductive        reproductive
                                                       season in a         season in 1         season in 2 or
                                                       calendar year.      calendar year.      more calendar
                                                                                               years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demographic Parameters
    Suitable habitat conditions and occurrence records for Brawleys 
Fork crayfish are patchily distributed within streams. To assess the 
species' distributional extent within occupied streams, we determined 
the proportion of stream catchments with Brawleys Fork crayfish 
occurrences out of the total catchments in each AU (extent) (table 3). 
We categorized each extent from high to very low and adjusted the score 
based on the level of connectivity between known occurrences (Service 
2023, p. 44). The level of connectivity was determined using a 
dendritic network complexity model.
    We used abundance estimates as an indicator of population size, an 
essential demographic factor influencing Brawleys Fork crayfish 
resiliency. For each stream occupied by Brawleys Fork crayfish, we used 
quantitative abundance estimates (reported as crayfish/100 m) if 
available, or, if no quantitative estimate was available, we used 
qualitative abundance estimates (reported as number of crayfish/person 
hour or average catch per site visit) (Withers and McCoy 2005, pp. 20-
48; Rohrbach and Withers 2006, p. 18; Khan 2021, unpublished data). We 
developed abundance estimate categories (table 3) and averaged the 
occupied catchment level abundance scores to obtain an overall 
abundance score for each AU.
    Evidence of reproduction is an indicator of a population's fitness 
and ability to sustain itself over time (viability). For Brawleys Fork 
crayfish, we used evidence of reproduction (population age class 
distribution) as a parameter to assess current resiliency (table 3). If 
age class information was not available, we assigned each stream with 
any abundance data a default score of one age class. We recognize that 
this assignment of a very low age class distribution to populations 
with unknown age class distribution may lead to an underestimation of 
the level of reproduction in that stream. We next averaged the 
population age class distribution scores for each stream within an AU 
to calculate the overall score for the AU. We then summed the 
(adjusted) extent, abundance, and population age class distribution 
scores for each AU to obtain a total demographic score for each AU. 
Finally, we summed the total AU habitat and total AU demographic 
parameter scores to obtain an overall AU resiliency condition score. 
Each AU was assigned an overall resiliency condition class from high to 
very low based on the overall resiliency score.

     Table 3--Demographic Parameters and Condition Categories Used to Assess Brawleys Fork Crayfish Current
                                                   Resiliency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Demographic parameter            High (4)          Moderate (3)           Low (2)          Very Low (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extent..........................  50 percent or       30-50 percent.....  10-30 percent.....  Less than 10
                                   greater.                                                    percent.
Abundance.......................  Quantitative        Quantitative        Quantitative        Quantitative
                                   density greater     density 10-20       density 1-9         density less than
                                   than 20 crayfish/   crayfish/100        crayfish/100        1 crayfish/100
                                   100 m\2\; or        m\2\; or            m\2\; or            m\2\; or
                                   qualitative         qualitative 5-10    qualitative 1-4     qualitative less
                                   greater than 10     crayfish/person     crayfish/person     than 1 crayfish/
                                   crayfish/person     hour or per site    hour or per site    person hour or
                                   hour or per site    visit.              visit.              per site visit.
                                   visit.
Age Class Distribution..........  3 distinct age      2 distinct age      2 distinct age      1 age class of any
                                   classes including   classes including   classes, but no     type.
                                   hatchlings or       hatchlings or       hatchlings or
                                   juveniles.          juveniles.          juveniles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the five delineated Brawleys Fork crayfish AUs, two currently 
exhibit moderate resiliency (Hollis Creek-East Fork Stones River and 
Brawleys Fork AUs), and three exhibit low resiliency (Lower West Fork 
Stones River, Bullpen Creek, and Mountain Creek AUs) (figure 1). Values 
for habitat parameters were generally low, while most AUs have moderate 
or high demographic parameters (Service 2023, appendix A). Three AUs 
have very low extent (area of occupancy) (Lower West Fork Stones River, 
Bullpen Creek, and Mountain Creek AUs), contributing to a lack of 
connectivity within AUs.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 57301]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.050

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    For Brawleys Fork crayfish, we assessed redundancy by mapping the 
number and distribution of occupied streams across the species' 
geographic range. We determined that current redundancy is sufficient 
to support species viability with small populations patchily 
distributed in streams with suitable habitat across the known current 
range. The species occurs in a limited geographic area, although the 
West Fork Stones River Lower analysis unit is spatially separated from 
the other four analysis units, potentially providing protection against 
some catastrophic events. The best available information does not 
indicate that Brawleys Fork crayfish redundancy has decreased from 
historical levels as the current known range of the species is wider 
than the historical range (no range contraction).
    Brawleys Fork crayfish has a known distribution in first- to third-
order streams and a fifth-order stream in two EPA level IV ecoregions. 
We expect the species occurrence in a diversity of habitat conditions 
across ecoregions and stream types indicates inherent adaptive capacity 
that may allow adaption to changing biotic and abiotic conditions. We 
determined that Brawleys Fork crayfish current representation is 
moderate, and best available information indicates that the species' 
representation has not declined from historical levels (no range 
contraction).

Future Condition

    To project the future condition of Brawleys Fork crayfish, we 
developed three plausible future scenarios with varying levels of key 
threats to the species. We assessed both the projected threats and the 
species' likely response to those threats to determine the effect on 
the resiliency, representation, and redundancy of Brawleys Fork 
crayfish in 2036 and 2051. We modeled the scenarios at these timesteps 
based on the average lifespan of the species (approximately 3 years), 
confidence in models and projections of factors influencing the 
species' viability, and certainty in predictions of the species' 
response to those factors. To assess the future condition of Brawleys 
Fork crayfish, we selected four key threats (urbanization, agricultural 
land-use change, climate change, and water withdrawal) based on the 
potential influence these factors have on Brawleys Fork crayfish 
viability. We quantitatively assessed expected levels of urbanization 
(SLEUTH model), land use change (cropland in the FORE-SCE model), and 
climate change (air temperature in USGS National Climate Change Viewer 
(NCCV 2021) model), and we qualitatively assessed the threat of future 
water withdrawals (see chapter 5 of the SSA report for additional 
modeling and scoring details) (Service 2023, pp. 53-57). The three 
scenarios considered when predicting future conditions include: (1) 
status quo with

[[Page 57302]]

lower development; (2) status quo with higher development; and (3) 
increased impacts (table 4) (Service 2023, pp. 57-61).

  Table 4--Data Sources and Modeled Levels of Four Key Drivers of Species Condition in Each Future Scenario for
                                             Brawleys Fork Crayfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Parameters
            Scenario             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Urbanization       Land use change     Climate change     Water withdrawal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1: Status quo/lower      Greater than 50     FORE-SCE *; SRES    USGS NCCV *; RCP    Reduced rate of
 development.                      percent             B1 *.               4.5 *.              increase in
                                   probability of                                              withdrawal.
                                   urbanization in
                                   SLEUTH *.
Scenario 2: Status quo/higher     Greater than 50     FORE-SCE SRES B1..  USGS NCCV; RCP 4.5  Current rate of
 development.                      percent                                                     increase in
                                   probability of                                              withdrawal.
                                   urbanization in
                                   SLEUTH.
Scenario 3: Increased impacts...  Greater than 50     FORE-SCE; SRES A2   USGS NCCV; RCP 8.5  Increased rate of
                                   percent             *.                  *.                  increase in
                                   probability of                                              withdrawal.
                                   urbanization in
                                   SLEUTH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The three future scenarios include the following models or data sources: the SLEUTH model (slope, land use,
  excluded area, urban area, transportation, hillside area) to predict the probability of urbanization
  (Chaudhuri and Clarke 2013, pp. 1-3); the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation
  and Science Center FOREcasting SCEnarios (FORE-SCE) to model projections of land use change under two
  different Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), similar to what is assumed under the two future climate
  scenarios with varying levels of CO2 concentration known as representative concentration pathways RCP4.5 and
  RCP8.5 (Nakicenovic et al. 2000, entire; Sohl et al. 2014, entire); and, the USGS National Climate Change
  Viewer to model projections of future air temperatures and precipitation in the species' range.

    Overall, our analysis projected declines in Brawleys Fork crayfish 
future resiliency, representation, and redundancy with the magnitude of 
decline increasing with increased impacts and longer timesteps (table 
5). At the 15-year timestep, resiliency is projected to decline in 3 
AUs under scenarios 1 and 2. At the 15-year timestep, resiliency is 
projected to decline in 4 AUs under scenario 3. At the 30-year 
timestep, resiliency is projected to decline in 3 AUs under scenario 1. 
Resiliency is projected to decline in 4 AUs under scenario 2, and 
resiliency is projected to decline in 5 AUs under scenario 3.
    Two AUs are projected to maintain current low resiliency under some 
scenarios: Bullpen Creek is projected to maintain low resiliency at 15 
years under scenarios 1 and 2, and Mountain Creek is projected to 
maintain low resiliency for 15 years under all scenarios and for 30 
years under scenarios 1 and 2 (table 5). No AUs are estimated to 
maintain moderate resiliency in 15 or 30 years under the three future 
condition scenarios. Our analysis did not project the extirpation of 
any AUs under any scenario; however, at least one AU is predicted to 
exhibit very low resiliency in all scenarios, and all AUs are predicted 
to exhibit very low resiliency in 2051 under scenario 3 (increased 
impacts).
    Redundancy is expected to decline in the future as a function of 
loss of resiliency in AUs, although no AUs are projected to be 
extirpated and the distribution of the species across the range is 
projected to remain at the current level. Representation is expected to 
decline slightly from current levels in both future timesteps as 
populations (not AUs) are extirpated and habitat fragmentation reduces 
inherent adaptive capacity in Brawleys Fork crayfish due to decreases 
in connectivity and gene flow.

         Table 5--Future Resiliency of Brawleys Fork Crayfish Analysis Units Under Three Plausible Future Scenarios at 15- and 30-Year Timesteps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Current                  Scenario 1                          Scenario 2                        Scenario 3
   Analysis unit (HUC 12*)        resiliency    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     class             2036              2051              2036              2051             2036             2051
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollis Creek-East Fork Stones  Moderate........  Low.............  Low.............  Low.............  Low............  Low............  Very Low.
 River.
Brawleys Fork................  Moderate........  Low.............  Low.............  Low.............  Low............  Low............  Very Low.
Lower West Fork Stones River.  Low.............  Very Low........  Very Low........  Very Low........  Very Low.......  Very Low.......  Very Low.
Bullpen Creek................  Low.............  Low.............  Low.............  Low.............  Very Low.......  Very Low.......  Very Low.
Mountain Creek...............  Low.............  Low.............  Low.............  Low.............  Low............  Low............  Very Low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hydrologic Unit Code.

Determination of Brawleys Fork Crayfish Status

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

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of

[[Page 57303]]

the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determined the 
following threats are acting as the primary drivers of Brawleys Fork 
crayfish viability and are ongoing: habitat loss and degradation 
(Factor A) due to sedimentation and water quality degradation from 
sources including agricultural practices, horticultural practices, and 
urbanization; and instream modification including impoundments, gravel 
dredging, and channel alteration. The impacts of these threats may be 
further exacerbated by the effects of small, isolated populations 
(Factor E) and the future effects of climate change (Factor E).
    Brawleys Fork crayfish is known to occur in 20 streams in 5 central 
Tennessee HUC12 watersheds and is distributed across the current range 
of the species, which represents an expansion of the known historical 
range. Available information does not indicate population-level 
extirpations or evidence of range contraction for the species. Of the 
five delineated analysis units (HUC12 watersheds), two currently 
exhibit moderate resiliency and three low resiliency. Although Brawleys 
Fork crayfish is impacted by past and ongoing threats of sedimentation, 
water quality degradation, and instream modifications, the species 
currently exhibits sufficient population-level resiliency and species-
level representation and redundancy to withstand stochastic and 
catastrophic events and has inherent capacity to adapt to environmental 
change. Accordingly, we conclude that the Brawleys Fork crayfish is not 
in danger of extinction throughout its range.
    Upon determining that the Brawleys Fork crayfish is not in danger 
of extinction throughout its range, we consider whether it is likely to 
become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout its 
range. Our analysis of the species' future condition under future 
scenarios at two timesteps encompasses the best available information 
for future projections of modeled parameters under a range of plausible 
threat levels. We selected these time steps based on the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish's lifespan of approximately 3 years and the reliability of the 
data and models used in the future threat projections and analysis. We 
determined we can reliably predict both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats within a 30-year timeframe (i.e., 
the foreseeable future). However, after that time period, we have less 
confidence in projections.
    We found that impacts from habitat loss and degradation present the 
most substantial threat to the Brawleys Fork crayfish viability. As 
described above, the threats currently acting on the species include 
sedimentation, water quality degradation, and instream modifications, 
all of which may be exacerbated by the effects of climate change and 
small, isolated populations. In the foreseeable future, we anticipate 
that threats associated with urbanization, land use change, and climate 
change will continue to increase in magnitude and will have the 
greatest influence on species' viability. We also considered the 
effects of instream impoundments, water withdrawals, and small, 
isolated populations, including cumulative effects. The best available 
information indicates that the threats and stressors currently acting 
on the Brawleys Fork crayfish are expected to continue into the 
foreseeable future, some of which (e.g., urbanization, land use change 
(agriculture and horticulture), and climate change) are reasonably 
expected to worsen over time.
    Our assessment of plausible future scenarios projects declines in 
resiliency, representation, and redundancy in the future as a result of 
ongoing threats of habitat loss and degradation. However, no 
extirpations of AUs are projected. In our future condition analysis, no 
moderate resiliency populations are projected and all 5 Brawleys Fork 
crayfish AUs are projected to exhibit low or very low resiliency in the 
three plausible future scenarios. Representation and redundancy are 
also projected to be reduced from current levels in the future as a 
result of declining resiliency, extirpations of individual populations 
within AUs, and loss of connectivity. Thus, after assessing the best 
available information, we conclude that the Brawleys Fork crayfish is 
not currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become in danger 
of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its 
range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 
F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the provision of the 
Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of 
Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (hereafter ``Final Policy''; 79 FR 
37578, July 1, 2014) that provided if the Services determine that a 
species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will 
not analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion 
of its range.
    Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether 
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the 
portion is significant and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to 
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether 
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the 
species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 
undertaking this analysis for Brawleys Fork crayfish, we choose to 
address the status question first--we consider information pertaining 
to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that 
the species faces to identify portions of the range where the species 
may be endangered.
    We evaluated the range of the Brawleys Fork crayfish to determine 
if the species is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its 
range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into 
portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on 
portions of the species' range that may meet the definition of an 
endangered species. For Brawleys Fork crayfish, we considered whether 
the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any 
biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other 
portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now in that 
portion.
    We examined the following threats: sedimentation and water quality 
degradation from sources including agricultural/horticultural practices 
and urbanization; and instream modification including impoundments, 
gravel dredging, and channel alteration, including cumulative effects. 
We also considered the effects of climate change, small and isolated 
populations, and conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms. These 
stressors are present rangewide, and threats influence Brawleys Fork 
crayfish viability rangewide, but the sources are more

[[Page 57304]]

concentrated in some areas and may affect some individuals and 
populations to a greater extent (e.g., increased urbanization in the 
West Fork Stones watershed). We identified three AUs where the impact 
of these threats may have a more pronounced effect such that the 
species may have a different status in those AUs than the remainder of 
the range. The portions we considered are the geographic areas 
described as the West Fork Stones River, Bullpen Creek, and Mountain 
Creek AUs (HUC 12 watersheds) in the SSA report (Service 2023).
    As described in Status Throughout All of Its Range, the threats of 
sedimentation, water quality degradation, and instream modifications 
have impacted the Brawleys Fork crayfish's viability through habitat 
loss and degradation. Although threats are similar throughout the range 
of the species, the threats associated with increased urbanization and 
development are greater in the West Fork Stones River unit. In 
addition, this unit does not have connectivity to any other watershed 
with Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences and is geographically distanced 
from other occupied streams. The West Fork Stones River unit currently 
exhibits low resiliency, and resiliency is projected to decline in this 
unit under our future condition scenarios. Given the current and 
ongoing threats, including urbanization, and the species' current and 
future condition within this unit, we have identified the West Fork 
Stones River AU as an area that may have a different status than the 
remainder of the range.
    We also considered the Bullpen Creek and Mountain Creek AUs as 
areas that may require further analysis. The best available historical 
information indicated that the Brawleys Fork crayfish has occurred and 
continues to occur with low abundance at limited sites within Bullpen 
Creek and Mountain Creek. In addition, although threats are similar 
throughout the range of the species, the species' response to threats 
may be more pronounced in the Bullpen Creek and Mountain Creek AUs. Due 
to low current resiliency, threats are having a greater impact in the 
Bullpen Creek and Mountain Creek AUs. The two AUs exhibit low current 
resiliency driven primarily by low extent of occupancy (few sites known 
within the streams), and resiliency is projected to decline in the two 
AUs in future scenarios. Given the current and ongoing threats and the 
species' current and future condition within this unit, we have 
identified the Bullpen Creek and Mountain Creek AUs as areas that may 
have a different status than the remainder of the range.
    We then proceeded to the significance question, asking whether 
these portions of the range (West Fork Stones River, Bullpen Creek, or 
Mountain Creek AU) are significant. The Service's most recent 
definition of ``significant'' within agency policy guidance has been 
invalidated by court order (see Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of 
the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). In 
undertaking this analysis for the range of the Brawleys Fork crayfish, 
we considered whether any of the three portions of the range identified 
are significant based on the biological importance to the overall 
viability of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. Therefore, for the purposes of 
this analysis, when considering whether this portion is significant, we 
considered whether the portion may (1) occur in a unique habitat or 
ecoregion for the species, (2) contain high-quality or high-value 
habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range, for the 
species' continued viability in light of the existing threats, (3) 
contain habitat that is essential to a specific life-history function 
for the species and that is not found in the other portions of the 
range, or (4) contain a large geographic portion of the suitable 
habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range.
    Although every unit provides some contribution to a species' 
viability, the West Fork Stones River AU comprises a small geographic 
portion of the range with low-quality habitat. This unit may offer some 
value to representation as the West Fork Stones River is the only 
fifth-order stream with Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences and provides 
somewhat different habitat conditions (e.g., a larger, perennial stream 
that does not go dry seasonally) and may offer a refugia in extreme 
drought. However, the habitat does not support high abundance or high-
quality habitat. Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences are known only from 
the Lower West Fork Stones River in this AU with a low extent of 
occupancy compared to the two moderate-resiliency units (4.3 percent of 
stream catchments in the unit have occurrence records) (Service 2023, 
appendix A). Overall, there is little evidence to suggest that the 
geographical area of the West Fork Stones River unit has higher quality 
or higher value habitat or provides any unique resource to the species 
life history. Thus, based on the best available information, we find 
that this portion of the range is not biologically significant in terms 
of the habitat considerations discussed above.
    Although every unit provides some contribution to a species' 
viability, the Bullpen Creek and Mountain Creek AUs comprise a small 
percentage of the known Brawleys Fork crayfish sites and abundance. The 
habitat in the Bullpen Creek and Mountain Creek AUs does not support 
high abundance or represent high-quality habitat. Brawleys Fork 
crayfish occurrences are known from only one site in each AU resulting 
in a low extent of occupancy compared to the two moderate-resiliency 
units. In Bullpen Creek AU, 1.4 percent of stream catchments in the 
unit have known occurrences, and, in Mountain Creek AU, 3.8 percent of 
stream catchments have known occurrences (Service 2023, appendix A). 
Overall, there is little evidence to suggest that the geographical 
areas of the Bullpen Creek or Mountain Creek AU have higher quality or 
higher value habitat or provide any unique resource to the species life 
history. Thus, based on the best available information, we find that 
the portions of the range represented by the Bullpen Creek and Mountain 
Creek AU are not biologically significant in terms of the habitat 
considerations discussed above.
    In addition, we considered the three AUs (West Fork Stones River, 
Bullpen Creek, and Mountain Creek) as one portion that may have a 
different status in order to assess the potential significance as one 
geographic area. In total, the three units represent approximately 9.5 
percent of occupied catchments in the species' range. The units do not 
provide high-value or unique habitat for the species, as described 
above. Thus, based on the best available information, we find that the 
portion of the range represented by the West Fork Stones River, Bullpen 
Creek, and Mountain Creek AUs is not biologically significant in terms 
of the habitat considerations and occupancy described above.
    We found no biologically meaningful portion of the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish's range where the species may have a different status than the 
species rangewide and the portion is significant. Therefore, no portion 
of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species 
is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range, and 
we determine that the species is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. 
This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. 
U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. 
Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 
3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017)

[[Page 57305]]

because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of 
the Final Policy, including the definition of ``significant'' that 
those court decisions held to be invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Brawleys Fork crayfish meets the 
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish as a threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, 
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities 
are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/recovery/recovery-plans), or from our Tennessee Ecological Services 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Tennessee would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. Information 
on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be 
found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Although the Brawleys Fork crayfish is only proposed for listing 
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act pertains to interagency cooperation and 
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities 
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed under the 
Act or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the 
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to 
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may 
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species 
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In 
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical 
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a 
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2).
    Examples of discretionary actions for the Brawleys Fork crayfish 
that may be subject to the conference and consultation procedures under 
section 7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities on 
Federal lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 
as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that 
require a Federal permit

[[Page 57306]]

(such as a permit from USACE 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. Federal agencies should coordinate with the 
local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with 
any specific questions on section 7 consultation and conference 
requirements.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known at the time a 
species is listed, specific activities that will not be considered 
likely to result in a violation of section 9 of the Act. To the extent 
possible, activities that will be considered likely to result in a 
violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as possible. 
The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect 
of a proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the 
range of the species proposed for listing. Although most of the 
prohibitions in section 9 of the Act apply to endangered species, 
sections 9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E) prohibit the violation of any 
regulation under section 4(d) pertaining to any threatened species of 
fish or wildlife, or threatened species of plant, respectively. Section 
4(d) of the Act directs the Secretary to promulgate protective 
regulations that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of 
threatened species. As a result, we interpret our policy to mean that, 
when we list a species as a threatened species, to the extent possible, 
we identify activities that will or will not be considered likely to 
result in violation of the protective regulations under section 4(d) 
for that species.
    At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that 
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 
9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of 
prohibitions and exceptions established by protective regulation under 
section 4(d) of the Act.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Tennessee 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened species. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that 
statutory language similar to the language in section 4(d) of the Act 
authorizing the Secretary to take action that she ``deems necessary and 
advisable'' affords a large degree of deference to the agency (see 
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600 (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 one or more of 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, as a valid 
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that 
included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley 
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 
511479 (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 [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those 
species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of 
such species, or [she] 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).
    The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote 
conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish by encouraging management of 
the habitat for the species in ways that facilitate conservation for 
the species. The provisions of this proposed rule are one of many tools 
that we would use to promote the conservation of the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if and when we make 
final the listing of the Brawleys Fork crayfish as a threatened 
species.
    As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures, 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 that 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. 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.
    These requirements are the same for a threatened species with a 
species-specific 4(d) rule. For example, a Federal agency's 
determination that an action is ``not likely to adversely affect'' a 
threatened species will require the Service's written concurrence. 
Similarly, a Federal agency's determination that an action is ``likely 
to adversely affect'' a threatened species will require formal 
consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we have developed a proposed rule that is designed to address the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish's conservation needs. As discussed previously in 
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish is likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat loss and 
degradation due to sedimentation and water quality degradation from 
sources including agricultural practices, horticultural practices, and

[[Page 57307]]

urbanization; and instream modification including impoundments, gravel 
dredging, and channel alteration. Each of the threats influencing 
Brawleys Fork crayfish viability may be further exacerbated by the 
effects of small, isolated populations and the future effects of 
climate change.
    As stated previously, section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue 
such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the 
Secretary to include among those protective regulations any of the 
prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered 
species. We find that, if finalized, the protections, prohibitions, and 
exceptions in this proposed rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in 
section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish.
    The protective regulations we are proposing for Brawleys Fork 
crayfish incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the 
threats to the species. Section 9(a)(1) prohibits the following 
activities for endangered wildlife: importing or exporting; take; 
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, 
receiving, carrying, 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. This protective regulation 
includes all of these prohibitions because the Brawleys Fork crayfish 
is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and putting these 
prohibitions in place will help to prevent further declines, preserve 
the species' remaining populations, and decrease synergistic, negative 
effects from other ongoing or future threats.
    In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the 
conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish by prohibiting the following 
activities, unless they fall within specific exceptions or are 
otherwise authorized or permitted: importing or exporting; take; 
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, 
receiving, carrying, 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.
    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 
take would help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their 
rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other 
ongoing or future threats. Therefore, we propose to prohibit take of 
the Brawleys Fork crayfish, except for take resulting from those 
actions and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule.
    Exceptions to the prohibition on take would include all the general 
exceptions to the prohibition against take of endangered wildlife, as 
set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and additional exceptions, as described 
below.
    The proposed 4(d) rule would also provide for the conservation of 
the species by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation 
actions or that, while they may have some minimal level of take of the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish, are not expected to rise to the level that 
would have a negative impact (i.e., would have only de minimis impacts) 
on the species' conservation. The proposed exceptions to these 
prohibitions include channel restoration and bank stabilization 
projects, migration barrier removal projects, and transportation 
projects that provide fish passage (described below) and are expected 
to have negligible impacts to the Brawleys Fork crayfish and its 
habitat.
    The first exception is for incidental take resulting from channel 
restoration projects for creation of natural, physically stable, 
ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland systems). These 
projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the 
desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of 
water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable 
reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and 
groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel; 
riffles and pools composed of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of 
large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent 
riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands.
    The second exception is for incidental take resulting from bank 
stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to replace 
preexisting, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream 
banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and 
improving habitat conditions for the species. This exception includes a 
requirement that the bank stabilization bioengineering use methods such 
as native species live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or 
tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root 
and grow), native species live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually 
willows, bound together into long, cigar-shaped bundles), or native 
species brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree 
species layered between successive lifts of soil fill). This exception 
also includes a requirement to use native species vegetation including 
woody and herbaceous species appropriate for the region and habitat 
conditions. This exception does not apply if the bank stabilization 
includes the sole use of quarried rock (riprap) or the use of rock 
baskets or gabion structures.
    The third exception is for incidental take resulting from bridge 
and culvert replacement/removal projects or low head dam removal 
projects that remove migration barriers or generally allow for improved 
upstream and downstream movements of Brawleys Fork crayfish while 
maintaining normal stream flows, preventing bed and bank erosion, and 
improving habitat conditions for the species.
    The fourth exception is for incidental take resulting from 
transportation projects that provide for fish passage at stream 
crossings, thereby providing for connectivity and dispersal for the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish.
    Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may 
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more 
otherwise-prohibited activities, including those described above. The 
regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the 
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise 
prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits 
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance 
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological 
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for 
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR 
17.32). The statute also contains certain exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State 
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of 
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and 
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, 
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State 
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working 
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique

[[Page 57308]]

position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this 
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must 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 us 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 Brawleys Fork crayfish that may result 
in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
    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 our ability to 
enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish. However, interagency cooperation may be further 
streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for the species 
between us and other Federal agencies, 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 we could 
provide or use, respectively, to streamline the implementation of this 
proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested, above).

III. Critical Habitat

Background

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

[[Page 57309]]

species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will 
continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under 
section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory protections afforded by the 
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to 
ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3) the 
prohibitions found in the 4(d) rule. 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 the 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 those planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

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 
which may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, 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 absence of 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.
    As described above under Species Needs, the Brawleys Fork crayfish 
occurs in riffles and runs with fast to moderately rapid flow in first- 
to third-order streams and one fifth-order stream. Brawleys Fork 
crayfish typically occupy streams with layered chert gravel and cobble 
substrate with ample interstitial space not consolidated by finer 
substrates such as sand or silt. Cool water with ample riparian 
vegetation and a high volume of clean groundwater discharged into the 
stream from subterranean aquifers also characterize streams with 
Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences.
    The primary habitat elements that influence resiliency of the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish include water quantity and flow, water quality, 
substrate, and habitat connectivity. These features are also described 
above as resource needs under Background and Summary of Biological 
Status and Threats, with individual needs summarized in table 1, and a 
full description is available in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 18-
20).
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of Brawleys Fork crayfish from studies of the species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional 
information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 14-24); 
available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2023-0065). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of Brawleys Fork 
crayfish:
    (1) Moderate to fast-flowing stream with unembedded chert gravel 
and cobble substrate within an unobstructed stream continuum (i.e., 
riffle, run, pool complexes) of perennial, small- to moderate-sized 
(generally third order or smaller) streams and rivers (up to the 
ordinary high-water mark as defined at 33 CFR 329.11).
    (2) Stream banks with intact riparian cover to maintain stream 
morphology and reduce erosion and sediment inputs that may reduce 
availability of substrate interstitial spaces.
    (3) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated, or spring 
influenced, water temperatures and physical and chemical parameters 
(e.g., pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) sufficient for the normal 
behavior, growth, reproduction, and viability of all life stages.
    (4) Adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community 
structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, and 
plant matter (e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus).
    (5) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the 
physical and biological features described in (1) through (4), above, 
that allow for the movement of individual crayfish in response to 
environmental, physiological, or behavioral drivers. The connectivity 
of the stream network should be sufficient to allow for gene flow 
within and among watersheds.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Brawleys 
Fork crayfish may require special management considerations or 
protection to reduce the following threats: (1) Urbanization of the 
landscape, including, but not limited to, land conversion for urban and 
commercial use, infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities), and urban 
water uses (water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment); (2) 
nutrient pollution from agricultural and horticultural activities that 
impact water quantity and quality; (3) significant alteration of water 
quality; (4) significant alteration of channel morphology or geometry, 
including channelization,

[[Page 57310]]

impoundment, road and bridge construction, or instream mining, 
dredging, or channelization; and (5) watershed, riparian, and 
floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the 
water or fill suitable habitat.
    Special management considerations or protections may be required 
within critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management 
activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not 
limited to, restoration and protection of riparian corridors and 
retention of sufficient canopy cover along banks; implementation of 
best management practices to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and 
streambank degradation; stream bank restoration projects; increased use 
of stormwater management and reduction of stormwater flows into the 
stream systems; reduction of other watershed, riparian, and floodplain 
disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the 
water; and improvements to industrial and municipal water treatment 
facilities and sewage systems to reduce nutrient and pathogen 
pollution.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat; specifically, no unoccupied areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    We are proposing to designate six units that are currently occupied 
across the geographic range as critical habitat. The occupied areas 
proposed are sufficient and adequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species, as they will support the species' redundancy and 
representation (table 6). We anticipate that recovery will require 
continued protection of the existing populations and habitat, as well 
as ensuring there are streams distributed across the known range with 
stable Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences in five or more analysis 
units (as delineated in the SSA) with sufficient abundance and occupied 
reaches to increase species' viability. This conservation strategy and 
the designation of proposed critical habitat support the species' 
ability to withstand the loss of occurrences or occupied stream reaches 
through a catastrophic event, such as the effects of a rangewide 
drought or mega-drought or chemical spills and help ensure such an 
event is less likely to simultaneously affect all known streams with 
species' occurrence. Rangewide recovery considerations, such as 
maintaining existing genetic diversity and striving for representation 
across the current range of the species, were considered in formulating 
this proposed critical habitat designation.
    Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat designation 
include the SSA (Service 2023, entire); records maintained by the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee 
Wildlife Resources Agency, Tennessee Valley Authority; research 
published in peer-reviewed articles or presented in academic theses and 
agency reports (Rohrbach and Withers 2006; Williams et al. 2017; Grubb 
2019; Giddens and Mattingly 2020); university and museum collections; 
regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages; and information 
from other survey reports on streams throughout the species' range 
(Khan 2021, unpublished data). We have also reviewed available 
information that pertains to the habitat requirements of the Brawleys 
Fork crayfish. Sources of information on habitat requirements include 
studies conducted at occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed 
articles, agency reports, and data collected during monitoring efforts 
(Service 2023, pp. 14-24).
    In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following criteria:
    We identified streams and rivers within the geographical area 
occupied at the time of listing (i.e., with Brawleys Fork crayfish 
occurrence records from 2000 to 2021). Many streams with suitable 
habitat in the species' range have been surveyed in the last 15 years; 
however, a rangewide survey has not been conducted. Accordingly, it is 
possible the species may be detected in other locations upon subsequent 
surveys. For example, the crayfish was observed in the West Fork Stones 
River in 2016 and Mountain Creek in 2018, both representing new 
collection sites and range extensions for the species (TWRA 2021, 
unpublished data).
    We then identified those streams that contain one or more of the 
physical or biological features to support the life-history functions 
essential to the conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. We 
delineated end points of stream and river units by evaluating the 
presence or absence of habitat conditions and physical or biological 
features essential to the species. We selected upstream and downstream 
endpoints for each unit where habitat conditions no longer meet species 
requirements (i.e., do not contain the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish). The 
endpoints often correspond to tributary confluences, dams, or headwater 
sources because of the effect of these features on habitat conditions. 
Where favorable habitat that contains physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Brawleys Fork crayfish shifts to less 
favorable habitat that does not contain these features, we selected a 
reference point such as a highway or bridge crossing that will allow 
the public to identify proposed critical habitat units. The occurrence 
data are linear in nature; therefore, for stretches of habitat between 
occurrences, and between occurrences and endpoints of units, we assumed 
the interposing stream segments contain at least one of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
include the interposing stream segment in the proposed critical habitat 
unit. Based on the best available scientific data, we determined that 
all currently known occupied habitat for the Brawleys Fork crayfish 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection.
    Based on this analysis, the following streams or rivers meet the 
criteria for areas occupied by the species: West Fork Stones River, 
Brawleys Fork, Carson Fork, Haws Spring Fork, East Fork Stones River, 
Rockhouse Creek, Bullpen Creek, and Mountain Creek. The critical 
habitat designation includes only the occupied streams or rivers within 
the current range that have one or more of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species.
    The result was the inclusion of six units of critical habitat 
occupied by the Brawleys Fork crayfish. These six units encompass the 
same geographic area and streams as the five analysis units delineated 
in the SSA report (Service

[[Page 57311]]

2023). These six occupied units constitute approximately 86.6 river 
miles (139.4 river kilometers). No areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing were delineated as 
proposed critical habitat. We are not designating any areas outside the 
geographical area currently occupied by the Brawleys Fork crayfish 
because we determined that occupied areas are sufficient to conserve 
the species. Accordingly, we did not find any unoccupied areas to be 
essential 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 Brawleys Fork crayfish. 
Critical habitat for the Brawleys Fork crayfish includes only stream 
channels up to bankfull height, where the stream base flow is contained 
within the channel. 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 Brawleys Fork 
crayfish's life-history processes. Some units contain all of the 
identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Some units contain only some of the physical or 
biological features necessary to support the Brawleys Fork crayfish's 
particular use of that habitat.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include 
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2023-0065 and on our internet site https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/Brawleys-Fork-crayfish.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate 86.6 rmi (139.4 rkm) in six units as 
critical habitat for Brawleys Fork crayfish. The critical habitat areas 
we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Brawleys Fork crayfish. The 
six areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) West Fork Stones 
River, (2) Brawleys Fork, (3) Carson Fork, (4) East Fork Stones River, 
(5) Bullpen Creek, and (6) Mountain Creek. Table 6 shows the proposed 
critical habitat units and the approximate area of each unit. All six 
areas proposed as critical habitat are occupied by Brawleys Fork 
crayfish.

                       Table 6--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Brawleys Fork Crayfish
                 [Area estimates reflect stream length within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  State or local    Total river
       Unit/subunit No.             Unit name      Private (rmi)   Federal (rmi)       (rmi)           miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  West Fork Stones  ..............             6.2  ..............             6.2
2.............................  Brawleys Fork...            13.8  ..............  ..............            13.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Unit 3--Carson Fork
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3a............................  Carson Fork.....            12.3  ..............  ..............            12.3
3b............................  Haws Spring Fork             5.9  ..............  ..............             5.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Unit 4--East Fork Stones River
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4a............................  East Fork Stones            30.9  ..............             1.6            32.5
4b............................  Rockhouse Creek.             3.4  ..............  ..............             3.4
5.............................  Bullpen Creek...             3.1  ..............  ..............             3.1
6.............................  Mountain Creek..             9.4  ..............  ..............             9.4
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ................            78.8             6.2             1.6            86.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Brawleys Fork crayfish, 
below.

Unit 1: West Fork Stones

    Unit 1 consists of approximately 6.2 rmi (10 rkm) of the West Fork 
Stones River beginning at the Nice's Mill Recreation Area lowhead dam 
and continuing to the confluence with the Stones River in Rutherford 
County, Tennessee. All riparian lands in Unit 1 are in Federal 
ownership (Department of Defense, USACE, J. Percy Priest Lake). Unit 1 
is considered to be occupied by the Brawleys Fork crayfish. Unit 1 
contains four of the identified physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. The West 
Fork Stones River is isolated and does not have connectivity to any 
other streams with known Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences; thus, Unit 
1 lacks the physical or biological feature related to an interconnected 
network of streams and rivers. There is no overlap with any designated 
critical habitat for other listed species.

[[Page 57312]]

    Threats identified within this unit include the degradation of 
habitat and water quality from sedimentation and water quality 
degradation due to urbanization and development, flow reduction and 
water quality degradation due to water withdrawals and wastewater 
treatment plants, and habitat degradation due to instream modifications 
including impoundments and activities that degrade streambanks. Special 
management considerations or protection that may be required within 
Unit 1 to reduce or alleviate impacts may include implementation of 
best management practices to improve water quality or reverse 
degradation resulting from urbanization and development (see Special 
Management Considerations or Protection, above). Special management or 
protection may also include consideration of Brawleys Fork crayfish in 
the J. Percy Priest Lake Master Plan and inclusion of habitat 
restoration efforts in future actions.

Unit 2: Brawleys Fork

    Unit 2 consists of approximately 13.8 rmi (22.2 rkm) of the 
Brawleys Fork and tributaries in Cannon County, Tennessee. Unit 2 
includes the Brawleys Fork from the headwaters at Mill Bluff Hollow to 
the confluence with the Carson Fork and Shelton Branch from the Gene 
Perkins Road crossing to the confluence with Brawleys Fork. Riparian 
lands in Unit 2 are in private ownership except for a small amount of 
publicly owned bridge crossings and road easements. Unit 2 is 
considered to be occupied by the Brawleys Fork crayfish and contains 
all physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Brawleys Fork crayfish. There is no overlap with any designated 
critical habitat for other listed species.
    Threats identified within this unit include the degradation of 
habitat and water quality from sedimentation, siltation, and pollution 
due to agriculture, flow reduction and water quality degradation due to 
water withdrawals, and habitat degradation due to instream 
modifications including gravel dredging, impoundments, and activities 
that degrade streambanks. In some cases, these threats are being 
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement 
needed actions. Special management considerations or protection 
measures that may be required within Unit 2 to alleviate impacts 
include reducing wastewater or stormwater runoff, removal of barriers 
or impoundments, natural stream restoration, and implementation of 
agricultural and grazing practices that minimize nutrient and sediment 
input. Special management or protection may also include consideration 
of Brawleys Fork crayfish in agriculture and urban development plans 
and habitat restoration efforts.

Unit 3: Carson Fork

    Unit 3 consists of approximately 18.2 rmi (29.3 rkm) of the Carson 
Fork and tributaries in Cannon County, Tennessee. Two subunits are 
included in Unit 3 (Carson Fork), Subunit 3a (Carson Fork) and Subunit 
3b (Haws Spring Fork).
    Subunit 3a (Carson Fork) consists of 12.3 rmi (19.8 rkm) and 
extends from the headwaters of the Carson Fork near Sadler Lane 
downstream to the confluence with the East Fork Stones River, from the 
headwaters of Duck Branch to the confluence of Carson Fork, and from 
the headwaters of an unnamed tributary in Simmons Hollow to the 
confluence of Carson Fork. Subunit 3b (Haws Spring Fork subunit) 
consists of 5.9 rmi (9.5 rkm) and extends from the headwaters of Smith 
Branch near Carrick Hollow to the confluence with Haws Spring Fork and 
from the headwaters of Haws Spring to the confluence with the Carson 
Fork. Riparian lands in Unit 3 are in private ownership except for a 
small amount of publicly owned bridge crossings and road easements. 
Unit 3 is considered to be occupied by the Brawleys Fork crayfish. Unit 
3 (subunits 3a and 3b) contains all physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. There is 
no overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed 
species.
    Threats identified within this unit include the following: 
degradation of habitat and water quality from sedimentation, siltation, 
and pollution due to agriculture, flow reduction, and water 
withdrawals; and habitat degradation due to instream modifications 
including gravel dredging, impoundments, and activities that degrade 
streambanks. Special management considerations or protection that may 
be required within Unit 3 to alleviate impacts include reducing 
wastewater or stormwater runoff, removal of barriers or impoundments, 
natural stream restoration, and implementation of agricultural and 
grazing practices that minimize nutrient and sediment input into 
receiving streams. Special management or protection may also include 
consideration of Brawleys Fork crayfish in agriculture and urban 
development plans and habitat restoration efforts.

Unit 4: East Fork Stones River

    Unit 4 consists of approximately 35.9 rmi (57.8 rkm) of the East 
Fork Stones River mainstem and some of its tributaries in Cannon 
County, Tennessee. Two subunits are included in Unit 4 (East Fork 
Stones River), Subunit 4a (East Fork Stones) and Subunit 4b (Rockhouse 
Creek). Subunit 4a (East Fork Stones subunit) consists of 32.5 rmi 
(52.3 rkm) and includes Hollis Creek from the headwaters near Hollis 
Creek South Road to the confluence with the East Fork Stones River, 
Hill Creek from the tributary at Wood Hollow to the confluence with the 
East Fork Stones River, Parchcorn Hollow Branch from the Parchcorn 
Hollow road crossing to the confluence with the East Fork Stones River, 
Cavender Branch from the Cavender Road bridge to the confluence with 
the East Fork Stones River, and from Locke Creek to the confluence with 
the East Fork Stones River.
    Subunit 4b (Rockhouse Creek subunit) consists of 3.4 rmi (5.5 rkm) 
and extends from the stream crossing at Seal Hollow Branch by Seal 
Hollow Road to the confluence with Rockhouse Branch and from the 
Higgins Road crossing of Rockhouse Creek downstream to the confluence 
with the East Fork Stones River. Riparian lands in Unit 4 are in State 
(0.7 rmi (1.1 rkm) of Headwater Wildlife Management Area), local (0.9 
rmi (1.4 rkm) in two parks), and private ownership, as well as small 
amount of publicly owned bridge crossings and road easements. Unit 4 is 
considered to be occupied by the Brawleys Fork crayfish. Unit 4 
(subunits 4a and 4b) contains all physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. There is 
no overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed 
species.
    Threats identified within this unit include the following: 
degradation of habitat and water quality from sedimentation, siltation, 
and pollution due to urbanization and development, agriculture, flow 
reduction, water withdrawals, and wastewater treatment plant discharge; 
and habitat degradation due to instream modifications including gravel 
dredging, impoundments, and activities that degrade streambanks. In 
some cases, these threats are being addressed or coordinated with our 
partners and landowners to implement needed actions. Special management 
considerations or protection that may be required within Unit 4 to 
alleviate impacts include treating wastewater to the greatest extent 
feasible, reducing wastewater or stormwater runoff, removal of barriers 
or impoundments,

[[Page 57313]]

natural stream restoration, implementation of appropriate silvicultural 
and forestry best management practices, and implementation of 
agricultural and grazing practices that minimize nutrient and sediment 
input. Special management or protection may also include consideration 
of Brawleys Fork crayfish in agriculture and urban development plans 
and habitat restoration efforts.

Unit 5: Bullpen Creek

    Unit 5 consists of approximately 3.1 rmi (5.0 rkm) of Bullpen Creek 
beginning at the Lonnie Smith Road crossing and extending downstream to 
the lowhead dam near Charlie Powell Road in Cannon County, Tennessee. 
Riparian lands in Unit 5 are in private ownership except for a small 
amount of publicly owned bridge crossings and road easements. Unit 5 is 
considered to be occupied by the Brawleys Fork crayfish. Unit 5 
contains four of the identified physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. The 
Bullpen Creek unit is isolated and does not have connectivity to any 
other streams with known Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences; thus, Unit 
5 lacks the physical or biological feature related to an interconnected 
network of streams and rivers. There is no overlap with any designated 
critical habitat for other listed species.
    Threats identified within this unit include the following: 
degradation of habitat and water quality from sedimentation, siltation, 
and pollution due to agriculture and horticulture, flow reduction, and 
water withdrawals; and habitat degradation due to instream 
modifications including gravel dredging, impoundments, and activities 
that degrade streambanks. In some cases, these threats are being 
addressed or coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement 
needed actions. Special management considerations or protection that 
may be required within Unit 5 to alleviate impacts from stressors 
include but are not limited to the following: treating wastewater to 
the greatest extent feasible, reducing wastewater or stormwater runoff, 
removal of barriers or impoundments, natural stream restoration, and 
implementation of agricultural and grazing practices that minimize 
nutrient and sediment input. Special management or protection may also 
include consideration of Brawleys Fork crayfish in agriculture and 
urban development plans and habitat restoration efforts.

Unit 6: Mountain Creek

    Unit 6 consists of approximately 9.4 rmi (15.1 rkm) of Mountain 
Creek in Warren County, Tennessee. Unit 6 extends from the Mountain 
Creek road crossing at Short Mountain Road downstream to the Smithville 
Highway bridge in the city of Dibrell, Warren County, Tennessee. 
Riparian lands in Unit 6 are in private ownership except for a small 
amount of publicly owned bridge crossings and road easements. Unit 6 is 
considered to be occupied by the Brawleys Fork crayfish. Unit 6 
contains four of the identified physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. The 
Mountain Creek unit is isolated and does not have connectivity to any 
other streams with known Brawleys Fork crayfish occurrences, thus, Unit 
6 lacks the physical or biological feature related to an interconnected 
network of streams and rivers. There is no overlap with any designated 
critical habitat for other listed species.
    Threats identified within this unit include the following: 
degradation of habitat and water quality from sedimentation, siltation, 
and pollution due to urbanization and development, agriculture, and 
horticulture, flow reduction, and water withdrawals; and habitat 
degradation due to instream modifications including gravel dredging, 
impoundments, and activities that degrade streambanks. Special 
management considerations or protection that may be required within 
Unit 6 to alleviate impacts from stressors include but are not limited 
to the following: treating wastewater to the greatest extent feasible, 
reducing wastewater or stormwater runoff, removal of barriers or 
impoundments, natural stream restoration, and implementation of 
agricultural and grazing practices that minimize nutrient and sediment 
input. Special management or protection may also include consideration 
of Brawleys Fork crayfish in agriculture and urban development plans 
and habitat restoration efforts.

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,

[[Page 57314]]

    (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: (a) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (c) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written 
concurrence; or (d) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. The 
reinitiation requirement applies only to actions that remain subject to 
some discretionary Federal involvement or control. As provided in 50 
CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new species 
listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to certain 
agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the Bureau of 
Land Management in certain circumstances.

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 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 we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include, but are not limited to: (1) Actions that would impede 
or disconnect stream and river channels and contribute to further 
habitat fragmentation at a scale and magnitude that appreciably 
diminishes the value of critical habitat (e.g., large impoundments, 
reservoir creation). Such activities include, but are not limited to, 
construction of barriers that impede the instream movement of the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish (e.g., impoundments, dams, culverts, or weirs). 
These activities could result in destruction or fragmentation of 
habitat, block movements between habitats, and/or affect flows within 
or into critical habitat. In addition, these activities can isolate 
populations that are more at risk of decline or extirpation as a result 
of genetic drift, demographic or environmental stochasticity, and 
catastrophic events.
    (2) Actions that would affect channel substrates and stability or 
geomorphology at a scale and magnitude that appreciably diminishes the 
value of critical habitat (e.g., multiple or large tributaries or main 
channel rerouting, dam construction on a river with Brawleys Fork 
crayfish occurrences). Such activities include channelization, 
impoundment, mining, dredging, road and bridge construction, removal of 
riparian vegetation, and land clearing. These activities may lead to 
changes in channel substrates, erosion of the streambed and banks, and 
excessive sedimentation that could degrade Brawleys Fork crayfish 
habitat.
    (3) Actions that would reduce flow levels or alter flow regimes at 
a scale and magnitude that appreciably diminishes the value of critical 
habitat (i.e., flow levels or regimes that no longer support Brawleys 
Fork crayfish in one or more critical habitat units). These could 
include, but are not limited to, activities that block or lower surface 
flow or groundwater levels, including channelization, impoundment, 
groundwater pumping, and surface water withdrawal or diversion. Such 
activities can result in long-term changes in stream flows that affect 
habitat quality and quantity for the Brawleys Fork crayfish and its 
prey.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or 
quality to the extent that the value of critical habitat is appreciably 
diminished (i.e., water quality does not support the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish's needs in one or more units). Such activities could include, 
but are not limited to, release of chemicals or biological pollutants 
or heated effluents into the surface water or connected groundwater at 
a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These 
activities could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond the 
tolerances of the Brawleys Fork crayfish and result in direct or 
cumulative adverse effects to individuals and their life cycles.
    (5) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition 
or stream bottom embeddedness within the stream channel to the extent 
that the value of critical habitat is appreciably diminished (e.g., 
excessive siltation such that Brawleys Fork crayfish are not able to 
use the critical habitat unit). Such activities could include, but are 
not limited to, excessive sedimentation from livestock grazing, road 
construction, channel alteration, and agricultural or horticultural 
practices that do not implement BMPs or improperly implement BMPs, 
mining, dredging, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances. 
These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for 
the growth and reproduction of the Brawleys Fork crayfish by increasing 
the sediment deposition to levels that would adversely affect the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish's ability to complete its life cycle.

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 Improvement Act of 1997 (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. No DoD lands with a completed INRMP are within the 
proposed critical habitat designation.

[[Page 57315]]

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on 
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant 
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, 
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The 
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat 
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016). We explain each decision to exclude areas, as well as decisions 
not to exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is reasonable.
    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the 
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the 
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may 
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would 
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the 
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as 
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor. We describe below the process that we undertook for 
taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of 
the relevant impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline 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 section 
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O.s 13563 and 
14094, 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 Executive order's 
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. Section 3(f) of E.O. 
12866 identifies four criteria when a regulation is considered a 
``significant regulatory action'' and requires additional analysis, 
review, and approval if met. The criterion relevant here is whether the 
designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect of $200 
million in any given year (section 3(f)(1)). Therefore, our 
consideration of economic impacts uses a screening analysis to assess 
whether a designation of critical habitat for Brawleys Fork crayfish is 
likely to exceed the economically significant threshold.
    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 Brawleys Fork crayfish (Industrial Economics, 
Inc. 2022, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis 
on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic 
impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out 
particular geographic areas of critical habitat that are already 
subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur 
incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis 
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) 
and includes any probable incremental economic impacts where land and 
water use may already 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.
    The presence of the listed species in occupied areas of critical 
habitat means that any destruction or adverse modification of those 
areas is also likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. For that reason, designating occupied areas as critical 
habitat typically causes little if any incremental impacts above and 
beyond the impacts of listing the species. Therefore, the screening 
analysis focuses on areas of unoccupied critical habitat. 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 
constitute what we consider to be our draft economic

[[Page 57316]]

analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for the 
Brawleys Fork crayfish; our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
    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 Brawleys Fork crayfish, first 
we identified, in the IEM dated April 8, 2022, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) agriculture, (2) forestry, (3) development, (4) 
recreation, (5) restoration activities, (6) flood control, (7) 
transportation, (8) water quantity/supply, (9) dredging, and (10) 
utilities. We considered each industry or category individually. 
Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal 
involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect 
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, 
designation of critical habitat affects only activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we list the 
species, in areas where the Brawleys Fork 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, when we list the species, we also finalize this 
proposed critical habitat designation, our consultations would include 
an evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    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 
Brawleys Fork crayfish's critical habitat. Because the designation of 
critical habitat for Brawleys Fork crayfish is being proposed 
concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience that it is 
more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are attributable 
to the species being listed and those which will result solely from the 
designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific 
circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The 
essential physical or biological features identified for critical 
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the 
species, and (2) any actions that would likely adversely affect the 
essential physical or biological features of occupied critical habitat 
are also likely to adversely affect the Brawleys Fork crayfish. 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 Brawleys Fork 
crayfish totals approximately 86.6 rmi (139.4 rkm) of stream and river 
channels in six units in Tennessee. Ownership of riparian lands 
adjacent to the proposed units includes 78.8 rmi (126.8 rkm; 91 
percent) in private ownership and 7.8 rmi (12.5 rkm; 9 percent) in 
public (Federal or State) ownership. All six units are currently 
occupied by the species and contain recent (2000 to 2021) occurrences 
of Brawleys Fork crayfish. In these areas, any actions that may affect 
the species or its habitat would also affect proposed critical habitat. 
Thus, it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be 
recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above 
those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued 
existence of the Brawleys Fork crayfish. We are not proposing to 
designate any units of unoccupied habitat.
    Because we are proposing the designation only of occupied critical 
habitat, the only additional costs that are expected in all of the 
proposed critical habitat designation are administrative costs. The 
entities most likely to incur incremental costs are the Federal action 
agencies that are parties to section 7 consultations. While the 
analysis for adverse modification of critical habitat will require time 
and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, these 
costs would predominantly be administrative in nature. About 91 percent 
of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish lies on private lands. As such, incremental costs from public 
perception of the designation have some potential to arise (Industrial 
Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2022, pp. 14-15). However, the critical habitat 
units are in largely rural areas that are not experiencing significant 
development pressures. As such, the likelihood that critical habitat 
designation for the Brawleys Fork crayfish will result in perception-
related impacts appears unlikely. The estimated incremental costs of 
critical habitat designation for the Brawleys Fork crayfish in the 
first year are not expected to exceed $9,200 per year (2022 dollars) 
(IEc 2022, p. 14). Thus, critical habitat designation for the Brawleys 
Fork crayfish is unlikely to generate costs or benefits exceeding $200 
million in a single year. Therefore, this rule is unlikely to meet the 
threshold for an economically significant rule, with regard to costs, 
under E.O. 12866.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above. 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. 
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), then national-security 
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of 
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security, 
including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to 
consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat. 
Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another 
Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of 
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise 
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from 
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have 
reason to consider excluding those areas.
    However, we cannot 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, we must 
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal

[[Page 57317]]

requester provides information, including 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 we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a 
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the 
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, 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.
    We have evaluated whether any of the lands within the proposed 
designation of critical habitat are owned by DoD or DHS or could lead 
to national-security or homeland-security impacts if designated. In 
preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands within the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Brawleys Fork crayfish 
including the J. Percy Priest Reservoir in Unit 1 are owned or managed 
by the DoD Army Corps of Engineers. However, we anticipate no impact on 
national security or homeland security resulting from the proposed 
critical habitat designation.

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. To identify other relevant impacts that may 
affect the exclusion analysis, 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 
may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. 
In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or 
partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government 
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected 
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, social, or other 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that no HCPs or 
other management plans for Brawleys Fork crayfish currently exist, and 
the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust 
resources or any lands for which designation would have any economic or 
national security impacts. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on Tribal 
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat 
designation and thus, as described above, we are not considering 
excluding any particular areas on the basis of the presence of 
conservation agreements or impacts to trust resources.
    However, if through the public comment period we receive 
information that we determine indicates that there are potential 
economic, national security, or other relevant impacts from designating 
particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of developing the 
final designation of critical habitat, we will evaluate that 
information and may conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to 
determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of section 
4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we 
receive a request for exclusion of a particular area and after 
evaluation of supporting information we do not exclude, we will fully 
describe our decision in the final rule for this action.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by E.O.s 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, 13563, and 
14094)

    Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and 
E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency 
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance 
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, 
and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing 
Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the 
extent permitted by law. We have developed this proposed rule in a 
manner consistent with these requirements.
    E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides 
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rulemaking action is not 
significant.

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

[[Page 57318]]

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 whether potential 
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered 
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under 
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may 
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant 
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly 
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. The 
RFA does not require evaluation of 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. Facilities that provide energy supply, distribution, 
or use occur within some units of the proposed critical habitat 
designations (for example, dams, pipelines) and may potentially be 
affected. We determined that consultations, technical assistance, and 
requests for species lists may be necessary in some instances. In our 
economic analysis, we did not find that this proposed critical habitat 
designation would significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and 
no statement of energy effects is required.

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

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

[[Page 57319]]

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

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule 
identifies the 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.)

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) the courts have upheld this position.

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), E.O. 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 federally recognized 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 Brawleys Fork 
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 https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

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.


[[Page 57320]]


0
2. In Sec.  17.11, amend paragraph (h) by adding an entry for 
``Crayfish, Brawleys Fork'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife in alphabetical order under CRUSTACEANS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
 Crustaceans
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Crayfish, Brawleys Fork.........  Cambarus williami.  Wherever found....  T              [Federal Register
                                                                                          citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.46(d); \4d\ 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.95(h).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.46 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
* * * * *


Sec.  17.46   Special rules--crustaceans.

* * * * *
    (d) Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami). (1) Prohibitions. 
The following prohibitions that apply to endangered wildlife also apply 
to Brawleys Fork 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 Brawleys Fork 
crayfish:
    (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 (4) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (iii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
    (A) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically 
stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland 
systems). These projects can be accomplished using a variety of 
methods, but the desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear 
stress (force of water moving against the channel); bank heights that 
enable reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and 
groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel; 
riffles and pools composed of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of 
large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent 
riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands.
    (B) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to 
replace preexisting, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable 
stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation 
and improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these 
bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using native 
species live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into 
the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow), 
native species live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows, 
bound together into long, cigar-shaped bundles), or native species 
brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species 
layered between successive lifts of soil fill). Native species 
vegetation includes woody and herbaceous species appropriate for the 
region and habitat conditions. These methods will not include the sole 
use of quarried rock (riprap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion 
structures.
    (C) Bridge and culvert replacement/removal projects or low head dam 
removal projects that remove migration barriers or generally allow for 
improved upstream and downstream movements of Brawleys Fork crayfish 
while maintaining normal stream flows, preventing bed and bank erosion, 
and improving habitat conditions for the species.
    (D) Transportation projects that provide for fish passage at stream 
crossings.
0
4. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (h) by adding an entry for 
``Brawleys Fork Crayfish (Cambarus williami)'' after the entry for 
``Big Sandy Crayfish (Cambarus callainus)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) Crustaceans.
* * * * *
Brawleys Fork Crayfish (Cambarus williami)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cannon, Rutherford, and 
Warren Counties, Tennessee, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Brawleys Fork crayfish consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Moderate to fast-flowing stream with unembedded cherty-gravel 
and cobble substrate within an unobstructed stream continuum (i.e., 
riffle, run, pool complexes) of perennial, small- to moderate-sized 
(generally third order or smaller) streams and rivers (up to the 
ordinary high-water mark as defined at 33 CFR 329.11).
    (ii) Stream banks with intact riparian cover to maintain stream 
morphology and reduce erosion and sediment inputs that may reduce 
availability of substrate interstitial spaces.
    (iii) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated, or 
spring influenced, water temperatures and physical and chemical 
parameters (e.g., pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) sufficient for 
the normal behavior, growth, reproduction, and viability of all life 
stages.
    (iv) Adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community 
structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, and 
plant matter (e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus).

[[Page 57321]]

    (v) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the 
physical and biological features described in paragraphs (2)(i) through 
(iv) of this entry that allow for the movement of individual crayfish 
in response to environmental, physiological, or behavioral drivers. The 
connectivity of the stream network should be sufficient to allow for 
gene flow within and among watersheds.
    (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 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using Esri ArcGIS 
Pro mapping software, version 2.7.2 with U.S. Geological Survey's 
National Hydrography Dataset flowline data, on a base map of State, 
County, and city limit boundaries from the State of Tennessee's 
Strategic Technology Solutions branch. Critical habitat units were 
mapped using the Tennessee State Plane Coordinate System, Lambert 
Conformal Conic projection and North American 1983 (NAD83) datum. The 
maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, 
establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are 
available to the public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/Brawleys-Fork-crayfish, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2023-0065, 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) Index map of critical habitat units for the Brawleys Fork 
crayfish follows:

Figure 1 to Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.055

    (6) Unit 1: West Fork Stones; Rutherford County, Tennessee.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of 6.2 rmi (10 rkm) of the West Fork Stones 
River beginning at the Nice's Mill Recreation Area lowhead dam and 
continuing to the confluence with the Stones River in Rutherford 
County, Tennessee. Riparian lands in Unit 1 are in Federal ownership 
(Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, J. Percy Priest 
Lake).
    (ii) Unit 1 includes stream channel up to bankfull height.
    (iii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
Figure 2 to Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami) paragraph 
(6)(iii)

[[Page 57322]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.056

    (7) Unit 2: Brawleys Fork; Cannon County, Tennessee.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of approximately 13.8 rmi (22.2 rkm) of the 
Brawleys Fork and tributaries in Cannon County, Tennessee. Unit 2 
includes the Brawleys Fork from the headwaters at Mill Bluff Hollow to 
the confluence with the Carson Fork and Shelton Branch from the Gene 
Perkins Road crossing to the confluence with Brawleys Fork. Riparian 
lands in Unit 2 are in private ownership except for a small amount of 
publicly owned bridge crossings and road easements.
    (ii) Unit 2 includes stream channel up to bankfull height.
    (iii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami) paragraph 
(7)(iii)

[[Page 57323]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.057

    (8) Unit 3: Carson Fork; Cannon County, Tennessee.
    (i) Unit 3 consists of approximately 18.2 rmi (29.3 rkm) of the 
Carson Fork and tributaries in Cannon County, Tennessee. Riparian lands 
in Unit 3 are in private ownership except for a small amount of 
publicly owned bridge crossings and road easements.
    (A) Subunit 3a (Carson Fork) consists of 12.3 rmi (19.8 rkm) and 
extends from the headwaters of the Carson Fork near Sadler Lane 
downstream to the confluence with the East Fork Stones River, from the 
headwaters of Duck Branch to the confluence of Carson Fork, and from 
the headwaters of an unnamed tributary in Simmons Hollow to the 
confluence of Carson Fork.
    (B) Subunit 3b (Haws Spring Fork) consists of 5.9 rmi (9.5 rkm) and 
extends from the headwaters of Smith Branch near Carrick Hollow to the 
confluence with Haws Spring Fork and from the headwaters of Haws Spring 
to the confluence with the Carson Fork.
    (ii) Unit 3 includes stream channel up to bankfull height.
    (iii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami) paragraph 
(8)(iii)

[[Page 57324]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.058

    (9) Unit 4: East Fork Stones River, Cannon County, Tennessee.
    (i) Unit 4 consists of approximately 35.9 rmi (57.8 rkm) of the 
East Fork Stones River mainstem and some of its tributaries in Cannon 
County, Tennessee. Riparian lands in Unit 4 are in State (0.7 rmi (1.1 
rkm), local (0.9 rmi (1.4 rkm) in two parks), and private ownership, as 
well as small amount of publicly owned bridge crossings and road 
easements.
    (A) Subunit 4a (East Fork Stones) consists of 32.5 rmi (52.3 rkm) 
and includes Hollis Creek from the headwaters near Hollis Creek South 
Road to the confluence with the East Fork Stones River, Hill Creek from 
the tributary at Wood Hollow to the confluence with the East Fork 
Stones River, Parchcorn Hollow Branch from the Parchcorn Hollow road 
crossing to the confluence with the East Fork Stones River, Cavender 
Branch from the Cavender Road bridge to the confluence with the East 
Fork Stones River, and from Locke Creek to the confluence with the East 
Fork Stones River.
    (B) Subunit 4b (Rockhouse Creek) consists of 3.4 rmi (5.5 rkm) and 
extends from the stream crossing at Seal Hollow Branch by Seal Hollow 
Road to the confluence with Rockhouse Branch and from the Higgins Road 
crossing of Rockhouse Creek downstream to the confluence with the East 
Fork Stones River.

[[Page 57325]]

    (ii) Unit 4 includes stream channel up to bankfull height.
    (iii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami) paragraph 
(9)(iii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.059

    (10) Unit 5: Bullpen Creek; Cannon County, Tennessee.
    (i) Unit 5 consists of approximately 3.1 rmi (5.0 rkm) of Bullpen 
Creek beginning at the Lonnie Smith Road crossing and extending 
downstream to the lowhead dam near Charlie Powell Road in Cannon 
County, Tennessee. Riparian lands in Unit 5 are in private ownership 
except for a small amount of publicly owned bridge crossings and road 
easements.
    (ii) Unit 5 includes stream channel up to bankfull height.
    (iii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 6 to Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami) paragraph 
(10)(iii)

[[Page 57326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.060

    (11) Unit 6: Mountain Creek; Warren County, Tennessee.
    (i) Unit 6 consists of approximately 9.4 rmi (15.1 rkm) of Mountain 
Creek in Warren County, Tennessee. Unit 6 extends from the Mountain 
Creek road crossing at Short Mountain Road downstream to the Smithville 
Highway bridge in the city of Dibrell, Warren County, Tennessee. 
Riparian lands in Unit 6 are in private ownership except for a small 
amount of publicly owned bridge crossings and road easements.
    (ii) Unit 6 includes stream channel up to bankfull height.
    (iii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Brawleys Fork crayfish (Cambarus williami) paragraph 
(11)(iii)

[[Page 57327]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.061

* * * * *

Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-17666 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C