[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57224-57290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17668]



[[Page 57223]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 161

August 22, 2023

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





 Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Salamander Mussel and Designation of Critical Habitat; 
Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 57224]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2023-0058; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BG38


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Salamander Mussel 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 salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua), a freshwater mussel 
species from the United States (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) and Canada (Ontario), as an 
endangered species 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 salamander mussel. 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 
salamander mussel as an endangered species under the Act. We also 
propose to designate critical habitat for the salamander mussel under 
the Act. In total, approximately 2,012 river miles (3,238 kilometers) 
in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. We announce 
the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the salamander mussel. If we 
finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections 
to this species and its designated critical habitat.

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-R3-ES-2023-0058, 
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-R3-ES-2023-0058, 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 https://www.fws.gov/species/salamander-mussel-simpsonaias-ambigua, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2023-
0058, or both. 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-R3-
ES-2023-0058 and on the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/species/salamander-mussel-simpsonaias-ambigua.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Hicks, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Michigan Ecological Services Field Office, 
2651 Coolidge Road, East Lansing, MI 48823; telephone 517-351-2555. 
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 an endangered species within 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 
salamander mussel meets the definition of an endangered 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 designating critical habitat 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 salamander mussel 
as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose the designation 
of critical habitat for the species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the salamander mussel is 
endangered due to the following threats: contaminants, hydrological 
alterations to stream habitat, land use changes, loss of connectivity 
among populations, and host species' vulnerabilities.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, to 
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. Section 3(5)(A) of 
the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of 
the best scientific data

[[Page 57225]]

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 and its 
host, 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 or its 
host;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends for this species or its host; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or its host.
    (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 or its host.
    (4) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of salamander mussel habitat;
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species 
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 protection, or (ii) 
are unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the 
conservation of the species;
    (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) Whether occupied areas are adequate for the conservation of the 
species. This information will help us evaluate the potential to 
include areas not occupied at the time of listing in the critical 
habitat designation for the species. 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.
    (5) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (6) 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.
    (7) 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.
    (8) 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.
    (9) 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.
    Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we 
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well 
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based 
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on 
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened 
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not 
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened 
species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not include 
all areas 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 our 
final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our 
final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from 
this proposal.

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

[[Page 57226]]

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

    We identified the salamander mussel as a ``Category 2'' candidate 
in our May 22, 1984, Review of Invertebrate Wildlife for Listing as 
Endangered or Threatened Species (49 FR 21664). Category 2 candidates 
were defined as taxa for which we had information that proposed listing 
was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological 
vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule 
at the time. The salamander mussel remained a Category 2 candidate in 
subsequent candidate notices of review (CNORs) (54 FR 554, January 6, 
1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994). 
In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the 
designation of Category 2 species as candidates; therefore, the 
salamander mussel was no longer a candidate species.
    On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, 
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, 
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, to list 404 aquatic, riparian, 
and wetland species, including the salamander mussel, from the 
southeastern United States as endangered or threatened species and to 
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing under the Act. On 
September 27, 2011, we published a partial 90-day finding in the 
Federal Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented 
substantial information that indicated listing the salamander mussel 
may be warranted.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the salamander mussel. 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 SSA report for the 
salamander mussel. We sent the SSA report to three independent peer 
reviewers, but we did not receive any responses.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    The salamander mussel is a small, thin-shelled species of 
freshwater mussel currently found across 14 U.S. States (Arkansas, 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New 
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) and 
one Canadian province (Ontario) (see figure 1, below). The salamander 
mussel inhabits rivers and streams with fairly swift velocities but 
prefers shelter habitat with space under slab rock/bedrock crevice-type 
structures that are dark, where they are in contact with a solid 
surface, and where there is stability from swift current.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 57227]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.015

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    Similar to other freshwater mussels, the salamander mussel has a 
unique life cycle that relies on a host for successful reproduction. 
However, the salamander mussel is the only freshwater mussel in North 
America to use a non-fish host. The mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus), the 
only host for the salamander mussel, is a fully aquatic salamander 
species that tends to be present within the same habitat preferred by 
the salamander mussel during the summer and fall when female mudpuppies 
are guarding their nests under large flat rocks. The salamander 
mussel's larvae (called glochidia) develop on the gills of the mudpuppy 
before falling off into the stream substrate.
    Like other freshwater mussels, the salamander mussel feeds on 
particles, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, rotifers, protozoans, 
detritus, and dissolved organic matter, in sediments or suspended in 
the water column. The salamander mussel lives for approximately 10 
years. The age of sexual maturity is not known.
    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
salamander mussel is presented in detail in the SSA report (Service 
2023, pp. 3-10).

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 threatened and 
endangered 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 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

[[Page 57228]]

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 salamander mussel 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 https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2023-0058 and at https://www.fws.gov/species/salamander-mussel-simpsonaias-ambigua.

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

    We assessed the best available information to identify the physical 
and biological needs at the individual, population, and species levels 
for the salamander mussel. Full descriptions of all needs are available 
in chapter 2 of the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 3-10). Based upon the 
best available scientific and commercial information, the resource 
needs for salamander mussel are characterized as:
     Shelter habitat with flat rocks and bedrock crevices free 
of excessive silt and fine sediments.
     A hydrologic flow regime (the severity, frequency, 
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) that maintains the 
rock structures and aquatic habitat where the salamander mussel and 
mudpuppy are found. Adequate flows provide for the exchange of 
nutrients and sediment; ensure delivery of oxygen; reduce contaminants 
and fine sediments from interstitial spaces; deliver food to filter-
feeding mussels; and enable newly transformed salamander mussel 
juveniles and young mudpuppies to disperse, settle, and become 
established. Stream velocity is not static over time, and variations 
may be attributed to seasonal changes (with higher flows in winter/
spring and lower flows in summer/fall), extreme weather events (e.g., 
drought or floods), or

[[Page 57229]]

anthropogenic influence (e.g., flow regulation via impoundments).
     Water and sediment quality, such as (but not limited to) 
dissolved oxygen above 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L); water 
temperatures generally below 86 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (30 degrees 
Celsius ([deg]C)); concentrations of ammonia, metals, and other 
pollutants below acute toxicity levels; and an absence of excessive 
total suspended solids.
     Habitat connectivity (that is, a lack of barriers for 
passage of mudpuppy hosts and dispersal of mussels).
     The presence and abundance of the mudpuppy host, necessary 
for recruitment of the salamander mussel.
     Appropriate food sources (phytoplankton, zooplankton, 
rotifers, protozoans, detritus, and dissolved organic matter) in 
adequate supply.

Threats Analysis

    We identified contaminants, hydrological regime, landscape 
alteration, lack of connectivity, invasive species, and host 
vulnerability as the primary threats to evaluate for the salamander 
mussel (Service 2023, pp. 11-17). We also evaluated sedimentation, 
water temperature, drought, dissolved oxygen, mussel disease, and 
resource extraction. These threats are summarized below. More detailed 
information on these threats can be found in appendix B of the SSA 
report (Service 2023, pp. 81-103).
Contaminants
    Freshwater mussels are among the most sensitive freshwater species 
to metals, ammonia, and ion constituents, including copper, sulfate, 
alachlor, nickel, chloride, sulfate, zinc, and potassium (Wang et al. 
2017, pp. 786-796). In particular, freshwater mussels are very 
sensitive to ammonia (Augspurger et al. 2003, pp. 2569-2575). Ammonia 
is widespread within the aquatic environment; typical sources include 
agricultural wastes (animal feedlots and nitrogenous fertilizers), 
municipal wastewater treatment plants, and industrial waste, as well as 
precipitation and natural processes, such as decomposition of organic 
nitrogen (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2569; Goudreau et al. 1993, p. 
212).
    Sources of contaminants can include point (for example, wastewater 
treatment and industrial effluents, targeted lampricide treatment for 
management of invasive sea lamprey) and non-point (for example, runoff 
comprised of fertilizer, pesticide, road salts, grease, and oil) 
sources resulting from urbanization, agriculture, toxic spills, aquatic 
invasive species treatments, and resource extraction and mining (Gillis 
2012, pp. 348-356; Gillis et al. 2014, pp. 134-143; Bringolf et al. 
2007, pp. 2086-2093; Wang et al. 2017, pp. 786-796; Augspurger et al. 
2003, pp. 2569-2575).
    All stages of freshwater mussels are directly exposed to 
contaminants when present in the system. Contaminants have the 
potential to affect several reproductive early life-history processes, 
including sperm viability, female fertility or brooding capabilities, 
and luring or glochidia release behavior (Cope et al. 2008, pp. 451-
462). Free glochidia are exposed through surface water (Cope et al. 
2008, p. 453). Exposure during encystment may influence the ability of 
glochidia to successfully transform into juveniles (Cope et al. 2008, 
pp. 457-458). Adults, however, can be exposed over years through 
surface water, pore water, sediment, and diet (Cope et al. 2008, pp. 
452-453).
Sedimentation
    Sediment is composed of both organic (biological material) and 
inorganic (sand, silt, clay) particulate matter formed through various 
processes including weathering, wind/wave/ice action, and tectonic 
uplift. Anthropogenic sources of sediment include agriculture (Peacock 
et al. 2005, entire), logging (Beschta 1978, entire), mining (Seakem 
Group et al. 1992, p. 17), urbanization (Guy and Ferguson 1963, 
entire), and hydrological alteration (Hastie et al. 2001, entire). 
While all streams carry sediment, alterations in landscape may 
negatively impact aquatic ecosystems if sediment loads are excessive 
enough to alter channel formation and/or stream productivity, in turn 
degrading freshwater biota (USEPA 2007, pp. 2-21; Gammon 1970, entire; 
Junoy and Vi[eacute]itez 1990, entire).
    Mussel declines have been partially attributed to sedimentation 
caused by anthropogenic activities (for example, decrease in vegetative 
and canopy cover and increase in urban and agricultural land) (Peacock 
et al. 2005, entire; Guy and Ferguson 1963, entire). Increased 
sedimentation impacts both water quality and quantity, which can have 
direct and indirect impacts on the survival, reproduction, and growth 
of freshwater mussel populations (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, entire; 
Goldsmith et al. 2021, entire; Tuttle-Raycraft and Ackerman 2019, p. 
2532; Tokumon et al. 2015, pp. 201-203).
Water Temperature and Drought
    Alteration to the natural thermal regime of mussels is one of the 
greatest threats freshwater ecosystems face today (Caissie 2006, p. 
1389). Increased water temperature negatively affects mussel 
physiological processes (for example, catabolization of protein 
reserves, fluidity of the cellular membrane, and organ function), 
disrupting energy balance, growth, and reproduction (Ganser et al. 
2015, p. 1706).
Dissolved Oxygen
    Low dissolved oxygen is a threat to freshwater mussels and is 
particularly an issue in interstitial waters (waters between sand 
particles, sediment, and gravel) (Sparks & Strayer 1998, p. 129). Low 
dissolved oxygen can be caused by excess sedimentation, nutrient 
loading, organic inputs, changes in flow, and higher temperatures 
(Sparks & Strayer 1998, p. 129). Alterations to flow directly affect 
the concentration of dissolved oxygen within a river system (Ganser et 
al. 2015, p. 17). Adults and juveniles that are buried in the sediment 
are particularly vulnerable to low dissolved oxygen (Sparks & Strayer 
1998, p. 129).
Hydrological Regime
    Freshwater mussels need flowing water in order to survive. Changes 
to a river's hydrology and ecological processes can increase or 
decrease water depths, decrease habitat heterogeneity, decrease 
substrate stability, block host passage, and isolate mussel populations 
from hosts, resulting in a reduction or elimination of suitable mussel 
habitat and interfering with the mussel's reproductive process.
    Historical land use change and associated water resource 
development have altered established patterns of hydrologic variation 
and associated dynamics of large river systems, resulting in long-term 
chronic stresses felt decades after their initiation (Zeiringer et al. 
2018, p. 70; Pyron et al. 2020, pp. 2, 6). Typical anthropogenic 
alterations to the naturally occurring hydrology of rivers and streams 
include construction of dams, water diversions, levees, and other such 
structures for channelization. Dams directly affect mussels through 
alterations in flow and habitat (Poff et al. 1997, pp. 772-774). This 
topic is explored more under ``Connectivity,'' below.
Connectivity
    Artificial barriers within streams and rivers (for example, dams, 
road crossings, water control structures, etc.) pose a great number of 
threats to freshwater mussels and are considered one of the primary 
reasons for their decline (Haag 2012, pp. 328-330; Downing et al. 2010, 
pp. 155-160;

[[Page 57230]]

Vaughn and Taylor 1999, p. 915). Artificial barriers affect freshwater 
mussels through direct effects (such as water temperature and flow 
changes and habitat alteration) and indirect effects (such as changes 
to food base and host availability). Hydroelectric dams and similar 
water control barriers can create additional stressors by fluctuating 
flows to abnormal levels on a daily basis or at inappropriate times of 
year (Poff et al. 1997, pp. 772-774). Abnormally high stream flow can 
displace juvenile mussels and make it difficult for them to attach to 
the substrate (Holland-Bartels 1990, pp. 331-332; Layzer & Madison 
1995, p. 335). Altered flow can destabilize the substrate, which is a 
critical requirement for mussel bed stability (Di Maio and Corkum 1995, 
p. 663). Barriers can also exacerbate the effects of drought, resulting 
in the stranding of mussels and drying of mussel beds (Fisher and LaVoy 
1972, pp. 1473-1476).
Invasive Species
    Invasion of aquatic habitats within the United States by invasive 
species is one of the leading threats that freshwater ecosystems face, 
with about 42 percent of endangered and threatened species reported to 
be significantly affected (NCANSMPC 2015, pp. 8-9; Due[ntilde]as et al. 
2018, p. 3171). When introduced, nonnative species may outcompete (for 
example, crowd out or replace) native organisms, in turn negatively 
altering food web and ecosystem dynamics and ultimately severely 
damaging ecological health (Davis et al. 2000, p. 227). Invasive 
species can impact native species in a multitude of ways including: (1) 
native species may become a source of food for invasive species; (2) 
invasive species may cause or carry diseases; (3) invasive species may 
prevent native species from reproducing and/or kill the young of native 
species; and (4) invasive species may outcompete native species for 
resources (for example, food, space) (Sodhi et al. 2010, p. 318). The 
invasion of freshwater habitats within the United States has resulted 
in an imminent threat to mussel fauna within affected regions and is 
thought to have contributed to the decline of mussel species (Ricciardi 
et al. 1998, p. 615).
    While invasive species do pose a risk to the salamander mussel, 
given its unique anatomy, habitat it occupies, and its use of a non-
fish host, we did not find a plausible situation in which invasive 
species alone would pose a risk that would affect salamander mussels at 
the population level. See the SSA report (Service 2023, p. 24, 
appendices B and C) for more information on each identified invasive 
species and the risk posed to the salamander mussel.
Host Species Vulnerability
    Mudpuppies are susceptible to many of the same threats that affect 
mussels, including contaminants, habitat degradation and fragmentation, 
lack of water quality and quantity, known disease issues or die-offs, 
and potential overharvest and collection. These threats negatively 
impact the abundance, distribution, and survival of mudpuppies. The 
conservation status of the mudpuppy varies across the 14 U.S. States 
where the mudpuppy's range overlaps with the salamander mussel's range. 
Therefore, it is difficult to determine what effect these activities 
are having at the population level for the mudpuppy. Regardless, the 
magnitude of these factors has the potential to have a significant 
localized impact on the abundance and distribution of mudpuppies, 
thereby directly impacting the health and status of the salamander 
mussel.
Mussel Disease
    Enigmatic declines and large-scale die-offs of mussel assemblages 
within otherwise healthy streams across large geographic regions have 
emerged as a very concerning risk factor (Haag and Williams 2014, pp. 
45-60; Haag 2019, pp. 43-60; Waller and Cope 2019, pp. 26-42). Little 
is known about mussel health, including the role of microbiota and 
pathogens in mussel health, which makes it very difficult to understand 
how these factors may be impacting freshwater mussel populations. We 
are not aware of any diseases that are causing die-offs or declines of 
salamander mussel populations.
Resource Extraction
    We identified the effects of coal mining and oil and gas 
exploration and extraction as potential catastrophic events that could 
negatively affect a large portion of the species' range at any given 
point in time.
    Coal mining has the potential to result in accidental spills and 
contaminant runoff. Acid mine and saline drainage (AMD) is a major 
threat to aquatic ecosystems although the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) has played a 
significant role in reducing AMD during mining operations. Catastrophic 
events, such as black water release events and fly-ash spills, have 
occurred in some river systems (for example, upper Tennessee River), 
resulting in the extirpation of mussel populations within the watershed 
(Ahlstedt et al. 2016, p. 8). Impacts from coal mining may result in 
direct mortality due to acute toxicity of introduced contaminants and 
may reduce growth and reproduction, leading to population-level changes 
in the form of local extirpations or significant population declines.
    Oil and gas exploration and extraction can result in accidental 
spills, discharges, and increased sedimentation. Discharge of untreated 
or poorly treated brine wastewater and inadvertent release during 
drilling of frack fluids high in chlorides and other chemicals can 
result in conditions that are acutely toxic to mussels (Patnode et al. 
2015, p. 62). Excess sedimentation results when there is bank slippage 
and mudslides during pipeline construction, open trenching operations, 
construction of access roads, and construction of well pads (Ellis 
1936, p. 29; Anderson & Kreeger 2010, p. 2). Excessive suspended 
sediments and contaminants resulting from inadvertent releases or 
runoff can be acutely toxic, result in sublethal effects (such as 
impaired feeding processes), and degrade and destroy suitable habitat 
for mussels.
Cumulative and Synergistic Effects
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate 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

    Survey data were provided by State agencies and researchers across 
the range of the salamander mussel. The occurrence data provided varied 
across States, depending on level of survey effort (Service 2023, p. 
21).
    We delineated populations based on the hydrologic unit code (HUC) 
(Seaber et al. 1987, entire; U.S. Geological Survey 2018, entire) at 
the fourth of six levels (that is, the HUC-8 watershed). We defined a 
population as extant if it contains live, fresh dead, or weathered 
individuals observed in surveys from 2000 to the present (Service 2023, 
p. 20). We classified weathered dead collections as an indicator of 
extant

[[Page 57231]]

populations because the salamander mussel is a thin-shelled species and 
weathered dead shells are not expected to persist in a system for an 
extended time. We defined a population as presumed extant if it 
contained live, fresh dead, or weathered individuals observed in 
surveys from 1970 to 1999 (Service 2023, p. 20). We note that for some 
of these records a single observation of an individual in any condition 
can be considered an extant or presumed extant population depending on 
the observation year (Service 2023, p. 20).
    Current conditions are described using categories that estimate the 
overall condition (resiliency) of the salamander mussel populations. We 
assessed demographic population condition for the small number of 
populations for which we have demographic data (Service 2023, pp. 22-
23). We categorized the demographic condition of each population as 
high, moderate, low, or functionally extirpated based on demographic 
criteria. Functionally extirpated populations were defined as 
populations that are still extant but have fewer than 10 live 
individuals observed within the last 20 years. For most populations, we 
have data only from incidental observations that would not allow us to 
evaluate population health. We categorized these populations as unknown 
demographic condition.
    To calibrate the meanings of the demographic condition categories 
in terms of a population's ability to withstand demographic stochastic 
events, we assigned an estimate of the probability of persistence over 
20 years for each category (Service 2023, pp. 22-23). Similarly, we 
also assigned a probability of persistence over 20 years to each of the 
three risk categories, described below. This allowed us to project a 
population's condition in 20 years, based on its current demographic 
population condition and risk category.
    We also evaluated the six primary risk factors affecting the 
salamander mussel (contaminants, hydrological regime, landscape, 
connectivity, invasive species, and host species vulnerability) to 
assist in evaluating the current condition of each extant population. 
We assigned these risk factors to three categories of high, moderate, 
and low risk (Service 2023, p. 23). In addition, we assigned the 
potential catastrophic events (described above under Resource 
Extraction) as low if no known activities were present in the HUC8 or 
high if activities were known to be present in the HUC8.
    Historically, the species occurred in 110 populations. Of those, 66 
populations are considered extant or presumed extant. Of these 66 
populations, 48 (73 percent) are in unknown demographic condition. Of 
the 18 populations for which we have demographic information, 9 are 
considered functionally extirpated, 6 are in low condition, and 3 are 
in moderate or high condition. In addition, more than 80 percent of the 
66 populations are at high risk from one or more of the primary risk 
factors, and approximately 14 percent of the populations are at 
moderate risk. None of the populations across the range are 
experiencing low risk. We did not have information to complete the risk 
factor analysis for three populations that cross the border with 
Canada.
    To evaluate the species' genetic and ecological diversity 
(representation) in the absence of species-specific genetic 
information, we considered the extent and variability of environmental 
conditions within the species' geographic range. Based on the best 
available data, we identified five representation units at the HUC-2 
watershed level: Upper Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Great Lakes, and 
Arkansas-White-Red basins. The species currently ranges across all five 
representation units, but the Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Great Lakes 
basins make up the core area for the salamander mussel.
    The number of populations in the Ohio and Upper Mississippi basins 
has declined by almost 40 percent, while the number of Great Lakes 
basin populations has declined by 45 percent. The Ohio River basin has 
35 extant or presumed extant populations; of these, 27 are at high risk 
from one or more of the primary risk factors, including contaminants 
(26 populations) and landscape alterations (7 populations). The Upper 
Mississippi basin has 17 extant or presumed extant populations, all of 
which are at high risk from contaminants. Nine are also at high risk 
from host vulnerability, and five are at high risk from lack of 
connectivity. The Great Lakes basin has eight extant or presumed extant 
populations with risk analyses completed. Seven populations are at high 
risk from contaminants, four are at high risk from landscape 
alterations, and four are at high risk from host vulnerability. We did 
not have information to complete the analyses for three extant 
populations that cross the border with Canada. The Arkansas-White-Red 
basin historically had only three populations, one of which is presumed 
extant and is at high risk from lack of connectivity. Salamander 
mussels have not been observed in the Arkansas-White-Red basin in the 
last two decades. Both of the known populations in the Tennessee basin 
are extant, one of which has had salamander mussels introduced in the 
last two decades. Both populations are at high risk from lack of 
connectivity and host vulnerability, and one is also at high risk from 
contaminants.
    We evaluated the effect of the risk factors on each population, 
given its current condition. Of the 18 populations for which we have 
demographic condition, we were able to evaluate 16 of those. (We could 
not evaluate risk condition for the two populations with demographic 
data that are within Canada.) Of those 16 populations, 11 
(approximately 70 percent) would be extirpated within 20 years due to 
current risks, 3 would be functionally extirpated (approximately 18 
percent), and 2 would be in low condition (approximately 12 percent). 
Of the 48 populations with unknown demographic condition, 43 are 
experiencing high risk. At best, these populations would be in low 
condition in 20 years if they all were in high demographic condition 
currently, which is unlikely. If we assume these unknown populations 
follow the pattern of the populations for which we have data, 9 (18 
percent) would be functionally extirpated and 34 (70 percent) would be 
extirpated.
    With few populations that are all at high risk, the Great Lakes, 
Tennessee, and Arkansas-White-Red representation units are all at risk 
of extirpation. Although the Upper Mississippi representation unit has 
17 populations, all of them are at high risk, putting the unit at risk 
of extirpation. The Ohio basin is the only representation unit with 
populations experiencing moderate risk.
    In addition, 98.5 percent of the 66 extant and presumed extant 
populations are at high risk of a potential catastrophic event from oil 
and gas or coal activities. Further, 23 extant and presumed extant 
populations are known from a single record or couple of records of 
occupied river extent, making these populations more susceptible to 
extirpation from catastrophic events.

Future Conditions

    As part of the SSA, we also developed two future condition 
scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future 
threats and the projected responses by the salamander mussel. Our 
scenarios project an upper and lower bound to plausible changes to 
contaminant levels, landscape cover, hydrological regime, connectivity, 
invasive species, and host species vulnerability. Because we determined 
that the salamander mussel is currently

[[Page 57232]]

in danger of extinction (see Determination of Salamander Mussel's 
Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the future 
scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report 
(Service 2023, pp. 44-51, 145-187) for the full analysis of future 
scenarios.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Captive propagation is an important tool that is being used to 
augment and reintroduce salamander mussel populations in Pennsylvania, 
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Kentucky. Two of the Service's National 
Fish Hatcheries (Genoa and White Sulfur Springs) are actively 
propagating salamander mussel as well as other mussel species for 
conservation and recovery. In addition, several State wildlife agencies 
have developed mollusk conservation propagation programs, including the 
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources that established the 
Center for Mollusk Conservation in 2002 and have been propagating 
salamander mussel and other mollusks to aid conservation. These 
conservation propagation efforts have been critical in contributing 
significant conservation benefits to imperiled salamander mussel 
populations as well as enhancing our understanding of salamander mussel 
and mudpuppy reproduction and life history. These programs will 
continue to be an important conservation tool into the future for 
salamander mussel and mudpuppy conservation.
    Efforts to construct artificial mudpuppy habitats have been 
undertaken in several waterbodies, including in the Allegheny River in 
Pennsylvania (Welte 2020, entire); in the Detroit and St. Clair rivers, 
Lake St. Clair, and Lake Erie in Michigan (Stapleton et al. 2018, 
entire); and at Guttenberg, Iowa (Hanson 2021, pers. comm.). Mudpuppies 
have been observed using the constructed habitat within the first 6 
months of installation (Hanson 2021, pers. comm.). In Pennsylvania, one 
live salamander mussel was observed under an artificial structure. No 
mudpuppies were observed, but silt may have obscured escaping 
mudpuppies during monitoring (Welte 2020, entire). In Michigan, 
mudpuppies were observed at two recent restoration sites where 
mudpuppies had not previously been detected, indicating that efforts to 
create mudpuppy artificial habitat have been successful (Stapleton et 
al. 2018, entire).
    The salamander mussel is listed as endangered under State laws in 
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania and as threatened under 
State laws in Ohio and Wisconsin. The salamander mussel is also listed 
as endangered in Canada under the Federal Species at Risk Act. In 
addition, the mudpuppy is listed as threatened under State laws in 
Illinois and Iowa.
    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of 
dredged or fill material in jurisdictional waters of the United States 
unless permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or unless 
the discharge is exempt from regulation as designated in section 
404(f). Section 402 of the CWA regulates activities affecting water 
quality. Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES), discharge of pollutants into navigable waters requires a 
permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or a 
State-authorized program.
    The USEPA also oversees the CWA triennial review (Section 
303(c)(1)), water quality standards (section 303(c)(3)), impaired 
waters (section 303(d)), and the NPDES programs (section 402). The 
USEPA's responsibility under the triennial review is to encourage the 
States to hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable 
water quality standards, and, as appropriate, modifying or adopting the 
State water quality standards (i.e., water body uses, numeric criteria, 
narrative criteria, and anti-degradation policy). The USEPA's 
responsibility under the water quality standards program is to 
determine if any water quality standards submitted by the State as a 
new or revised standard meets the requirements of the CWA.
    Freshwater mussels are among the most sensitive freshwater species 
to metals, ammonia, and ion constituents, including copper, sulfate, 
alachlor, nickel, chloride, sulfate, zinc, and potassium (Wang et al. 
2017, pp. 786-796). The USEPA has water quality criteria for six of the 
10 chemicals tested in Wang et al. (2017, pp. 186-796). If the minimum 
data requirement for deriving water quality criteria required the 
inclusion of freshwater mussels, then water quality criteria would 
capture the high sensitivity of freshwater mussels to many chemicals 
and different exposure pathways (Wang et al. 2017, p. 795).

Determination of Salamander Mussel's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species 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 the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we determined that the salamander mussel has experienced a 40 
percent reduction in the number of populations from historical 
conditions. Historically, the species occurred within 110 populations 
and currently occurs in 66 populations.
    Of the 18 populations for which we have demographic information, 9 
are considered functionally extirpated, 6 are in low condition, 2 are 
in moderate condition, and 1 is in high condition. Of these 18 
populations, 11 (approximately 70 percent) would be extirpated within 
20 years due to current risks, 3 would be functionally extirpated 
(approximately 18 percent), and 2 would be in low condition 
(approximately 12 percent). (We could not evaluate risk condition for 
the two populations with demographic data that are within Canada.) Of 
the 48 populations with unknown demographic condition, 43 are 
experiencing high risk. At best, these populations would be in low 
condition in 20 years if they all were in high demographic condition 
currently, which is unlikely. In addition, 23 of these populations are 
known from a single record or couple of records and may be at higher 
risk than presumed. Based on survey data, it is unlikely that 
meaningful numbers of individuals or populations have not been 
identified. Further, more than 80 percent of all populations are at 
high risk from contaminants, hydrological alteration, land use changes, 
loss of connectivity (Factor A), or host species' vulnerabilities 
(Factor E). These current and ongoing threats put the majority of the 
remaining populations at risk of reduced resiliency and potential 
extirpation, and the existing regulatory

[[Page 57233]]

mechanisms (Factor D) are not adequately reducing the impact of these 
threats on the species. Although all five representation units are 
still extant, the populations are concentrated in three units (Ohio, 
Upper Mississippi, and Great Lakes), and of these, the Ohio basin is 
the only representation unit with populations at moderate risk. With 
few populations that are all at high risk, three of the representation 
units are at risk of extirpation. Redundancy is reduced from historical 
conditions, and a high percentage (98.5 percent) of the remaining 
populations are at high risk of experiencing a potential catastrophic 
event. The biological status of the salamander mussel is exacerbated by 
having only one host, which also has habitat limitations and is 
vulnerable to risk factors.
    Overall, most of the remaining populations are subject to high risk 
from current and ongoing threats, including contaminants, landscape 
alterations, lack of connectivity, and host vulnerability; and are 
likely unable to withstand potential catastrophic events from 
accidental spills, discharges, and increased sedimentation related to 
oil and gas exploration and extraction; and are projected to be in low 
condition or functionally extirpated within 20 years due to these 
current and ongoing threats. Thus, after assessing the best available 
information, we determine that the salamander mussel is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range.
    Our analysis of the species' current condition and ongoing threats 
of contaminants, landscape alterations, lack of connectivity, and host 
vulnerability, as well as the conservation efforts and regulatory 
mechanisms discussed above, shows that the salamander mussel is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range due to the severity 
and immediacy of threats currently impacting the species. We find that 
a threatened species status is not appropriate for the salamander 
mussel because the threats that the species is experiencing are already 
occurring across the species' range. Therefore, the species is 
currently in danger of extinction throughout its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. We have determined that the salamander mussel is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did 
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. 
Because the salamander mussel warrants listing as endangered throughout 
all of its range, our determination does not conflict with the decision 
in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 
(D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), which 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'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 
providing that if the Service determines that a species is threatened 
throughout all of its range, the Service will not analyze whether the 
species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.

Determination of Status

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

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition 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/endangered-species), or from our Michigan Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Arkansas, Illinois, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio,

[[Page 57234]]

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin would be eligible 
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the 
protection or recovery of the salamander mussel. 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 salamander mussel 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 is titled 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 
section 7 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 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 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 salamander mussel that 
may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 
7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal 
lands administered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest 
Service, National Park Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and as well as 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. 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.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another 
to commit or to cause to be committed any of the following: (1) import 
endangered wildlife to, or export from, the United States; (2) take 
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect) endangered wildlife within the United States or on 
the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, 
by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken 
illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or 
(5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain 
exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the 
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land 
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. 
With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for 
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the 
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The 
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which 
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is the policy of the Services, 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 violation of section 9 of the 
Act. To the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely 
to result in 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.
    As discussed above, certain activities that are prohibited under 
section 9 may be permitted under section 10 of the Act. In addition, to 
the extent currently known, the following activities would not be 
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act:
    (1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices that utilize 
best management practices to minimize runoff and erosion;
    (2) Normal livestock grazing and other standard ranching activities 
within riparian zones that do not destroy or significantly degrade 
salamander mussel habitat;
    (3) Routine implementation and maintenance of agricultural 
conservation practices specifically designed to minimize erosion of 
cropland (e.g., terraces, dikes, grassed waterways, and conservation 
tillage);
    (4) Existing discharges into waters supporting the salamander 
mussel, provided these activities are carried out in accordance with 
existing regulations and permit requirements (e.g., activities subject 
to sections 402, 404, and 405 of the Clean Water Act);
    (5) Improvements to existing irrigation, livestock, and domestic 
well structures, such as renovations, repairs, or replacement; and
    (6) Normal residential landscaping activities.

[[Page 57235]]

    This list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive; 
additional activities that would not be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9 of the Act may be identified during coordination 
with the local field office, and in some instances (e.g., with new 
information), the Service may conclude that one or more activities 
identified here would be considered likely to result in violation of 
section 9.
    To the extent currently known, the following is a list of examples 
of activities that would be considered likely to result in violation of 
section 9 of the Act in addition to what is already clear from the 
descriptions of the prohibitions found at 50 CFR 17.21:
    (1) Modification of the river channel or water flow of any stream 
that supports salamander mussel;
    (2) Unauthorized discharges (including violation of discharge 
permits), spills, or dumping of chemicals, fill material, or other 
pollutants (e.g., sewage, oil and gasoline, heavy metals) into any 
waters or their adjoining riparian areas that support or sustain 
salamander mussel;
    (3) Livestock grazing that results in direct or indirect 
destruction of stream habitat that supports salamander mussel;
    (4) Applications of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other 
chemicals, including fertilizers, in violation of label restrictions;
    (5) Withdrawal of surface or ground waters to the point at which 
baseflows in water courses occupied by the salamander mussel diminish 
and habitat becomes unsuitable for the species;
    (6) Unauthorized collecting of mudpuppies in waters occupied by the 
salamander mussel; and
    (7) Introduction of nonnative species of salamanders that may be 
vectors of diseases that affect mudpuppies in waters occupied by the 
salamander mussel.
    This list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive; 
additional activities that would be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9 of the Act may be identified during coordination 
with the local field office, and in some instances (e.g., with new or 
site-specific information), the Service may conclude that one or more 
activities identified here would not be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9. Questions regarding whether specific activities 
would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed 
to the Michigan Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

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

[[Page 57236]]

are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report and information developed during the 
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of 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 Summary of Biological Status and Threats, 
the salamander mussel occurs in rivers and streams with flat rocks or 
bedrock crevices. Once released from their mudpuppy host, salamander 
mussels are benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms closely associated with 
appropriate habitat patches within a river or stream. Among mussel 
species, salamander mussel is a highly mobile and active mussel species 
with the capability to move to more suitable habitat; however, 
interaction among individuals in different river reaches is strongly 
influenced by the presence of barriers, habitat fragmentation, and the 
distance between occupied river or stream reaches.
    The primary habitat elements that influence resiliency of the 
salamander mussel include substrate/shelter habitat, water quantity/
flow, water quality, habitat connectivity, and the presence of the 
mudpuppy host to ensure recruitment. These features are also described 
above as species needs under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, 
and a full description is available in the SSA report. The individuals' 
needs are summarized below in table 1.

     Table 1--Requirements for Life Stages of the Salamander Mussel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Resources needed to
         Life stage            complete life stage         Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fertilized eggs.............   Clear,       Berg et al. 2008, p.
 --late spring to summer....   flowing water.        397; Haag 2012, pp.
                               Sexually      38-39.
                               mature males in
                               proximity to
                               sexually mature
                               females.
                               Appropriate
                               spawning
                               temperatures..

[[Page 57237]]

 
Glochidia                      Clear,       Strayer 2008, p. 65;
 --late summer released from   flowing water.        Haag 2012, pp. 41-
 female marsupial gills.       Presence of   42; Clarke 1985,
 --develop on host fall to     mudpuppy (host) for   pp. 60-68.
 early spring.                 attachment.
                               Flow to
                               ensure glochidia
                               encounter host.
Juveniles                      Clear,       Dimock and Wright
 --excystment (juveniles       flowing water.        1993, pp. 188-190;
 drop off from host).          Host          Sparks and Strayer
                               dispersal..           1998, p. 132;
                               Appropriate   Augspurger et al.
                               interstitial          2003, p. 2574;
                               chemistry: low        Augspurger et al.
                               salinity; high        2007, p. 2025;
                               dissolved oxygen;     Strayer and Malcom
                               absence of or non-    2012, pp. 1787-
                               toxic levels of       1788.
                               contaminants,
                               including ammonia,
                               copper, chloride,
                               and sulfate.
                               Flat rocks
                               and bedrock that
                               provide crevices
                               for shelter.
Adults......................   Clear,       Yeager et al. 1994,
 --greater than 0.8 in (20     flowing water.        p. 221; Nichols and
 mm) shell length.             Flat rocks    Garling 2000, p.
                               and bedrock that      881; Chen et al.
                               provide crevices      2001, p. 214;
                               for shelter.          Spooner and Vaughn
                               Adequate      2008, p. 308.
                               food availability
                               (phytoplankton and
                               detritus).
                               High
                               dissolved oxygen..
                               Appropriate
                               water temperature..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the salamander mussel 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. 3-10; 
available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No FWS-R3-ES-
2023-0058). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of salamander 
mussel:
    (1) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, timing, 
frequency, duration, rate of change, and overall seasonality of 
discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the 
salamander mussel and its host, the mudpuppy, are found and to maintain 
stream connectivity.
    (2) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, 
characterized by geomorphologically stable stream channels and banks 
(i.e., channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal 
profiles, and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or 
degrading bed elevation) with habitats that support the salamander 
mussel and mudpuppy (e.g., large rock shelters, woody debris, and 
bedrock crevices within stable zones of swift current with low amounts 
of fine sediment silt).
    (3) Water and sediment quality necessary to sustain natural 
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of 
all life stages, including (but not limited to)dissolved oxygen 
(generally above 2 to 3 parts per million (ppm)), salinity (generally 
below 2 to 4 ppm), and temperature (generally below 86 [deg]F ([deg]F) 
(30[deg] Celsius ([deg]C)). Additionally, concentrations of 
contaminants, including (but not limited to)ammonia,nitrate, copper, 
andchloride, are below acute toxicity levels for mussels.
    (4) The presence and abundance ofthe mudpuppyhost.

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 
salamander mussel may require special management considerations or 
protections to reduce the following threats: (1) Alteration of the 
natural flow regime (modifying the natural hydrograph and seasonal 
flows), including water withdrawals, resulting in flow reduction and 
available water quantity; (2) urbanization of the landscape, including 
(but not limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial use, 
infrastructure (pipelines, roads, bridges, utilities), and urban water 
uses (resource extraction activities, water supply reservoirs, 
wastewater treatment, etc.); (3) significant alteration of water 
quality and nutrient pollution from a variety of activities, such as 
industrial and municipal effluents, mining, and agricultural 
activities; (4) land use activities that remove large areas of forested 
wetlands and riparian systems; (5) dam construction and culvert and 
pipe installation that create barriers to movement for the salamander 
mussel or its mudpuppy host; and (6) other watershed and floodplain 
disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the 
water.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to: Use of best management practices designed to 
reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank destruction; protection of 
riparian corridors and woody vegetation; moderation of surface and 
ground water withdrawals to maintain natural flow regimes; improved 
stormwater management; and reduction of other watershed and floodplain 
disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the 
water.
    In summary, we find that the occupied areas we are proposing to 
designate as critical habitat contain the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. 
Special management considerations or protection may be required of the 
Federal action agency to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible levels, 
the threats affecting the physical and biological features of each 
unit.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical

[[Page 57238]]

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 and we have determined that 
occupied areas are sufficient to conserve the species.

Methodology Used for Selection of Proposed Units

    First, we included all extant populations with records of live or 
fresh dead individuals. These populations could be used for recovery 
actions to re-establish populations within basins through propagation 
activities or augment other populations through direct translocations 
within their basins. We defined a population as extant if it contains 
individuals observed in surveys from 2000 to the present (Service 2023, 
p. 20). We did not include presumed extant populations (those with 
individuals observed in surveys from 1970 to 1999 (Service 2023, p. 
20)) or extant populations represented only by weathered or sub-fossil 
shells due to the level of uncertainty regarding the biological status 
of those populations and their contribution to recovery of the species. 
Then, we evaluated the river systems in which the extant populations 
occur and consulted with local experts to identify those areas that 
provide suitable salamander mussel habitat.
    Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat designation 
include information from State agencies throughout the species' range 
and numerous survey reports on streams throughout the species' range 
(Service 2023, entire). We have also reviewed available information 
that pertains to the habitat requirements of the species. 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, entire).
    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:
    (1) We identified river and stream reaches with observations from 
2000 to the present. We determined it is reasonable to find these areas 
occupied, given the incomplete survey data for the salamander mussel 
across its range. Available State heritage databases and information 
support the likelihood of the species' continued presence in these 
areas within this timeframe.
    (2) We delineated specific habitat areas, based on Natural Heritage 
Element Occurrences, published reports, and unpublished survey data 
provided by States. These areas provide habitat for salamander mussel 
populations and are large enough to be self-sustaining over time, 
despite fluctuations in local conditions. The areas within the proposed 
units represent continuous river and stream reaches of free-flowing 
habitat patches capable of sustaining mudpuppy hosts and allowing for 
seasonal transport of glochidia, which are essential for reproduction 
and dispersal of salamander mussel.
    We consider portions of the following rivers and streams to be 
occupied by the salamander mussel at the time of proposed listing, and 
appropriate for critical habitat designation: Allegheny River, Beech 
Fork River, Black River, Blanchard River, Big Pine Creek, Chippewa 
River, Clinton River, Conneaut Creek, Drennon Creek, Duck River, East 
Fork White River, Eau Claire River, Fish Creek (Indiana), Fish Creek 
(West Virginia), Fishing Creek, French Creek, Graham Creek, Harpeth 
River, Kinniconick Creek, Laughery Creek, Lemonweir River, Licking 
River, Little Kanawha River, Middle Fork Wildcat Creek, Middle Island 
Creek, Mill Creek, North Branch Pensaukee River, North Fork Licking 
River, Otter Creek, Rolling Fork River, South Fork Hughes River, South 
Fork Licking River, St. Croix River, Tippecanoe River, Tonawanda Creek, 
and Wisconsin River.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical or biological features necessary for the salamander mussel. 
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.
    Thirty-seven units are proposed for designation based on one or 
more of the physical or biological features being present to support 
the salamander mussel's life-history processes. All units contain one 
or more of the physical or biological features necessary to support the 
salamander mussel'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-R3-ES-
2023-0058 and on our internet site https://www.fws.gov/species/salamander-mussel-simpsonaias-ambigua.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing approximately 2,012 river miles (3,238 kilometers 
(km)) in 37 units as critical habitat for the salamander mussel. The 
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best 
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for 
salamander mussel. The 37 areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) 
St. Croix River, (2) Chippewa River, (3) Eau Claire River, (4) Black 
River, (5) Wisconsin River North, (6) North Branch Pensaukee River, (7) 
Lemonweir River, (8) Wisconsin River South, (9) Big Pine Creek, (10) 
Middle Fork Wildcat Creek, (11) Tippecanoe River, (12) Fish Creek 
(Indiana), (13) Blanchard River, (14) Clinton River, (15) Mill Creek, 
(16) Tonawanda Creek, (17) Conneaut Creek, (18) French Creek, (19) 
Allegheny River, (20) Fish Creek (West Virginia), (21) Fishing Creek, 
(22) Middle Island Creek, (23) Little Kanawha River, (24) South Fork 
Hughes River, (25) Kinniconick Creek, (26) North Fork Licking River, 
(27) Licking River, (28) South Fork Licking River, (29) Drennon Creek, 
(30) Laughery Creek, (31) Otter Creek, (32) Graham Creek, (33) East 
Fork White River, (34) Beech Fork River, (35) Rolling Fork River, (36) 
Harpeth River, and (37) Duck River. Table 2 shows the proposed critical 
habitat units, the

[[Page 57239]]

approximate area of each unit, and the State(s) where each unit is 
located. All units are occupied by the species.

                       Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Salamander Mussel
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Adjacent riparian land     Size of unit in river
          Critical habitat unit                ownership by type         miles (kilometers)         State(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. St. Croix River......................  Public (Federal, State)...            28.85 (46.43)             MN, WI
                                          Private...................            24.08 (38.76)
2. Chippewa River.......................  Public (Federal, State,               34.04 (54.77)                 WI
                                           local).                              25.20 (40.56)
                                          Private...................
3. Eau Claire River.....................  Public (local)............              4.23 (6.81)                 WI
                                          Private...................              3.17 (5.10)
4. Black River..........................  Public (Federal, State,               35.71 (57.47)                 WI
                                           local).                              39.67 (63.84)
                                          Private...................
5. Wisconsin River North................  Public (State, local).....              4.11 (6.62)                 WI
                                          Private...................            17.08 (27.48)
6. North Branch Pensaukee River.........  Public (State, local).....              1.24 (2.00)                 WI
                                          Private...................            18.69 (30.08)
7. Lemonweir River......................  Public (local)............              2.11 (3.40)                 WI
                                          Private...................            35.39 (56.96)
8. Wisconsin River South................  Public (Federal, State,             102.78 (165.40)                 WI
                                           local).                              50.10 (80.63)
                                          Private...................
9. Big Pine Creek.......................  Public (State)............              1.30 (2.09)                 IN
                                          Private...................            49.93 (80.35)
10. Middle Fork Wildcat Creek...........  Private...................            35.70 (57.46)                 IN
11. Tippecanoe River....................  Public (State)............             7.43 (11.95)                 IN
                                          Private...................          116.83 (188.01)
12. Fish Creek (IN).....................  Public (State)............              1.02 (1.65)             IN, OH
                                          Private...................            36.34 (58.49)
13. Blanchard River.....................  Public (local)............              0.94 (1.51)                 OH
                                          Private...................            24.08 (38.75)
14. Clinton River.......................  Public (local)............              0.28 (0.44)                 MI
                                          Private...................             6.74 (10.85)
15. Mill Creek..........................  Public (State)............              1.54 (2.47)                 MI
                                          Private...................            22.11 (35.59)
16. Tonawanda Creek.....................  Public (State, local).....             8.70 (14.00)                 NY
                                          Private...................           93.91 (151.14)
                                          Tribal....................            10.60 (17.06)
17. Conneaut Creek......................  Public (State, local).....              2.31 (3.72)             OH, PA
                                          Private...................            59.69 (96.06)
18. French Creek........................  Public (Federal, State,                 5.83 (9.39)                 PA
                                           local).                             68.54 (110.30)
                                          Private...................
19. Allegheny River.....................  Public (State, local).....              4.60 (7.40)                 PA
                                          Private...................            34.85 (56.08)
20. Fish Creek (WV).....................  Private...................            26.58 (42.78)                 WV
21. Fishing Creek.......................  Public (local)............              0.13 (0.21)                 WV
                                          Private...................            23.19 (37.33)
22. Middle Island Creek.................  Public (State)............              0.15 (0.25)                 WV
                                          Private...................            62.10 (99.94)
23. Little Kanawha River................  Private...................            49.82 (80.18)                 WV
24. South Fork Hughes River.............  Private...................            57.44 (92.43)                 WV
25. Kinniconick Creek...................  Private...................            51.01 (82.10)                 KY
26. North Fork Licking River............  Public (Federal)..........            13.13 (21.14)                 KY
                                          Private...................             7.54 (12.13)
27. Licking River.......................  Public (Federal, State,               20.82 (33.51)                 KY
                                           local).                            158.74 (255.47)
                                          Private...................
28. South Fork Licking River............  Private...................            18.26 (29.39)                 KY
29. Drennon Creek.......................  Private...................            22.36 (35.99)                 KY
30. Laughery Creek......................  Public (State)............              3.01 (4.85)                 IN
                                          Private...................            41.51 (66.80)
31. Otter Creek.........................  Private...................            17.96 (28.91)                 IN
32. Graham Creek........................  Private...................            41.50 (66.79)                 IN
33. East Fork White River...............  Public (Federal, State)...              6.12 (9.85)                 IN
                                          Private...................           72.45 (116.60)
34. Beech Fork River....................  Public (State)............              1.99 (3.21)                 KY
                                          Private...................            48.40 (77.89)
35. Rolling Fork River..................  Private...................           87.90 (141.47)                 KY
36. Harpeth River.......................  Public (Federal)..........              6.07 (9.77)                 TN
                                          Private...................            37.25 (59.95)
37. Duck River..........................  Public (Federal)..........              0.52 (0.83)                 TN
                                          Private...................          115.90 (186.53)
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................  Public....................          298.97 (481.14)

[[Page 57240]]

 
                                          Private...................      1,702.04 (2,739.17)
                                          Tribal....................            10.60 (17.06)
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
                                           Total....................      2,011.61 (3,237.37)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 salamander mussel, below.

Unit 1: St. Croix River

    Unit 1 consists of 52.93 miles (85.19 km) of St. Croix River in 
Polk, St. Croix, and Pierce Counties, Wisconsin, and Chisago and 
Washington Counties, Minnesota. This unit extends from the base of the 
dam at St. Croix Falls (Polk County, Wisconsin) and Taylors Falls 
(Chisago County, Minnesota) downstream to the confluences with the 
Mississippi River at Prescott (Pierce County, Wisconsin) and Point 
Douglas (Washington County, Minnesota). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 1 is occupied by the 
species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 54.5 percent (28.85 miles (46.43 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 45.5 percent (24.08 miles (38.76 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 12.63 miles (20.32 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are Federal lands associated with the National Park Service's 
(NPS) Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Approximately 4.25 
miles (6.84 km) of the lands in public ownership are Federal lands 
associated with the NPS's Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway on 
one side of the bank and State lands associated with the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources' (WDNR) St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area 
on the other side. Approximately 5.0 miles (8.04 km) of the lands in 
public ownership are Federal lands associated with the NPS's Lower St. 
Croix National Scenic Riverway on one side of the bank and State lands 
associated with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' William 
O'Brien State Park on the other side. Approximately 5.2 miles (8.37 km) 
of the lands in public ownership are State lands associated with the 
WDNR's Kinnickinnic State Park and Interstate Park on one side of the 
bank and State lands associated with the Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources' Interstate Park on the other side. Approximately 
1.78 miles (2.86 km) of the lands in public ownership are State lands 
associated with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Afton 
State Park. In addition to the Federal and State lands, general land 
use within St. Croix River Unit includes agriculture and urban areas, 
including the cities of St. Croix Falls, Osceola, Marine on St. Croix, 
Stillwater, Houlton, Bayport, Hudson, Lakeland, Lake St. Croix Beach, 
and Prescott. This unit does not overlap with any designated critical 
habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of the salamander mussel 
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
the following threats: degradation of water quality due to 
contaminants; lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of 
invasive species; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover in the riparian buffer.

Unit 2: Chippewa River

    Unit 2 consists of 59.24 miles (95.33 km) of Chippewa River in 
Buffalo, Dunn, Eau Claire, and Pepin Counties, Wisconsin. The unit 
extends from the mouth of the Eau Claire River at Eau Claire (Eau 
Claire County, Wisconsin) downstream to the confluence with the 
Mississippi River south of Trevino (Buffalo and Pepin Counties, 
Wisconsin). This unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary 
high water mark. Unit 2 is occupied by the species and contains one or 
more of the physical or biological features essential to the species' 
conservation.
    Approximately 57.5 percent (34.04 miles (54.77 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 42.5 percent (25.20 miles (40.56) km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 1.3 miles (2.09 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are city or county lands associated with city of Eau Claire's 
Owen Park and Jefferson County's Public Hunting Ground. Approximately 
4.2 miles (6.76 km) of the lands in public ownership are Federal lands 
associated with the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) stewardship of 
islands within the river channel. Approximately 1.6 miles (2.57 km) of 
the lands in public ownership are Federal lands associated with the 
Service's Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge on 
one side of the bank and State lands associated with the WDNR's Tiffany 
Wildlife Area on the opposite bank. Approximately 27 miles (43.45 km) 
of the lands in public ownership are State lands associated with the 
WDNR's Lower Chippewa River State Natural Area, Dunnville Wildlife 
Area, and Nine Mile Island State Natural Area. General land use 
includes agriculture and urban areas, including the cities of Eau 
Claire, Shawtown, and Durand. This unit does not overlap with any 
designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
host vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive 
species; impacts to the hydrologic regime; and habitat degradation and 
loss due to urbanization, agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover in 
the riparian buffer.

Unit 3: Eau Claire River

    Unit 3 consists of 7.40 miles (11.91 km) of Eau Claire River in Eau 
Claire County, Wisconsin. The unit extends from the confluence of the 
North Fork and South Fork Eau Claire River (Eau Claire County, 
Wisconsin) downstream to Lake Eau Claire (Eau Claire County, 
Wisconsin). This unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary 
high water mark. Unit 3 is occupied by the species and contains one or 
more of the physical or biological features essential to the species' 
conservation.
    Approximately 57.2 percent (4.23 miles (6.81 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this

[[Page 57241]]

unit are in public ownership, and 42.8 percent (3.17 miles (5.10 km)) 
are in private ownership. The lands in public ownership in this unit 
are associated with the Eau Claire County Forest. General land use 
includes agriculture and urban areas. This unit does not overlap with 
any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive 
species; impacts to the hydrologic regime; and habitat degradation and 
loss due to urbanization, agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover in 
the riparian buffer.

Unit 4: Black River

    Unit 4 consists of 75.38 miles (121.31 km) of Black River in 
Jackson, La Crosse, Monroe, and Trempealeau Counties, Wisconsin. This 
unit extends from the bottom of Lake Arbutus dam southeast of Hatfield 
(Jackson County, Wisconsin) downstream to the confluence with the 
Mississippi River west of Brice Prairie (La Crosse County, Wisconsin). 
This unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water 
mark. Unit 4 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the 
physical or biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 47.4 percent (35.71 miles (57.47 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 52.6 percent (39.67 miles (63.84 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 0.15 mile (0.24 km) of the land in public 
ownership is county land associated with Jackson County Forest. 
Approximately 0.86 mile (1.38 km) of the land in public ownership is 
Federal land associated with the BLM's stewardship of islands within 
the river channel. Approximately 6.6 miles (10.62 km) of the lands in 
public ownership are Federal lands associated with the Service's Upper 
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge on one bank and 
State lands associated with the WDNR's Van Loon Wildlife Area on the 
opposite bank. Approximately 28 miles (45.06 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are State lands associated with the WDNR's North Bend Bottoms 
Wildlife Area, Statewide Habitat Areas, Half Moon Lake Fishery Area, 
and Black River State Forest. General land use within the unit includes 
agriculture and forest and the city of Black River Falls. This unit 
does not overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed 
species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
host vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive 
species; impacts to the hydrologic regime; and habitat degradation and 
loss due to agriculture and the lack of canopy cover in the riparian 
buffer.

Unit 5: Wisconsin River North

    Unit 5 consists of 21.19 miles (34.1 km) of Wisconsin River in 
Lincoln and Marathon Counties, Wisconsin. This unit extends from the 
base of the dam at Merrill (Marathon County, Wisconsin) downstream to 
the top of the dam at Wausau (Lincoln County, Wisconsin). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 5 
is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 19.4 percent (4.11 miles (6.62 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 80.6 percent (17.08 miles (27.48 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 3.78 miles (6.08 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are city or county lands associated with the city of 
Merrill's Riverside Park, Marathon County's Marathon County Forest, 
city of Wausau's Gilbert Park, Scholfield Park, Baker Stewart Island 
Park, Big Bull Falls Park, White Water Park, and Woodson Park. 
Approximately 0.34 mile (0.55 km) of the land in public ownership is 
State land associated with the WDNR's State-Owned Islands. General land 
use within the unit includes agriculture and urban areas, such as the 
cities of Merrill, Granite Heights, and Wausau. This unit does not 
overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; and lack of connectivity.

Unit 6: North Branch Pensaukee River

    Unit 6 consists of 19.93 miles (32.08 km) of North Branch Pensaukee 
River in Shawano and Oconto Counties, Wisconsin. This unit extends from 
the Pensaukee Lakes at Cecil (Shawano County, Wisconsin) downstream to 
the confluence with the Pensaukee River at Abrams (Oconto County, 
Wisconsin). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. Unit 6 is occupied by the species and contains one or more 
of the physical or biological features essential to the species' 
conservation.
    Approximately 6.2 percent (1.24 miles (2.0 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 93.8 percent (18.69 miles (30.08 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 1.22 miles (1.96 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are county lands associated with the Oconto County Forest. 
Approximately 0.02 mile (0.03 km) of the land in public ownership is 
State land associated with the WDNR's Wiouwash State Trail. General 
land use within the unit includes agriculture, forest, and urban areas. 
This unit does not overlap with any designated critical habitat for 
other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: host species vulnerability from the lack of 
regulation of collection of mudpuppies; habitat degradation and loss 
due to urbanization, agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover in the 
riparian buffer; and presence of invasive species.

Unit 7: Lemonweir River

    Unit 7 consists of 37.5 miles (60.36 km) of Lemonweir River in 
Juneau County, Wisconsin. This unit extends from approximately a 
quarter mile north of Kennedy County Park north of New Lisbon (Juneau 
County, Wisconsin) downstream to the confluence with the Wisconsin 
River northeast of Lyndon Station (Juneau County, Wisconsin). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 7 
is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 5.6 percent (2.11 miles (3.4 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 94.4 percent (35.39 miles (56.96 km)) are in private 
ownership. The lands in public ownership are city or county lands 
associated with the Juneau County Forest owned by Juneau County, 
Riverside Park owned by the city of Mauston, and an unnamed natural 
area owned by the county. General land use within the unit includes 
agriculture and

[[Page 57242]]

urban areas such as the cities of New Lisbon and Mauston. This unit 
does not overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed 
species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive 
species; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover in the riparian buffer.

Unit 8: Wisconsin River South

    Unit 8 consists of 152.88 miles (246.03 km) of Wisconsin River in 
Iowa, Grant, Dane, Crawford, Richland, Sauk, Columbia, Juneau, and 
Adams Counties, Wisconsin. This unit extends from the confluence with 
the Lemonweir River south of White Creek (Adams County, Wisconsin) 
downstream to the confluence with the Mississippi River south of 
Prairie du Chien (Crawford County, Wisconsin). The unit includes the 
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 8 is occupied by 
the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 67.2 percent (102.78 miles (165.40 km)) of the 
riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in 
public ownership, and 32.8 percent (50.10 miles (80.63 km)) are in 
private ownership. Approximately 0.09 mile (0.14 km) of the land in 
public ownership is city land associated with the Village of Lake 
Delton's Newport Park. Approximately 9 miles (14.48 km) of the lands in 
public ownership are Federal lands associated with the BLM's land 
stewardship of islands within the river channel and the Service's Upper 
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Approximately 93.7 
miles (150.8 km) of the lands in public ownership are State lands 
associated with the WDNR's Pine Island Wildlife Area, Sauk Prairie 
Recreation Area, and Lower Wisconsin State Riverway. General land use 
within the unit includes agriculture and urban areas, including 
numerous cities and municipalities, as well as several county parks and 
forests. This unit does not overlap with any designated critical 
habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive 
species; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover in the riparian buffer.

Unit 9: Big Pine Creek

    Unit 9 consists of 51.23 miles (82.44 km) of Big Pine Creek in 
White, Benton, and Warren Counties, Indiana. This unit extends from the 
headwaters of Big Pine Creek northeast of Round Grove (White County, 
Indiana) downstream to the confluence with the Wabash River at Attica 
(Fountain County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. Unit 9 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 2.5 percent (1.3 miles (2.09 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 97.5 percent (49.93 miles (80.35 km)) are in private 
ownership. The lands in public ownership are State lands associated 
with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources' (IDNR) Pine Creek 
Bottoms Gamebird Habitat Area. General land use within the unit 
includes agriculture and urban areas, including the city of Rainsville 
and town of Pine Village. This unit does not overlap with any 
designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; host species vulnerability from 
the lack of regulation of collection of mudpuppies; presence of 
invasive species; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer.

Unit 10: Middle Fork Wildcat Creek

    Unit 10 consists of 35.7 miles (57.46 km) of Middle Fork Wildcat 
Creek in Carroll, Clinton, and Tippecanoe Counties, Indiana. This unit 
extends from the headwaters of Middle Fork Wildcat Creek northwest of 
Forest (Clinton County, Indiana) downstream to the confluence with 
South Fork Wildcat Creek northwest of Monitor (Tippecanoe County, 
Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. Unit 10 is occupied by the species and contains one or more 
of the physical or biological features essential to the species' 
conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit includes 
agriculture and numerous cities and municipalities. This unit does not 
overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, agriculture, and the 
lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the riparian buffer; host 
species vulnerability from lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; and impacts to the hydrologic regime.

Unit 11: Tippecanoe River

    Unit 11 consists of 124.26 miles (199.96 km) of Tippecanoe River in 
Marshall, Fulton, Pulaski, Starke, Kosciusko, and White Counties, 
Indiana. This unit extends from below Oswego Lake at Oswego (Kosciusko 
County, Indiana) downstream to the top of Lake Shaffer west of Sitka 
(White County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Unit 11 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 6 percent (7.43 miles (11.95 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 94 percent (116.83 miles (188.01 km)) are in private 
ownership. The lands in public ownership are State lands associated 
with the IDNR's Tippecanoe River State Park and Menominee Public 
Fishing Area, Talma Public Access, and Old Tip Town Public Access Site. 
General land use within the unit includes agriculture and urban areas, 
including numerous cities and municipalities, as well as several county 
parks and natural areas. There is overlap of 28.14 miles (45.29 km) of 
this unit with designated critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot 
(Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) (see 80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015, and 
50 CFR 17.95(f)) and 74.38 miles (119.7 km) with designated critical 
habitat for the round hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda) (see 88 FR 
14794, March 9, 2023, and 50 CFR 17.95(f)).
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due

[[Page 57243]]

to contaminants; habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of 
invasive species; host species vulnerability from the lack of 
regulation of collection of mudpuppies; and impacts to the hydrologic 
regime.

Unit 12: Fish Creek (IN)

    Unit 12 consists of 37.36 miles (60.14 km) of Fish Creek in 
Williams County, Ohio, and DeKalb and Steuben Counties, Indiana. This 
unit extends from the headwaters of Fish Creek at Billingstown 
(Williams County, Ohio) downstream to the confluence with the St. 
Joseph River at Edgerton (Williams County, Ohio). The unit includes the 
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 12 is occupied 
by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 2.7 percent (1.02 miles (1.65 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 97.3 percent (36.34 miles (58.49 km)) are in private 
ownership. The land in public ownership is State land associated with 
the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' (ODNR) Fish Creek Wildlife 
Area. General land use within the unit is urban. There is overlap of 
5.53 miles (8.9 km) of this unit with designated critical habitat for 
the rabbitsfoot (see 80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015, and 50 CFR 17.95(f)).
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive species; and 
habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization and the lack of canopy 
cover and vegetative cover in the riparian buffer.

Unit 13: Blanchard River

    Unit 13 consists of 25.02 miles (40.26 km) of Blanchard River in 
Putnam and Hancock Counties, Ohio. This unit extends from the west side 
of Findley (Hancock County, Ohio) downstream to the confluence with 
Riley Creek east of Ottawa (Putnam County, Ohio). The unit includes the 
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 13 is occupied 
by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 3.75 percent (0.94 mile (1.51 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 96.25 percent (24.08 miles (38.75 km)) are in private 
ownership. The land in public ownership is city or county land 
associated with Hancock Park District's Indian Green Preserve. General 
land use within the unit includes agriculture, forest, and urban areas 
as well as several county parks and natural areas, a State-managed 
hatchery, and State-managed recreation and wildlife areas and nature 
preserves. This unit does not overlap with any designated critical 
habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, agriculture, and the 
lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the riparian buffer; 
presence of invasive species; and host species vulnerability from the 
lack of regulation of collection of mudpuppies.

Unit 14: Clinton River

    Unit 14 consists of 7.02 miles (11.29 km) of Clinton River in 
Oakland County, Michigan. This unit extends from downstream of the fish 
hatchery at Waterford Township (Oakland County, Michigan) downstream to 
Cass Lake east of Four Towns (Oakland County, Michigan). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 14 
is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 4 percent (0.28 mile (0.44 km)) of the riparian lands 
adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public ownership, 
and 96 percent (6.74 miles (10.85 km)) are in private ownership. The 
land in public ownership is city or county land associated with 
Waterford Township's Clinton River Canoe Site. General land use within 
the unit includes agriculture, forest, and urban areas. This unit does 
not overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed 
species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminant; 
habitat degradation and loss due to the amount of impervious surface, 
urbanization, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation 
of collection of mudpuppies; lack of connectivity due to barriers; and 
presence of invasive species.

Unit 15: Mill Creek

    Unit 15 consists of 23.65 miles (38.06 km) of Mill Creek in St. 
Clair County, Michigan. This unit extends from the confluence with 
Thompson Drain northwest of Brockway Township (St. Clair County, 
Michigan) downstream to the confluence with the Black River at Ruby 
(St. Clair County, Michigan). The unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. Unit 15 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 6.5 percent (1.54 miles (2.47 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 93.5 percent (22.11 miles (35.59 km)) are in private 
ownership. The lands in public ownership are State lands associated 
with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources' (MDNR) Port Huron 
State Game Area. General land use within the unit includes agriculture 
and urban areas. This unit does not overlap with any designated 
critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
habitat degradation and loss due to the amount of impervious surface, 
urbanization, agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative 
cover in the riparian buffer; presence of invasive species; and host 
species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies.

Unit 16: Tonawanda Creek

    Unit 16 consists of 113.21 miles (182.20 km) of Tonawanda Creek in 
Erie, Genesee, Niagara, and Wyoming Counties, New York. This unit 
extends from the headwaters of Tonawanda Creek at Java Center (Wyoming 
County, New York) downstream to the confluence with the Niagara River 
at Tonawanda (Erie County, New York). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 16 is occupied by the 
species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 7.7 percent (8.70 miles (14.00 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership; 82.9 percent (93.91 miles (151.14 km)) are in private 
ownership; and 9.4 percent (10.6

[[Page 57244]]

miles (17.06 km)) are on Tribal lands associated with the Tonawanda 
Reservation. Approximately 2.08 miles (3.35 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are city or county lands associated with the town of 
Sheldon's Vincent Almeter Memorial Park Lands, city of Attica's city 
lands, city of Batavia's local parks and Kiwanis mini park, and Erie 
County's Erie County Lands. Approximately 6.62 miles (10.65 km) of the 
lands in public ownership are State lands associated with New York's 
Erie Canal Waterway Trail. General land use within the unit includes 
urban areas. This unit does not overlap with any designated critical 
habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; and lack of connectivity.
    We have reason to consider excluding 10.6 miles (17.06 km) of 
proposed Unit 16 under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 
critical habitat designation for the salamander mussel, based on other 
relevant impacts. This portion of the unit occurs within the Tonawanda 
Reservation.

Unit 17: Conneaut Creek

    Unit 17 consists of 62 miles (99.78 km) of Conneaut Creek in 
Ashtabula County, Ohio, and Erie and Crawford Counties, Pennsylvania. 
This unit extends from the start of Conneaut Creek at Dicksonburg 
(Crawford County, Pennsylvania) downstream to the mouth with Lake Erie 
at Conneaut (Ashtabula County, Ohio). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 17 is occupied by the 
species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 3.7 percent (2.31 miles (3.72 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 96.3 percent (59.69 miles (96.06 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 0.34 mile (0.55 km) of land in public 
ownership is city land associated with Conneaut Local Youth 
Organization Park. Approximately 1.97 miles (3.17 km) of the lands in 
public ownership are State lands associated with the ODNR's Conneaut 
Creek Scenic River. General land use within the unit includes 
agriculture, forest, and urban areas. This unit does not overlap with 
any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover in the riparian buffer; lack 
of connectivity due to barriers; and presence of invasive species.

Unit 18: French Creek

    Unit 18 consists of 74.37 miles (119.69 km) of French Creek in 
Mercer, Erie, Crawford, and Venango Counties, Pennsylvania. This unit 
extends from downstream of Union City Dam northwest of Union City (Erie 
County, Pennsylvania) downstream to the confluence of the Allegheny 
River at Franklin (Venango County, Pennsylvania). The unit includes the 
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 18 is occupied 
by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 7.8 percent (5.83 miles (9.39km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 92.2 percent (68.54 miles (110.3 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 1.1 miles (1.77 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are city or county lands associated with the Borough of 
Cambridge Springs' Cambridge Springs Recreation Area, the Township of 
Hayfield's Bertram Park, the Township of Vernon's Vernon Township Ball 
Fields and Vernon Township Recreation Association, and the city of 
Meadville's Kenneth A. Beers Jr. Bicenntenial Park. Approximately 1.1 
miles (1.77 km) of the lands in public ownership are Federal lands 
associated with the Service's Erie National Wildlife Refuge. 
Approximately 3.6 miles (5.79 km) of the lands in public ownership are 
State lands associated with the Pennsylvania Game Commission's State 
Game Land #85 and State Game Land #277 and the Pennsylvania Fish and 
Boat Commission's Meadville Access and Shaw's Landing. General land use 
within the unit includes agriculture and urban areas. Unit 18 entirely 
overlaps with designated critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot (see 80 
FR 24692, April 30, 2015, and 50 CFR 17.95(f)) and with designated 
critical habitat for the longsolid (Fusconaia subrotunda) (see 88 FR 
14794, March 9, 2023, and 50 CFR 17.95(f)).
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
presence of invasive species; habitat degradation and loss due to 
urbanization, agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative 
cover in the riparian buffer; and lack of connectivity due to barriers.

Unit 19: Allegheny River

    Unit 19 consists of 39.45 miles (63.48 km) of Allegheny River in 
Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. This unit extends from the Pennsylvania 
Route 68 bridge at East Brady (Armstrong County, Pennsylvania) 
downstream to the confluence of Kiskiminetas River northeast of 
Freeport (Armstrong County, Pennsylvania). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 19 is occupied by the 
species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 11.7 percent (4.6 miles (7.4 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 88.3 percent (34.85 miles (56.08 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 1.86 miles (2.99 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are city or county lands associated with the Armstrong 
County's West Ford City Park and Riverfront Park. Approximately 2.74 
miles (4.41 km) of the lands in public ownership are State lands 
associated with the Pennsylvania Game Commission's State Game Land #287 
and State Game Land #105. General land use within the unit includes 
urban areas, such as the cities of East Brady and Kittanning. This unit 
does not overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed 
species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
presence of invasive species; habitat degradation and loss due to 
urbanization and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; and lack of connectivity due to barriers.

Unit 20: Fish Creek (WV)

    Unit 20 consists of 26.58 miles (42.78 km) of Fish Creek in 
Marshall County, West Virginia. This unit extends from the confluence 
of Pennsylvania Fork Fish Creek and West Virginia Fork Fish Creek at 
Kausooth (Marshall County, West Virginia) downstream to the confluence 
with the Ohio River southwest of Graysville (Marshall County, West 
Virginia). The unit

[[Page 57245]]

includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 20 
is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    The lands in this unit are in private ownership. General land use 
within the unit is urban, including numerous towns and municipalities. 
This unit does not overlap with any designated critical habitat for 
other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive species; and 
habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization and the lack of canopy 
cover and vegetative cover in the riparian buffer.

Unit 21: Fishing Creek

    Unit 21 consists of 23.32 miles (37.54 km) of Fishing Creek in 
Wetzel County, West Virginia. This unit extends from the confluence of 
the North Fork Fishing Creek and South Fork Fishing Creek at Pine Grove 
(Wetzel County, West Virginia) downstream to the confluence with the 
Ohio River at Brooklyn (Wetzel County, West Virginia). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 21 
is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 0.5 percent (0.13 mile (0.21 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 99.5 percent (23.19 miles (37.33 km)) are in private 
ownership. The land in public ownership is land associated with the 
city of New Martinsville. General land use within the unit is urban, 
including numerous cities and municipalities. This unit does not 
overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
presence of invasive species; habitat degradation and loss due to 
urbanization and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; and lack of connectivity due to barriers.

Unit 22: Middle Island Creek

    Unit 22 consists of 62.25 miles (100.19 km) of Middle Island Creek 
in Doddridge, Tyler, and Pleasants Counties, West Virginia. This unit 
extends from downstream of Keys Bend south of Camp (Doddridge County, 
West Virginia) downstream to the confluence with the Ohio River at 
Delong (Pleasants County, West Virginia). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 22 is occupied by the 
species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 0.24 percent (0.15 mile (0.25 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 99.76 percent (62.10 miles (99.94 km)) are in private 
ownership. The land in public ownership is State land associated with 
the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources' (WVDNR) Buffalo Run 
Wildlife Management Area. General land use within the unit is urban, 
including numerous cities and municipalities. Unit 22 entirely overlaps 
with designated critical habitat for the round hickorynut (see 88 FR 
14794, March 9, 2023, and 50 CFR 17.95(f)).
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
presence of invasive species; habitat degradation and loss due to 
urbanization and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; and lack of connectivity due to barriers.

Unit 23: Little Kanawha River

    Unit 23 consists of 49.82 miles (80.18 km) of Little Kanawha River 
in Wood and Wirt Counties, West Virginia. This unit extends from the 
confluence with the West Fork Little Kanawha River west of Creston 
(Wirt County, West Virginia) downstream to the confluence with the Ohio 
River at Parkersburg (Wood County, West Virginia). The unit includes 
the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 23 is 
occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit is urban, 
including numerous cities and municipalities. Unit 23 entirely overlaps 
with designated critical habitat for the longsolid and round hickorynut 
(see 88 FR 14794, March 9, 2023, and 50 CFR 17.95(f)).
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
presence of invasive species; habitat degradation and loss due to 
urbanization and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; and lack of connectivity due to barriers.

Unit 24: South Fork Hughes River

    Unit 24 consists of 57.44 miles (92.43 km) of South Fork Hughes 
River in Doddridge, Wirt, and Ritchie Counties, West Virginia. This 
unit extends from the headwaters of the South Fork Hughes River at 
Porto Rico (Doddridge County, West Virginia) downstream to the 
confluence with the Hughes River south of Cisco (Ritchie County, West 
Virginia). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. Unit 24 is occupied by the species and contains one or more 
of the physical or biological features essential to the species' 
conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit is urban, 
including numerous cities and municipalities. This unit does not 
overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
presence of invasive species; habitat degradation and loss due to 
urbanization and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; and lack of connectivity due to barriers.

Unit 25: Kinniconick Creek

    Unit 25 consists of 51.01 miles (82.10 km) of Kinniconick Creek in 
Lewis County, Kentucky. This unit extends from the headwaters of 
Kinniconick Creek southwest of Petersville (Lewis County, Kentucky) 
downstream to the confluence with the Ohio River at Rexton (Lewis 
County, Kentucky). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Unit 25 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit includes 
agriculture and urban areas, including the town of Garrison. This unit 
does not overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed 
species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or

[[Page 57246]]

protection to reduce the following threats: degradation of water 
quality due to contaminants; lack of connectivity due to barriers; host 
species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; presence of invasive species; impacts to the hydrologic 
regime; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer.

Unit 26: North Fork Licking River

    Unit 26 consists of 20.67 miles (33.27 miles) of North Fork Licking 
River in Morgan and Rowan Counties, Kentucky. This unit extends from 
the headwaters of North Fork Licking River at Redwine (Morgan County, 
Kentucky) downstream to the confluence of the Licking River at Bangor 
(Rowan County, Kentucky). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Unit 26 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 63.5 percent (13.13 miles (21.14 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 36.5 percent (7.54 miles (12.13 km)) are in private 
ownership. The lands in public ownership are Federal lands associated 
with the USACE's Cave Run Recreation Area and U.S. Forest Service's 
(USFS) Daniel Boone National Forest. General land use within the unit 
includes agriculture, forest, and urban areas, including the cities of 
Wrigley, Leisure, Craney, and Paragon. This unit does not overlap with 
any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: water quality degradation due to contaminants; host 
species vulnerability from lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; presence of invasive species; impacts to the hydrologic 
regime; habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, agriculture, 
and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the riparian 
buffer; and lack of connectivity due to barriers.

Unit 27: Licking River

    Unit 27 consists of 179.56 miles (288.98 km) of Licking River in 
Harrison, Robertson, Kenton, Bracken, Campbell, Rowan, Pendleton, 
Fleming, Bath, and Nicholas Counties, Kentucky. This unit extends from 
below the dam at Cave Rune Lake south of Farmers (Rowan County, 
Kentucky) downstream to the confluence with the Ohio River at Newport 
(Campbell County, Kentucky). The unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. Unit 27 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 11.6 percent (20.82 miles (33.51 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 88.4 percent (158.74 miles (255.47 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 3.58 miles (5.76 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are city or county lands associated with the city of 
Newport's General James Taylor Park; city of Covington's 19th St. 
Hollow Park, Meinken Park, and Eva G. Farris Complex; Kenton County's 
Locust Pike Park; Campbell County Conservation District's Hawthorne 
Crossing Conservation Area; and Kenton County Conservation District's 
Morning View Natural Area. Approximately 0.4 mile (0.64 km) of the land 
in public ownership is Federal land associated with the USACE's Cave 
Run Recreation Area. Approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) of the land in 
public ownership is Federal land associated with the USACE's Cave Run 
Recreation Area or USFS's Daniel Boone National Forest on one bank and 
State lands associated with the Kentucky Department of Fish and 
Wildlife Resources' (KDFWR) Minor Clark Fish Hatchery on the opposite 
bank. Approximately 16.36 miles (26.33 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are State lands associated with the Kentucky State Nature 
Preserves Commission's Quiet Trails State Nature Preserve, Kentucky 
Department of Parks' Blue Licks Battlefield State Recreational Park, 
and KDFWR's Clay Wildlife Management Area and Minor Clark Fish 
Hatchery. General land use within the unit includes agriculture, 
forest, and urban areas, including numerous cities and municipalities. 
Unit 27 entirely overlaps with designated critical habitat for the 
longsolid (see 88 FR 14794, March 9, 2023, and 50 CFR 17.95(f)).
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: water quality degradation due to contaminants; host 
species vulnerability from lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; presence of invasive species; changes in the hydrologic 
regime; habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, agriculture, 
and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the riparian 
buffer; and lack of connectivity due to barriers.

Unit 28: South Fork Licking River

    Unit 28 consists of 18.26 miles (29.39 km) of South Fork Licking 
River in Pendleton and Harrison Counties, Kentucky. This unit extends 
from 1 mile upstream from the confluence with Crooked Creek north of 
Boyd (Harrison County, Kentucky) downstream to the confluence with the 
Licking River at Falmouth (Pendleton County, Kentucky). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 28 
is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit is urban, 
including the cities of Falmouth and Morgan. This unit does not overlap 
with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: water quality degradation due to contaminants; 
habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, agriculture, and the 
lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the riparian buffer; host 
species vulnerability from lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; changes in the hydrologic regime; and presence of invasive 
species.

Unit 29: Drennon Creek

    Unit 29 consists of 22.36 miles (35.99 km) of Drennon Creek in 
Henry County, Kentucky. This unit extends from the headwaters of 
Drennon Creek south of Bethlehem (Henry County, Kentucky) downstream to 
the confluence with the Kentucky River southeast of Drennon Springs 
(Henry County, Kentucky). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Unit 29 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit is agriculture 
and urban areas, including the cities of Drennon Springs and Delville. 
This unit does not overlap with any designated critical habitat for 
other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; host species vulnerability from 
the lack of regulation

[[Page 57247]]

of collection of mudpuppies; presence of invasive species; and habitat 
degradation and loss due to urbanization, agriculture, and the lack of 
canopy cover and vegetative cover in the riparian buffer.

Unit 30: Laughery Creek

    Unit 30 consists of 44.52 miles (71.65 km) of Laughery Creek in 
Ripley, Dearborn, and Ohio Counties, Indiana. This unit extends from 
below the dam at Versailles Lake at Versailles (Ripley County, Indiana) 
downstream to the confluence with the Ohio River at Buffalo (Ohio 
County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Unit 30 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 6.76 percent (3.01 miles (4.85 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 93.24 percent (41.51 miles (66.8 km) are in private 
ownership. The lands in public ownership are State lands associated 
with the IDNR's Versailles State Park. General land use within the unit 
is agriculture and urban areas, including the cities of Friendship and 
Versailles. This unit does not overlap with any designated critical 
habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, agriculture, and the 
lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the riparian buffer; lack 
of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive species; host 
species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; and impacts to the hydrologic regime.

Unit 31: Otter Creek

    Unit 31 consists of 17.96 miles (28.91 km) of Otter Creek in 
Jennings and Ripley Counties, Indiana. This unit extends from the U.S. 
Highway 50 bridge west of Holton (Ripley County, Indiana) downstream to 
the confluence with the Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River at Vernon 
(Jennings County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. Unit 31 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit includes 
agriculture and urban areas, including the city of Vernon. This unit 
does not overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed 
species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive species; 
host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer.

Unit 32: Graham Creek

    Unit 32 consists of 41.5 miles (66.79 km) of Graham Creek in 
Jefferson, Jennings, and Ripley Counties, Indiana. This unit extends 
from west of South Old Michigan Road at New Marion (Ripley County, 
Indiana) downstream to the confluence with the Muscatatuck River north 
of Deputy (Jefferson County, Indiana). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 32 is occupied by the 
species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features 
essential to the species' conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit includes 
agriculture and numerous municipalities. This unit does not overlap 
with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive species; 
host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer.

Unit 33: East Fork White River

    Unit 33 consists of 78.57 miles (126.45 km) of East Fork White 
River in Dubois, Daviess, Pike, Martin, and Lawrence Counties, Indiana. 
This unit extends from below the Williams dam south of Williams 
(Lawrence County, Indiana) downstream to approximately 0.25 mile west 
of North State Road 57 at Rogers (Pike County, Indiana). This unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 33 
is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 7.8 percent (6.12 miles (9.85 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 92.2 percent (72.45 miles (116.6 km)) are in private 
ownership. Approximately 0.12 mile (0.19 km) of the land in public 
ownership is Federal land associated with the USFS's Hoosier National 
Forest. Approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) of the lands in public 
ownership are State lands associated with the IDNR's Williams Dam 
Public Fishing Area, Hindostan Falls Public Fishing Area, Glendale Fish 
and Wildlife Area, Henshaw Bend Nature Preserve, and Bluffs on Beaver 
Pond. General land use within the unit includes forest, agriculture, 
dams, and urban areas, including the city of Shoals. This unit does not 
overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: water quality degradation due to contaminants; host 
species vulnerability from lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; presence of invasive species; changes in the hydrologic 
regime; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer.

Unit 34: Beech Fork River

    Unit 34 consists of 50.39 miles (81.10 km) of Beech Fork River in 
Washington and Nelson Counties, Kentucky. This unit extends from the 
confluence of Beech Fork and Chaplin River north of Mooresville 
(Washington County, Kentucky) extending downstream to the confluence of 
Beech Fork River and the Rolling Fork River northeast of Elizabethtown 
(Hardin County, Kentucky). This unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. Unit 34 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 3.9 percent (1.99 miles (3.21 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 96.1 percent (48.40 miles (77.89 km)) are in private 
ownership. The lands in public ownership are State lands associated 
with the KDFWR's John C. Williams Wildlife Management Area. General 
land use within the unit includes agriculture and numerous cities and

[[Page 57248]]

municipalities. This unit does not overlap with any designated critical 
habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; host species vulnerability from 
the lack of regulation of collection of mudpuppies; presence of 
invasive species; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer.

Unit 35: Rolling Fork River

    Unit 35 consists of 87.9 miles (141.47 km) of Rolling Fork River in 
LaRue, Hardin, Marion, and Nelson Counties, Kentucky. This unit extends 
from the confluence of the North Rolling Fork River and Big South Fork 
River west of Bradfordsville (Marion County, Kentucky) downstream to 
the confluence with Beech Fork River east of Younger Creek (Hardin 
County, Kentucky). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Unit 35 is occupied by the species and 
contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential 
to the species' conservation.
    The riparian lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are 
in private ownership. General land use within the unit includes 
agriculture and numerous cities and municipalities. This unit does not 
overlap with any designated critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; host species vulnerability from 
the lack of regulation of collection of mudpuppies; presence of 
invasive species; and habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer.

Unit 36: Harpeth River

    Unit 36 consists of 43.32 miles (69.72 km) of Harpeth River in 
Cheatham and Dickson Counties, Tennessee. This unit extends from the 
confluence of the South Harpeth River southeast of Kingston Springs 
(Cheatham County, Tennessee) downstream to the confluence with the 
Cumberland River northeast of Bellsburg (Dickson County, Tennessee). 
The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. 
Unit 36 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the 
physical or biological features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 14 percent (6.07 miles (9.77 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 86 percent (37.25 miles (59.95 km)) are in private 
ownership. The lands in public ownership are Federal lands associated 
with the USACE's Cheatham Lake Reservoir. General land use within the 
unit includes agriculture and urban areas, including the town of 
Kingston Springs. This unit does not overlap with any designated 
critical habitat for other listed species.
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: degradation of water quality due to contaminants; 
lack of connectivity due to barriers; presence of invasive species; 
host species vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of 
mudpuppies; habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; and impacts to the hydrological regime.

Unit 37: Duck River

    Unit 37 consists of 116.42 miles (187.36 km) of Duck River in 
Hickman, Humphreys, Perry, and Maury Counties, Tennessee. This unit 
extends from the confluence of the Little Bigby Creek northwest of 
Columbia (Maury County, Tennessee) downstream to the confluence of the 
Duck River and the Tennessee River, which creates a backwater effect at 
Elysian Grove (Humphreys County, Tennessee). The unit includes the 
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Unit 37 is occupied 
by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features essential to the species' conservation.
    Approximately 0.4 percent (0.52 mile (0.83 km)) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to, but not included in, this unit are in public 
ownership, and 99.6 percent (115.9 miles (186.53 km)) are in private 
ownership. The land in public ownership is Federal land associated with 
the NPS's Natchez Trace Parkway. General land use within the unit 
includes agriculture and numerous cities and municipalities. Unit 37 
entirely overlaps with designated critical habitat for rabbitsfoot (see 
80 FR 24692, April 30, 2015, and 50 CFR 17.95(f)).
    The features essential to the conservation of this species may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats: habitat degradation and loss due to urbanization, 
agriculture, and the lack of canopy cover and vegetative cover in the 
riparian buffer; lack of connectivity due to barriers; host species 
vulnerability from the lack of regulation of collection of mudpuppies; 
degradation of water quality due to contaminants; presence of invasive 
species; and impacts to the hydrologic regime.

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 authorize, fund, 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.
    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 57249]]

    (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 consultation if any of the following four 
conditions occur: (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the 
incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) 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).

Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat

    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:
    (a) Alter the geomorphology of the salamander mussel's stream and 
river habitats;
    (b) Significantly alter the existing flow regime where this species 
occurs;
    (c) Significantly alter water chemistry or water quality; or
    (d) Significantly alter stream bed material composition and quality 
by increasing sediment deposition or filamentous algal growth; and
    (2) Major habitat alterations that impact mudpuppy persistence.
    Such activities could include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Instream excavation or dredging, impoundment, channelization, 
clearing riparian vegetation, and discharge of fill materials;
    (2) Impoundment, urban development, water diversion, water 
withdrawal, water draw-down, and hydropower generation;
    (3) Hydropower discharges, or the release of chemicals, biological 
pollutants, or heated effluents into surface water or connected 
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (nonpoint 
source); and
    (4) Construction projects, sand and gravel mining, oil and gas 
development, coal mining, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other 
watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or 
nutrients into the water.
    These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat quantity or 
quality necessary for growth and reproduction of the salamander mussel 
or its mudpuppy host.

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.

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 (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).
    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. In our final rules, we explain any decision to exclude 
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to make clear the rational 
basis for our decision. We describe below the process that we use for 
taking into consideration each category of impacts and any initial 
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

[[Page 57250]]

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 4(b)(2) 
exclusion analysis.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. 
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 or more 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 the salamander mussel 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 salamander mussel (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 geographical 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. 
Therefore, designating occupied areas as critical habitat typically 
causes little if any incremental impacts above and beyond the impacts 
of listing the species. As a result, we generally focus the screening 
analysis on areas of unoccupied critical habitat (unoccupied units or 
unoccupied areas within occupied units). Overall, the screening 
analysis assesses whether designation of critical habitat is likely to 
result in any additional management or conservation efforts that 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 analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical 
habitat designation for the salamander mussel; 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 salamander mussel, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated September 27, 2022, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) instream excavation or dredging; (2) impoundment; (3) 
channelization; (4) sand and gravel mining; (5) clearing riparian 
vegetation; (6) discharge of fill materials; (7) urban development; (8) 
water diversion; (9) water withdrawal; (10) water draw-down; (11) 
hydropower generation; (12) hydropower discharges; (13) release of 
chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated effluents into surface 
water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed 
release (nonpoint source); (14) construction projects; (15) oil and gas 
development; (16) coal mining; (17) livestock grazing; (18) timber 
harvest; and (19) other watershed and floodplain disturbances that 
release sediments or nutrients into the water.
    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 salamander mussel is present, Federal agencies would be 
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the 
species. If, when we list the species, we also finalize this proposed 
critical habitat designation, Federal agencies would be required to 
consider the effects of their actions on the designated habitat, and if 
the Federal action may affect critical habitat, 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.,

[[Page 57251]]

difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for 
the salamander mussel's critical habitat. Because the designation of 
critical habitat for the salamander mussel 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 species itself. 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 salamander mussel 
includes 37 units, totaling approximately 2,012 river miles (3,238 km), 
all of which are occupied by the species. Ownership of riparian lands 
adjacent to the proposed units includes 1,702.04 miles (2,739.17 km; 
84.61 percent) in private ownership, 298.97 miles (481.14 km; 14.86 
percent) in public (Federal, State, or local) ownership, and 10.60 
miles (17.06 km; 0.53 percent) in Tribal ownership.
    Total incremental costs of critical habitat designation for the 
salamander mussel are not expected to exceed $120,000 (2022 dollars) 
per year. The costs are reflective of: (1) All proposed units are 
considered occupied by the salamander mussel, (2) all projects with a 
Federal nexus would be subject to section 7 consultation regardless of 
the designation of critical habitat due to the presence of the listed 
species, (3) critical habitat designation is not likely to change the 
Service's recommendations for project modifications as part of future 
consultations considering the salamander mussel, and (4) the salamander 
mussel receives additional baseline protection from co-occurring listed 
species and a species with overlapping critical habitat and similar 
resource needs. Because consultation would be required as a result of 
the listing of the salamander mussel and is already required in some of 
these areas as a result of the presence of other listed species and 
critical habitats, the economic costs of the critical habitat 
designation would likely be primarily limited to additional 
administrative efforts to consider adverse modification for this 
species in section 7 consultations.
    Based on the consultation history regarding historical projects and 
the forecast of future activity in the proposed critical habitat units, 
the number of future consultations, including technical assistance 
efforts, is likely to be no more than 94 per year across all 37 units. 
This figure accounts for potential increases in highway and 
infrastructure projects. The geographic distribution of future section 
7 consultations and associated costs are likely to be most heavily 
concentrated in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. However, 
even assuming consultation activity increases substantially, 
incremental administrative costs are still likely to remain well under 
$200 million per year.
    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 the authority of section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and 
the 2016 Policy. 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 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.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the salamander 
mussel are not owned or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, therefore, we 
anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.

[[Page 57252]]

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.
    When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular 
area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts 
relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine 
the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a 
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional 
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection 
from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a 
Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat 
for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result 
from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to 
critical habitat.
    In the case of the salamander mussel, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the presence of the salamander 
mussel and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal 
nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the salamander mussel 
due to protection from destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Continued implementation of an ongoing management plan that 
provides conservation equal to or more than the protections that result 
from a critical habitat designation would reduce those benefits of 
including that specific area in the critical habitat designation.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.
Tribal Lands
    Several Executive Orders, Secretary's Orders, and policies concern 
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our 
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign 
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of 
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service 
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
    A joint Secretary's Order that applies to both the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--Secretary's Order 3206, 
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)--is the most 
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal 
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail 
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition 
to the general direction discussed above, the appendix to S.O. 3206 
explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in any 
listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal trust 
resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat. Section 
3(B)(4) of the appendix requires the Service to consult with affected 
Tribes ``when considering the designation of critical habitat in an 
area that may impact tribal trust resources, tribally-owned fee lands, 
or the exercise of tribal rights.'' That provision also instructs the 
Service to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat 
designation unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species, 
and it requires the Service to ``evaluate and document the extent to 
which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by 
limiting the designation to other lands.''
    Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy 
are consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary 
exclusion analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in accordance with 
S.O. 3206, we consult with any Tribe whose Tribal trust resources, 
Tribally-owned fee lands, or Tribal rights may be affected by including 
any particular areas in the designation. We evaluate the extent to 
which the conservation needs of the species can be achieved by limiting 
the designation to other areas and give great weight to Tribal concerns 
in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
    However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory 
requirement of designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we 
must consult with any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may 
affect Tribal lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas 
that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied 
at the time of listing that contain the essential physical or 
biological features that may require special management considerations 
or protection and unoccupied areas that are essential to the 
conservation of a species), without regard to land ownership. While 
S.O. 3206 provides important direction, it expressly states that it 
does not modify the Secretary's statutory authority under the Act or 
other statutes.
    The proposed critical habitat designation includes the following 
Tribal lands or resources:
Tonawanda Reservation
    A portion of proposed Unit 16 (Tonawanda Creek) occurs within the 
Tonawanda Reservation. The Tonawanda Seneca Nation has a conservation 
department that was established in 1977 by the Seneca Nation of Indians 
Council resolution. The department is responsible for the enforcement 
of Seneca Nation of Indian laws, ordinances, and codes that address 
sand and gravel mining; solid waste management; hunting and fishing; 
and conservation activities.

Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act

    We have reason to consider excluding 10.6 miles (17.06 km) of 
proposed Unit 16 (Tonawanda Creek) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
from the final critical habitat designation for the salamander mussel, 
based on other relevant impacts. We specifically solicit comments on 
the inclusion or exclusion of this area. We also solicit comments on 
whether there are potential economic, national security, or other 
relevant impacts from designating any other particular areas as 
critical habitat. As part of developing the final designation of 
critical habitat, we will evaluate the information we receive regarding 
potential impacts from designating the areas described above or any 
other particular areas, and we may conduct a discretionary exclusion 
analysis to determine whether to exclude those areas under the 
authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we receive a request for exclusion of 
a particular area and after

[[Page 57253]]

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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations 
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking 
process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of 
ideas. We have developed this final 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 rule 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 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 because all projects with a Federal nexus would be subject to 
section 7 consultation regardless of the designation of critical 
habitat due to the presence of the listed species and the critical 
habitat designation is not likely

[[Page 57254]]

to change the Service's recommendations for project modifications as 
part of future consultations considering the salamander mussel. 
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 it will not produce a Federal 
mandate of $200 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments. 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 salamander mussel in a takings implications assessment. The 
Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on 
private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical 
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of 
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the salamander mussel, 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

[[Page 57255]]

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 designations. 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 Secretary's 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 reached out to the Tonawanda Seneca Nation regarding 
the portion of proposed critical habitat Unit 16 (Tonawanda Creek) that 
flows through the Tonawanda Reservation, and we will continue to work 
with Tribal entities during the development of a final rule for the 
designation of critical habitat for the salamander mussel.

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 Michigan 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 
Michigan 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.

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


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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

0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding an entry for 
``Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua)'' following the entry for 
``Longsolid (Fusconaia subrotunda)'', to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95   Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Benton, Carroll, 
Clinton, Daviess, Dearborn, DeKalb, Dubois, Fulton, Jefferson, 
Jennings, Kosciusko, Lawrence, Marshall, Martin, Ohio, Pike, Pulaski, 
Ripley, Starke, Steuben, Tippecanoe, Warren, and White Counties, 
Indiana; Bath, Bracken, Campbell, Fleming, Hardin, Harrison, Henry, 
Kenton, LaRue, Lewis, Marion, Morgan, Nelson, Nicholas, Pendleton, 
Robertson, Rowan, and Washington Counties, Kentucky; Oakland and St. 
Clair Counties, Michigan; Chisago and Washington Counties, Minnesota; 
Erie, Genesee, Niagara, and Wyoming Counties, New York; Ashtabula, 
Hancock, Putnam, and Williams Counties, Ohio; Armstrong, Crawford,

[[Page 57256]]

Erie, Mercer, and Venango Counties, Pennsylvania; Cheatham, Dickson, 
Hickman, Humphreys, Maury, and Perry Counties, Tennessee; Doddridge, 
Marshall, Pleasants, Ritchie, Tyler, Wetzel, Wirt, and Wood Counties, 
West Virginia; and Adams, Buffalo, Columbia, Crawford, Dane, Dunn, Eau 
Claire, Grant, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lincoln, Marathon, 
Monroe, Oconto, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Richland, Sauk, Shawano, St. 
Croix, and Trempealeau Counties, Wisconsin, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the salamander mussel consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (magnitude, timing, 
frequency, duration, rate of change, and overall seasonality of 
discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the 
salamander mussel and its host, the mudpuppy, are found and to maintain 
stream connectivity.
    (ii) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, 
characterized by geomorphologically stable stream channels and banks 
(i.e., channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal 
profiles, and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or 
degrading bed elevation) with habitats that support the salamander 
mussel and mudpuppy (e.g., large rock shelters, woody debris, and 
bedrock crevices within stable zones of swift current with low amounts 
of fine sediment silt).
    (iii) Water and sediment quality necessary to sustain natural 
physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of 
all life stages, including (but not limited to) dissolved oxygen 
(generally above 2 to 3 parts per million (ppm)), salinity (generally 
below 2 to 4 ppm), and temperature (generally below 86 [deg]F) (30 
[deg]C)). Additionally, concentrations of contaminants, including (but 
not limited to) ammonia, nitrate, copper, and chloride, are below acute 
toxicity levels for mussels.
    (iv) The presence and abundance of the mudpuppy host.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of final rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using the 1984 
World Geodetic System ellipsoid, and 1983 North American datum, and 
geographic coordinate system. The National Hydrography Dataset was used 
to create the critical habitat units. The maps in this entry, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries 
of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or 
both on which each map is based are available to the public at the 
Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/species/salamander-mussel-simpsonaias-ambigua, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R3-ES-2023-0058, and at the field office responsible for this 
designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.016

    (6) Unit 1: St. Croix River; Polk, St. Croix, and Pierce Counties, 
Wisconsin, and Chisago and Washington Counties, Minnesota.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of 52.93 miles (85.19 kilometers (km)) of St. 
Croix

[[Page 57257]]

River from the base of the dam at St. Croix Falls (Polk County, 
Wisconsin) and Taylors Falls (Chisago County, Minnesota) downstream to 
the confluences with the Mississippi River at Prescott (Pierce County, 
Wisconsin) and Point Douglas (Washington County, Minnesota). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. 
Approximately 28.85 miles (46.43 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to 
this unit are in public ownership, and 24.08 miles (38.76 km) are in 
private ownership. Of the lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 12.63 miles (20.32 km) are Federal lands 
associated with the National Park Service's (NPS) Lower St. Croix 
National Scenic Riverway;
    (B) Approximately 4.25 miles (6.84 km) are Federal lands associated 
with the NPS's Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway on one side of 
the bank and State lands associated with the Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources' (WDNR) St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area on the other 
side;
    (C) Approximately 5.0 miles (8.04 km) are Federal lands associated 
with the NPS's Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway on one side of 
the bank and State lands associated with the Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources' William O'Brien State Park on the other side;
    (D) Approximately 5.2 miles (8.37 km) are State lands associated 
with the WDNR's Kinnickinnic State Park and Interstate Park on one side 
of the bank and State lands associated with the Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources' Interstate Park on the other side; and
    (E) Approximately 1.78 miles (2.86 km) are State lands associated 
with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Afton State Park.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 57258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.017

    (7) Unit 2: Chippewa River; Buffalo, Dunn, Eau Claire, and Pepin 
Counties, Wisconsin.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of 59.24 miles (95.33 km) of Chippewa River 
from the mouth of the Eau Claire River at Eau Claire (Eau Claire 
County, Wisconsin) downstream to the confluence with the Mississippi 
River south of Trevino (Buffalo and Pepin Counties, Wisconsin). This 
unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. 
Approximately 34.04 miles (54.77 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to 
this unit are in public ownership, and 25.2 miles (40.56 km) are in 
private ownership. Of the lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 1.3 miles (2.09 km) are lands associated with the 
city of Eau Claire's Owen Park and Jefferson County's Public Hunting 
Ground;
    (B) Approximately 4.2 miles (6.76 km) are Federal lands associated 
with the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) stewardship of islands 
within the river channel;
    (C) Approximately 1.6 miles (2.57 km) are Federal lands associated 
with the Service's Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 
Refuge on one bank and State lands associated with the WDNR's Tiffany 
Wildlife Area on the opposite bank; and
    (D) Approximately 27 miles (43.45 km) are State lands associated 
with the WDNR's Lower Chippewa River State Natural Area, Dunnville 
Wildlife Area, and Nine Mile Island State Natural Area.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:


[[Page 57259]]


Figure 3 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (7)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.018

    (8) Unit 3: Eau Claire River; Eau Claire County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Unit 3 consists of 7.40 miles (11.91 km) of Eau Claire River 
from the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork Eau Claire River 
(Eau Claire County, Wisconsin) downstream to Lake Eau Claire (Eau 
Claire County, Wisconsin). This unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 4.23 miles (6.81 km) of the 
riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 3.17 
miles (5.1 km) are in private ownership. The land in public ownership 
in this unit is associated with the Eau Claire County Forest.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 57260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.019

    (9) Unit 4: Black River; Jackson, La Crosse, Monroe, and 
Trempealeau Counties, Wisconsin.
    (i) Unit 4 consists of 75.38 miles (121.31 km) of Black River from 
the bottom of Lake Arbutus dam southeast of Hatfield (Jackson County, 
Wisconsin) downstream to the confluence with the Mississippi River west 
of Brice Prairie (La Crosse County, Wisconsin). This unit includes the 
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 35.71 
miles (57.47 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in 
public ownership, and 39.67 miles (63.84 km) are in private ownership. 
Of the lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 0.15 mile (0.24 km) is land associated with 
Jackson County Forest;
    (B) Approximately 0.86 mile (1.38 km) is Federal land associated 
with the BLM's stewardship of islands within the river channel;
    (C) Approximately 6.6 miles (10.62 km) are Federal lands associated 
with the Service's Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 
Refuge on one bank and State lands associated with the WDNR's Van Loon 
Wildlife Area on the opposite bank; and
    (D) Approximately 28 miles (45.06 km) are State lands associated 
with the WDNR's North Bend Bottoms Wildlife Area, Statewide Habitat 
Areas, Half Moon Lake Fishery Area, and Black River State Forest.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 57261]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.020

    (10) Unit 5: Wisconsin River North; Lincoln and Marathon Counties, 
Wisconsin.
    (i) Unit 5 consists of 21.19 miles (34.1 km) of Wisconsin River 
from the base of the dam at Merrill (Marathon County, Wisconsin) 
downstream to the top of the dam at Wausau (Lincoln County, Wisconsin). 
The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. 
Approximately 4.11 miles (6.62 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to 
this unit are in public ownership, and 17.08 miles (27.48 km) are in 
private ownership. Of the lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 3.78 miles (6.08 km) are city or county lands 
associated with the city of Merrill's Riverside Park, Marathon County's 
Marathon County Forest, city of Wausau's Gilbert Park, Scholfield Park, 
Baker Stewart Island Park, Big Bull Falls Park, White Water Park, and 
Woodson Park; and
    (B) Approximately 0.34 mile (0.55 km) is State land associated with 
the WDNR's State-Owned Islands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 6 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (10)(ii)

[[Page 57262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.021

    (11) Unit 6: North Branch Pensaukee River; Shawano and Oconto 
Counties, Wisconsin.
    (i) Unit 6 consists of 19.93 miles (32.08 km) of North Branch 
Pensaukee River from the Pensaukee Lakes at Cecil (Shawano County, 
Wisconsin) downstream to the confluence with the Pensaukee River at 
Abrams (Oconto County, Wisconsin). The unit includes the river channel 
up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 1.24 miles (2.0 km) 
of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, 
and 18.69 miles (30.08 km) are in private ownership. Of the lands in 
public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 1.22 miles (1.96 km) are county lands associated 
with the Oconto County Forest; and
    (B) Approximately 0.02 mile (0.03 km) is State land associated with 
the WDNR's Wiouwash State Trail.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (11)(ii)

[[Page 57263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.022

    (12) Unit 7: Lemonweir River; Juneau County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Unit 7 consists of 37.5 miles (60.36 km) of Lemonweir River 
from approximately 0.25-mile north of Kennedy County Park north of New 
Lisbon (Juneau County, Wisconsin) downstream to the confluence with the 
Wisconsin River northeast of Lyndon Station (Juneau County, Wisconsin). 
The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. 
Approximately 2.11 miles (3.4 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to 
this unit are in public ownership, and 35.39 miles (56.96 km) are in 
private ownership. The lands in public ownership are city or county 
lands associated with the Juneau County Forest owned by Juneau County, 
Riverside Park owned by the city of Mauston, and an unnamed natural 
area owned by the county.
    (ii) Map of Units 7 and 8 follows:

Figure 8 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (12)(ii)

[[Page 57264]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.023

    (13) Unit 8: Wisconsin River South; Iowa, Grant, Dane, Crawford, 
Richland, Sauk, Columbia, Juneau, and Adams Counties, Wisconsin.
    (i) Unit 8 consists of 152.88 miles (246.03 km) of Wisconsin River 
from the confluence with the Lemonweir River south of White Creek 
(Adams County, Wisconsin) downstream to the confluence with the 
Mississippi River south of Prairie du Chien (Crawford County, 
Wisconsin). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. Approximately 102.78 miles (165.40 km) of the riparian 
lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 50.10 miles 
(80.63 km) are in private ownership. Of the lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 0.09 mile (0.14 km) is city land associated with 
the Village of Lake Delton's Newport Park;
    (B) Approximately 9 miles (14.48 km) are Federal lands associated 
with the BLM's land stewardship of islands within the river channel and 
the Service's Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 
Refuge; and
    (C) Approximately 93.7 miles (150.8 km) are State lands associated 
with the WDNR's Pine Island Wildlife Area, Sauk Prairie Recreation 
Area, and Lower Wisconsin State Riverway.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (12)(ii) of this entry.
    (14) Unit 9: Big Pine Creek; White, Benton, and Warren Counties, 
Indiana.
    (i) Unit 9 consists of 51.23 miles (82.44 km) of Big Pine Creek 
from the headwaters of Big Pine Creek northeast of Round Grove (White 
County, Indiana) downstream to the confluence with the Wabash River at 
Attica (Fountain County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel 
up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 1.3 miles (2.09 km) 
of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, 
and 49.93 miles (80.35 km) are in private ownership. The lands in 
public ownership are State lands associated with the Indiana Department 
of Natural Resources' (IDNR) Pine Creek Bottoms Gamebird Habitat Area.
    (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:

Figure 9 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (14)(ii)

[[Page 57265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.024

    (15) Unit 10: Middle Fork Wildcat Creek; Carroll, Clinton, and 
Tippecanoe Counties, Indiana.
    (i) Unit 10 consists of 35.7 miles (57.46 km) of Middle Fork 
Wildcat Creek from the headwaters of Middle Fork Wildcat Creek 
northwest of Forest (Clinton County, Indiana) downstream to the 
confluence with South Fork Wildcat Creek northwest of Monitor 
(Tippecanoe County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. The riparian lands adjacent to this unit 
are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:

Figure 10 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (15)(ii)

[[Page 57266]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.025

    (16) Unit 11: Tippecanoe River; Marshall, Fulton, Pulaski, Starke, 
Kosciusko, and White Counties, Indiana.
    (i) Unit 11 consists of 124.26 miles (199.96 km) of Tippecanoe 
River from below Oswego Lake at Oswego (Kosciusko County, Indiana) 
downstream to the top of Lake Shaffer west of Sitka (White County, 
Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. Approximately 7.43 miles (11.95 km) of the riparian lands 
adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 116.83 miles (188.01 
km) are in private ownership. The lands in public ownership are State 
lands associated with the IDNR's Tippecanoe River State Park and 
Menominee Public Fishing Area, Talma Public Access, and Old Tip Town 
Public Access Site.
    (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:

Figure 11 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (16)(ii)

[[Page 57267]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.026

    (17) Unit 12: Fish Creek (IN); Williams County, Ohio, and DeKalb 
and Steuben Counties, Indiana.
    (i) Unit 12 consists of 37.36 miles (60.14 km) of Fish Creek from 
the headwaters of Fish Creek at Billingstown (Williams County, Ohio) 
downstream to the confluence with the St. Joseph River at Edgerton 
(Williams County, Ohio). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Approximately 1.02 miles (1.65 km) of the 
riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 36.34 
miles (58.49 km) are in private ownership. The land in public ownership 
is State land associated with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' 
(ODNR) Fish Creek Wildlife Area.
    (ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:

Figure 12 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (17)(ii)

[[Page 57268]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.027

    (18) Unit 13: Blanchard River; Putnam and Hancock Counties, Ohio.
    (i) Unit 13 consists of 25.02 miles (40.26 km) of Blanchard River 
from the west side of Findley (Hancock County, Ohio) downstream to the 
confluence with Riley Creek east of Ottawa (Putnam County, Ohio). The 
unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. 
Approximately 0.94 mile (1.51 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to 
this unit are in public ownership, and 24.08 miles (38.75 km) are in 
private ownership. The land in public ownership is city or county land 
associated with Hancock Park District's Indian Green Preserve.
    (ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:

Figure 13 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (18)(ii)

[[Page 57269]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.028

    (19) Unit 14: Clinton River; Oakland County, Michigan.
    (i) Unit 14 consists of 7.02 miles (11.29 km) of Clinton River from 
downstream of the fish hatchery at Waterford Township (Oakland County, 
Michigan) downstream to Cass Lake east of Four Towns (Oakland County, 
Michigan). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. Approximately 0.28 mile (0.44 km) of the riparian lands 
adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 6.74 miles (10.85 
km) are in private ownership. The land in public ownership is city or 
county land associated with Waterford Township's Clinton River Canoe 
Site.
    (ii) Map of Unit 14 follows:

Figure 14 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (19)(ii)

[[Page 57270]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.029

    (20) Unit 15: Mill Creek; St. Clair County, Michigan.
    (i) Unit 15 consists of 23.65 miles (38.06 km) of Mill Creek from 
the confluence with Thompson Drain northwest of Brockway Township (St. 
Clair County, Michigan) downstream to the confluence with the Black 
River at Ruby (St. Clair County, Michigan). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 1.54 miles 
(2.47 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public 
ownership, and 22.11 miles (35.59 km) are in private ownership. The 
lands in public ownership are State lands associated with the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources' (MDNR) Port Huron State Game Area.
    (ii) Map of Unit 15 follows:

Figure 15 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (20)(ii)

[[Page 57271]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.030

    (21) Unit 16: Tonawanda Creek; Erie, Genesee, Niagara, and Wyoming 
Counties, New York.
    (i) Unit 16 consists of 113.21 miles (182.20 km) of Tonawanda Creek 
from the headwaters of Tonawanda Creek at Java Center (Wyoming County, 
New York) downstream to the confluence with the Niagara River at 
Tonawanda (Erie County, New York). The unit includes the river channel 
up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 8.70 miles (14.00 km) 
of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, 
93.91 miles (151.14 km) are in private ownership, and 10.6 miles (17.06 
km) are Tribal lands. The Tribal lands in this unit are associated with 
the Tonawanda Reservation. Of the lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 2.08 miles (3.35 km) are city or county lands 
associated with the town of Sheldon's Vincent Almeter Memorial Park 
Lands, city of Attica's city lands, city of Batavia's local parks and 
Kiwanis mini park, and Erie County's Erie County Lands; and
    (B) Approximately 6.62 miles (10.65 km) are State lands associated 
with New York's Erie Canal Waterway Trail.
    (ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:

Figure 16 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (21)(ii)

[[Page 57272]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.031

    (22) Unit 17: Conneaut Creek; Ashtabula County, Ohio, and Erie and 
Crawford Counties, Pennsylvania.
    (i) Unit 17 consists of 62 miles (99.78 km) of Conneaut Creek from 
the start of Conneaut Creek at Dicksonburg (Crawford County, 
Pennsylvania) downstream to the mouth with Lake Erie at Conneaut 
(Ashtabula County, Ohio). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Approximately 2.31 miles (3.72 km) of the 
riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 59.69 
miles (96.06 km) are in private ownership. Of the lands in public 
ownership:
    (A) Approximately 0.34 mile (0.55 km) is city land associated with 
Conneaut Local Youth Organization Park; and
    (B) Approximately 1.97 miles (3.17 km) are State lands associated 
with the ODNR's Conneaut Creek Scenic River.
    (ii) Map of Unit 17 follows:

Figure 17 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (22)(ii)

[[Page 57273]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.032

    (23) Unit 18: French Creek; Mercer, Erie, Crawford, and Venango 
Counties, Pennsylvania.
    (i) Unit 18 consists of 74.37 miles (119.69 km) of French Creek 
from downstream of Union City Dam northwest of Union City (Erie County, 
Pennsylvania) downstream to the confluence of the Allegheny River at 
Franklin (Venango County, Pennsylvania). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 5.83 miles 
(9.39km) of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public 
ownership, and 68.54 miles (110.3 km) are in private ownership. Of the 
lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 1.1 miles (1.77 km) are city or county lands 
associated with the Borough of Cambridge Springs' Cambridge Springs 
Recreation Area, the Township of Hayfield's Bertram Park, the Township 
of Vernon's Vernon Township Ball Fields and Vernon Township Recreation 
Association, and the city of Meadville's Kenneth A. Beers Jr. 
Bicenntenial Park;
    (B) Approximately 1.1 miles (1.77 km) are Federal lands associated 
with the Service's Erie National Wildlife Refuge; and
    (C) Approximately 3.6 miles (5.79 km) are State lands associated 
with the Pennsylvania Game Commission's State Game Land #85 and State 
Game Land #277 and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission's 
Meadville Access and Shaw's Landing.
    (ii) Map of Unit 18 follows:

Figure 18 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (23)(ii)

[[Page 57274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.033

    (24) Unit 19: Allegheny River; Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.
    (i) Unit 19 consists of 39.45 miles (63.48 km) of Allegheny River 
from the Pennsylvania Route 68 bridge at East Brady (Armstrong County, 
Pennsylvania) downstream to the confluence of Kiskiminetas River 
northeast of Freeport (Armstrong County, Pennsylvania). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. 
Approximately 4.6 miles (7.4 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to this 
unit are in public ownership, and 34.85 miles (56.08 km) are in private 
ownership. Of the lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 1.86 miles (2.99 km) are city or county lands 
associated with the Armstrong County's West Ford City Park and 
Riverfront Park; and
    (B) Approximately 2.74 miles (4.41 km) are State lands associated 
with the Pennsylvania Game Commission's State Game Land #287 and State 
Game Land #105.
    (ii) Map of Unit 19 follows:

Figure 19 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (24)(ii)

[[Page 57275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.034

    (25) Unit 20: Fish Creek (WV); Marshall County, West Virginia.
    (i) Unit 20 consists of 26.58 miles (42.78 km) of Fish Creek from 
the confluence of Pennsylvania Fork Fish Creek and West Virginia Fork 
Fish Creek at Kausooth (Marshall County, West Virginia) downstream to 
the confluence with the Ohio River southwest of Graysville (Marshall 
County, West Virginia). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. The lands in this unit are in private 
ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 20 follows:

Figure 20 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (25)(ii)

[[Page 57276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.035

    (26) Unit 21: Fishing Creek; Wetzel County, West Virginia.
    (i) Unit 21 consists of 23.32 miles (37.54 km) of Fishing Creek 
from the confluence of the North Fork Fishing Creek and South Fork 
Fishing Creek at Pine Grove (Wetzel County, West Virginia) downstream 
to the confluence with the Ohio River at Brooklyn (Wetzel County, West 
Virginia). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. Approximately 0.13 mile (0.21 km) of the riparian lands 
adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 23.19 miles (37.33 
km) are in private ownership. The land in public ownership is land 
associated with the city of New Martinsville.
    (ii) Map of Unit 21 follows:

Figure 21 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (26)(ii)

[[Page 57277]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.036

    (27) Unit 22: Middle Island Creek; Doddridge, Tyler, and Pleasants 
Counties, West Virginia.
    (i) Unit 22 consists of 62.25 miles (100.19 km) of Middle Island 
Creek from downstream of Keys Bend south of Camp (Doddridge County, 
West Virginia) downstream to the confluence with the Ohio River at 
Delong (Pleasants County, West Virginia). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 0.15 mile 
(0.25 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public 
ownership, and 62.10 miles (99.94 km) are in private ownership. The 
land in public ownership is State land associated with the West 
Virginia Division of Natural Resources' (WVDNR) Buffalo Run Wildlife 
Management Area.
    (ii) Map of Unit 22 follows:

Figure 22 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (27)(ii)

[[Page 57278]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.037

    (28) Unit 23: Little Kanawha River; Wood and Wirt Counties, West 
Virginia.
    (i) Unit 23 consists of 49.82 miles (80.18 km) of Little Kanawha 
River from the confluence with the West Fork Little Kanawha River west 
of Creston (Wirt County, West Virginia) downstream to the confluence 
with the Ohio River at Parkersburg (Wood County, West Virginia). The 
unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. The 
riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 23 follows:

Figure 23 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (28)(ii)

[[Page 57279]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.038

    (29) Unit 24: South Fork Hughes River; Doddridge, Wirt, and Ritchie 
Counties, West Virginia.
    (i) Unit 24 consists of 57.44 miles (92.43 km) of South Fork Hughes 
River from the headwaters of the South Fork Hughes River at Porto Rico 
(Doddridge County, West Virginia) downstream to the confluence with the 
Hughes River south of Cisco (Ritchie County, West Virginia). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. The 
riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 24 follows:

Figure 24 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (29)(ii)

[[Page 57280]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.039

    (30) Unit 25: Kinniconick Creek; Lewis County, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 25 consists of 51.01 miles (82.10 km) of Kinniconick Creek 
from the headwaters of Kinniconick Creek southwest of Petersville 
(Lewis County, Kentucky) downstream to the confluence with the Ohio 
River at Rexton (Lewis County, Kentucky). The unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. The riparian lands adjacent 
to this unit are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 25 follows:

Figure 25 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (30)(ii)

[[Page 57281]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.040

    (31) Unit 26: North Fork Licking River; Morgan and Rowan Counties, 
Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 26 consists of 20.67 miles (33.27 km) of North Fork 
Licking River from the headwaters of North Fork Licking River at 
Redwine (Morgan County, Kentucky) downstream to the confluence of the 
Licking River at Bangor (Rowan County, Kentucky). The unit includes the 
river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 13.13 
miles (21.14 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in 
public ownership, and 7.54 miles (12.13 km) are in private ownership. 
The lands in public ownership are Federal lands associated with the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Cave Run Recreation Area and U.S. 
Forest Service's (USFS) Daniel Boone National Forest.
    (ii) Map of Unit 26 follows:

Figure 26 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (31)(ii)

[[Page 57282]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.041

    (32) Unit 27: Licking River; Harrison, Robertson, Kenton, Bracken, 
Campbell, Rowan, Pendleton, Fleming, Bath, and Nicholas Counties, 
Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 27 consists of 179.56 miles (288.98 km) of Licking River 
from below the dam at Cave Rune Lake south of Farmers (Rowan County, 
Kentucky) downstream to the confluence with the Ohio River at Newport 
(Campbell County, Kentucky). The unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 20.82 miles (33.51 km) of 
the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 
158.74 miles (255.47 km) are in private ownership. Of the lands in 
public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 3.58 miles (5.76 km) are city or county lands 
associated with the city of Newport's General James Taylor Park; city 
of Covington's 19th St. Hollow Park, Meinken Park, and Eva G. Farris 
Complex; Kenton County's Locust Pike Park; Campbell County Conservation 
District's Hawthorne Crossing Conservation Area; and Kenton County 
Conservation District's Morning View Natural Area;
    (B) Approximately 0.4 mile (0.64 km) is Federal land associated 
with the USACE's Cave Run Recreation Area;
    (C) Approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) is Federal land associated with 
the USACE's Cave Run Recreation Area or USFS's Daniel Boone National 
Forest on one bank and State lands associated with the Kentucky 
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources' (KDFWR) Minor Clark Fish 
Hatchery on the opposite bank; and
    (D) Approximately 16.36 miles (26.33 km) are State lands associated 
with the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission's Quiet Trails 
State Nature Preserve, Kentucky Department of Parks' Blue Licks 
Battlefield State Recreational Park, and KDFWR's Clay Wildlife 
Management Area and Minor Clark Fish Hatchery.
    (ii) Map of Units 27 and 28 follows:

Figure 27 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (32)(ii)

[[Page 57283]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.042

    (33) Unit 28: South Fork Licking River; Pendleton and Harrison 
Counties, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 28 consists of 18.26 miles (29.39 km) of South Fork 
Licking River from 1 mile upstream from the confluence with Crooked 
Creek north of Boyd (Harrison County, Kentucky) downstream to the 
confluence with the Licking River at Falmouth (Pendleton County, 
Kentucky). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. The riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in private 
ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 28 is provided at paragraph (32)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (34) Unit 29: Drennon Creek; Henry County, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 29 consists of 22.36 miles (35.99 km) of Drennon Creek 
from the headwaters of Drennon Creek south of Bethlehem (Henry County, 
Kentucky) downstream to the confluence with the Kentucky River 
southeast of Drennon Springs (Henry County, Kentucky). The unit 
includes the river channel up to the ordinary high water mark. The 
riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 29 follows:

Figure 28 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (34)(ii)

[[Page 57284]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.043

    (35) Unit 30: Laughery Creek; Ripley, Dearborn, and Ohio Counties, 
Indiana.
    (i) Unit 30 consists of 44.52 miles (71.65 km) of Laughery Creek 
from below the dam at Versailles Lake at Versailles (Ripley County, 
Indiana) downstream to the confluence with the Ohio River at Buffalo 
(Ohio County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. Approximately 3.01 miles (4.85 km) of the 
riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 41.51 
miles (66.8 km) are in private ownership. The lands in public ownership 
are State lands associated with the IDNR's Versailles State Park.
    (ii) Map of Unit 30 follows:

Figure 29 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (35)(ii)

[[Page 57285]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.044

    (36) Unit 31: Otter Creek; Jennings and Ripley Counties, Indiana.
    (i) Unit 31 consists of 17.96 miles (28.91 km) of Otter Creek from 
the U.S. Highway 50 bridge west of Holton (Ripley County, Indiana) 
downstream to the confluence with the Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River at 
Vernon (Jennings County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel 
up to the ordinary high water mark. The riparian lands adjacent to this 
unit are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Units 31 and 32 follows:

Figure 30 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (36)(ii)

[[Page 57286]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.045

    (37) Unit 32: Graham Creek; Jefferson, Jennings, and Ripley 
Counties, Indiana.
    (i) Unit 32 consists of 41.5 miles (66.79 km) of Graham Creek from 
west of South Old Michigan Road at New Marion (Ripley County, Indiana) 
downstream to the confluence with the Muscatatuck River north of Deputy 
(Jefferson County, Indiana). The unit includes the river channel up to 
the ordinary high water mark. The riparian lands adjacent to this unit 
are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 32 is provided at paragraph (36)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (38) Unit 33: East Fork White River; Dubois, Daviess, Pike, Martin, 
and Lawrence Counties, Indiana.
    (i) Unit 33 consists of 78.57 miles (126.45 km) of East Fork White 
River from below the Williams dam south of Williams (Lawrence County, 
Indiana) downstream to approximately 0.25 mile west of North State Road 
57 at Rogers (Pike County, Indiana). This unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 6.12 miles 
(9.85 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public 
ownership, and 72.45 miles (116.6 km) are in private ownership. Of the 
lands in public ownership:
    (A) Approximately 0.12 mile (0.19 km) is Federal land associated 
with the USFS's Hoosier National Forest; and
    (B) Approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) are State lands associated with 
the IDNR's Williams Dam Public Fishing Area, Hindostan Falls Public 
Fishing Area, Glendale Fish and Wildlife Area, Henshaw Bend Nature 
Preserve, and Bluffs on Beaver Pond.
    (ii) Map of Unit 33 follows:

Figure 31 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (38)(ii)

[[Page 57287]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.046

    (39) Unit 34: Beech Fork River; Washington and Nelson Counties, 
Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 34 consists of 50.39 miles (81.10 km) of Beech Fork River 
from the confluence of Beech Fork and Chaplin River north of 
Mooresville (Washington County, Kentucky) downstream to the confluence 
of Beech Fork River and the Rolling Fork River northeast of 
Elizabethtown (Hardin County, Kentucky). This unit includes the river 
channel up to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 1.99 miles 
(3.21 km) of the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public 
ownership, and 48.4 miles (77.89 km) are in private ownership. The 
lands in public ownership are State lands associated with the KDFWR's 
John C. Williams Wildlife Management Area.
    (ii) Map of Units 34 and 35 follows:

Figure 32 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (39)(ii)

[[Page 57288]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.047

    (40) Unit 35: Rolling Fork River; LaRue, Hardin, Marion, and Nelson 
Counties, Kentucky.
    (i) Unit 35 consists of 87.9 miles (141.47 km) of Rolling Fork 
River from the confluence of the North Rolling Fork River and Big South 
Fork River west of Bradfordsville (Marion County, Kentucky) downstream 
to the confluence with Beech Fork River east of Younger Creek (Hardin 
County, Kentucky). The unit includes the river channel up to the 
ordinary high water mark. The riparian lands adjacent to this unit are 
in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 35 is provided at paragraph (39)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (41) Unit 36: Harpeth River; Cheatham and Dickson Counties, 
Tennessee.
    (i) Unit 36 consists of 43.32 miles (69.72 km) of Harpeth River 
from the confluence of the South Harpeth River southeast of Kingston 
Springs (Cheatham County, Tennessee) downstream to the confluence with 
the Cumberland River northeast of Bellsburg (Dickson County, 
Tennessee). The unit includes the river channel up to the ordinary high 
water mark. Approximately 6.07 miles (9.77 km) of the riparian lands 
adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 37.25 miles (59.95 
km) are in private ownership. The lands in public ownership are Federal 
lands associated with the USACE's Cheatham Lake Reservoir.
    (ii) Map of Unit 36 follows:

Figure 33 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (41)(ii)

[[Page 57289]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.048

    (42) Unit 37: Duck River; Hickman, Humphreys, Perry, and Maury 
Counties, Tennessee.
    (i) Unit 37 consists of 116.42 miles (187.36 km) of Duck River from 
the confluence of the Little Bigby Creek northwest of Columbia (Maury 
County, Tennessee) downstream to the confluence of the Duck River and 
the Tennessee River, which creates a backwater effect at Elysian Grove 
(Humphreys County, Tennessee). The unit includes the river channel up 
to the ordinary high water mark. Approximately 0.52 mile (0.83 km) of 
the riparian lands adjacent to this unit are in public ownership, and 
115.9 miles (186.53 km) are in private ownership. The land in public 
ownership is Federal land associated with the NPS's Natchez Trace 
Parkway.
    (ii) Map of Unit 37 follows:

Figure 34 to Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) paragraph (42)(ii)

[[Page 57290]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22AU23.049

* * * * *

Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-17668 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C