[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73512-73554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20106]



[[Page 73511]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 175

September 10, 2024

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Black Creek Crayfish and Designation of Critical Habitat; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 73512]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH96


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Black Creek Crayfish and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the Black Creek crayfish (Procambarus pictus), a crayfish species 
from Florida, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act). We also propose to designate critical 
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish under the Act. In total, 
approximately 1,056 kilometers (656 miles) of streams in Clay, Duval, 
Putnam, and St. Johns Counties, Florida, fall within the boundaries of 
the proposed critical habitat designation. If we finalize this rule as 
proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species and its 
designated critical habitat. We also announce the availability of an 
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the 
Black Creek crayfish.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
November 12, 2024. 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 25, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090, 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 at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gian Basili, Deputy State Supervisor, 
Florida Ecological Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 
Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; telephone 904-731-3079. 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. 
Please see Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), 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 Black Creek crayfish 
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 making a critical habitat designation 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 Black Creek 
crayfish as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose to 
designate 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 Black Creek crayfish 
is endangered primarily due to the invasion of the white tubercled 
crayfish (Procambarus spiculifer) through competition for food and 
shelter, and possibly through direct predation (Factors C and E).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
designate critical habitat for the species concurrently with listing 
the species. 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 
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must 
make the designation on the basis of the best scientific data available 
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on 
national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including

[[Page 73513]]

habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species, 
including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the 
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, 
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to this species.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of this species.
    (4) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Black Creek crayfish habitat;
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species 
in the Lower St. Johns River Basin in Clay, Duval, Putnam, and St. 
Johns Counties in northeastern Florida 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 areas not occupied at the time of listing qualify as 
habitat for the species and are essential for the conservation of 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 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 determinations 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 decisions, 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 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

    For a detailed description of Federal actions concerning the Black 
Creek crayfish that occurred prior to September 2021, please refer to 
the document we published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2021 
(86 FR 53933).
    On November 20, 2023, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) 
sent the Service a notice of intent to sue, alleging violations of the 
Act and Administrative Procedure Act by denying protections to the 
Black Creek crayfish. The Center

[[Page 73514]]

filed a complaint on February 16, 2024 (Center v. Service, No. 1:24-cv-
00457 (D.D.C.)). In May 2024, the court granted a stay in the case 
through August 30, 2024, to allow the Service to consider new 
information on the Black Creek crayfish and issue a new status 
determination. However, we are effectively mooting the action by 
publishing this proposed rule, which proposes to list the Black Creek 
crayfish as an endangered species, and proposes to designate critical 
habitat for the species, under the Act.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Black Creek crayfish. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report 
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts 
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) 
affecting the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in 
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we solicited independent 
scientific review of the information contained in the Black Creek 
crayfish SSA report (version 2.0). We sent the SSA report to six 
independent peer reviewers and received four responses. Results of this 
structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated 
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, 
which is the foundation for this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from four 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer 
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions, 
including clarifications in using terminology and other editorial 
suggestions. All comments regarding Black Creek crayfish survey records 
were further clarified in the SSA report. Otherwise, no substantive 
changes to our analysis and conclusions in the SSA report were deemed 
necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed in version 2.0 of 
the SSA report (Service 2024, entire).

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Black Creek crayfish is presented in the SSA report (version 2.0, 
Service 2024, pp. 9-16).
    The Black Creek crayfish is endemic to the Lower St. Johns River 
Basin in four northeastern Florida counties (Clay, Duval, Putnam, and 
St. Johns). This small to medium-sized crayfish has dark claws and a 
dark carapace with a white or yellowish mid-dorsal stripe, white spots 
or streaks on its sides, and a rust-colored abdomen. The Black Creek 
crayfish lives for approximately 16 months and reproduces once during 
its life cycle. The Black Creek crayfish occurs in flowing, sand-
bottomed, tannic-stained streams that contain cool, clean water, and 
maintain a constant flow of highly oxygenated water (greater than 5 
parts per million). Within these streams, Black Creek crayfish require 
aquatic vegetation and debris for shelter, with alternating shaded and 
open canopy cover where they eat aquatic plants, dead plant and animal 
material, and detritus.
    When version 1.0 of the SSA report was completed in 2019, the 
effects of the co-occurring white tubercled crayfish were uncertain, 
but it is now known that wherever white tubercled crayfish is found, it 
displaces Black Creek crayfish through competition or predation. 
Monitoring surveys in 2019-2023 documented expansion of the white 
tubercled crayfish, with 47 percent of the Black Creek crayfish's range 
facing inevitable extirpation due to white tubercled crayfish invasion, 
and 42 percent of the range at high risk of imminent invasion. The 
expansion of white tubercled crayfish and its apparent displacement of 
Black Creek crayfish led the Service to reassess the species in 2024. 
The Service updated the SSA report, resulting in version 2.0, and 
subjected the SSA report to peer review. As noted above, the Service 
considered peer review comments on the updated SSA report. The Service 
used the updated SSA report to make a new status determination for the 
Black Creek crayfish, resulting in this proposed rule.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, we 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 what criteria we apply when 
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same 
day, we published a final rule revising our protections for endangered 
species and threatened species at 50 CFR part 17 (89 FR 23919). These 
final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the current 
regulations.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.

[[Page 73515]]

    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.
    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 which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, 
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.

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 the Black Creek crayfish's 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, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
version 2.0 of the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0090 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resource needs, and the threats that influence the 
species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' 
overall viability.
    At an individual level, Black Creek crayfish require aquatic 
vegetation, leaf litter, and tree roots or undercut banks for shelter, 
as well as aquatic plants, dead plant and animal material, and detritus 
for food. Additionally, individuals need clean and cool, highly 
oxygenated, flowing water to survive. For populations of Black Creek 
crayfish to persist, the needs of individuals (suitable shelter, food 
sources, mates) must be met at a larger scale. Connected areas of 
habitat must be large enough to support a reservoir of potential mates 
for breeding and to avoid inbreeding depression. For Black Creek 
crayfish, suitable habitat depends on the absence of competitors (e.g., 
white tubercled crayfish) and maintenance of sand-bottomed, highly 
oxygenated, tannic headwater streams.
    Species viability requires adequate redundancy. Redundancy is 
sustained by resilient populations (natural or reintroduced) 
distributed across the species' range, and connectivity allows nearby 
populations to expand their range, rescue and recolonize areas after 
catastrophic events, or both. Representation can be maintained through 
heterogeneity of occupied habitats and sustained resilient populations 
spread across the range of genetic and/or ecological diversity for the 
species. The Black Creek crayfish occupies similar habitat (primarily 
high-quality headwater streams) throughout its range. Long-term 
viability requires resilient populations to be sustained into the 
future. For this species, long-term viability means protecting and 
maintaining high-quality headwater streams and excluding or minimizing 
impacts from nonindigenous and invading competitors.
    Influences on Black Creek crayfish viability vary by location, but 
the most imminent threat to the species is competition and potential 
predation from the nonindigenous and invading white tubercled crayfish 
(Factors C and E), which is now being regularly detected across the 
Black Creek crayfish's range in addition to other crayfish competitors. 
Other threats include disease (Factor C), habitat degradation and water 
quality

[[Page 73516]]

impairment (Factor A), and a changing climate (Factor E) and are 
described in more detail in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 18-39).

White Tubercled Crayfish

    The white tubercled crayfish, a crayfish from an adjacent 
watershed, was introduced to the Black Creek crayfish's range and is 
influencing Black Creek crayfish through competition for food and 
shelter and possibly through direct predation (Service 2024, pp. 18-
25). The white tubercled crayfish is native to the United States and is 
broadly distributed across the Southeast. In Florida, white tubercled 
crayfish historically only occurred in the St. Mary's and Suwannee 
basins in the northern part of the State, as well as in panhandle 
basins (NatureServe 2023, unpaginated). The first detection of white 
tubercled crayfish in areas known to be historically occupied by Black 
Creek crayfish was in 2008 (Franz et al. 2008, p. 16). While it is 
unclear if the white tubercled crayfish expanded its range in Florida 
from the north and west, Trail Ridge, a sandy dune geologic feature 
running north to south from South Georgia through North Florida, was 
likely a barrier to white tubercled crayfish expansion (G. Warren 2020, 
pers. comm.; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1989, entire).
    Analysis of the pattern of white tubercled crayfish and Black Creek 
crayfish presence/absences suggests that the white tubercled crayfish 
was introduced into the Black Creek Basin rather than spreading 
naturally from the north (Fralick et al. 2021, p. 18). One explanation 
for introduction is through live bait release from fishing, which is 
one of the main methods for crayfish invasions (DiStefano et al. 2015, 
p. 404). Other mechanisms for introductions include personal aquarium 
releases, planting of infested aquatic plants, intentional stocking, 
and the potential release of crayfish for educational purposes (Nagy et 
al. 2022, unpaginated; Donahou et al. 2024, unpaginated). Commercial 
sales of white tubercled crayfish are legal in Florida. The first 
record of white tubercled crayfish in the Black Creek Basin was in an 
urbanized portion of Bull Creek in the Lower South Fork of Black Creek 
subwatershed that is located near the center of the Black Creek Basin 
(Franz et al. 2008, p. 17).
    From 2012-2018, the white tubercled crayfish was detected at two 
sites in the Black Creek Basin. A 2021 basin-wide evaluation of the 
population status of Black Creek crayfish comparing 2018-2023 surveys 
with sites historically occupied by Black Creek Crayfish between 1976-
2016 indicated a substantial decline in Black Creek crayfish 
occurrences and a corresponding increase in the number of sites 
inhabited by white tubercled crayfish (Fralick et al. 2023, unpublished 
data). Surveys from 2018-2023 across 75 sites historically occupied by 
Black Creek crayfish documented 51 total sites (68 percent) occupied by 
white tubercled crayfish, 33 of which (44 percent) it has replaced 
Black Creek crayfish. Black Creek crayfish occurrence was reduced to 
only 36 (48 percent) of the 75 historical sites; however, white 
tubercled crayfish has been detected in 18 of these sites, leaving only 
18 (24 percent) of the historical sites unoccupied by white tubercled 
crayfish. While we do not have a rate of extirpation calculated, the 
replacement of Black Creek crayfish by white tubercled crayfish has 
been dramatic since its initial detection in 2008. Given these recent 
trends, the 18 sites with both Black Creek crayfish and white tubercled 
crayfish present will likely transition to only white tubercled 
crayfish occupation in the future.
    Some barriers, such as natural or artificial waterfalls, culverts, 
or salinity, seem to prevent or at least slow down the spread of white 
tubercled crayfish (Reisinger et al. 2023, p. 2). Within the Black 
Creek Basin, all the Black Creek crayfish sites where white tubercled 
crayfish have not been found are in the headwaters behind barriers or 
in Peter's Creek, a tributary near Black Creek's terminus where it 
meets the brackish St. Johns River. The remainder of the Black Creek 
crayfish sites with no white tubercled crayfish present are located 
outside of the Black Creek basin or are on the east side of the St. 
Johns River.
    Preliminary data suggest that the white tubercled crayfish 
tolerates a wider range of stream temperatures than the Black Creek 
crayfish (Warren et al. 2019, pp. 8-9). Both crayfish species require 
high dissolved oxygen levels and generally overlap in many aspects of 
their resource needs. White tubercled crayfish reach a larger size than 
Black Creek crayfish, have a higher growth rate, and outcompete Black 
Creek crayfish when they have a size advantage (Reisinger et al. 2023, 
p. 12). White tubercled crayfish likely have a size advantage over 
Black Creek crayfish during much of the lifecycle due to higher growth 
rates and culmination in a larger overall maximum size (Reisinger et 
al. 2023, p. 11). In an enclosure experiment, there were no observed 
impacts of white tubercled crayfish on the growth or survival of Black 
Creek crayfish, but Black Creek crayfish used the shelter less 
frequently in the presence of white tubercled crayfish (Reisinger et 
al. 2023, pp. 11-12) This suggests that competition for shelter may be 
a key mechanism by which the white tubercled crayfish is replacing the 
Black Creek crayfish (Reisinger et al. 2023, p. 12). Several other 
studies have found that introduced crayfish can outcompete native 
crayfish for shelter and lead to displacement (Hill and Lodge 1994, 
entire; Usio et al. 2001, entire; Chucholl et al. 2008, entire).
    Additional research is needed to fully understand the life 
histories and resource needs for both species, the extent of their 
interspecific competition for resources, and their behavioral ecology. 
It is theorized that white tubercled crayfish may have an advantage 
over Black Creek crayfish because they have a longer lifespan and 
likely reproduce multiple times over a lifetime, whereas female Black 
Creek crayfish only reproduce once during their life cycle (Franz 1994, 
p. 212; Hightower and Bechler 2013, pp. 86-87). Although not yet 
documented for Black Creek crayfish and white tubercled crayfish 
interactions, reproductive interference is also a potential mechanism 
for species replacement (M. Ellis 2023, pers. comm.). In some systems, 
nonindigenous male crayfish have tried to mate with native females, 
producing no offspring, but effectively eliminating the female's 
reproductive capacity for the season (J. Cook 2023, pers. comm.; Butler 
and Stein 1985, p. 14; Ellis 1999, pp. 108-109). It is also possible 
that changing environmental factors are enhancing the white tubercled 
crayfish's ability to move into and dominate areas once occupied by 
Black Creek crayfish. There is anecdotal evidence that after a severe 
drought, white tubercled crayfish recolonized rehydrated streams more 
rapidly than Black Creek crayfish (Smith-Hicks 2020, p. 1).
    Overall, the white tubercled crayfish can be considered both a 
stochastic threat, depending on the timing of invasion and interaction 
with the Black Creek crayfish, and a catastrophic threat, because of 
the likelihood of human-mediated introduction as well as their ability 
to outcompete and displace the Black Creek crayfish, thus making the 
entire Black Creek crayfish species vulnerable to extirpation 
throughout its range.

Other Influencing Factors

    There are several influences that individually and synergistically 
impact Black Creek crayfish viability. These include other crayfish 
competitors,

[[Page 73517]]

disease, habitat degradation and water quality impairment, and climate 
change.
Other Crayfish Competitors
    Other crayfish species, including both native and nonnative 
species, can pose a threat if they are aggressive, are resilient to 
more extreme conditions, or compete for food and cover, thus starving 
other crayfish species and forcing them out of refugia where other 
animals can more easily prey upon them. In addition to the 
nonindigenous and invading white tubercled crayfish (Procambarus 
spiculifer), Black Creek crayfish are occasionally found with other 
native crayfish species, including slough crayfish (P. fallax), 
peninsula crayfish (P. paeninsulanus), brushpalm crayfish (P. 
pubischelae), and Seminole crayfish (P. seminolae), which may compete 
with them for resources (Franz 1994, p. 212; Franz et al. 2008, pp. 14, 
16; Nelson and Floyd 2011, pp. 5-6). While not known to occur within 
the range of the Black Creek crayfish, there is a small, introduced 
population of highly aggressive and invading red swamp crayfish (P. 
clarkii) in the Doctors Lake subwatershed, which borders the Black 
Creek Basin. This population is limited to a small retention pond and a 
few drainage ditches. Eradication efforts in 2022 were unsuccessful, as 
surveys in 2023 continued to find red swamp crayfish (Gestring 2023, 
pers. comm.).
Disease
    Microsporidian diseases have been attributed to Black Creek 
crayfish declines (Reisinger et al. 2023, pp. 10-11; Service 2024, pp. 
25-28). Microsporidia are spore-forming, obligate, intracellular 
parasites whose numerous hosts include crayfish. In crayfish, the 
disease usually causes the deterioration of muscle tissue, lethargy, 
and eventually death (Freeman et al. 2010, pp. 217-218), or can alter 
the habitat use or body condition and increase susceptibility to 
infection (Reisinger and Bolds 2022, p. 3). Visual signs of the disease 
are white streaks or white opaque abdominal tissue, lending to the name 
``porcelain disease'' or ``cotton tail,'' that usually becomes more 
pronounced as the infection progresses. Black Creek crayfish with 
microsporidian disease have been reported in several studies (Franz et 
al. 2008, p. 13; Nelson and Floyd 2011, p. 6; Smith-Hicks 2020, p. 
1;Reisinger et al. 2023, pp. 10-11).
Habitat Degradation and Water Quality Impairment
    Within the range of the Black Creek crayfish, pollution from 
nonpoint sources stemming from urbanization, mining, and other 
activities has been documented in the past (Brody 1990, p. 21; Franz 
and Franz 1990, p. 294; Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2001, p. 
2; Franz et al. 2008, pp. 17-18; Nelson and Floyd 2011, pp. 6-7). Not 
only can these impacts cause direct mortality to crayfish, but they can 
also degrade habitat used for foraging, sheltering, and spawning. 
Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the SSA report provide additional details about 
the effects of water withdrawals and other development-related, mining, 
and agricultural/silvicultural activities that affect water quality 
within the Black Creek Basin (Service 2024, pp. 29-33). Implementation 
of construction, agricultural, and silvicultural best management 
practices (BMPs) has alleviated many past threats associated with 
siltation and other water quality impacts in recent years and have 
improved overall habitat conditions within the Black Creek crayfish's 
range (Service et al. 2017, p.24; Florida Department of Agriculture and 
Consumer Services (FDACS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FWC) 2018, p. 4;).
Climate Change
    Effects of climate change, such as increasing temperatures, 
increased catastrophic storm and/or extreme drought events, and sea 
level rise, pose ongoing risks to habitat suitability for the Black 
Creek crayfish. The climate in the southeastern United States has 
warmed approximately 1 degree Celsius ([deg]C) (approximately 2 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) since the 1970s and is expected to continue to 
rise (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 398-399; Carter et al. 2018, pp. 749-
750). Various emissions scenarios suggest that, by the end of the 21st 
century, average global temperatures are expected to increase 2 to >4 
[deg]C (3.6 to >7.2 [deg]F) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) 2022, entire). By the end of 2100, it is extremely likely that 
there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes 
over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales, and it is very 
likely that heat waves and extreme precipitation events may occur with 
higher frequency and intensity (IPCC 2014, pp. 15-16; Carter et al. 
2018, pp. 750-752).
    Projections for future precipitation trends in the Southeast are 
less certain than those for temperature, but suggest that overall 
annual precipitation may decrease, and that tropical storms may occur 
less frequently, but with more force (more category 4 and 5 hurricanes) 
than historical averages (Carter et al. 2014, p. 398). Projected warmer 
temperatures and decreased precipitation may increase water 
temperatures and concurrently decrease dissolved oxygen levels; change 
runoff regimes; and increase frequency, duration, and intensity of 
droughts in the southeastern United States (Carter et al. 2018, pp. 
746, 773, 775). Droughts cause decreases in water flow and dissolved 
oxygen levels and increases in temperature in stream systems; droughts 
can also lead to increases in the concentration of pollutants. These 
issues may be exacerbated by increases in groundwater withdrawals that 
likely coincide with human population increases.
    The restricted range of the Black Creek crayfish may indicate a 
narrow tolerance for temperature increases resulting from climate 
change in northeastern Florida. The direct influence of temperature 
changes to crayfish habitat depends on the species' thermal range, 
geographical distribution, and general ability to acclimate (Carmona-
Osalde et al. 2003, p. 306). Previous research indicates increased 
temperature can lead to decreased survival, growth rates, and 
reproduction (Carmona-Osalde et al. 2003, pp. 308-313), as well as 
behavioral modifications (Seals et al. 1997, pp. 136-137) in other 
Procambarus species. There are no direct studies to indicate the impact 
higher water temperatures would have on Black Creek crayfish 
populations; however, there are some early indications that Black Creek 
crayfish are disappearing from previously occupied streams, and 
congeners such as slough crayfish, peninsula crayfish, and Seminole 
crayfish are replacing them in streams above 31[deg]C (88 [deg]F) and 
with dissolved oxygen levels below 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) 
(Fralick et al. 2021, p. 16).
    Sea level rise may cause saltwater intrusion of groundwater within 
the range of the Black Creek crayfish, increasing salinity and 
decreasing oxygen levels, even in areas not directly impacted by higher 
tide levels and inundation. Prior to surface inundation, habitat may 
undergo vegetation shifts triggered by changes to hydrology (wetter), 
salinity (higher), and more frequent storm surge and king tide events 
(pulse events causing massive erosion and salinization of soils) (Saha 
et al. 2011, pp. 181-182).

[[Page 73518]]

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

Habitat Protection and Management
    In 2013, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) indicated that 
40 percent of Black Creek crayfish habitat was protected (FNAI 2013, p. 
D-7). The range of the Black Creek crayfish largely overlaps public 
lands managed by the Florida Army National Guard (Camp Blanding Joint 
Training Center (Camp Blanding)), St. Johns River Water Management 
District, and the Florida Forest Service, specifically three State 
forests: Belmore, Jennings, and Etoniah Creek (Service 2024, p. 37). 
Resource management activities occur on these public lands. Additional 
Black Creek crayfish are known to occur on mitigation bank parcels. 
Land managers of public conservation lands do not necessarily manage 
stream habitat or the fauna that live in streams, although these areas 
likely benefit from management of adjacent uplands. Black Creek 
crayfish populations on public lands may receive some protection, but 
no rangewide conservation actions have yet been undertaken for the 
species.
    Florida statutes require managers of lands that contain imperiled 
species to consider the habitat needs of these species during 
preparation of management plans and require that all land management 
plans include short-term and long-term goals to serve as the basis for 
land management activities; these goals include measurable objectives 
for imperiled species habitat maintenance, enhancement, restoration, or 
population restoration (Florida Statutes, title XVIII, section 
253.034(5)).
    As part of the implementation of the Sikes Improvement Act (1997; 
16 U.S.C. 670 et seq), the Secretaries of the military departments are 
required to prepare and implement an integrated natural resources 
management plan (INRMP) for each military installation in the United 
States. The INRMP must be prepared in cooperation with the Service and 
State fish and wildlife agencies and must reflect the mutual agreement 
of these parties concerning conservation, protection, and management of 
wildlife resources (16 U.S.C. 670a). The Department of Defense (DoD) 
must conserve and maintain native ecosystems, viable wildlife 
populations, Federal and State listed species, and habitats as vital 
elements of its natural resource management programs on military 
installations, to the extent that these requirements are consistent 
with the military mission (DoD Instruction 4715.3).
    Camp Blanding, the property with the largest known occurrence of 
Black Creek crayfish, is owned by the State of Florida and managed by 
the Florida Army National Guard. In 2017, Camp Blanding entered into a 
15-year candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA) to 
protect Federal candidate and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FWC) listed species, including Black Creek crayfish 
(Service et al. 2017, entire). Enrolled lands include 46,507 acres of 
the total 73,000-acre installation (Service et al. 2017, p. 2) and 
encompass 121 miles of streams, many of which are occupied by the Black 
Creek crayfish. Surveys have found white tubercled crayfish co-
occurring with Black Creek crayfish in several locations; however, some 
headwaters are protected from white tubercled crayfish invasion by 
barriers. The objectives for the Camp Blanding CCAA are to: (1) 
maintain or enhance the quality of habitat for the covered species on 
the enrolled lands, (2) reduce or eliminate disease transmission to the 
covered species on the enrolled lands, and (3) reduce or eliminate 
exotic and invasive species on the enrolled lands. During the 
implementation of the CCAA, hydrologic measurements will be taken, and 
invasive (including nonindigenous and invading) species will be 
monitored in areas known to be occupied by Black Creek crayfish on Camp 
Blanding lands (Service et al. 2017, p. 24). Additionally, Black Creek 
crayfish will be surveyed at least once every 5 years to evaluate the 
success of conservation actions and implementation of BMPs for improved 
water quality, reduction and/or elimination of disease transmission, 
and control of exotic and invasive species (Service et al. 2017, p. 
24). In addition to the CCAA and existing INRMP, Camp Blanding has an 
ongoing program to purchase lands within 3 miles of the installation to 
create a buffer for the localized effects of loud training exercises. 
These lands would not fall within the purview of the CCAA, and Black 
Creek crayfish habitat in streams surrounded by these lands would not 
be afforded the same protections as those that occur on the 
installation.
    The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 
coordinates development and implementation of basin management action 
plans (BMAPs) to assess, monitor, and improve the water quality of 
water bodies in the basin that are considered ``impaired'' by 
pollution. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) are water quality targets 
for specific pollutants (such as fecal coliforms) that are established 
for impaired waterbodies that do not meet their designated uses based 
on Florida water quality standards (DEP 2008, p. 1). A BMAP prepared 
for tributaries to the lower St. Johns River (DEP 2008, entire) 
addresses water quality issues for some drainages in or near the range 
of the Black Creek crayfish. Two streams in urbanizing areas, Big Davis 
Creek and Durbin Creek, in southeastern Duval and northwestern St. 
Johns Counties are locations where TDMLs were established (DEP 2008, p. 
87), and subsequently were met so that they are no longer considered 
impaired waters and could provide habitat for Black Creek crayfish 
(FDEP 2022, entire).
State Conservation Measures
    The Black Creek crayfish was listed by the State of Florida as a 
State threatened species in 2018 (FWC 2018, p. 8) and is afforded 
protections under Florida Administrative Code section 68A-27.003(2)(a), 
which makes it illegal to take, possess, or sell Black Creek crayfish 
except as authorized by permit from FWC. Florida Administrative Code 
section 68A-27.001(4) defines the term ``take'' for the purpose of this 
prohibition. Subsequently, FWC has also drafted Species Conservation 
Measures and Permitting Guidelines for the Black Creek crayfish (see 
Florida Administrative Code section 68A-27.003(2)(b)3 and FWC 2019, 
entire). Intentional take permits authorizing the take of State-
designated threatened species are issued for scientific or conservation 
purposes that will benefit the survival potential of the species, as 
described in Florida Administrative Code section 68A-27.007(2)(a). 
Incidental take permits are issued when there is a scientific or 
conservation benefit and only after showing that the permitted activity 
will not negatively impact the species, as described in Florida 
Administrative Code section 68A-27.007(2)(b).
    The FWC has also drafted a Species Action Plan (SAP; FWC 2013, 
entire) to guide conservation actions for the benefit of the Black 
Creek crayfish across its range. The Black Creek crayfish SAP details 
the actions deemed necessary to improve the species' conservation 
status, including: (1) working with land managers and landowners to 
protect, monitor, and enhance the habitat quality of known crayfish 
sites; (2) drafting and disseminating stream-centered habitat 
management recommendations to reduce threats and safeguard crayfish and 
riparian corridors; and (3) continuing to survey to determine the 
extent of occupied stream reaches and

[[Page 73519]]

to identify additional occupied drainages to extend the known range of 
the species, decentralize its vulnerability to threats, and reduce its 
overall risk of extinction.
Forestry and Agriculture BMPs
    To avoid activities that could degrade or alter riparian zones 
adjacent to areas inhabited by the Black Creek crayfish, as well as to 
prevent upland erosion into streams and rivers, some actions require 
measures to avoid take of the species. These include following 
guidelines for activities that do not require FWC permits, including 
avoidance of degradation of Black Creek crayfish habitat through the 
State of Florida BMPs for stormwater runoff and the FDACS silviculture 
BMPs. Modern forestry operations in Florida have a (self-reported) 
compliance rate of 100 percent for following Wildlife Best Management 
Practices (WBMPs) for State-imperiled species, including the Black 
Creek crayfish. Forestry protection of special management zones (SMZs) 
may reduce contribution of nonpoint source pollution (FDACS and FWC 
2018, p. 4). SMZs are meant to provide shade for temperature 
regulation, a natural vegetation strip, intact ground cover, large and 
small woody debris, leaf litter, and a variety of tree species and age 
classes; most of these habitat components benefit Black Creek crayfish 
(FDACS 2014, p. 5). For the sites following WBMPs across the State of 
Florida in 2017, 19 percent were located on private nonindustrial 
forestlands, 64 percent on forest industry lands, and 17 percent on 
public lands (FDACS and FWC 2018, p. 4). According to Florida's BMPs 
for forestry, SMZs should be 35 ft wide (200 ft for Outstanding Florida 
Waters (OFWs)), but selective logging is permitted in this zone (FDACS 
2008, p. 9).

Cumulative Effects

    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
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

    Black Creek crayfish analysis units were delineated using HUC 12 
(12-digit hydrologic unit code) subwatersheds from the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) Watershed Boundary Dataset (USGS 2024, unpaginated). 
There may be genetic separation of Black Creek crayfish on the east and 
west side of the St. Johns River based on limited samples (Breinholt 
and Crandall 2010, entire); therefore, we separated the Black Creek 
crayfish into two representation units: one on the east side of the St. 
Johns River and one on the west side of the St. Johns River. There are 
no meaningful ecological distinctions between these representation 
units. We identified 19 analysis units across the range of the Black 
Creek crayfish; three units are located in the eastern representation 
unit, and 16 units are located in the western representation unit (see 
figure 1, below).

[[Page 73520]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.004

Figure 1. Black Creek crayfish analysis units, defined by HUC 12 
hydrologic units.

    We assessed resiliency at the analysis unit (HUC 12 subwatershed) 
scale. Due to the local impact of white tubercled crayfish on Black 
Creek crayfish occupancy, units with only white tubercled crayfish 
present were assigned no resiliency and not evaluated further, as Black 
Creek crayfish in these watersheds are considered at high risk of 
extirpation, given recent evidence of rapid community replacement as 
detailed above. ``No resiliency'' is an indication of functional 
extirpation, as Black Creek crayfish have been documented in each 
analysis unit in the past 12 years (Fralick 2023, entire), but the 
rapid replacement by white tubercled crayfish currently nullifies any 
ability for the Black Creek crayfish to persist.

    Table 1--Analysis Unit Status Based on Initial Screening of White
                 Tubercled Crayfish Presence and Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Presence/absence white tubercled
                crayfish                           Unit status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence of white tubercled crayfish     Status = no resiliency. High
 with evidence of decline in occupancy    risk of extirpation. No
 of Black Creek crayfish.                 further evaluation of
                                          resiliency.
Absence of white tubercled crayfish....  Status = extant. Evaluated for
                                          resiliency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Black Creek crayfish are still present, nine analysis units 
(47 percent) in the western representation unit (i.e., west of the St. 
Johns River) were assigned no resiliency (or functionally extirpated) 
due to the presence of white

[[Page 73521]]

tubercled crayfish that we assume will imminently extirpate Black Creek 
crayfish. To assess resiliency in the remaining 10 analysis units 
without white tubercled crayfish presence, we evaluated three metrics 
to determine resiliency for each analysis unit: (1) the risk of white 
tubercled crayfish invasion, (2) the amount of suitable habitat 
available for Black Creek crayfish, and (3) riparian condition.
White Tubercled Crayfish Invasion Risk
    Due to potential release and expansion through various mechanisms, 
the risk of white tubercled crayfish invasion is high across the range 
of the Black Creek crayfish. We did not explicitly measure the risk of 
invasion of newly introduced white tubercled crayfish; rather, we 
evaluated the risk that nonindigenous and invading crayfish from 
currently occupied areas may spread to nearby locations (see table 2, 
below). Seven units (44 percent) located in the western representation 
unit are at high risk of white tubercled crayfish invasion due to 
proximity to areas with current white tubercled crayfish presence with 
no barriers to prevent white tubercled crayfish invasion. These units 
were assigned low resiliency and were not assessed further.

 Table 2--Analysis Unit Invasion Risk of White Tubercled Crayfish Based
  on Proximity to Areas Currently Occupied by White Tubercled Crayfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  If:                                 Then:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjacent to unit with white tubercled    High risk of white tubercled
 crayfish present.                        crayfish invasion.
Not adjacent to unit with white          Low risk of white tubercled
 tubercled crayfish present.              crayfish invasion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining three units, which are all located in the eastern 
representation unit, have lower risk of white tubercled crayfish 
invasion; therefore, we proceeded to evaluate the amount of suitable 
habitat and riparian condition to assess resiliency for those units. 
Note that low risk does not mean zero risk; the analysis units east of 
the St. Johns River are still at risk of white tubercled crayfish 
invasion.
Suitable Habitat
    Suitable habitat was determined from an available habitat 
suitability model (HSM) (Appendix B of SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 
72-80) that uses stream attributes (gradient and sinuosity), forest 
conditions, geology type, and water quality to calculate potential 
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish (Service 2020, pp. 53, 55). To 
conservatively estimate suitable Black Creek crayfish habitat, 
potential habitat was limited to stretches in the HSM as having ``Fair-
Good'' or better habitat index values (greater than or equal to (>=) 
4). Only including habitat indices of >=4 limits predictions to the 10-
percentile threshold, which generally provides a good cutoff for 
indicating potential habitat. There are currently no data indicating 
how much habitat is needed within the range of a population to maintain 
sufficient resiliency levels. However, it can be inferred that, in the 
absence of other limiting factors (e.g., stochastic events, unknown 
alterations to water quality, interspecific competitors), the greater 
the amount of suitable linear habitat within an analysis unit, the 
greater the likelihood of both occurrence and high abundance of the 
species. Therefore, we used the amount of habitat available within a 
unit to determine a suitable habitat ranking for the Black Creek 
crayfish. We considered analysis units with greater than 50 kilometers 
(km) (31 miles (mi)) of available suitable habitat as high, 20-50 km 
(12-31 mi) of available suitable habitat as moderate, and less than 20 
km (12 mi) of available suitable habitat as low (see table 3, below; 
Service 2020, pp. 54-55).

Table 3--Habitat Ranking Categories Assigned Based on Amount of Suitable
                                 Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Habitat ranking                 Amount of suitable habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low........................  Less than 20 km suitable habitat available.
Moderate...................  20-50 km suitable habitat available.
High.......................  More than 50 km suitable habitat available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riparian Condition
    Intact, undisturbed riparian areas are needed to sustain habitat 
features to meet the life history needs of the Black Creek crayfish. To 
assess whether these conditions are currently sufficient to sustain the 
species, we analyzed current riparian condition for each analysis unit 
by combining percentage of urban development within 100 meters (m) (328 
feet (ft)) of streams (Kawula and Redner 2018, entire) and total 
riparian disturbance (see table 4, below; Service 2024, pp. 46-48).

      Table 4--Overall Riparian Condition Assigned to Each Analysis Unit Based on Combination of Land Cover
                       Percentages of Developed Land Cover and Total Riparian Disturbance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total riparian disturbance
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 <15%                    15-28%                    >28%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developed Land Cover:
    <6%..............................  High...................  High...................  Moderate.
    6-12%............................  Moderate...............  Moderate...............  Low.
    >12%.............................  Low....................  Low....................  Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 73522]]

Current Condition Summary
    For analysis units with low risk of white tubercled crayfish 
invasion risk, resiliency was determined by a combination of suitable 
habitat and riparian condition (see table 5, below).

    Table 5--Overall Resiliency Condition Calculation Methodology for Analysis Units Without White Tubercled
Crayfish Occupancy Based on a Combination of White Tubercled Crayfish Invasion Risk, Amount of Suitable Habitat,
                                             and Riparian Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White                             Combination of suitable habitat and riparian     Current
tubercled                                           condition                      resiliency
crayfish
invasion risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High.........................  Not assessed............  Not assessed............  Low.
Low..........................  High....................  High....................  High.
Low..........................  High....................  Moderate................  High.
Low..........................  High....................  Low.....................  Moderate.
Low..........................  Moderate................  Moderate................  Moderate.
Low..........................  Moderate................  Low.....................  Low.
Low..........................  Low.....................  Low.....................  Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Black creek crayfish has a total of 19 analysis units across 
its narrow range. Nine units (47 percent) have no resiliency, or are 
considered functionally extirpated, eight units (42 percent) have low 
resiliency, one unit (5 percent) has moderate resiliency, and one unit 
(5 percent) has high resiliency (see table 6, below). White tubercled 
crayfish have been detected in nine analysis units (47 percent of 
range), all located in the western representation unit. These nine 
units are considered at high risk of extirpation due to the risk of 
community replacement by the white tubercled crayfish and are 
considered as having no resiliency or functionally extirpated. Overall, 
eight units (42 percent of range) have low resiliency. The seven units 
in the western representation unit on the west side of the St. Johns 
River that are not currently occupied by the white tubercled crayfish 
are considered low resiliency due to the high risk of invasion of the 
white tubercled crayfish. The Julington Creek unit in the eastern 
representation unit on the east side of the St. Johns River ranked low 
resiliency due to the combination of a moderate amount of suitable 
habitat and poor riparian condition. The Durbin Creek unit has high 
resiliency, while the Trout Creek-St. Johns River unit has moderate 
resiliency. Both moderate and high units (10 percent of range) are 
located in the eastern representation unit on the east side of the St. 
Johns River and have a low risk of invasion of white tubercled crayfish 
due to the St. Johns River acting as a barrier to dispersal into these 
units. These two units, despite having suitable instream and riparian 
habitat condition to sustain the species and a large barrier (St. Johns 
River) to natural white tubercled crayfish movement, are still 
susceptible to white tubercled crayfish invasion through various 
mechanisms, including bait bucket introduction, which is a plausible 
risk to the species.

           Table 6--Current Condition Parameters and Overall Resiliency Results for All Analysis Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Presence of        White
                                    white         tubercled       Suitable        Riparian          Current
        Analysis unit             tubercled       crayfish         habitat        condition        resiliency
                                  crayfish      invasion risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Western Representation Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ates Creek...................             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
Black Creek-St. Johns River..             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
Clarkes Creek................              No       High Risk              NA              NA  Low.
Governors Creek..............              No       High Risk              NA              NA  Low.
Greens Creek.................             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
Kingsley Lake................             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
Lake Geneva..................              No       High Risk              NA              NA  Low.
Lower Etonia Creek...........              No       High Risk              NA              NA  Low.
Lower North Fork-Black Creek.             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
Lower South Fork-Black Creek.             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
Peters Creek.................              No       High Risk              NA              NA  Low.
Simms Creek..................              No       High Risk              NA              NA  Low.
Upper Etonia Creek...........              No       High Risk              NA              NA  Low.
Upper North Fork-Black Creek.             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
Upper South Fork-Black Creek.             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
Yellow Water Creek...........             Yes              NA              NA              NA  None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Eastern Representation Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durbin Creek.................              No        Low Risk        Moderate            High  High.
Julington Creek..............              No        Low Risk        Moderate             Low  Low.

[[Page 73523]]

 
Trout Creek-St. Johns River..              No        Low Risk             Low            High  Moderate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value of `NA' in a column means ``Not Assessed,'' either because the white tubercled crayfish is present in
  that analysis unit or because the risk of white tubercled crayfish invading that unit is high and, therefore,
  we did not further evaluate the unit.

    For the Black Creek crayfish, redundancy was assessed by mapping 
the number and distribution of high and moderate resiliency analysis 
units across the species' range in order to describe how the species 
will respond to catastrophic events. Of the 19 analysis units, only two 
have moderate or high resiliency (Durbin Creek and Trout Creek-St. 
Johns River), and both units are located in the eastern representation 
unit on the east side of the St. Johns River. In the past 5 years, 
Black Creek crayfish redundancy has been greatly reduced on the west 
side of the St. Johns River due to the catastrophic invasion of white 
tubercled crayfish, and the remaining low resiliency units make the 
species vulnerable to additional stochastic and catastrophic events, 
such as catastrophic storm and/or extreme drought events (Service 2020, 
entire; Service 2024, entire). Overall, the Black Creek crayfish has 
low redundancy with only two analysis units with moderate to high 
resiliency located in one part of the species' range, thus leaving the 
species extremely vulnerable to any catastrophic event, especially 
catastrophic storm and/or extreme drought events.
    As described earlier, we identified representation units based on 
measured genetic separation between samples on the eastern and western 
sides of the St. Johns River (Breinholt and Crandall 2010, entire). For 
the Black Creek crayfish, current representation is best understood as 
the remaining adaptive capacity within the high and moderate resiliency 
analysis units that represent remaining genetic diversity across the 
species' range. Representation for the species is naturally limited due 
to the narrow range, but the entire western representation unit is on 
the verge of extirpation and is not considered to contribute to 
species' viability. Further, the remaining populations in the eastern 
representation unit will not be able to naturally disperse or colonize 
areas in the western representation unit, thus indicative of the 
reduced adaptive capacity of the species. Overall, the Black Creek 
crayfish currently has extremely limited representation, with moderate 
to high resiliency currently being restricted to the eastern 
representation unit, and therefore all genetic representation for the 
species is confined to one small area of the former species' range. 
With all of the species' representation confined to one small part of 
the historical range, the Black Creek crayfish is not likely to adapt 
and track suitable habitat and climate over time.
    As part of the SSA, we also developed future-condition scenarios to 
capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the 
projected responses by the Black Creek crayfish. Our scenarios examined 
two urbanization futures and three sea level rise futures out to 2070. 
Because we determined that the current condition of the Black Creek 
crayfish is consistent with that of an endangered species (see 
Determination of Black Creek Crayfish's Status, below), we are not 
presenting the results of the future scenarios in this proposed rule. 
Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 52-55) for the full 
analysis of future scenarios.

Determination of Black Creek Crayfish'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 have determined the Black Creek crayfish to be an 
endangered species throughout all of its range. Our review of the best 
available information indicates that there are currently 19 populations 
(analysis units) occurring in a narrow range of northeastern Florida. 
Since 2019, there has been documentation of decline of the Black Creek 
Crayfish, with 16 populations (84 percent) in the western part of the 
range having low to no resiliency, the latter being considered 
functionally extirpated given the presences of white tubercled 
crayfish. Of the three populations in the eastern part of the range, 
one has low resiliency, one has moderate resiliency, and one has high 
resiliency. Therefore, 17 populations (89 percent) of Black Creek 
crayfish are currently at high risk of extirpation. The Black Creek 
crayfish exhibits low redundancy given its narrow range, and given the 
imminent risk of extirpation across the majority of populations, the 
species' redundancy will be further reduced.
    While influences on the Black Creek crayfish's viability vary by 
location, the most imminent threat to the species is competition and 
possible predation from the nonindigenous and invading white tubercled 
crayfish (Factors C and E), which has been detected across the western 
part of the Black Creek crayfish's range and could easily be introduced 
into the eastern part of the Black Creek crayfish's range. The white 
tubercled crayfish is a larger crayfish, is a strong competitor and 
potential predator, and tends to expand its range. This larger crayfish 
has been attributed to declines of the Black Creek crayfish. It has 
been documented that once white tubercled crayfish is established at a 
site, it will outcompete or displace Black Creek crayfish. This 
catastrophic threat is currently impacting the Black Creek crayfish to 
such a degree that the species is currently at high risk of

[[Page 73524]]

extirpation across the majority of its range. Additional threats of 
competition from other crayfishes (Factor E), disease (Factor C), 
habitat degradation and water quality impairment (Factor A), and 
climate change (Factor E) act together to further reduce the Black 
Creek crayfish's ability to withstand stochastic events. In addition, 
given the current low resiliency and high risk of extirpation of all 
but two populations in the eastern part of the species' range, the 
species is also at risk of extirpation due to potential catastrophic 
climatic events such as storm and/or extreme drought events. While the 
moderate to high resiliency populations are limited to just two 
watersheds in the eastern part of the species' range, all threats 
listed above (competition from other crayfishes, disease, habitat 
degradation and water quality impairment, climate change) are currently 
influencing the viability of the species in these areas as well.
    Thus, we have determined that the Black Creek crayfish is currently 
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. A threatened 
species status is not appropriate because the species is currently at 
high risk of extirpation due to the imminent impacts of white tubercled 
crayfish invasion combined with the impacts of other threats as 
described above.

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 Black Creek crayfish 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 Black Creek crayfish 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), because that decision related to significant 
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as 
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Black Creek crayfish meets the Act's 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
Black Creek crayfish 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, foreign 
governments, 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 Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Black Creek crayfish. Information on 
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be 
found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Although the Black Creek crayfish is only proposed for listing 
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it 
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

[[Page 73525]]

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) of the 
Act.
    Examples of discretionary actions for the Black Creek crayfish that 
may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 
7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities 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 Florida Ecological Services 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, and the Service's 
implementing regulations 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 acts with regard to any endangered 
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take 
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) 
within the United States, within the territorial sea of 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, by any means whatsoever and 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, 
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 
13. 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.

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 each Federal action agency 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 designated 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 an area designated as 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

[[Page 73526]]

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 
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 compiled in 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 scientific data 
available 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.
    The SSA report (Service 2024, p. 18) lists the Black Creek 
crayfish's individual, species, and population needs as: (1) streams 
with aquatic vegetation, leaf litter, tree roots, or undercut banks for 
shelter; (2) aquatic plants, dead plant and animal material, and 
detritus for food; (3) clean and cool, highly oxygenated, flowing water 
for all life-history functions; (4) sand-

[[Page 73527]]

bottomed, tannic-stained headwater streams for habitat; (5) absence of 
white tubercled crayfish; and (6) connected suitable streams.
    Black Creek crayfish rely on cool, flowing, sand-bottomed, and 
tannic-stained streams that are highly oxygenated (Franz and Franz 
1979, p. 14; Franz 1994, p. 212). These high-quality streams typically 
originate in Sandhills and may flow through swampy terrain (Franz and 
Franz 1979, p. 14; Brody 1990, pp. 8-11; FNAI 2001, p. 102; Nelson and 
Floyd 2011, p.1). Preliminary data suggest that Black Creek crayfish 
have not been found in water with temperatures over 30 [deg]C (86 
[deg]F; Warren et al. 2019, unpublished data). Locations that fulfill 
the species' habitat requirements are typically headwater sections of 
streams that maintain a constant flow; however, Black Creek crayfish 
are found in small and large tributary streams that fulfill other 
habitat criteria (e.g., high oxygen levels, sandy bottom) (Franz and 
Franz 1979, p. 14). Within these streams, Black Creek crayfish require 
aquatic vegetation and debris for shelter with alternation of shaded 
and open canopy cover. In forested sections of habitat, surrounding 
riparian areas provide bank stability and shade, which cools the air 
and water temperature and provides woody detritus that serves as refuge 
and a food source (Franz et al. 2008, p. 16; FWC 2013, pp. 2, 19). In 
open stretches of habitat, Black Creek crayfish rely on aquatic 
vegetation for cover.
    Overall, the primary habitat characteristics that are important to 
the Black Creek crayfish include water quantity and flow, water 
quality, substrate, forested streambanks, and instream plant and animal 
material that allow for normal feeding, breeding, and sheltering in an 
area with no white tubercled crayfish.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish from studies of the 
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. 
Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2024, 
entire; available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2024-0090). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of Black Creek 
crayfish:
    (1) Small to medium flowing streams with sandy bottom substrate and 
with sufficient water quantity and velocity to support normal behavior, 
growth, and viability of all life stages.
    (2) Moderate amounts of instream aquatic cover, such as woody 
debris, overhanging terrestrial vegetation, and aquatic plants, for 
refugia, prey, and temperature moderation.
    (3) Stream banks with intact riparian cover to maintain stream 
morphology and reduce erosion.
    (4) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated water 
temperatures (maximum of 30 [deg]C (86 [deg]F)) and physical and 
chemical parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen >= 4 mg/L) sufficient for 
the normal behavior, growth, reproduction, and viability of all life 
stages.
    (5) Adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community 
structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates and plant matter 
(e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus).
    (6) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the 
physical or biological features described in 1 through 5, above, that 
allow for movement of individual crayfish in response to environmental, 
physiological, or behavioral drivers.

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 Black 
Creek crayfish may require special management considerations or 
protection to reduce the effects from the following threats: (1) 
Impacts from nonindigenous and invading species, including the white 
tubercled crayfish; (2) impacts from disease; (3) nutrient pollution 
from agricultural activities that impact water quantity and quality; 
(4) significant alteration of water quantity, including water 
withdrawals; and (5) other watershed and floodplain disturbances, such 
as development and extractive land uses that release sediments or 
nutrients into the water.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, 
but are not limited to: control and removal of introduced and invading 
species; use of BMPs designed to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and 
bank side destruction; protection of riparian corridors and retention 
of sufficient canopy cover along banks; moderation of surface and 
ground water withdrawals to maintain natural flow regimes; and 
reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release 
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. 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. The occupied areas identified 
encompass the habitat needed and provide sufficient habitat to allow 
for maintaining the populations.
    We consider the areas occupied at the time of listing to include 
all suitable streams within occupied subwatersheds (HUC 12). Occupied 
subwatersheds have a documented occurrence through recent surveys. 
While many sites within the Black Creek crayfish's range are considered 
extirpated, all critical habitat units have occupied sites within them. 
We identified suitable streams using a habitat suitability model (HSM) 
developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute that 
includes variables related to stream gradient and sinuosity, geology, 
forest condition (e.g., canopy cover), and water quality (see appendix 
B of the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 73-81)).
    Sources of data for this critical habitat designation include the 
SSA report (Service 2024, entire); records maintained by the Florida 
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC); university and museum 
collections; gray papers by researchers involved in wildlife biology 
and conservation activities; peer-reviewed articles on this species, 
its relatives, or both; State agency reports; and regional Geographic 
Information Systems (GIS) coverages. GIS sources include the USGS 
National Hydrography Dataset, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute HSM, 
and ESRI ArcPro basemaps.
    For areas within the geographic area occupied by the Black Creek 
crayfish at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following criteria:
    (1) We identified subwatersheds within the geographical area 
occupied at

[[Page 73528]]

the time of listing (i.e., with Black Creek crayfish occurrence records 
from 2008 to 2023).
    (2) We then selected those streams categorized as suitable by the 
2018 Fish and Wildlife Research Institute HSM (e.g., good, good-best, 
or best).
    (3) We delineated end points of stream units by evaluating the 
presence or absence of suitable habitat.
    (4) We also considered stream segments between suitable streams to 
provide migratory corridors.
    (5) We refined these areas to eliminate any unsuitable or less 
suitable areas that are unlikely to contain the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species based on the 
Black Creek crayfish's biology (e.g., stream length or size) and aerial 
imagery.
    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 
the physical or biological features necessary for the Black Creek 
crayfish. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
    Units are proposed for designation based on one or more of the 
physical or biological features being present to support the Black 
Creek crayfish's life-history needs. All units contain all of the 
identified physical or biological features to support Black Creek 
crayfish life-history processes.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate approximately 1,056 kilometers (km) 
(656 miles (mi)) in 15 units as critical habitat for the Black Creek 
crayfish. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our 
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish. The 15 areas we propose as 
critical habitat are: (1) Julington Creek, (2) Durbin Creek, (3) Trout 
Creek, (4) Governors Creek, (5) Clarks Creek, (6) Black Creek, (7) 
Peters Creek, (8) Yellow Water Creek, (9) North Fork of Black Creek, 
(10) South Fork of Black Creek, (11) Greens Creek, (12) Simms Creek, 
(13) Kingsley Lake, (14) Ates Creek, and (15) Etonia Creek. Table 7 
shows the proposed critical habitat units and the approximate area of 
each unit; please note, however, that the table does not include 
streams that flow through Camp Blanding, as these areas are exempted 
under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. While many units may have very 
few remaining Black Creek crayfish present, all proposed units are 
considered occupied.

                                          Table 7--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Black Creek Crayfish
                            [Stream segment estimates reflect all waters at bankfull within critical habitat unit boundaries]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Land ownership adjacent to streams
                                                               --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Unit                                                 State &                      Local &                    Total length *
                                                                 State km [mi]   private km   Local km [mi]   private km    Private km        km [mi]
                                                                                    [mi]                         [mi]          [mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Julington Creek............................................       4.4 [2.7]  ...........       1.9 [1.2]    1.2 [0.7]     34.2 [21.3]     41.7 [25.9]
2. Durbin Creek...............................................       5.6 [3.5]    6.1 [3.7]       0.3 [0.2]  ...........      11.9 [7.4]     23.9 [14.8]
3. Trout Creek................................................  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........      13.7 [8.5]      13.7 [8.5]
4. Governors Creek............................................       2.5 [1.5]    0.2 [0.1]  ..............  ...........     45.8 [28.5]     48.5 [30.1]
5. Clarks Creek...............................................     18.2 [11.3]  ...........  ..............  ...........     55.9 [34.8]     74.1 [46.1]
6. Black Creek................................................  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........     23.7 [14.7]     23.7 [14.7]
7. Peters Creek...............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........     35.1 [21.8]     35.1 [21.8]
8. Yellow Water Creek.........................................     33.3 [20.7]  ...........     25.0 [15.5]    1.6 [1.0]     32.6 [20.3]     92.5 [57.5]
9. North Fork of Black Creek..................................     89.0 [55.3]  ...........       2.6 [1.6]  ...........    125.0 [77.7]   216.6 [134.6]
10. South Fork of Black Creek.................................     21.0 [13.0]  ...........  ..............  ...........    119.0 [74.0]    140.0 [87.0]
11. Greens Creek..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........     91.8 [57.0]     91.8 [57.0]
12. Simms Creek...............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........     58.1 [36.1]     58.1 [36.1]
13. Kingsley Lake.............................................       8.4 [5.2]  ...........  ..............  ...........      15.9 [9.9]     24.3 [15.1]
14. Ates Creek................................................     25.6 [15.9]    1.7 [1.1]  ..............  ...........     47.5 [29.5]     74.8 [46.5]
15. Etonia Creek..............................................     21.4 [13.3]  ...........  ..............  ...........     76.7 [47.7]     98.1 [61.0]
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................         229.4.0    8.0 [4.9]     29.8 [18.5]    2.8 [1.7]   786.9 [489.2]         1,056.9
                                                                       [142.4]                                                                   [656.7]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Total lengths may not sum due to rounding.

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

Unit 1: Julington Creek

    Unit 1 includes 41.7 km (25.9 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Julington Creek, Oldfield Creek, Flora Branch, and 
Cormorant Branch and their tributaries and other unnamed streams that 
contain all of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the Julington Creek 
(HUC 12: 030801031302) subwatershed in Duval and St. Johns Counties, 
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border 
the unit are in State, local government, and private ownership. 
Approximately 11 percent (4.4 km (2.7 mi)) are State lands: the 
Julington-Durbin Preserve, managed by the St. Johns Water Management 
District; and the Freedom Commerce Center, managed by the City of 
Jacksonville. The Lower St. Johns Mitigation Bank (8 percent; 3.5 km 
(2.2 mi)) is a privately owned conservation area adjacent to the 
Freedom Commerce Center.
    The physical and biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
climate change, development, extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel 
pits, rock quarries), and agricultural and silvicultural activities.

[[Page 73529]]

Unit 2: Durbin Creek

    Unit 2 includes 23.9 km (14.8 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Durbin Creek and its tributaries that contain all of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Black Creek crayfish within the Durbin Creek (HUC 12: 030801031301) 
subwatershed in Duval and St. Johns Counties, Florida. This unit is 
considered occupied. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State, 
local government, and private ownership. Approximately 49 percent (11.7 
km (7.2 mi)) are State lands managed by the St. Johns River Water 
Management District as the Twelve-mile Swamp Conservation Area, Gourd 
Island Conservation Area, and Julington-Durbin Preserve.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
climate change, development, and agricultural and silvicultural 
activities.

Unit 3: Trout Creek

    Unit 3 includes 13.7 km (8.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Trout Creek and its tributaries and Molasses Branch that 
contain all of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the Trout Creek-St. 
Johns River (HUC 12: 030801031202) subwatershed in St. Johns County, 
Florida. This unit is considered occupied, and adjacent riparian lands 
are in private ownership.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
climate change, development, and agricultural and silvicultural 
activities.

Unit 4: Governors Creek

    Unit 4 includes 48.5 km (30.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Governors Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed 
streams that contain all of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the 
Governors Creek (HUC 12: 030801031204) subwatershed in Clay County, 
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border 
the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 6 percent 
(2.7 km (1.6 mi)) are State lands managed by the St. Johns River Water 
Management District as the Bayard Conservation Area.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, 
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 5: Clarks Creek

    Unit 5 includes 74.1 km (46.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Clarks Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed streams 
that contain all of the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the Clarks Creek 
(HUC 12: 030801030804) subwatershed in Clay and Putnam Counties, 
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border 
the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 25 percent 
(18.2 km (11.3 mi)) are State lands managed by the St. Johns River 
Water Management District as the Bayard Conservation Area. A portion of 
this unit (4 percent; 3.2 km (2.0 mi)) is in private conservation as 
the Sundew Mitigation Bank.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, 
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 6: Black Creek

    Unit 6 includes 23.7 km (14.7 mi) stream/river habitat in portions 
of Pecks Branch, Mill Log Creek, Bradley Creek, and their tributaries 
and other unnamed streams that contain all of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Black Creek 
crayfish within the Black Creek-St. Johns River (HUC 12: 030801031103) 
subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. This unit is considered occupied, 
and adjacent riparian lands are in private ownership.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 7: Peters Creek

    Unit 7 includes 35.1 km (21.8 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Peters Creek and its tributaries that contain all of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Black Creek crayfish within the Peters Creek (HUC 12: 030801031102) 
subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. This unit is considered occupied, 
and adjacent riparian lands are in private ownership.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 8: Yellow Water Creek

    Unit 8 includes 92.5 km (57.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Yellow Water Creek and its tributaries that contain all of 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Black Creek crayfish within the Yellow Water Creek (HUC 12: 
030801031003) subwatershed in Clay and Duval Counties, Florida. This 
unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border the unit are in 
State, local government, and private ownership. Jennings State Forest, 
managed by the FDACS, encompasses approximately 36 percent (33.3 km 
(20.7 mi)) of adjacent lands. Approximately 33 percent (30.8 km (19.2 
mi)) are in local government or private conservation. The Cecil Field 
Conservation Corridor, Loblolly Mitigation Preserve, Loblolly Park, Sal 
Taylor Creek Preserve, and Yellow Water Branch Trail Head are co-owned 
by Duval County and the City of Jacksonville (25.0 km (15.5 mi)). 
Private conservation lands include the Peterson Tract (3.8 km (2.4 
mi)), managed by the Jacksonville Electric Authority, and the Normandy 
Mitigation Bank. A portion of the Moore Branch (1.6 km (1.0 mi)) forms 
the border between the Normandy Mitigation Bank and the Loblolly 
Mitigation Preserve.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 9: North Fork of Black Creek

    Unit 9 includes 216.6 km (134.6 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the North Fork Black Creek, Dillaberry Branch, Grog Branch, 
and their tributaries and other unnamed streams that contain all of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Black Creek crayfish within the Upper North Fork of Black Creek (HUC 
12: 030801031002) and Lower North Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 
030801031004) subwatersheds in Clay and Duval Counties, Florida. This 
unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border the unit are in 
State, local government, and private ownership. Approximately 40 
percent of adjacent lands (88.2 km (54.8 mi)) are

[[Page 73530]]

within the Jennings State Forest managed by the Florida Department of 
Agriculture and Consumer Services. Private conservation lands (0.4 
percent; 0.9 km (0.6 mi)) include the Trail Ridge and Rideout Point 
Preserves managed by the North Florida Land Trust.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, 
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 10: South Fork of Black Creek

    Unit 10 includes 140.0 km (87.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the South Fork Black Creek and its tributaries and other 
unnamed streams that contain all of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the 
Upper South Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 030801030903) and Lower South 
Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 030801030904) subwatersheds in Clay 
County, Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that 
border the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 15 
percent (21 km (13 mi)) are State lands within the Belmore State 
Forest, managed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services. Approximately 7 percent (9.7 km (6 mi)) are within three 
private conservation easements managed by the St. Johns River Water 
Management District: Longbranch Crossing Conservation Easement, 
Halloran Conservation Area, and Arahatchee Conservation Easement. Due 
to the Florida Army National Guard's Camp Blanding Joint Training 
Center (FLARNG-CBJTC) INRMP (see Exemptions, below), 98.9 km (61.4 mi) 
of this unit are exempted from the critical habitat designation.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, 
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 11: Greens Creek

    Unit 11 includes 91.8 km (57.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Greens Creek and its tributaries that contain all of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Black Creek crayfish within the Greens Creek (HUC 12: 030801030902) 
subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. This unit is considered occupied, 
and adjacent lands are in private ownership.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 12: Simms Creek

    Unit 12 includes 58.1 km (36.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Simms Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed streams 
that contain all of the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the Simms Creek 
(HUC 12: 030801030603) subwatershed in Clay and Putnam Counties, 
Florida. This unit is considered occupied, and adjacent lands are in 
private ownership.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 13: Kingsley Lake

    Unit 13 includes 24.3 km (15.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the North Fork Black Creek and its tributaries and other 
unnamed streams that contain all of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the 
Kingsley Lake (HUC 12: 030801031001) subwatershed in Clay County, 
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border 
the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 34 percent 
(8.4 km (5.2 mi)) are State lands within the Jennings State Forest, 
managed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 
Private conservation lands (44 percent; 10.8 km (6.7 mi)) include the 
Trail Ridge Preserve, managed by the North Florida Land Trust, and the 
Highlands Ranch Mitigation Bank. Due to the FLARNG-CBJTC INRMP (see 
Exemptions, below), 60.5 km (37.6 mi) of this unit are exempted from 
the critical habitat designation.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, 
extractive land use (e.g., mining, gravel pits, or rock quarries), and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 14: Ates Creek

    Unit 14 includes 74.8 km (46.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the Ates Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed 
streams that contain all of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the 
Ates Creek (HUC 12: 030801030901) subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. 
This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border the unit 
are in State and private ownership. Approximately 34 percent (25.6 km 
(15.9 mi)) are State lands within the Belmore State Forest, managed by 
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 
Approximately 20 percent (15.3 km (9.5 mi)) of lands adjacent to Ates 
Creek are within three private conservation easements: the Longbranch 
Crossing Conservation Easement managed by the St. Johns River Water 
Management District and the McArthur Trust; and two Bear Bay 
conservation easements managed by the North Florida Land Trust. Due to 
the FLARNG-CBJTC INRMP (see Exemptions, below), 16.1 km (10 mi) of this 
unit are exempted from the critical habitat designation.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

Unit 15: Etonia Creek

    Unit 15 includes 98.1 km (61.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the Etonia Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed 
streams that contain all of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Black Creek crayfish within the 
Lower Etonia Creek (HUC 12: 030801030601) and Upper Etonia Creek 
(HUC12: 030801030504) subwatersheds in Clay and Putnam Counties, 
Florida. This unit is considered occupied. Riparian lands that border 
the unit are in State and private ownership. Approximately 22 percent 
(21.4 km (13.3 mi)) are State lands within the Etoniah State Forest, 
managed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 
and the Palatka to Lake Butler State Trail, managed by the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection. Private conservation lands (8 
percent; 7.6 km (4.7 mi)) include the Highbrighton Conservation 
Easement, managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District, and 
the Nochaway Mitigation Bank.
    The physical or biological features in this unit may require 
special

[[Page 73531]]

management considerations or protection to address threats from 
nonindigenous and invading crayfish, climate change, development, and 
agricultural and silvicultural activities.

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.
    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 (50 CFR 402.02).
    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 formal consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species 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. Reinitiation of consultation is 
required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where 
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been 
retained or is authorized by law and: (1) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written 
concurrence; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. 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 that our Federal Register 
notices ``shall, to the maximum extent practicable also include a brief 
description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or 
private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may 
adversely modify [critical] habitat, or may be affected by such 
designation.'' Activities that may be affected by designation of 
critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish include those that may 
affect the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Black Creek crayfish in the subject areas (see 
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species, above).

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the 
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that 
such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat 
is proposed for designation.
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for Black Creek crayfish to 
determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical

[[Page 73532]]

habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are 
Department of Defense (DoD) lands with completed, Service-approved 
INRMPs within the proposed critical habitat designation.

Approved INRMPs

    Florida Army National Guard's Camp Blanding Joint Training Center 
(FLARNG-CBJTC) (Lake Geneva subwatershed, and areas within Unit 10 
(South Fork of Black Creek), Unit 13 (Kingsley Lake), Unit 14 (Ates 
Creek), and), 186 km (116 mi))
    As described in Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, 
above, Camp Blanding, the property with the largest known population of 
the Black Creek crayfish, is owned by the State of Florida and managed 
by the Florida Army National Guard. The FLARNG-CBJTC INRMP explains 
that the management of Camp Blanding must be conducted in a way that 
provides for sustainable, healthy ecosystems; complies with applicable 
environmental laws and regulations; and provides for support of the 
military mission of the installation, including goals to manage rare 
species using an ecosystem approach. The 2021 update to the 2014 
FLARNG-CBJTC INRMP incorporates updated natural resources data (CBJTC 
2021, p. ES-1). The INRMP is a living document, and the majority of the 
tasks discussed are short-term (less than 5 years) and medium-term (6 
to 10 years) natural resources management tasks. Goals, objectives, and 
tasks will be revised over time to reflect evolving environmental 
conditions, adaptive management, and the completion of tasks as the 
INRMP is implemented (CBJTC 2021, p. 117).
    Objective TE7 is to maintain populations of the Black Creek 
crayfish and other rare species by protecting riparian and wetland 
habitats (CBJTC 2021, p. 93). The INRMP also details goals for water 
resource management (CBJTC 2021, pp. 66-72), as well as soil 
conservation and sediment management (CBJTC 2021, pp. 63-66) that will 
benefit Black Creek crayfish habitats.
    During the implementation of the INRMP and the CCAA (see 
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts, below), hydrologic 
measurements will be taken, and invasive (including nonindigenous and 
invading) species monitored, in areas known to be occupied by Black 
Creek crayfish on Camp Blanding lands (Service et al. 2017, p. 24). 
Additionally, Black Creek crayfish will be surveyed at least once every 
5 years to evaluate the success of conservation actions and 
implementation of best management practices (BMPs; Service et al. 2017, 
p. 24).
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the Camp Blanding Joint Training Center INRMP and that 
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP are being implemented and 
will provide a benefit to Black Creek crayfish. Therefore, lands within 
this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under 
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 186 km 
(116 mi) of stream habitat in this proposed critical habitat 
designation because of this exemption.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on 
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant 
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, 
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The 
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat 
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016).
    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 the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all 
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., 
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat'' 
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with 
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental 
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected 
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other 
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the 
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. 
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion 
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of 
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section 
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends and reaffirms E.O. 12866 and 
E.O. 13563 and directs Federal agencies to assess

[[Page 73533]]

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) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094). Therefore, our 
consideration of economic impacts uses a screening analysis to assess 
whether a designation of critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish 
is likely to exceed the economically significant threshold.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of 
critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish (IEc 2024, 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, BMPs, 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 
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the 
Black Creek crayfish and 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 Black Creek crayfish, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated March 4, 2024, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) bridge maintenance/repair (U.S. Department of 
Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); (2) dam maintenance 
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); (3) wastewater permit applications or 
renewals (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency); (4) Clean Water Act 
quality standards of review (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency); and 
(5) road widening/construction/repair (U.S. Department of 
Transportation). We considered each industry or category individually. 
Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal 
involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect 
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, 
designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we list the 
species, in areas where the Black Creek crayfish 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., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Black 
Creek crayfish's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical 
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish is being proposed concurrently 
with the listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult 
to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species 
being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of 
critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this 
case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or 
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same 
features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any 
actions that would likely adversely affect the essential physical or 
biological features of occupied critical habitat are also likely to 
adversely affect the Black Creek crayfish 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 Black Creek 
crayfish totals approximately 1,056 km (656 mi), of which 100 percent 
is currently occupied by the species. In these areas, any actions that 
may affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated 
critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation 
efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification 
standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the Black Creek crayfish. 
Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in the proposed 
critical habitat designation. While this additional analysis will 
require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the 
Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would 
predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.

[[Page 73534]]

    The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to 
section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some 
cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities. 
Activities we expect would be subject to consultations that may involve 
private entities as third parties are residential and commercial 
development that may occur on private lands. However, based on 
coordination efforts with State and local agencies, the cost to private 
entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor 
(administrative costs of $2,700 to $5,700 per consultation, depending 
on type (IEc 2024, p. 20)); therefore, they would not be significant.
    The probable incremental economic impacts of the Black Creek 
crayfish critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to 
additional administrative effort. This limitation is due to:
    (1) All of the proposed critical habitat designation is considered 
occupied by the Black Creek crayfish. In occupied habitat areas, 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated, all projects with 
a Federal nexus would be subject to section 7 requirements.
    (2) In these occupied habitat areas, conservation efforts requested 
to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species are likely 
to be substantially similar to those that would be recommended to avoid 
adverse modification; thus, no additional conservation efforts are 
anticipated to be necessary to address the adverse modification 
standard over and above those that would be recommended to avoid 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the Black Creek crayfish.
    (3) In addition, in some areas proposed as critical habitat for the 
Black Creek crayfish, conservation efforts for other listed species 
with ranges and/or proposed critical habitat areas that overlap the 
proposed designation are likely to provide protections to the Black 
Creek crayfish even absent critical habitat designation.
    Our analysis anticipates approximately fewer than one new formal 
consultation and nine informal consultations each year in the proposed 
critical habitat areas will consider the Black Creek crayfish. The 
anticipated average annual administrative costs for these efforts are 
approximately $29,800 per year for all units. The designation is 
unlikely to trigger additional requirements under State or local 
regulations. Thus, the annual administrative burden is relatively low.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the economic 
analysis discussed above. During the development of a final 
designation, we will consider the information presented in the economic 
analysis 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, we 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) of the Act requires us to 
consider those impacts whenever we designate 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.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider whether a 
national security or homeland security impact might exist on lands 
owned or managed by DoD or DHS. In preparing this proposal, we have 
determined that, other than the land exempted under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act based upon the existence of an approved INRMP 
(see Exemptions, above), the lands within the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the Black Creek crayfish are not owned or managed 
by DoD or DHS. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security 
or homeland security.

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 safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or CCAAs or 
``conservation benefit agreements'' or ``conservation agreements'' 
(CBAs) (CBAs are a new type of agreement replacing SHAs and CCAAs in 
use after April 2024 (89 FR 26070; April 12, 2024)) or HCPs--or whether 
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that 
would be encouraged by designation of, or

[[Page 73535]]

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.

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

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

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential 
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This 
means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 
14094)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends and 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, and E.O. 13563. 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 proposed rule in a manner consistent with 
these requirements.
    Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and amended by 
E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all 
significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed 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; title II of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 1996), 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

[[Page 73536]]

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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 ``to the extent 
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant 
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 
``significant energy action'' as an action that (i) is a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order; and (ii) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; April 
11, 2023). Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, 
and there is no requirement to prepare a statement of energy effects 
for this action.

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 $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in 
any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Further, only stream habitats owned 
in the public trust by the State of Florida are involved in the 
proposed designation. Therefore, a small government agency plan is not 
required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Black Creek crayfish in a takings implications 
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Services 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 Black Creek 
crayfish, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of 
critical habitat does not pose significant takings implications for 
lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does 
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these 
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and

[[Page 73537]]

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

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

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

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

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat 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, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's 
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal 
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) 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 determined that no Tribal lands fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for the Black Creek 
crayfish, so no Tribal lands would be affected by the proposed 
designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Florida 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 Florida 
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 revise part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows:

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, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Crayfish, Black Creek'' in 
alphabetical order under CRUSTACEANS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                   Crustaceans
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Crayfish, Black Creek...........  Procambarus pictus  Wherever found....  E              [Federal Register
                                                                                          citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.95(h).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 73538]]

0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (h) by adding an entry for ``Black 
Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus)'' following the entry for ``Big 
Sandy Crayfish (Cambarus callainus)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) Crustaceans.
* * * * *
Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Clay, Duval, Putnam, 
and St. Johns Counties, Florida, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of Black Creek crayfish consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Small to medium flowing streams with sandy bottom substrate and 
with sufficient water quantity and velocity to support normal behavior, 
growth, and viability of all life stages.
    (ii) Moderate amounts of instream aquatic cover, such as woody 
debris, overhanging terrestrial vegetation, and aquatic plants, for 
refugia, prey, and temperature moderation.
    (iii) Stream banks with intact riparian cover to maintain stream 
morphology and reduce erosion.
    (iv) Water quality characterized by seasonally moderated water 
temperatures (maximum of 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit)) 
and physical and chemical parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen greater 
than or equal to 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L)) sufficient for the 
normal behavior, growth, reproduction, and viability of all life 
stages.
    (v) Adequate food base, indicated by a healthy aquatic community 
structure including native benthic macroinvertebrates and plant matter 
(e.g., leaf litter, algae, detritus).
    (vi) An interconnected network of streams and rivers that have the 
physical or biological features described in paragraphs (2)(i) through 
(v) of this entry that allow for movement of individual crayfish in 
response to environmental, physiological, or behavioral drivers.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include human-made structures (such 
as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using Esri ArcGIS 
Pro mapping software, version 3.1.4, with U.S. Geological Survey's 
National Hydrography Dataset flowline data and Watershed Boundary 
Dataset watershed data, on a base map of county boundaries from the 
University of Florida GeoPlan Center. Critical habitat units were 
mapped using the Geodetic coordinate system for North America 
projection and North American 1983 (NAD83) datum. The maps in this 
entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot 
points or both on which each map is based are available to the public 
at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2024-0090, 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 Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus); paragraph (5)

[[Page 73539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.005

    (6) Unit 1: Julington Creek; Duval and St. Johns Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 1 includes 41.7 km (25.9 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Julington Creek, Oldfield Creek, Flora Branch, and 
Cormorant Branch and their tributaries and other unnamed streams within 
the Julington Creek (12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC 12): 
030801031302) subwatershed in Duval and St. Johns Counties, Florida. 
Riparian lands that border the unit are in State, local government, and 
private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 73540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.006

    (7) Unit 2: Durbin Creek; Duval and St. Johns Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 2 includes 23.9 km (14.8 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Durbin Creek and its tributaries within the Durbin Creek 
(HUC 12: 030801031301) subwatershed in Duval and St. Johns Counties, 
Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State, local 
government, and private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 73541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.007

    (8) Unit 3: Trout Creek; St. Johns County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 3 includes 13.7 km (8.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Trout Creek and its tributaries and Molasses Branch within 
the Trout Creek--St. Johns River (HUC 12: 030801031202) subwatershed in 
St. Johns County, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in 
private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 73542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.008

    (9) Unit 4: Governors Creek; Clay County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 4 includes 48.5 km (30.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Governors Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed 
streams within the Governors Creek (HUC 12: 030801031204) subwatershed 
in Clay County, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in 
State and private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 73543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.009

    (10) Unit 5: Clarks Creek; Clay and Putnam Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 5 includes 74.1 km (46.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Clarks Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed streams 
within the Clarks Creek (HUC12: 030801030804) subwatershed in Clay and 
Putnam Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in 
State and private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 6 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(10)(ii)

[[Page 73544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.010

    (11) Unit 6: Black Creek; Clay County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 6 includes 23.7 km (14.7 mi) stream/river habitat in 
portions of Pecks Branch, Mill Log Creek, Bradley Creek, and their 
tributaries and other unnamed streams within the Black Creek--St. Johns 
River (HUC 12: 030801031103) subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. 
Riparian lands that border this unit are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(11)(ii)

[[Page 73545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.011

    (12) Unit 7: Peters Creek; Clay County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 7 includes 35.1 km (21.8 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Peters Creek and its tributaries within the Peters Creek 
(HUC 12: 030801031102) subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. Riparian 
lands that border this unit are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:

Figure 8 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(12)(ii)

[[Page 73546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.012

    (13) Unit 8: Yellow Water Creek; Clay and Duval Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 8 includes 92.5 km (57.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Yellow Water Creek and its tributaries within the Yellow 
Water Creek (HUC 12: 030801031003) subwatershed in Clay and Duval 
Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State, 
local government, and private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:

Figure 9 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(13)(ii)

[[Page 73547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.013

    (14) Unit 9: North Fork of Black Creek; Clay and Duval Counties, 
Florida.
    (i) Unit 9 includes 216.6 km (134.6 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the North Fork Black Creek, Dillaberry Branch, Grog Branch, 
and their tributaries and other unnamed streams within the Upper North 
Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 030801031002) and Lower North Fork of 
Black Creek (HUC 12: 030801031004) subwatersheds in Clay and Duval 
Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State, 
local government, and private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:

Figure 10 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(14)(ii)

[[Page 73548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.014

    (15) Unit 10: South Fork of Black Creek; Clay County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 10 includes 140.0 km (87.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the South Fork Black Creek and its tributaries and other 
unnamed streams within the Upper South Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 
030801030903) and Lower South Fork of Black Creek (HUC 12: 
030801030904) subwatersheds in Clay County, Florida. Riparian lands 
that border the unit are in State and private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:

Figure 11 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(15)(ii)

[[Page 73549]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.015

    (16) Unit 11: Greens Creek; Clay County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 11 includes 91.8 km (57.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Greens Creek and its tributaries within the Greens Creek 
(HUC 12: 030801030902) subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. Riparian 
lands that border this unit are in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:

Figure 12 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(16)(ii)

[[Page 73550]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.016

    (17) Unit 12: Simms Creek; Clay and Putnam Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 12 includes 58.1 km (36.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of Simms Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed streams 
within the Simms Creek (HUC 12: 030801030603) subwatershed in Clay and 
Putnam Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border this unit are in 
private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:

Figure 13 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(17)(ii)

[[Page 73551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.017

    (18) Unit 13: Kingsley Lake; Clay County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 13 includes 24.3 km (15.1 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the North Fork Black Creek and its tributaries and other 
unnamed streams within the Kingsley Lake (HUC 12: 030801031001) 
subwatershed in Clay County, Florida. Riparian lands that border the 
unit are in State and private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:

Figure 14 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(18)(ii)

[[Page 73552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.018

    (19) Unit 14: Ates Creek; Clay County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 14 includes 74.8 km (46.5 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the Ates Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed 
streams within the Ates Creek (HUC 12: 030801030901) subwatershed in 
Clay County, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State 
and private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 14 follows:

Figure 15 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(19)(ii)

[[Page 73553]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.019

    (20) Unit 15: Etonia Creek; Clay and Putnam Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit 15 includes 98.1 km (61.0 mi) of stream/river habitat in 
portions of the Etonia Creek and its tributaries and other unnamed 
streams within the Lower Etonia Creek (HUC 12: 030801030601) and Upper 
Etonia Creek (HUC 12: 030801030504) subwatersheds in Clay and Putnam 
Counties, Florida. Riparian lands that border the unit are in State and 
private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 15 follows:

Figure 16 to Black Creek Crayfish (Procambarus pictus) paragraph 
(20)(ii)

[[Page 73554]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10SE24.020

* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-20106 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C